The legal info in the article was not news to me. The litigation is pretty old news; the ethical implications are well-trodden ground. "Ambivalent" means I see both sides; it does not mean I completely agree with Native American side.
It's not your use of the word "ambivalent"; it's your phrase:
> but it comes at a cost of stomping on Native American rights
If the Kennewick man is not an ancestor of the Native American people, then the Native American people have as much claim to the Kennewick man remains as they would to an ancient Viking's remains. From that perspective, how are their rights being stomped on?
I consider it "stomping" because the law says the remains belong to the tribes. I'm not fond of that law, but it is clear about who pre-Columbian remains belongs to. I'm very surprised the scientists got any access.
Comments
The legal info in the article was not news to me. The litigation is pretty old news; the ethical implications are well-trodden ground. "Ambivalent" means I see both sides; it does not mean I completely agree with Native American side.
It's not your use of the word "ambivalent"; it's your phrase:
If the Kennewick man is not an ancestor of the Native American people, then the Native American people have as much claim to the Kennewick man remains as they would to an ancient Viking's remains. From that perspective, how are their rights being stomped on?I consider it "stomping" because the law says the remains belong to the tribes. I'm not fond of that law, but it is clear about who pre-Columbian remains belongs to. I'm very surprised the scientists got any access.