NationStates

Nazis in Space wrote:Btw, there is some evidence suggesting that modern indians - the ones wandering in over the bering strait, and being most closely related to modern north- and central asian folks - were not the first to colonise the continent, being preceded by a seaborne colonisation of people that'd resemble modern aboriginies or melanesians (Traveling along the coastline from asia to north america), who are in turn most closely related to modern africans.

Basically, the first owners of America may well have been darkies.

Farnhamia wrote:

Nazis in Space wrote:Btw, there is some evidence suggesting that modern indians - the ones wandering in over the bering strait, and being most closely related to modern north- and central asian folks - were not the first to colonise the continent, being preceded by a seaborne colonisation of people that'd resemble modern aboriginies or melanesians (Traveling along the coastline from asia to north america), who are in turn most closely related to modern africans.

Basically, the first owners of America may well have been darkies.

That wasn't my understanding of the seaborne hypothesis. I thought its proponents said that the first people did come from East Asia, but not overland but rather along the coast of Beringia and Alaska and the West Coast. Not that they came across the Pacific.

Nazis in Space wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:That wasn't my understanding of the seaborne hypothesis. I thought its proponents said that the first people did come from East Asia, but not overland but rather along the coast of Beringia and Alaska and the West Coast. Not that they came across the Pacific.

I underlined the part you apparently missed.

Note that at the time in question, the modern east asian phenotype did AFAIK yet to have emerge/ reach the coast. It was pretty much all darkies, everywhere (The European phenotype not being much older than 10000 years, either, IIRC).

Hallistar wrote:I guess, but I mean we're looking at a tribe versus a tribe, rather than a tribe vs guns and cannons and smallpox, but still i think that is interesting

Walden Pond wrote: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"?

Ashmoria wrote:

Walden Pond wrote: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.



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

it makes me think of how awful it must have been for those people to drift across the atlantic for what must have been months before they reached land.

Alyakia wrote:I'm going to either 1) kidnap you and bring you to my house and put you in a time machine and send you back and get the romans to do horrible horrible things to you or 2) make us both live forever, wait until your nation falls in power and then get someone to invade and stamp on your face forever while reading this post back at you.

There's a secret third option with American fascists, but that's not important. Do you have any paticular option you prefer or?

e: did you get that from the wiki or from playing too much legacy of kain. i won't judge you.

Farnhamia wrote:

Hallistar wrote:I guess, but I mean we're looking at a tribe versus a tribe, rather than a tribe vs guns and cannons and smallpox, but still i think that is interesting

I'm not sure I understand you about the this versus that, but it is interesting to think about, I agree. I don't think the Americas were populated first in any numbers worth talking about by people from Europe, though.

Walden Pond wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Hahaha. Yeah buddy, the presence of some ancient European style tools in North America proves that the people who made and used them were destroyed by genocide.

As a result of these factors the Solutrean (European originating) Native Americans were either partly absorbed by the newcomers or were substantially obliterated by them either physically or through competition for resources.

Hallistar wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:I'm not sure I understand you about the this versus that, but it is interesting to think about, I agree. I don't think the Americas were populated first in any numbers worth talking about by people from Europe, though.

I meant that I didn't think the europeans discovering america first and then being taken out by the native americans somehow justified our wars against the natives since their wars didnt involve guns and foreign diseases

Farnhamia wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:
it makes me think of how awful it must have been for those people to drift across the atlantic for what must have been months before they reached land.

Well, they didn't sail the open ocean, Ash. The idea is they came across the ice that would have connected Northern Europe and Iceland and Greenland and North America. No one in his right mind sailed the Atlantic what was basically a canoe made of animal hides. In fact, no one sailed out sight of land if they could help it until the 15th century.

Call to power wrote:Vikings, Portuguese, Japanese, the French...

I'm starting to think this ocean thing isn't the big deal it is made up to be and that we may well have had luxury cruises in the stone age to the Bahamas

Natapoc wrote:

Call to power wrote:Vikings, Portuguese, Japanese, the French...

I'm starting to think this ocean thing isn't the big deal it is made up to be and that we may well have had luxury cruises in the stone age to the Bahamas

Perhaps we used to have a global civilization with science, and technology, but it wiped itself out in such a way that all evidence of their advanced society ever existing was destroyed and leaving only small pockets of survivors in different locations?

Sounds possible. It must be true!

Walden Pond wrote:

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

Because they're not the first people in America, they came to America and genocided the Native white people.

Ashmoria wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Well, they didn't sail the open ocean, Ash. The idea is they came across the ice that would have connected Northern Europe and Iceland and Greenland and North America. No one in his right mind sailed the Atlantic what was basically a canoe made of animal hides. In fact, no one sailed out sight of land if they could help it until the 15th century.

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

Genivaria wrote:

Walden Pond wrote:Because they're not the first people in America, they came to America and genocided the Native white people.

^This actually made me laugh.

Keronians wrote:

Hallistar wrote:
I meant that I didn't think the europeans discovering america first and then being taken out by the native americans somehow justified our wars against the natives since their wars didnt involve guns and foreign diseases

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!"

Acerbic wrote:Doesn't concern me that some ancient Europeans were in America first and were absorbed or defeated by a superior civilization (in this case, the Native Americans). The Native Americans were still defeated/absorbed by another civilization later on.

Hallistar wrote:

Keronians wrote:
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.