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.
40,000 is highly questionable, however, it appears that it is earlier than the common accepted 13,000 from recent evidence. Regardless, no one else was here, and yes, even 13,000 years is long enough. 40,000 years ago? Evidence suggests that the last Neanderthals still existed then.
So no answers to the questions that I asked you above?
It's very possible there wasn't one wave of Siberians that came to the Americas but several waves possibly over many thousands of years. But it's really a pointless argument. In New Zealand the Maori didn't beat the Whites to those islands by more than a few centuries yet no one disputes that the Maori are the true native New Zealanders.
I just see them as the first settlers, and as the people that wiped out the Moa.
The legal system sees them as the first owners, but that is a different matter.
It's very possible there wasn't one wave of Siberians that came to the Americas but several waves possibly over many thousands of years. But it's really a pointless argument. In New Zealand the Maori didn't beat the Whites to those islands by more than a few centuries yet no one disputes that the Maori are the true native New Zealanders.
Good point about the Maori. New Zealanders seem to have a more holistic perspective on history than many on this board.
40,000 is highly questionable, however, it appears that it is earlier than the common accepted 13,000 from recent evidence. Regardless, no one else was here, and yes, even 13,000 years is long enough. 40,000 years ago? Evidence suggests that the last Neanderthals still existed then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fat lou
So no answers to the questions that I asked you above?
My response was not to you. I'm not going back pages and pages to respond... show me the post you dearly want an answer to.
Fact. The First Nations (plural, not singular) people displace no one. The settlers did.
So what? Seriously, so what? And let's be clear, the "First Nations" as you call them were killing and displacing each other constantly. So who really cares who displaced who three hundred, four hundred, even thousands of years ago? What in the heck does that have to do with anything?
Wherever ANY human being is born and raised they have a right to call it home and make it the best they can. I was born here, raised here, and I'll likely die here. If that's not a native person, I don't know what the heck is... Just because some dude got hungry and followed a Mammoth herd across the Bering Straight 13,000 years ago doesn't make his descendants any more native than my kids are. We're all just human in the end.
Actually, most scientists believe we all migrated out of Africa at some point. Doesn't that make every single person on every other part of the planet outside of Africa the descendants of "settlers?"
You may have heard of the Trail of Tears, but the First Nations people were depicted as savage, primitive, uncultured. And many to this day on this very forum deflect to that depiction.
Pre-Columbian Native Americans in what is now the United States had no written language, no monetary system, no horses or carriages, no running water or sanitary system, little agriculture or domestication of animals.
Native Americans were certainly more primitive than many other cultures that existed in the world even thousands of years before them.
Good point about the Maori. New Zealanders seem to have a more holistic perspective on history than many on this board.
I'm not so sure I agree - I think the situation has gone from one where people just accepted that Maori/Moriori were the first people, to one where there seems to be an increasing push to reinforce a message that Maori are indigenous, and that to challenge that is racist.
Holistic perspective seems to imply the thought process of the individual, whereas I believe the situation here is becoming one of official narrative, that is the opposite of holistic perspective.
Pre-Columbian Native Americans in what is now the United States had no written language, no monetary system, no horses or carriages, no running water or sanitary system, little agriculture or domestication of animals.
Native Americans were certainly more primitive than many other cultures that existed in the world even thousands of years before them.
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.
