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."

Comments

Native?

[Major Blud]

Does this mean that Native Americans really aren't "native"?

Re:Native?

[nharmon]

Perhaps. Though they are still "more native" than the rest of the inhabitants.

Re:Native?

[lstellar]

No, it doesn't. "America" wasn't called so until explorers bestowed it with the name. Hence, whoever was living on the land at the time the land was named "America" would be Native Americans.

Just like how someone can be Native New Jersey if they were born and raised there, though we don't like to talk about those types.

Re:Native?

[geekoid]

Yes.

They also did not live in peace and harmony with each other.
And they were a great aid in hunting other tribes when the 'white man' arrived.

Sorry, but the last month I have had a bunch of "native American heritage". Interesting paint all native American as some sort of hand holding pride race in perfect harmony with all others.

For the record, MY ancestors had nothing to do with it.

Re:Native?

[geekoid]

Native American means people on a continent we now call America, not SINCE it was called America.

Re:Native?

[Joe the Lesser]

Under that reasoning, we are all Africans.

But any reasonable mind knows that the historical definition of 'native American' is one who's family lived there before the 15th century, when some serious immigration issues began.

Re:Native?

[lstellar]

From Princeton WordNet:

Noun S: (n) native, indigen, indigene, aborigine, aboriginal (an indigenous person who was born in a particular place) "the art of the natives of the northwest coast"; "the Canadian government scrapped plans to tax the grants to aboriginal college students" S: (n) native (a person born in a particular place or country) "he is a native of Brazil" S: (n) native (indigenous plants and animals)

Under the definition to be native is to be born somewhere, negating the relevance of where they came from and when. Also, "Native American" is different than "Native Land Occupier." You cannot be Native American until such a place exists, there is no retroactive assignment of identity.

Re:Native?

[eli pabst]

Under that reasoning, we are all Africans.

Speak for yourself. My ancestors are all pure-blooded Pangaeans.

Re:Native?

[ArchAngelQ]

Yes, but that's old news. Or, at least the strong possibility that this is true is old news. Then again, the same is true of nearly all 'native' cultures: they are only native the from the point of view of Anglophiles, unless you are talking about some possible descendants of a group of early humans that spawned the rest of us didn't bother going far from home.

Re:Native?

[davidsyes]

Probably I'll get modded troll or off-topic by some of the short-sighted with accounts here.

Time for me to re-read "1421: The Year China Discovered America".

From the book, the word "America" is based on a Chinese word "Americ" (I have to surf or reread for it:

http://www.google.com/search?q=word+america+origins+in+chinese&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

)

My own commentary below...

Columbus' poor-navigating landed him here (with the aid of dubiously-obtained (hint: stolen/misappropriated) maps originating FROM/IN China), and proclaiming he'd found Indians (he WAS trying to get to India...)

Also, relatively recent evidence (in the 70's/80's) a junk (Chinese in origin) was found buried in silt in the SF Bay Area (Sacramento River?) when someone investigated glass beads they sucked up into a tube. Found out the beads originated from China. Samples of the hull wood indicated non-English/Portuguese/other European vessel. Various tombstones and observatories and obelisks also of Chinese origin, along with numerous "Native Americans" having Chinese clothing, tribal, cooking and artistic attributes known to have Chinese characteristics, further indicated 1420's era Chinese landed here, not by ACCIDENT, but by DESIGN.

Yes, like Europeans, Chinese sailors inadvertently passed/carried diseases, which in the case of Chinese, wiped out 10,000s of Natives. However, the difference is the Chinese didn't come here to STAY, invade, expurgate, demolish, or hijack an existing, thriving human ecosystem (competitive and warring, true), nor to subject the Natives.

That alone speaks VOLUMES about wisdom, humility, and more.

Sorry, but history in the US is so full of shit, and it's tragic that this is NOT being taught to inspire respect, humility, and more in modern US citizens who will have to deal with the morass we and our so-called leaders have gotten this country into time after time.

Returning to the book:

Sadly, too, it seems Australia at the behest of the US and UK/Britain, erected a shield of environmental or national preservation laws to stymie Gavin Menzies and the world's researchers from diving or going close to reefs and wrecks that would likely further the evidence that Chinese even were all over what became called Australia.

Something I read in this AM's news:

However, I suppose to its credit, Australia's government is going to formally apologize to the Aborigines. Hopefully, Australia's new government will demolish the pugnacious stymie law and the body of information allowed to continue additions to 1421's story.

Re:Native?

[Anonymous Coward]

America wasn't called "America" until long after Columbus. Instead, it seems to be a joking allusion by mapmakers to a work about the sexual exploits of a clerk on a ship in the Caribbean.

Re:Native?

[wizardforce]

the only people on the planet that could very well be natives of the territory they now ihabit are in Africa. starting several thousand years ago, humanity started migrating out of Africa, up into the middle east through europe and asia and across the ice-age land bridge between russia and alaska down through the americas. so to answer your question: very few of the people on Earth are natives including native americans.

Re:Native?

[Red Flayer]

Yes, like Europeans, Chinese sailors inadvertently passed/carried diseases, which in the case of Chinese, wiped out 10,000s of Natives. However, the difference is the Chinese didn't come here to STAY, invade, expurgate, demolish, or hijack an existing, thriving human ecosystem (competitive and warring, true), nor to subject the Natives.

That alone speaks VOLUMES about wisdom, humility, and more.

Not really. You should finish reading that book, or perhaps read it a little more in-depth. It speaks VOLUMES about how massive expeditions became politically taboo in China due to economic concerns and power struggles within the royal family.

As for China's attitude towards other "less developed" cultures, I think you've quite a bit of reading to do. China's relations with other states in the 15th century was varied, and assimilation/domination of other cultures was definitely within their repertoire.

Re:Native?

[king-manic]

That alone speaks VOLUMES about wisdom, humility, and more.

Sorry, but history in the US is so full of shit, and it's tragic that this is NOT being taught to inspire respect, humility, and more in modern US citizens who will have to deal with the morass we and our so-called leaders have gotten this country into time after time. China really ought to have. From about 1 ad to 1200 ad China had the economic and military might to conquer large portions of the world but were always too introspective. They viewed anything outside of china as barbarian lands hardly worth the effort to visit. It was arrogance more then humility and wisdom. the greatest downfall of China was the isolationist policies enacted by one of the emperors to curb the power of the merchant class. Had he been less successful china might have been a merchant empire as well as Europe.

Ps. I'm proudly Chinese, this isn't china bashing.

Re:Native?

