For the individual who want to know the race of the Kennewick man, this interest contributes to a larger part of the controversy surrounding the Kennewick man fossils. Contrary to the evidence put in the scientific findings the race of the Kennewick man is not known since race is not known scientifically, race is more inclined to cultural than science (J. C. Chatters).
The controversy surrounding the Kennewick man has three main forces pulling in the either side of the individual interests. These represent the scientific group involved in the analysis of the remains of the Kennewick man. The federal government and the American natives that claim the ownership and relation so claimed whatsoever with the Kennewick man.
The federal government holds the standpoint that the Kennewick man has the legitimate origin of the Kennewick man can be affiliated to the present Indian communities. This was arrived at after considering how costly it has been and the repetition of circumstances surrounding the Kennewick man. The statement relating the Kennewick man to the modern Indian was released in a letter drawn by the secretary for interior of America in 2000.the most interesting fact about this claim is that the secretary of interior claimed that there was enough evidence on the geographical, historical and linguistics. But still this form of evidence was mainly inclined on people’s perception.no scientific evidence was considered an there was need to run DNA test on the bone collagen in the lab. The Davis molecular lab reported that the near future could be possible to extract DNA samples from the bones for tests.
The general native population holds that the available evidence of migration patterns was highly regarded in the distribution of people in the American settings. The three large groups that first occupied the country are considered in sampling the origin of the Kennewick man. Relative to this, they therefore object the fact that the claim by the government is false since no other tribes are in the recorded in history have the legitimacy of belonging to the. This theory is supported by the fact that the remains of the tribes that settled in the north part for example have been identified by scientist; same to those that settled in the other parts of the country. The sampled linguistics show three main languages in the early time and the archeological remains sampled reveal these three tribes that settled so long time ago.
The scientific argument was however evoked in 2000 when the chief archeologist for the national park service together with the chief consulting archeologists for the department of interior announced in the letter to the Corps of engineering that the studies on the Kennewick man belong to the Native American people.it was dated to be about to between 9320 and 9510years back. This claim was more inclined to the law that of the Native American Graves Protection and repatriation.
The instruction sin the letter was based on the native Americans repatriation act and it was allowing the corps for engineering to carry on the and allow the native American tribes to bury the remains of the Kennewick.in this case native America mean anybody relating to a tribe ,tradition or people with the American indigenous inclination.
Racial determination is an issue of concern on the discovery of the Kennewick man over the past years. This remains a challenge however even to the scientific point of view because the racial issue is more inclined to cultural factors than scientific. The controversy surrounding the Kennewick man is largely on the race of these remains. The three groups which include the federal government, the scientist and the Native Americans all maintain their own stand points about the race of the Kennewick man. The federal government believes that the Kennewick man must have belonged to the modern Indian tribes.it rest on the evidence in the literature and recorded history and the historical sites
The Native Americans hold on to the theory that the migratory patterns in which there were three main groups that had and that no other tribes could have come to settle after the massive settling of the first three groups. This theory has a weakness, in that the minority groups that settled later were either not recovered in the history but has gone extinct due to perhaps absence of knowledge about their existence.
The scientist however has not been successful in bringing up the real estimates of the racial origin of the Kennewick man. The legislation on the archeological protection is also a factor contributing to the controversy, because the epistemological existence of the Kennewick man is merely on the fossils found and the law on the Native American repatriation raised a mixture of reactions by the court and the scientists over the legitimacy of the Native Americans. Proper test should however be devised to provide adequate information related to the DNA structures of the fossils.
ss) of the family and fulfilling of her duty, thus using the patient as a “means” to achieve her “ends.” The analytical perspectives above show how divergent opinions in the professional frontier can lead to a standoff. In addition, moral virtues can be strong motivating factors that propel an individual to act in contravention to relevant ethical codes. It is, thus, notable that individuals can either make decisions as a way of living up to their sense of duty or backed by entrenched moral virtues. Either way, an individual will be praised or vilified based on the philosophical paradigm employed. In the above case, the Kantian ethical paradigm has displayed some loopholes, particularly with the Categorical Imperative and Hypothetical Imperative.
On the one hand, it encourages an individual to act based on a sense of duty (Categorical Imperative), while, on the other hand, it fosters decision making based on an individual’s desires and goals (Hypothetical Imperative). The implication of the latter is that an individual who allows desires, such as fulfillment of moral virtues, to shape their decisions is also accommodated by the Kantian ethics. Casting this impasse in decision making in the light of Kantian ethics, thus, presents some confusion and will mean a win-loss situation for both parties as analyzed above.