New Evidence Suggests Stone Age Europeans Discovered America

[Ifreann]

You don't know that they genocided. There's also a high liklihood that they were simply absorbed.

What's the difference?

What's the difference between being killed off en masse and peacefully living and interbreeding with your neighbours? I would think that's rather obvious.

[Farnhamia]

What's the difference?

What's the difference between being killed off en masse and peacefully living and interbreeding with your neighbours? I would think that's rather obvious.

Oh, come, come, don't you know that all human nature is red in tooth and claw? That there have never been more than a few humans, mutants probably, who have wanted to live peacefully with their neighbors. It is our nature to slaughter everyone who is directly related to us or who isn't a close relation by marriage, and even they are deep suspect.

[Ifreann]

What's the difference between being killed off en masse and peacefully living and interbreeding with your neighbours? I would think that's rather obvious.

Oh, come, come, don't you know that all human nature is red in tooth and claw? That there have never been more than a few humans, mutants probably, who have wanted to live peacefully with their neighbors. It is our nature to slaughter everyone who is directly related to us or who isn't a close relation by marriage, and even they are deep suspect.

I did get a lot of strange looks that time I didn't eat the still-beating heart of that Polish guy who bumped into me on the street.

[Ashmoria]

then why are the artifacts found so far down the coast instead of in the labrador?

They came across the ice and continued south. Labrador was so deep under the ice no one would stay there then. I guess.

that implies an actual migration not a few people ending up where they dont belong.

if there were a migration it would show in genetics, wouldnt it? eastern tribes would have european genetic markers.

they dont, do they? .....not that its easy to get good pre-european settlement genetics today....

[Tekania]

You don't know that they genocided. There's also a high liklihood that they were simply absorbed.

What's the difference?

In the second case the population is small and simply vanishes from long-term interbreeding with the larger.

[Grave_n_idle]

The first people of North America were from Europe. Thousands of years later, invaders from Asia crossed the land bridge from Siberia and stole our land.

New evidence suggests Stone Age hunters from Europe discovered America
New archaeological evidence suggests that America was first discovered by Stone Age people from Europe – 10,000 years before the Siberian-originating ancestors of the American Indians set foot in the New World. A remarkable series of several dozen European-style stone tools, dating back between 19,000 and 26,000 years, have been discovered at six locations along the US east coast. Three of the sites are on the Delmarva Peninsular in Maryland, discovered by archaeologist Dr Darrin Lowery of the University of Delaware. One is in Pennsylvania and another in Virginia. A sixth was discovered by scallop-dredging fishermen on the seabed 60 miles from the Virginian coast on what, in prehistoric times, would have been dry land.

Does this information change how you view race relations in North America? How you view the "Native Americans" and "First Nations"?

Yay! Finally, a justification for Manifest Destiny!

*nods*

[Cill Charthaigh]

And an eye for an eye makes the world blind?

Or, at the very least, punishing descendants of supposed criminals is unfair. Especially when the ones doing the punishing themselves didn't know about the crimes of the ancestors.

There are a lot of arguments better than "they didn't use guns!"

What are you talking about? I said the europeans who originally came here and then were taken out, were killed in tribal battles that didn't involve gun weaponry and diseases. Therefore, it wouldn't have been comparable to the natives' situation who replaced the europeans, who got killed in battles involving gun weaponry and diseases by the Europeans.

Would you say the natives were outcompeted?

They couldn't adapt (develop and use modern weaponry) so they died. Simple as that. They got guns later and they had bows so your argument is invalid. Neither had guns in the beginning.

Natives died and were defeated. Can't fix that.

[Ifreann]

Natives died and were defeated. Can't fix that.

Not yet....

[Cill Charthaigh]

Natives died and were defeated. Can't fix that.

Not yet....

How much for your time machine?

[Ifreann]

Not yet....

How much for your time machine?

I'm pretty sure that once I invent it I'll go back in time and disseminate the details on how to make them to some early civilisations and we'll retroactively all already have one.

[Samuraikoku]

How much for your time machine?

I'm pretty sure that once I invent it I'll go back in time and disseminate the details on how to make them to some early civilisations and we'll retroactively all already have one.

How will we know when we do?

[Farnhamia]

I'm pretty sure that once I invent it I'll go back in time and disseminate the details on how to make them to some early civilisations and we'll retroactively all already have one.

How will we know when we do?

We won't, they will always have been there.

[Samuraikoku]

How will we know when we do?

We won't, they will always have been there.

*Looks around*

Nope, he didn't invent it yet. Unless upon traveling on time he opened a different time continuum.

[Ifreann]

We won't, they will always have been there.

*Looks around*

Nope, he didn't invent it yet. Unless upon traveling on time he opened a different time continuum.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually—from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint—it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly... timey-wimey... stuff.

[Ashmoria]

What are you talking about? I said the europeans who originally came here and then were taken out, were killed in tribal battles that didn't involve gun weaponry and diseases. Therefore, it wouldn't have been comparable to the natives' situation who replaced the europeans, who got killed in battles involving gun weaponry and diseases by the Europeans.

Would you say the natives were outcompeted?

They couldn't adapt (develop and use modern weaponry) so they died. Simple as that. They got guns later and they had bows so your argument is invalid. Neither had guns in the beginning.