[Anonymous Coward]

China really ought to have. From about 1 ad to 1200 ad China had the economic and military might to conquer large portions of the world but were always too introspective. They viewed anything outside of china as barbarian lands hardly worth the effort to visit. It was arrogance more then humility and wisdom. the greatest downfall of China was the isolationist policies enacted by one of the emperors to curb the power of the merchant class. Had he been less successful china might have been a merchant empire as well as Europe.

Ps. I'm proudly Chinese, this isn't china bashing.

Oh well, the Mongols did that for you.

Re:Native?

[Spy der Mann]

Speak for yourself. My ancestors are all pure-blooded Pangaeans.

So that makes us meteorite-aminoacid-derived-dna-carrying people aliens? :( I feel so... alienated!

Re:Native?

[samkass]

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.

Re:Native?

[Belial6]

That is something that most people don't get. It does not have to be bashing of a culture to discuss the attributes that a culture had 500 years ago, that don't match with the ones we have today.

The funny part is that most of the people that would consider it bashing, don't realize that in another 500 years, morals will likely change again, and things that are just taken for granted today, will be considered horrific at that time. We may find the idea that people were allowed to breed out of control even though we have the technology to prevent it. We may find that the idea of people having to trade their time just to get enough to eat to be horrific. Or, we may find that, much like the Indians trading land for beads, we will find it horrific that people could sell and hoard ideas for money. Of course, we might also find it horrific that ANY ideas could be used without someone getting paid for them.

Re:Native?

[Anonymous Coward]

History is not taught to "inspire respect, humility, and more". American History should be taught to US school children so that they know how they came to be here and bring them up to speed with the state of things. I don't care if you're a Chinese immigrant. You should learn about Columbus etc. instead of these Chinese explorers. Why? You're not here because of those Chinese sailors. What they did had very little significance on how the New World unfolded. Even if you're a Chinese immigrant, you're here because Columbus was here.

Now, I had never heard of this Chinese explorer in America business before. I think it's very interesting. Myself and others should be free to pursue this interest. If it become a history elective in US schools, that's great!

Re:Native?

[sumdumass]

Define native and then tell me how you can be more native.

Have I ever felt the scorn of a woman more then when I thought that you couldn't be "more late" (hint, you can). So your answer is probably going to involve creative interpretation.

Re:Native?

[king-manic]

That is something that most people don't get. It does not have to be bashing of a culture to discuss the attributes that a culture had 500 years ago, that don't match with the ones we have today.

The funny part is that most of the people that would consider it bashing, don't realize that in another 500 years, morals will likely change again, and things that are just taken for granted today, will be considered horrific at that time. We may find the idea that people were allowed to breed out of control even though we have the technology to prevent it. We may find that the idea of people having to trade their time just to get enough to eat to be horrific. Or, we may find that, much like the Indians trading land for beads, we will find it horrific that people could sell and hoard ideas for money. Of course, we might also find it horrific that ANY ideas could be used without someone getting paid for them. Never mind 500 years, people outside of the US find the indefinite imprisonment or people without a trial horrific. Heck people inside the US do too.

Re:Native?

[apparently]

Sorry, but the last month I have had a bunch of "native American heritage".

Oh, you poor thing -- you had to be exposed to the notion that European settlers were an invading force? The horror! No shit that Native American's weren't living in perfect harmony, but we all weren't holding hands around a big turkey, either. Despite that, that's the history we teach our children and it's the imagery that we're told to associate with the holiday. Do you not see how fucking disrespectful it is to have some fairy-tale retelling of our nation's history? Do you really not see why American's need to be re-educated about the events they're celebrating? But instead, people like you throw a fuss cause that anyone has the gall to say "the story of Native American's and European colonists isn't so rosey".

Re:Native?

[rucs_hack]

Nope, it means all peoples who turned up a few thousand years before the Columbus age are Americans, regardless of origin.

Humans only evolved on one continent, so it all depends on how long you have to be somewhere before you can be called Native. If the Criteria is having evolved there (as is often the case with most species), then Humans are native to a small region of Africa, and exotic everywhere else.

As for the Land Route only thing, is this just another attempt to bury the slight Clovis point problem? That of it appearing only in France and America, and no-where else? Hard to explain if a population is migrating.

Re:Native?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Probably I'll get modded troll or off-topic by some of the short-sighted with accounts here."

Probably because the 1421 book's author has some pretty weak evidence.

Just a few points of criticism here, here, and here.

Re:Native?

[Dr. Cody]

I certainly welcome those overlords!

Re:Native?

[pinguwin]

Point 3: Columbus was not the first non-native, plain and simple. That the Norse were there is more 'extensive evidence', they were there, period, proven evidence. They lived their, set up homes and gardens, and hunted. Now the last part of your statement is correct, the Norse didn't have lasting impacts, except maybe on their own society (and truthfully, one could argue that many of the indian tribes won't have a lasting impact, in a thousand years, will you be able point to their influence? That is *NOT* trolling). But the first part of your statement is incorrect.

Personally, I'm not even sure that what we consider 'native' are really natives. No one knows who is 'really native' and who arrived somewhere to find someone else already there. Look at the archeaological record and often the people there 150 years ago, weren't there 500-1000 years ago. Societies are fluid, whether it be due to disease, environment, or conquest. Review Kennewick man (9k y.o. skeleton found in Washington). The 'native' tribes tried to claim him as their own but it was ruled that they couldn't prove ownership as there is no evidence that the specific native tribes were there thousands of years ago. Someone was, but who it was is unknown at this time and may never be known.

I'm not passing judgement on any group or set of beliefs, I'm just making the point of that word 'native' isn't neccesarily easy to define.

Re:Native?

[spun]

Native: been here a long time.
More native: Been here a longer time than you.

Do you feel threatened when people point out that their ancestors have been here longer than yours, and that your ancestors killed them and stole their land?

Re:Native?

[sumdumass]

Native: been here a long time.
More native: Been here a longer time than you.

Gotcha, But wouldn't after a period of time, would we be both be beyond a point where it wouldn't/shouldn't matter?

Do you feel threatened when people point out that their ancestors have been here longer than yours, and that your ancestors killed them and stole their land?

No, I'm not threatened by that in the least.

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.

Re:Native?

[d34thm0nk3y]

Define native and then tell me how you can be more native.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
native /netv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ney-tiv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective 1. being the place or environment in which a person was born or a thing came into being: one's native land.
2. belonging to a person by birth or to a thing by nature; inherent: native ability; native grace.
3. belonging by birth to a people regarded as indigenous to a certain place, esp. a preliterate people: Native guides accompanied the expedition through the rain forest.
4. of indigenous origin, growth, or production: native pottery.
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the indigenous inhabitants of a place or country: native customs; native dress.
6. born in a particular place or country: a native New Yorker.

