Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't get this. The OP seems to be thinking that people came to the New World first via Greenland/Newfoundland.
People came to North America first from ASIA, over the land now under the Bering Strait, 11,000 years ago or so. That's who the "natives" WERE.
The title of the thread states "after natives" and the opening paragraph reads:
Quote:
after the natives crossed the bering straits?
so I do not see the justice of your above complaint.
While the subject is before us, that the people the Europeans called Indians were immigrants from Asia, is why I've never been happy with the term "native Americans." That is not accurate, America has no natives, everyone is descended from immigrants.
The Indians could be "first immigrants" or "primary immigrants", but they are no more native to the place than anyone else.
I think the ancient Chinese were actually the first to the moon. They discovered gunpowder long before the western world became aware of it. Using this discovery they built a five stage roman candle and went rocketing away.
Discovering that there was nothing on the moon worth having and no reason to attempt to colonize it, they returned and forbade any further exploration missions. The technology got lost.
Actually, it is not that much of stretch that they sailed from island to island to mainland Alaska. That technology has not been lost. It is just boats, sails, navigation. They probably could have just used oars. They would have been plenty of stops for resting. The vikings discovered Greenland, and New Foundland, but apparently that knowledge was lost for a bit.
Last edited by NJ Brazen_3133; 12-08-2012 at 11:09 PM..
No they did not. The Chinese never developed the technology to navigate in open seas. They build the huge ships which needed big resupply of provisions during voyages, but it doesn't matter if all you can do is hug the coasts with those ships and sail into known and developed ports along the way. The furtherst the Chinese gotten by themselves was the East African coast near Somalia during the early 15th century, but that was accomplished by hugging the coast with a map/prior knowledge from Muslim/Indian Western merchants. The Chinese never even discovered Kamchatka peninsula or even the Japanese island of Hokkaido.
If what you say is true about them needing to hug the coast, there is still the possibility they made it to the new world. As I have stated those islands are close.
The title of the thread states "after natives" and the opening paragraph reads:
so I do not see the justice of your above complaint.
While the subject is before us, that the people the Europeans called Indians were immigrants from Asia, is why I've never been happy with the term "native Americans." That is not accurate, America has no natives, everyone is descended from immigrants.
The Indians could be "first immigrants" or "primary immigrants", but they are no more native to the place than anyone else.
You're right. I misread that somehow. Never mind, then.
I don't call them "natives" either because it seems that American Indians would rather be called Indians than "Native Americans", (or, more preferably, by their tribal/nation name). Your reasoning is straight-up logic, though.
So to answer the OP...I do remember seeing this theory explored on a TV show once, and the conclusion was "probably not". I cannot remember the details of why that conclusion was drawn, but I do remember that a boat pulled out of the Pacific off the coast of California that was believed for a time to be an ancient Chinese ship turned out to be a boat built by early Chinese immigrants to California.
The title of the thread states "after natives" and the opening paragraph reads:
so I do not see the justice of your above complaint.
While the subject is before us, that the people the Europeans called Indians were immigrants from Asia, is why I've never been happy with the term "native Americans." That is not accurate, America has no natives, everyone is descended from immigrants.
The Indians could be "first immigrants" or "primary immigrants", but they are no more native to the place than anyone else.
I don't think anyone quibbles when someone refers to themself as a "native New Yorker" or a "native Italian" with the claim, "But if you go back far enough you had an ancestor from somewhere else!". Words and phrases commonly do not literally mean the total of their constituent parts. Few "Blacks" are, literally, "black". And even "White" albinos aren't technically "white". "Caucasians" typically have nothing to do with the Caucuses. "Americans" in Hawai'i who have never been to North or South America are still "Americans", right?
Seems like the quibble with the term Native American is a determined search for a reason not to use the phrase, and one that is entirely inconsistent with general English phraseology.
The phrase Indian seems fine as well, since that seems to be as widely accepted, even by the communities, as Native Americans. Is there really a meaningful problem with either term?
. Is there really a meaningful problem with either term?
I think not.
I just noted that I was "unhappy" with the term. If anyone out there considers my personal happiness or lack of the same to be a "meaningful problem", they have yet to provide me with any indication of this.
Most younger (under 50) Native Americans/Indians in New Mexico, who are mainly Puebloans and Navajos, prefer the term 'Native' without the 'American' appendage, in my experience. One of my good friends 'quips', "I'm not from India." if you call him an Indian.
On the other hand, a lot of the older folks do prefer 'Indian'.
Now, that said, a lot of Puebloans will not call themselves by their Spanish Pueblo names, but rather by their own names for themselves, as in,
"Hey, are you Santo Domingo?"
"No. I'm Kewa."
Likewise, Navajos among themselves and people 'in the know', do not call themselves Navajo except where it might otherwise cause confusion. They usually call themselves 'Dine'.
No. Logistically not feasible as one viewing the wind patterns necessary for such a voyage do not favor sailing East out of the heavy traffic Chinese ports of the era.(along the China Sea)
Columbus was familiar with the Trade Winds and fortunate they extended as far west as they did and the duration from fresh water resupply was brief compared to what would be encountered in a trans-Pacific voyage.
Magellan, Drake, Vernon etc. were fortunate in sailing from East to West where there is a southernly East Wind. Although a reading of their voyages, (not Wikipedia Please. Read a proper book), will detail how close they were to extinction.
Last edited by Felix C; 12-14-2012 at 02:01 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