Natives died and were defeated. Can't fix that.

i would say that the natives were outdone by disease.

[Gigaverse]

I'm so glad this thread turned out to be about how white people are genetically superior.

Is that supposed to be a Hitlerian post?

[Farnhamia]

I'm so glad this thread turned out to be about how white people are genetically superior.

Is that supposed to be a Hitlerian post?

Is your sarcasm detector plugged in?

[Basra]

I view them exactly the same as I did before. Why should my views change?

Because now the Natives have no reason to complain about being nearly wiped out by the 19th century Americans since they did it to the native whites. So now the whites can retake controll of the casino market from the reds.

[Tekania]

I view them exactly the same as I did before. Why should my views change?

Because now the Natives have no reason to complain about being nearly wiped out by the 19th century Americans since they did it to the native whites. So now the whites can retake controll of the casino market from the reds.

I don't see how that follows... The natives now are the ancestors of the natives we have moved, relocated and such.... whereas the "whites" now are not the ancestors of the hypothetical "whites" then. The populations which, assuming the hypothesis is correct, were around back then were either absorbed by the native population (ie, the natives now are the descendents), or they were out-competed and ceased to exist.

[Farnhamia]

Because now the Natives have no reason to complain about being nearly wiped out by the 19th century Americans since they did it to the native whites. So now the whites can retake controll of the casino market from the reds.

I don't see how that follows... The natives now are the ancestors of the natives we have moved, relocated and such.... whereas the "whites" now are not the ancestors of the hypothetical "whites" then. The populations which, assuming the hypothesis is correct, were around back then were either absorbed by the native population (ie, the natives now are the descendents), or they were out-competed and ceased to exist.

How long have you been posting here? If only one "white man" were absorbed or out competed, it would justify any and all actions taken against the mud ... the "natives."

[Basra]

I don't see how that follows... The natives now are the ancestors of the natives we have moved, relocated and such.... whereas the "whites" now are not the ancestors of the hypothetical "whites" then. The populations which, assuming the hypothesis is correct, were around back then were either absorbed by the native population (ie, the natives now are the descendents), or they were out-competed and ceased to exist.

The only reason modern whites didn't kill off all the reds was because the damn liberals whined and complained about it too much. Now that we are justified in killing the reds because they killed our ancestors (they were from Europe). No body will be left to run the very profitable casino business previously dominated by the reds leaving some good old white collar white boys to jump in and make a profit (plus some jobs). And that is how killing the American Indians will save the economy. THE END

[Tekania]

I don't see how that follows... The natives now are the ancestors of the natives we have moved, relocated and such.... whereas the "whites" now are not the ancestors of the hypothetical "whites" then. The populations which, assuming the hypothesis is correct, were around back then were either absorbed by the native population (ie, the natives now are the descendents), or they were out-competed and ceased to exist.

How long have you been posting here? If only one "white man" were absorbed or out competed, it would justify any and all actions taken against the mud ... the "natives."

Obviously... they don't seem to take any issue with ancestral Europeans displacing the native Neanderthals. If we were really to get on this whole loss of high-ground bullshit based what someones possible ancestors did, no one has it (including the "whites").

[Tekania]

I don't see how that follows... The natives now are the ancestors of the natives we have moved, relocated and such.... whereas the "whites" now are not the ancestors of the hypothetical "whites" then. The populations which, assuming the hypothesis is correct, were around back then were either absorbed by the native population (ie, the natives now are the descendents), or they were out-competed and ceased to exist.

The only reason modern whites didn't kill off all the reds was because the damn liberals whined and complained about it too much. Now that we are justified in killing the reds because they killed our ancestors (they were from Europe). No body will be left to run the very profitable casino business previously dominated by the reds leaving some good old white collar white boys to jump in and make a profit (plus some jobs). And that is how killing the American Indians will save the economy. THE END

They were not your ancestors... even assuming this hypothesis was right they were relative cousins to paleolithic European cultures which your ancestors displaced.

[Nazis in Space]

The only reason modern whites didn't kill off all the reds was because the damn liberals whined and complained about it too much. Now that we are justified in killing the reds because they killed our ancestors (they were from Europe). No body will be left to run the very profitable casino business previously dominated by the reds leaving some good old white collar white boys to jump in and make a profit (plus some jobs). And that is how killing the American Indians will save the economy. THE END

They were not your ancestors... even assuming this hypothesis was right they were relative cousins to neolithic European cultures which your ancestors displaced.

Paleolithic~ The neolithic only came into Europe by way of immigrants in the first place, and genetic exchange between the H&G locals and the farming immigrants was minimal for the first few thousand years.

That aside, I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic.

[Farnhamia]

The only reason modern whites didn't kill off all the reds was because the damn liberals whined and complained about it too much. Now that we are justified in killing the reds because they killed our ancestors (they were from Europe). No body will be left to run the very profitable casino business previously dominated by the reds leaving some good old white collar white boys to jump in and make a profit (plus some jobs). And that is how killing the American Indians will save the economy. THE END

They were not your ancestors... even assuming this hypothesis was right they were relative cousins to neolithic European cultures which your ancestors displaced.

The Solutrean culture was Upper Paleolithic, not Neolithic. It predated Neolithic by some 7,000 years.