1. That was easy.

2. You could say someone born in New Jersey is less a native of New York than someone born in Manhattan.

Re:Native?

[Captain Splendid]

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.

All totally correct. But if you're white, you've certainly had systemic advantages. Not your fault. But don't ignore it either.

Re:Native?

[spun]

No one of any moral sense would try to make you feel personally responsible for the actions of even your direct ancestors. What I try to point out, and what I feel most of the non-brain-dead 'racially sensative' types are trying to point out, is that the playing field is very far from level due to the actions of our ancestors, and while we are not personally responsible, if we value the idea of living in a fair and equitable world, we will try to do something to make the injustice right, no matter that we aren't personally responsible. We aren't personally responsible for Saddam's treatment of his constituents, yet many in America feel like it is our job to make it right. Suggest to those same people that perhaps it is even more our job to right the injustices on our home soil, and they will usually balk. Not that the kind of racism and injustice we have here is anything like what Saddam did to his people, but the point is still valid.

Re:Native?

[Anonymous Coward]

The use of Monty Python lines in your sig makes me wonder if you're British. If that is indeed the case, shouldn't you be referring to 'our' ancestors?

Another small point: I am a white citizen of the U.S.A. whose ancestry in the States dates to the mid-1800s, when my Irish great-great-great grandfather came here.

Re:Native?

[ozbird]

China's relations with other states in the 15th century was varied, and assimilation/domination of other cultures was definitely within their repertoire.

And hasn't changed, either: Taiwan, Tibet etc.

Re:Native?

[spun]

I'm an American geek who happens to like Monty Python. Weird, I know. You parsed that "ancestors" bit incorrectly, by the way. I'm speculating about what hypothetical non-white people would say to sumdumass regarding his ancestors. So, "our ancestors" in that context would be refering to the ancestors common to both the hypothetical non-white person and sumdumass, not the ancestors common to sumdumass and I. Get it?

Re:Native?

[ArcherB]

All totally correct. But if you're white, you've certainly had systemic advantages. Not your fault. But don't ignore it either.

That's a rather racist comment. I'm sorry, but being white does not mean "advantaged". If you want to give people a break because they are poor or "less advantaged", then look at their bank statements and their high school's rating and NOT the color of their skin.

I've seen minorities that come from wealthier families with less qualifications than me get promoted above me because of the color of their skin. Bonus if they lacked a penis. Many businesses receive tax breaks for being a "minority and/or female run business".

What really makes it sad is that in my community, I am the minority. White people are no longer the majority in many areas of the country.

Re:Native?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I'm the last person that people who know me would accuse of flag-waving or history revisionism, but here's the Wiki entry on the 'First' Thanksgiving:

The Plymouth settlers (who came to be called "Pilgrims") set apart a holiday immediately after their first harvest in 1621. They held an autumn celebration of food, feasting, and praising God. The Governor of Plymouth invited Grand Sachem Massasoit and the Wampanoag people to join them in the feast. Evidence to support that claim came from diaries of Plymouth. The settlers fed and entertained the Native Americans for three days, at which point some of the Native Americans went into the forest, killed 5 deer, and gave them to the Governor as a gift.

It seems that if the settlers' accounts were right, it was a pretty good time.

Re:Native?

[BobMcD]

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. This is where you're in the wrong. Your responsibility is this:

Acknowledge that it happened, how wrong it was, and see to it that nothing similar takes place ever again, should you have the power to prevent it.

THAT, you are in fact responsible for, or at least I should hope you are.

Re:Native?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'm not threatened by that in the least.

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.

Noble sentiments, however none of that will stop a nigger from hating you because you are white. You are their enemy and responsible for every slave ever held in captivity by any culture. It is an excuse to hate. They were bred to be this way. Now we pay the price.

Re:Native?

[sumdumass]

I would say that there are interesting differences between a freed black slave, an American Indian who lost his land and the people Saddam wronged. The most important difference is that one is alive today. This is why a lot of people can relate. It is easier to relate to things that are alive then dead.

But, there I not reason for the playing field to not be level. My forefathers had to rent and eventually buy the land they called home. They couldn't or didn't steal it from anyone. I have had to do the same as with my parents too. So how is that an advantage above the advantages available to everyone. OR maybe I should ask what is not level in the playing field and why is race the problem.

It just seems to me that we are making excuses more then anything. I know that race is an easy identifier to chose but there are examples of every race that defies the invisible barriers. This hasn't been something relegated to just recent history either. With the exception of government funded families (welfare recipients are a special case with unique opportunities), a low to medium income families has the same opportunities without regard to race. In some cases, with quotas and affirmative action, they have the advantage. So when do we quite felling sorry for someone and accept them as an equal? When do we quit making excuses and find the root cause of the problems and deal with it.

I don't think that something happened 4 generations ago should still be a disadvantage to someone living today. Well, outside them not having what their grandparents might have had, but this would be no position they had worked for like much of the rest of society. I do know that there is nothing inherent in race alone that would deprive someone from the ability to prosper or gain and retain inteligence. SO again, I think this is more of an excuse then anything. And Bringing up something that my family had no part of directly implies that I somehow am responsible or that I am privileged because they have that excuse?

Re:Native?

[sumdumass]

You could say someone born in New Jersey is less a native of New York than someone born in Manhattan.

Wouldn't not being a native of New York mean that you wouldn't be a native? Less a native would imply that you somehow are a native of New York. Well, unless New York just Annexed New Jersey, They I guess you could get away with it.

Re:Native?

[Captain Splendid]

Wow, what a bunch of ill-informed whiny tripe. Let's begin:

but being white does not mean "advantaged"

Depends what country you're in. In the US, that's a big fat yes, if only because whites are the majority. I don't care how many laws have been passed, or how many times some politician or pundit has stood up and said there is no racism in America, normative ethics and homogeneity will always be there. This is, of course, before we even get mired in the way the US has handled its slavery and segregation issues.

If you want to give people a break because they are poor or "less advantaged", then look at their bank statements and their high school's rating and NOT the color of their skin.

What penetrating insight! Shame you stopped digging after only a couple of inches. The way you talk about it, all jobs, schools and neighborhoods are created equal, huh? Thanks for wasting my time with such a shallow and useless argument.

I've seen minorities that come from wealthier families with less qualifications than me get promoted above me because of the color of their skin.

Yeah, not the biggest fan of quotas either, but the US has always been fond of cosmetic reparations, not structural. Just check out the war on drugs or terror if you don't believe me. Either way, it doesn't change history, and it also doesn't change the the fact that systemic racism and bigotry are still a problem. So, quotas suck, got a better idea to help undo hundreds of years of intolerance and abuse?

