Does Kennewick Man Disrupt the “Narrative”?

Contrary to many of Instapundit's commenters, I doubt if Kennewick Man will disrupt the “Narrative.” Even if the ancestors of Native Americans pushed Kennewick Man's relatives “into the sea,” the Enlightened Ones will still think the Native Americans are the proper owners of America. If you get to a place by land, you are thought to have a right to stay there and possibly even take it over. If you get to a place by water, you don't. (I've mentioned this before.)

For example, Mexicans get to the United States by land so they must be defended; Cuban refugees get to the United States by water so they must get sent back. Israelis of European descent, Protestant Ulstermen, or white Rhodesians got to Israel, Ulster, or Rhodesia by water so they're regarded as illegitimate. Arabs invaded Palestine/Israel by land so that it is regarded as legitimate. Most Europeans colonial empires were established by naval conquest and are regarded as illegitimate but Russia's colonial empire in Siberia was established by land is thus legitimate. (Trying to identify who came up with this distinction will be left as an exercise for the reader.)

In the present controversy, the ancestors of Native Americans arrived by walking across Beringia, which means they have a right to be here whether or not they were first. Kennewick Man's relatives arrived by water so they don't. It's as simple as that.

Addendum: Atlantean/Hyperborean?