Anyway, here's the (far too prolix) letter I'm firing off to assorted Whoms It May Concern. I'd like to ask y'all to go forth and do likewise but realize that you require access to the hearing transcript or audio file to do so (though you can write to them re the amendment itself!):
Re Senate Indian Affairs Committee Hearing on S536.
I viewed the hearing today, and was disgusted to note the complete lack of interest in the real issue at stake: why, exactly, are modern day groups to be given a privileged claim to ancient remains and artifacts to which they have no greater affiliation than any other citizens? In the hearing, many words were spoken by amendment-supporting panel members about the great importance of legally defining all ancient North Americans as "Native American" - despite no evidence of ties to modern groups - without it ever being made explicit why they felt so strongly that this arbitrary and, quite frankly, nonsensical definition needed to be enshrined into law.
Instead we had, among other misdirections, Mr. Bender (if I recall correctly) advancing a circular argument about how it was necessary to define all pre-1492 remains as Native American so that Native American members of the NAGPRA committee could comment on their Native American-ness as provided for in NAGPRA. (In the end he made it sound as if the purpose of the amendment was to provide make-work for the committee!) I waited in vain for one of the pro-amendment panel members (who, by the way, significantly out-numbered the anti-amendment panelists) to explain how the "human rights" of American Indians are to be advanced by requiring the consultation of NAGPRA's Indian committee members in the disposition, for example, of the (hypothetical) remains of a Viking from 1000 A.D. - or an unrelated proto-Ainu or proto-Polynesian from 10,000 years ago. And I'll wait in vain forever for an explicit, straightforward explanation, because it is obvious to any attentive follower of this debate that the rationale for the amendment violates the First Amendment.
That all pre-1492 remains are "Native American" (i.e., bearing special relation to modern Native Americans) arises from the belief of some Indian groups that they have been here since the "beginning of time" - a religious belief that is not shared by other citizens. Indeed, the committee members seemed well aware that the amendment had to do with "spiritual" beliefs, a word used several times. But our legislators should not have to be reminded that we do not allow establishment of religion in this country - and while the government must respect and protect the freedom of belief of all citizens, it is forbidden to privilege the beliefs of one group over others. Encoding into law a definition that has no meaning outside the spiritual convictions of some citizens does exactly that.
Instead of explanation I heard rambling, inapt, and issue-obscuring references to the injustices perpetrated by the government on tribes. Discussion of past abuses of American Indians is an obfuscation in this instance - the government of the United States certainly owes redress for past (and continuing) injustice. NAGPRA, as originally formulated, adequately addresses one form of this abuse, restoring the rights of American Indians to control their own remains and artifacts as they see fit. But past abuses should never be used as an excuse for shoddy thinking and the abrogation of the rights of other citizens. The logic of Senator Dorgan and some panel members appears to be that, as some groups have suffered injustice, we properly address that injustice, not by just means, but by talking nonsense and violating the rights of other groups - a "logic" to which no reasonable person should assent, and in which any honest person should be ashamed to traffic.
The pro-amendment panelists were profoundly disingenuous about the probable effects of this amendment. Mr. Echohawk's claim that "no absurd results" have arisen from "consultation" is flatly untrue. Already, at least five very ancient skeletons between 7,800 and almost 11,000 years old, with no demonstrated affiliation to existing tribes, have been repatriated to unaffiliated groups and reburied. More are in jeopardy. These are abuses which this amendment can only promote.
I also note that while the offices of various committee members have been putting out emollient statements that this harmless little "technical correction" to NAGPRA will of course have no effect on the Kennewick Man and like cases, the proponents of the amendment plainly and honestly testify that they support this amendment precisely because they strongly believe that the Kennewick Man case was wrongly decided in favor of the scientists.
(More Kennewick/NAGPRA.)