Also, if you're so awesome you deserved that promotion, you've already gone out and started a competing business and are now rich and famous, correct? Capitalism isn't just there to buy you shiny things, you know.

Many businesses receive tax breaks for being a "minority and/or female run business".

Yawn. You should be more worried about the business writing the laws of the land because they have the cash to buy politicians. Remember what I said about structural versus cosmetic improvements? Congratulations, you're part of that negative feedback loop.

What really makes it sad is that in my community, I am the minority. White people are no longer the majority in many areas of the country.

I was going to leave you alone until I read this last sentence, and it speaks volumes about you. If that makes you sad, I can't possibly imagine the blubbery mess you become when some serious shit hits you, you sad little wanker.

Re:Native?

[emilper]

Do you feel threatened when people point out that their ancestors have been here longer than yours, and that your ancestors killed them and stole their land?

My ancestors killed my ancestors and stole their land. Am I not native (some place else, not USA) ?

I am a native of Eurasia. Am I a native in Asia, even if it's from there that my ancestors came to Europe to kill my other ancestors?

How long does somebody's ancestors have to live in a place to qualify that "somebody" as a native ?

Re:Native?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record, MY ancestors are Native American, and you don't know crap about what you are talk.

Re:Native?

[sumdumass]

I can only control what I have control over. I cannot stop Africa from holding and trading slaves like some countries on the continent is doing today. I cannot stop countries from invading other countries. All that I can do is ensure that I won't enslave someone nor will I take their land. But seeing how I'm not doing that today and never intended to, I'm wondering why it would be my responsibility?

Actually, civilized countries would probably never go back to times of the past. I think WW2 show the intent there when instead of keeping the lands as a spoil of war, we helped the native population reclaim it and govern it on their own. And some would say that this is evident from WW1. Of course I didn't consider Russia as civilized. We spent the better part of half a century attempting to point that out.

Re:Native?

[stdarg]

the playing field is very far from level due to the actions of our ancestors, and while we are not personally responsible, if we value the idea of living in a fair and equitable world, we will try to do something to make the injustice right, no matter that we aren't personally responsible. Even so, as the GP pointed out that has nothing to do with race. What is the logic of giving aid to members of a particular race or gender as opposed to individuals based on their actual present-day circumstances? For instance, it's not a white baby's fault that he's born to a poor family. Pretty much every aspect of the baby's environment, whether positive or negative, is due to the actions of his and all of our ancestors.

Well the answer is pretty simple... there is no logic. Influential portions of society are motivated by guilt or self-loathing and that is why "racial justice" policies exist. The thing is that these influential portions are generally the ones who can stand to give up some of their privilege, make themselves feel better, and get on with life without much harm. The portions of society that are harmed by these policies are already disadvantaged and don't have the political or social clout to defend themselves.

We aren't personally responsible for Saddam's treatment of his constituents, yet many in America feel like it is our job to make it right. Suggest to those same people that perhaps it is even more our job to right the injustices on our home soil, and they will usually balk. Some people do feel personally responsible because of things like the treatment of the Kurds in the first Gulf War, and other things... but much, much more importantly Saddam's actions happened in the present whereas the injustices on our own soil that we're talking about happened a long time ago.

Let's say I reveal to you that 500 years ago, one of my ancestors murdered dozens of people, took their money and property, and never got punished. 250 years ago, another ancestor who was a very good person took a large portion of that and did very good things like building hospitals and schools, helping poor people, etc. He was also a brilliant businessman and with the remainder he completely rebuilt the fortune, which remains in my family today. However, if he hadn't started with the fortune, he wouldn't have gone to school, wouldn't have made business contacts, and would have just been a poor fisherman or something.

I'm a good person. How should I be punished? I'm sure you have something in mind since all of my wealth is originally based on injustice.

Re:Native?

[stdarg]

Please, tell what systemic advantages I've enjoyed as a white person in the US, without knowing anything else about me. If you can't name a specific one that I've had for certain, how about a list of advantages, at least one of which is 100% guaranteed to apply to me.

I'm genuinely curious because I find it hard to believe that you can come up with a list that would apply to every single white person in the country, including 3-year-old orphans, prison inmates, and the guy down at the local rehab center who calls himself "Fuzzy" and has an intense fear of the police.

Re:Native?

[BobMcD]

You're not wrong. Your direct actions are definitely under your direct control.

I wonder, however, if you've given any money indirectly to organizations that further this slave trade, or benefit from it?

I wonder also, have you ever supported a politician that chose not to oppose it, etc?

You may not wonder about these things, but some certainly do.

Re:Native?

[spun]

It is hard to have this kind of discussion, because of the moral judgement involved. No one likes to think they've gotten where they are because of unfair advantage. Everyone likes to believe their the underdog. Everyone secretly believes that everyone else has had fundamentally the same set of choices and experiences that they have had. None of that is true.

No one is asking you to feel guilty over the opportunites and experiences that others have had. We are just asking you to recognize that other people have lived lives uniquely different from yours, full of different challenges, experience, pains and joys. We are asking you to understand that your assumptions and cherished beliefs are just that: yours. And that perhaps, unbeknownst to you, you have had certain advantages that others might not have had.

That doesn't mean you should feel responsible for their plight. Just that you should try to understand the differences.

Re:Native?

[stdarg]

Hi,

It's not disrespectful to give a fake version of history to children. Just like it's not disrespectful to tell them the tooth fairy left a quarter under their pillow.

Material needs to be age appropriate. Guess what, if you take history in college you don't get the Thanksgiving story, you get all the other stuff that you crave.

People "like me" throw a fuss when people "like you" want to have schools tell a bunch of 6 year olds that their ancestors are rapists and murderers and in fact there should still belong to the Indians.

Re:Native?

[spun]

The injustice continues here. Others have not had the advantages you have. No man is an island, and we all take at least some of our concept of who we are, some of our idea of what is possible or expected from us from others. Which means, we have a responsibility not to see others as less than they are, lest the collective weight of our and others beliefs pushes them to be somethign they are not.

As for your last question: if you buy a stolen bicycle, and the original owner sees you and can prove the bike was his, who gets the bike? What is the most fair solution? Obviously, you did not know the bike was stolen, you bought it in good faith, and you used money fairly earned. But the other guy did nothing wrong, either.

Now consider, the original owner of the bike was killed. His son sees you, and can prove the bike was his dad's. Now who gets the bike? Why?

If there were easy or obvious answers to these questions, I don't think we'd be in the mess we are right now.

Re:Native?

[ArcherB]

Wow. Such hatred and bigotry in a single post. You should really pace yourself.

What really makes it sad is that in my community, I am the minority. White people are no longer the majority in many areas of the country.

