Slashdot Mirror
Gene Study Supports Single Bering Strait Migration
Invisible Pink Unicorn writes "One of the most comprehensive analyses of genetic variation ever undertaken supports the theory that the ancestors of modern native peoples throughout the Americas came from a single source in East Asia across a northwest land bridge some 12,000 years ago. One particular discovery is of a 'unique genetic variant widespread in natives across both continents — suggesting that the first humans in the Americas came in a single migration or multiple waves from a single source, not in waves of migrations from different sources.' The full article is available online from PLoS."
Perhaps. Though they are still "more native" than the rest of the inhabitants.
Some points:
1. America is named for Amerigo Vespucci, and its earliest use to refer to the continent is in a German map from the very early 1500's. It's pretty certain it's not of Chinese origin.
2. Because of the way the winds blow in the (very large) Pacific Ocean, it's much harder to set up trade routes to the Americas than it is across the Atlantic. I'm not sure I'd credit any particular enlightenment with the reason the Chinese didn't aggressively populate California until after the Spanish.
3. Few can argue that Columbus is the first non-native person to set foot on the Americas since the original migration. There is extensive evidence of both nordic and African sporadic contact. But similar to the argument over whether the Wright brothers were the first to ever lift off the ground in something resembling a plane, it's quite clear that Columbus opened the way for everyone coming after him.
4. The origin of Columbus' maps (which he refers to having in his log books) is a matter of extensive debate. Some say they were nordic, some say Chinese. Lots of theories... but the charts did not survive history, and no one really knows.
5. The exploits of ancient Chinese seafarers, from Zheng He on, is often cited as some kind of precedent to later explorers. In its history China has gone through many cycles of technology and exploration. It's interesting to note that China had invented everything from the printing press to rocketry to large seafaring vessels, but by the time Columbus arrived at the new world they pretty much had lost all of that. Zheng He's flotilla had been long ago disassembled, and the printing press forgotten until Gutenberg re-invented it and re-introduced it to China.
The bottom line, though, is that China appears to have set up no regular trade routes with the rest of the world that survived to Columbus' day. It was left to the Europeans to unite the world in trade and colonization, for better and worse.
E pluribus unum
the oceans have been rising since the last ice age, Al Gore forgets that part
No. If you'd actually been paying attention, by looking at the evidence over the last SEVERAL Ice Ages, we have determined that our climate is way outside the norms.
Everyone, even Al Gore, understands that the world gets warmer after an Ice Age then peaks, and then gets cooler as we head into another Ice Age. And everyone gets that we will experience 'global warming' until we peak, and the cycle turns the other way.
The issue here is that the evidence shows that we're FAR FAR beyond where we usually peak between Ice Ages.
Its like gravity and the mantra "Whatever goes up must come down!" And everything we through into the air until the 20th century complied with that rule.
But if you've go up high enough fast enough you don't come back down naturally.
Now at this stage with 'global warming' we don't KNOW we can't come back down naturally, but we don't have any evidence that we will, either. We are NOT within the normal climate parameters for the 'warming periods' between Ice Ages. We are FAR beyond that.
You'd be the guy sitting on Voyager-1 going, "I don't see what all the fuss is about the potential for leaving the solar system never to return. We throw things up, they peak, and then they fall back down! And everything that we have ever launched upwards has always had a stage where it was 'going up'. The people raising this issue forget that part."
No, but it does suggest that the genetic evidence for this was not found in this study. Small genetic populations can easily be lost in a larger population. All this says is that the populations which survive today have markers and appropriate genetic variation to be descendants of descendants of populations in Asia.
This doesn't explain the cultural aspects of how the move occurred or how they were culturally linked to each other and to groups outside of the Americas. This mostly reinforces what was already known: that around 15,000 years ago, there was a dramatic population increase in the Americas starting in the Pacific Northwest and moving down to South America.
This information doesn't say anything about a land bridge or existing populations of people except to say that if there were existing populations that their genetics didn't survive to modern times in significant amounts which is suggestive of small populations which did not integrate into the new-coming population; if they existed at all.
I am however annoyed that people attempt to use it to claim I have some responsibility in the actions of people that was never alive near a time I was. Even the direct decedents were dead before anyone I know or knew was alive. I'm also annoyed that because I am white, I am included in this little hidden racist agenda. My ancestors came across the pond well after the cowboys and indians games were played. They were also late to the entire slavery issue to.
Automatically suggesting that somehow I am at fault or a lesser person because of it is like saying that all muslims are terrorist because they look the same or practice the same religions. And despite the pop-rap hollywood typed culture, not all black people are dumb, drug dealing, thieving, gang banging thugs either.
As for more native, we have come to a point that the stock definition is appropriate for all Americans. It isn't like the whiteman didn't do something that wasn't already happening. They just did it better. At this point, there is no body alive who was here first. They are all dead now.
My family (the white portion) came here in the 1600s, just poor white farmers. The other half of my family, "Native Americans", came here thousands of years before that. Neither is any better or worse than the other. Throughout history there have been injustices perpetrated on every group of every color. We can't remedy what happened to them; we can only make it better from now on. That would be the best way to honor our ancestors.
If we're going to demand reparations for past wrongs no matter how long ago, then Egypt (because I'm also a small part Jewish) and Rome (because I'm Christian) owe me a bunch. :)
I researched this matter a bit for a native american history class I had. Frankly, there are a lot of differences between our system and theirs. Their system was a loose confederacy of independent tribes/states, closer to the U.S. under the articles of confederation than to the U.S. since the constitution. The more interesting evidence is in the letters and dialogues among intellectuals at the time -
1. in America there were frequent meetings between Iroquois and colonial representatives, as they were a strong political force at the time, and people such as Franklin and Jefferson conversed about the confederacy with interest.
2. At one such meeting in 1744 an Iroquois representative named Canassantego suggested that the colonies should join into a confederacy. as one source quoted him - "We heartily recommend union...between you your brethren...We [The Iroquois] are a powerful confederacy; and, by your observing the same methods our wise forefathers have taken, you will acquire fresh strength and power."
3. Several european intellectuals wrote and pondered on the government of the Iroquois, and offered them up as proof that democratic societies could work.
I personally don't think it is fair to say that we "got the idea of a republic" from the Iroquois, because ultimately we modeled our system after European theories and examples. However I do think having a functioning republic on the border of the colonies might have served as a source of inspiration because it took abstract and academic European theory and made it into something tangible for the colonists.