I was going to leave you alone until I read this last sentence, and it speaks volumes about you. If that makes you sad, I can't possibly imagine the blubbery mess you become when some serious shit hits you, you sad little wanker.

I never said it makes ME sad. You know, I'm sure they offer literacy courses at your local community college. You may want to look into them. Of course, I'm assuming that you CAN'T read. I wouldn't want to insult you by assuming that you were just too lazy to. There is not crime in ignorance, but sloth is a sin. Of course, it is wrong to insult someone based on false information. You just make yourself look not only hateful, but quite foolish.

And since I doubt you can understand my original point, I'll explain it. It is sad when the government, in order to elevate "minorities", mandates breaks to a race of people over the other, especially when the minority race gets the short end of the stick.

but being white does not mean "advantaged"

Depends what country you're in. In the US, that's a big fat yes, if only because whites are the majority.

Ever been to McAllen Texas? How about Laredo or San Antonio? Miami Florida or Ruidoso or Yuma New Mexico? Sorry, but white people are not the majority in these communities.

I don't care how many laws have been passed, or how many times some politician or pundit has stood up and said there is no racism in America, normative ethics and homogeneity will always be there.

Racism is not prejudiced. It affects all peoples, regardless of their race. So yes, there is racism in America and everywhere else in the world. The way to stop it by treating all people equally, blind to their race.

This is, of course, before we even get mired in the way the US has handled its slavery and segregation issues.

And how am I responsible for that? I have never owned a slave. My ancestors never owned a slave. I come from a long line of poor farmers.

If you want to give people a break because they are poor or "less advantaged", then look at their bank statements and their high school's rating and NOT the color of their skin.

What penetrating insight! Shame you stopped digging after only a couple of inches. The way you talk about it, all jobs, schools and neighborhoods are created equal, huh? Thanks for wasting my time with such a shallow and useless argument.

Actually, the argument is not mine. It is from a guy called Martin Luther King Jr. The original goes like this:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Mine is the first generation to graduate from college in my family. My mother worked several jobs to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table. My brother and I both joined the US Army to help pay for school and worked multiple jobs to pay for living expenses. What advantage did my "whiteness" give me?
Could we have used the help? Sure! Was it available? Nope. Even though I have held a job since I was 13, that was not a consideration when it came to college admission. The color of my skin was.

So, quotas suck, got a better idea to help undo hundreds of years of intolerance and abuse?

More intolerance and abuse is not the answer. Two wrongs don't make a right. How about leveling the playing field? How about considering people based on their abilities and their character and stop playing favorites based on race or gender? It was not right when it was done in the '60s and it's not right now.

Al

Re:Native?

[BlackSnake112]

I wonder how fast the equal opportunity laws will get taken down when white people are no longer the majority and these laws could be applied to them.

Re:Native?

[Anonymous Coward]

> America is named for Amerigo Vespucci,

That version is the result of papul conspiricy to deny the rightful origin which was that of Richard Amerike.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Amerike

> The origin of Columbus' maps (which he refers to having in his log books)

The most likely origin is from european fishermen or traders blown across into the Carribean by gales and then managing to follow the south westerly tradewinds back to Madeira. As it happens, Colunbus married the sister of the governor of the island and lived there for some time and it is exactly in the right place to be first landfall of anyone travelling down those tradewinds.

Re:Native?

[davidsyes]

Mwo? Through gunfire? Through prayers to a god for deliverance of expurgation upon savages? By deceit and wholesale decimation of a population? (I'm talking the 1400's China, not today's economic China.)

And, who is it who in 30 years decimated the Spice Trades routes (Silk Road), etc. that took some 1,000 years or more to be erected and stabilized?

China's just trying to get back what was hers, one way or another. Global stature was one, and tho she looked inward and closed up for a long time (after the lightning bolt and other economic woes and revolutions/uprisings and such), but I don't recall China going geographically outside her borders (never mind the current Yakuza/gang/cocaine/meth/heroine/Korea/money-laundering, secrets-sleuthing operations of today) to plant population-slumping drugs, take islands, and ensnare governments in heinous multi-hundred-year land leases.

A LOT of people here need to do a LOT of reading, too, not just me. It never fails that when I say something bordering or outright anti-US/anti-thug-any-government comment I get modded as a troll. If I stay strong-USA on military stuff, I'm suddenly knowledgeable and modded 4 or 5. A lot of dumbshits on this site....

Re:Native?

[davidsyes]

"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."

China's 1420's maps and charts (land and ocean) PREDATED Germany's. China's were BEFORE Columbus DREAMT of sailing without losing crew. China's fleets knew how to prevent scurvy. Did the Europeans of the day?

Re:Native?

[apparently]

It's not disrespectful to give a fake version of history to children.

If the truth is too much for children to handle, then don't give it to them. Comparing the tooth fairy to murder, rape, and occupation is a stretch, and you know it.

Not to mention that you seemed to miss (or willfully ignored) that my post was addressing a grown adult who was oh so offended by having to deal with having to hear about "native american heritage". What a sad state it is when people become angry if someone has the gall to point out that their nation's history wasn't all hugs and kisses.

Re:Native?

[reboot246]

You can't win with these people. Your arguments are good and valid, but slashdot is a not a good place to change hearts and minds.

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. :)

Re:Native?

[Captain Splendid]

systemic

specific

Make up your mind, retard. Fucking stupid question.

Re:Native?

[Smurf]

From the book, the word "America" is based on a Chinese word "Americ" (I have to surf or reread for it:
http://www.google.com/search?q=word+america+origins+in+chinese&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
)

Are you aware that, from the whole first page of results for that query, only the first hit is relevant to the topic? And that even that hit (a lengthy NYT article from 1875) doesn't really mention any Chinese word "Americ"? I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here...

Re:Native?

[ArcherB]

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 wonder how that would work for me.

I am part American Indian... Europe owes me.
I am part Irish. I guess the English owe me.
I am part English. That means the Germans owe me.
I am part German. I guess I owe myself!

Re:Native?

[ArcherB]

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. :)

Oh, and being part German, I guess I owe you too! But since you are Christian and I am part American Indian, I guess we'll call it a wash.

Wait! I'm Christian also and if you are part Jewish... this is giving me a headache.

Re:Native?

[reboot246]

I'll just buy you a cup of coffee (or a cold beer) next time I see you and we'll call it even.

Re:Native?

[sumdumass]

I don't know that anything in their plight is all that different then anything in mine. I mean, I grew up relatively poor, My parent worked but got divorced when I was 8 or so, Dad got laid off when the factory closed and moved out of state, we lost the house and had to move in a government project, after being there for about 5 years, Dad finally got another job and we moved to another apartment but money was tight and I had to find a job to "help out". MY paltry $150 a month contribution wasn't much but it helped. I worked for minimum wage ($2.95 then $3.35) until I was 19, Was planning on going into the marines but my job and a poor attitude stopped my grades from being high enough to be accepted (even though I scored high on the asvab.

I could go on and on about shit jobs I had to take, the failed business adventures, the successful ones, and all. But I still don't see the advantage I had. Maybe it was because I just took the worst and attempted to make the best of it. I don't know. But outside some drug habit or something, I don't think I could have been much worse off. Definitely not in a position of being advantaged over someone else.

Re:Native?

[MightyYar]

I'm sorry, but being white does not mean "advantaged". Yes, it does. At least in most parts of the US. I'm white, but I'm married to a black woman, so I feel like I at least have a little bit of understanding on the matter. Not only is it nice to be a white guy because people don't cross the street to avoid walking past you, but people in power tend to be white - and so your chances of being on the wrong end of a racist are far lower.

If you want to give people a break because they are poor or "less advantaged", then look at their bank statements and their high school's rating and NOT the color of their skin. I happen to agree with you - the government should be color blind, other than gathering some statistics for the purposes of determining how well we are doing in our attempts at racial equity (e.g. Affirmative Action, Census).

I've seen minorities that come from wealthier families with less qualifications than me get promoted above me because of the color of their skin. That is a problem, and so you should understand that this is far more likely to happen if your skin was not white. The frustration that you felt happens far, far more often to non-whites than to whites. The exception would be in places like San Francisco, where it is a lot easier in a tight housing market to get an apartment if you are Asian :)

Many businesses receive tax breaks for being a "minority and/or female run business". Again, I agree and am not a fan of this tactic.

What really makes it sad is that in my community, I am the minority. White people are no longer the majority in many areas of the country. Why in tarnation does this make you sad? That's sort of a disturbing statement on the surface of it... I hope you don't mean what it sounds like you mean.

Re:Native?

[sumdumass]

Actually, there is no reason the laws shouldn't apply to them now. There is nothing in the laws itself that says anything about specific races or skin color. They are all generic and represent the idea of race.

But your probably right.

Re:Native?

[808140]

Even so, as the GP pointed out that has nothing to do with race. What is the logic of giving aid to members of a particular race or gender as opposed to individuals based on their actual present-day circumstances?

I would disagree that this has nothing to do with race. I used to feel similarly, reasoning that most racial discrimination had perished in the 1960s, and that affirmative action policies were misguided holdovers from a time when growing up black was more of a barrier than growing up poor. Then, due to a housing shortage at my university, I was placed in an African American interest dorm my freshman year of undergrad. Let me say with some embarrassment that until then I had not known many black people personally. Several months later, virtually all my friends were black, as was my girlfriend. Let me tell you: dating a black girl will teach you really quickly how alive racial discrimination still is.

At my university, very few of the black students were actually from "the ghetto". Most of them were middle class, with a few rich kids and a smattering of poor kids, that is to say, the distribution was basically the same as for white students. Despite that, proportionally they were drastically under-represented as a group. I live in California, and went to a top-tier university. It's not like I was in the South or some other place historically and stereotypically associated with overt racism. It's California, only some miles away from San Francisco, an area generally seen as one of the most tolerant in the nation.

Why were there so few black university students? That's the first question. Other universities are similar.

Let me tell you, walking around with a black person you care about will teach you just how constantly they are discriminated against, even in what I had previously seen as "enlightened" surroundings. We would be at the checkout line in the supermarket and the person wouldn't bag her groceries, people would give her nasty looks constantly, it was a never-ending deluge of little things. The days of lynching and the KKK might be over, but discrimination lives on.

One of the girls in our dorm was a freshman from a pretty decent prep-school who had apparently graduated with the best GPA in her graduating class. She was a good student, smart, pretty, and basically had everything going for her. Except, of course, she was black. She had aspirations to be a neurologist and go to med school; when she went to the academic counselor she was told that "neuroscience was hard" and that "exercise science would be a better major for her." I know for a fact that no one would have ever told me that.

When senior year came around, job offers for my black friends were fewer than for white friends with the same major, and salaries were much lower. Census data appears to support my anecdotal experience. Equally qualified blacks are paid, as a whole, less than whites. And Latinos are even worse off.

I can really identify with the "it's not my fault that slavery happened" position. I'm a first generation European immigrant; neither of my parents is American, and I spent much of my own youth on the other side of the pond. So not only did I personally have nothing to do with the whole deal, not even my ancestors were involved. So why should I feel even the smallest amount of guilt?

The answer is, I don't. Not personally. Like you said, I'm a good person, I'm not racist, etc. However, this individualist view is overly-simplistic and just a tad too convenient. The real world doesn't match up. It is a fact that the United States' economic clout was built on the backs of the African slave trade; to pretend it wasn't is nothing short of denial of reality. We all benefit, even children of recent immigrants, from this.

It's difficult to quantify exactly how much we've benefited, which makes paying reparations difficult, not to mention the astonishingly complex task of deci

Re:Native?

[iminplaya]

What really makes it sad is that in my community, I am the minority.

Why would that make you sad? On my street, I'm not only a minority, I'm downright unique. The only one of "my kind". I'm perfectly ok with it.

Re:Native?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a 'systemic' advantage? I have certainly been fortunate in that I was born in a relatively wealthy country that had public schools, but being a Caucasian[1] has probably not benefited me significantly in a region almost entirely populated by Caucasians[2].

1. I was born into an impoverished, uneducated family. Both of my parents and both of my siblings failed to complete secondary school.
2. My father was an abusive drunk with obvious mental problems.
3. During the school year I would have two meals a day[3], otherwise I would have one meal a day supplemented by whatever scraps were donated to the local "food shelter." You don't know how embarrassing it is to know that everyone taking a test can hear your stomach because you haven't eaten in over twelve hours.
4. While my family was poor the community that I lived in was decidedly middle class[4], ostracizing me further[5] as people ridiculed me for my old clothing obtained from pilfered[6] donations to a thrift store.
5. Being a poor white male doesn't open the doors of free rides to universities in the way you might hope, if you don't compete to the fullest because you're too busy wallowing in self-pity.

It seems rather naive to assume that in a country so full of self-centered scammers and such that great benefits are handed down to anyone, including people that happen to look a little like them. Having an Anglicized name may offer some benefits, though I doubt it. People are much more interested in what they can get out of you than what your skin color is in the United States.

I could be wrong of course. This isn't my field of expertise. I certainly didn't feel privileged, though. I would have rather been born with any racial heritage in a Western European country. I might not have spent so many years anemic and hungry.

[1] Specifically I am of European and "Native American" decent.
[2] Largely those of German, French, and English decent with a handful of Jewish and a small number of hispanics.
[3] Thanks to free lunch programs, which are hardly a leg-up for white people.
[4] This is probably the largest advantage that I received, since it enabled me to obtain a well-funded public school that wasn't filled with delinquents.
[5] Being the uncoordinated nerd archetype does a lot itself to exclude you from reindeer games.
[6] Donations were left outside after hours, tempting my family too much it seems.

Re:Native?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll field this one. He wants you to give him a "specific" example of a "systemic" benefit guranteed to him 100% because his "whiteness."

Perhaps you should learn to read Cap'n. What a dumbass.

Re:Native?

[edward2020]

I don't recall China going geographically outside her borders

See http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/prc-vietnam.htm for one example of Chinese projection of power outside of her border.

A lot of people also say that Tibet was also an example of this, of course the PRC doesn't though.

The Sino-Indian War is an arguable example as well.

Now, I guess you could say that China wasn't going beyound her borders to "plant population-slumping drugs, take islands, and ensnare governments in heinous multi-hundred-year land leases." But they've certainly gone beyound their borders to acquire other things that they perceive to be in their interests. And, here is a history/politics lesson for you, they have sought their interests just like every other nation-state in the world is prone to do. That is the nature of a nation-state - to look after its own interests. Do a little research and you'll find that Chinese goals are to become a regional hegemony in order to balance US world hegemony (if you don't believe me say so and I'll dig out an old paper and find some citations to Chinese national policy plans which state this publically). They don't like US hegemony because it limits their regional aims. They likewise don't want world hegemony themselves because they see what it is doing to the US (look up imperial overstretch).

Re:Native?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a distorted perception of reality. I have dated black women all of my life, in the south no less, and have never experienced any of what you describe. My longest relationship with a black woman was 4 years. If anything, because of her skin color, she had more opportunities handed to her than my white ass ever even dreamed about. My current girlfriend who is now sleeping beside me, as I type this on my laptop, is mixed with black and white. In the 9 months we have been together, we have never been looked at twice. And we live in Georgia.

Re:Native?

[mysticgoat]

Gotcha, But wouldn't after a period of time, would we be both be beyond a point where it wouldn't/shouldn't matter?

Yes, you are right, in the sense that the process of assimilation always takes time. However the invasive European cultures have only been on Turtle Island for about half a millennium and it will take longer than that for those foreign cultures to be adjusted to fit this land. In the meantime, those who grow up in cultures that are so well suited to this land that we cannot say whether they've been here 10 millennia or 40 millennia are correct in being suspicious about the newcomer's ideas and ways. Until the totems of this land have molded the newcomer's language and world view into something more in tune with the way things need to be on these continents, those who learn European languages as they grow up are learning a world view that is detrimental to the sacred land, to the native peoples and their ways, and, well, that's sufficient to make my point.

Study the writings of those who have been attempting to develop English expressions for key concepts of the Native American world view, and you may find that you are more accepted by those who have grown up thinking in terms of being in balance with the world, living a life that is a constant walk in beauty, and so forth.

Of course to some extent this will conflict with the "American Dream" of getting ahead by successfully beating others, and winning the game by having the most toys of anybody when you die.

So make your choice about how you want to live, because you look like you are on a lake with one foot in each of two canoes. You need to go fully in one or the other, because your wishes are not going to turn those two canoes into one big enough to hold everybody. Until you recognize that and make your choice, you aren't going anywhere and frankly you look kind of silly standing in two canoes out on the great big lake...

And don't bitch when some people show you they don't much like the choice you have made (because no matter which way you go, some people won't like it). Well, okay, bitch about it if you want to. But the bitching also makes you look silly, and sort of incompetent, as if you are reaching for reality, but not quite grasping hold of it.

Re:Native?

[ThePromenader]

I think he meant simply that, in many places in the U.S., the "minorities" are actually the majority.

Re:Native?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record, MY ancestors had nothing to do with it.

Who cares?

You have, however, grown up speaking a language and immersed in a culture that has shaped your world view in such a way that you are much more likely to commit the same kind desecrations and atrocities as the white invaders did.

I'm feeling pretty confident in saying that, because your post just reeks of the kind of 'placing blame elsewhere' that is so antithetical to the native american world view that it is disgustingly abhorrent.

Re:Native?

[spun]

No, but your culture is the dominant culture, you are male, and white, and those things make a difference. We could debate how much of a difference, and certainly no one is saying that you didn't also have disadvantages of your own, especially in comparison with, say, a Rockefeller. You didn't grow up in a family with many material possessions or well placed social connections, so in some ways you have far more in common with many minorities than with the fat cats of the world.

But, hmm, as a for instance, has anyone ever crossed to the other side of the street because they were afraid to walk near you based on your race? Have you frequently been tailed by security guards in retail establishments? Did you grow up seeing most people who looked like you or came from where you come from getting into gangs, doing drugs and killing each other?

If you did, and made something more of yourself than your society actually expected of you, congratulations. You are a rare and valuable member of our species. But I sense some contempt in you, for the people who do not have what it takes to rise above what their society shows them, in graphic and immediate terms, their lot in life is expected to be. And I don't think that's an honorable stance to take. Just my opinion, and if I'm wrong about you, then I apologize for being somewhat harsh with you.

Re:Native?

[falconwolf]

Native: been here a long time.
More native: Been here a longer time than you.

Gotcha, But wouldn't after a period of time, would we be both be beyond a point where it wouldn't/shouldn't matter?

Yeah, it's beyond the point when the living have no memory of discrimination, genocide, or having your land stolen. And there are still living Native American Indians who have memories of these. As late as the 1970s Native American Indian Women were being systematically and forcibly sterilized. Even now the US, er Pres Bush, is seeking to break another treaty in a line of broken treaties, the Treaty of Ruby Valley [1863] which promised to the Western Shoshone Indians Yucca Mountain.

Falcon

Re:Native?

[falconwolf]

We aren't personally responsible for Saddam's treatment of his constituents,

"We", generically mind you, aren't personally responsible but the US has to shoulder some responsibility for Saddam. Throughout the 1980s and early '90s the Reagan and Bush Sr admins supported Saddam, even while he was using all of those WMDs. By 1989 it was confirmed he used chemical weapons not only against Iran but also against Kurds, March Arabs, and others inside Iraq. But Reagan and Bush Sr kept supporting him. Bush Sr only stopped his support once Saddam invaded Kuwait. And why did Saddam invade? Because Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq's Rumailah Oil Field.

Falcon

Re:Native?

[falconwolf]

I would say that there are interesting differences between a freed black slave, an American Indian who lost his land and the people Saddam wronged. The most important difference is that one is alive today. This is why a lot of people can relate. It is easier to relate to things that are alive then dead.

Ah, but there are American Indians alive today who are loosing their land. Ever hear of Yucca Mountain? The Treaty of Ruby Valley [1863] promised to the Western Shoshone Nation Yucca Mountain, the very same place Bush wants to make the permanent nuclear waste storage site. By siting the waste there another treaty is being broken by the US.

Falcon

Re:Native?

[falconwolf]

I don't recall China going geographically outside her borders

Neither Taiwan nor Tibet are Chinese. In 1947 Chang Ki Chek's KTM invaded Formosa AKA Taiwan. Then in 1959 Mao invaded Tibet and declared it part of China. However historically Tibet was an independent nation. Tibet only had a defense treaty with China prior to the revolution. Before Mao united mainland China there was no united China as there is today.

Falcon

Re:Native?

[falconwolf]

starting several thousand years ago, humanity started migrating out of Africa

Oh really? Monte Verde, Chile is date earlier than 12,000 BP (Before Present). Monte Verde is the furthest south you can get and still be in America yet it was founded before the Siberia Alaska land bridge existed.

Falcon

Re:Native?

[davidsyes]

"Do a little research and you'll find that Chinese goals are to become a regional hegemony in order to balance US world hegemony (if you don't believe me say so and I'll dig out an old paper and find some citations to Chinese national policy plans which state this publically)."

Is it so wrong for ANY substantively large country (particularly one invaded by NON-Asians) to hold a grudge for being invaded, polluted with drugs, and such? Is it so wrong for the Chinese, radical Koreans, anarchist Japanese, rebellious Filipinos to try to stanch or stave off Western imperialism or hegemony? I'm NOT saying "Down with the US through violence", but I damn well have NO problem with an educated population keeping its history, culture, self-direction, and flexible, non-shackled defense policies and suppliers.

Besides, many US allies have military, economic, political, and entertainment vendors from numerous sources other than the US. It's called spreading eggs around (not keeping all in one basket) and having plausible deniability to safely distance oneself from some royal US dickups (politicians as well as expeditionary actions/"direct action").

And, I KNOW China's government is no SAINT. The US, too, would have China's issues if the US population grew by 100,000 million a year over the next 10 years. It would HAVE to obtain strategic (geographically local and distant) suppliers -- especially from South America and African continents -- for resources (metals, raw goods, ores, etc...) and it would be FORCED to disperse those in the swelling population to move farther inland, necessitating the creation of new cities (spreading more genes around for future archaeologists?).

But, current cabal US mayors probably don't WANT their power and state standing diminished (don't want competition from 10 more state mayors). Just look at the not-so-long-ago merger battle of LA and some nearby cities...

But, it might do the US some good. Would force nuclear energy to the fore, maybe even more UULEV cars and MagLev trains. Sometimes I WISH gas/oil would dry up or start costing $125 to $300/bbl JUST to put a cap in the ass of regular, fuel-inefficient POVs. We're squandering away TOO much useful, held-back technology.

Besides, Calif could benefit from resurgence if efficient autos research could afford to move here. But, they'll likely keep their genetics-driven tech base in Ohio, Tennessee, Shanghai (or nearby, less-expensive cities/provinces)....

Re:Native?

[MightyYar]

I think he meant simply that, in many places in the U.S., the "minorities" are actually the majority. I think so to, but the sentence is worded such that you could take it in two ways. "It" is kind of ambiguous.

But there aren't very many places where a minority is in the majority. There are quite a few places where "white" is not greater than 50% - especially in the western US. But whites still hold most of the wealth and power in this country. I don't mean to be so negative... it's only been 1 generation since Jim Crow. My wife was born 5 years after Jim Crow. Her parents remember it quite clearly. Considering that, there has been astounding progress, but we still have quite a way to go. Even now, you have people debating whether or not Obama is "black". On the one hand, it is good because it points to there being no concrete definition of race... the whole concept is absurd. On the other hand, it is bad because it shows how preoccupied with "race" we still are.

Re:Native?

[Reziac]

My dad's family are Scot/Welsh/Irish.

My mom's family are Norwegian.

So... I should sue the Norskies for invading the British Isles and abusing my ancestors.

And I should sue the Brits for being so inhospitable to foreign sailors.

Crap, I could wind up suing myself!!

Re:Native?

[Anonymous Coward]

We aren't personally responsible for Saddam's treatment of his constituents, yet many in America feel like it is our job to make it right.

Bad example.
We *are* personally responsible for Saddam and his actions since we put him in power and aided and abetted his crimes, murders, and attempted genocide since he was friendly to US business interests.

Re:Native?

[stdarg]

You're right, there are no easy answers, and it gets even harder when you're not talking about clearly identified individuals but rather large groups of people, only some of which have been unfairly disadvantaged.

Perhaps another factor in these examples is that it's all or nothing. You either take away the person's bike, or the other person remains deprived of a bike.

I think any solution to the problem should address both points. Having a blanket policy depending on race can't do that. Instead, you can look at an individual and say, for example, "This person is clearly disadvantaged because neither of his parents are educated" (that fixes the first problem).

The second part is harder because most things in this country are already at capacity. You can't just give people free land that nobody else is using. You can't give them free seats in school without kicking someone else out. I don't know the solution for that part. But even if existing remedies are kept (lower requirements, special scholarships, whatever) then at least by solving the first part the policy is more fair.

Re:Native?

[stdarg]

If the truth is too much for children to handle, then don't give it to them. Well that's exactly what I'm saying. The truth is too much for them to handle, so we make stuff up. The overall direction of the fiction is correct: we came in ships, had trouble adapting, got some help, eventually started thriving, expanded, and grew into the whole country. What's missing is the gory details.

Comparing the tooth fairy to murder, rape, and occupation is a stretch, and you know it. Okay, that's fair. There are other appropriate comparisons, though. Do you think children should not be taught religion unless 1/2 of the study is devoted to murder, rape, war, persecution, etc carried out in the name of religion? Do you think it's just awful to tell children "Christianity is peaceful religion! Islam is another peaceful religion!" without amending that with the "truth" about them?

Not to mention that you seemed to miss (or willfully ignored) that my post was addressing a grown adult who was oh so offended by having to deal with having to hear about "native american heritage". What a sad state it is when people become angry if someone has the gall to point out that their nation's history wasn't all hugs and kisses. I didn't ignore it, that's why I made the comment about college classes. If all you were saying is that adults should know the truth, then I agree and I have to point out -- every adult I've ever talked to does know the truth, so what are you arguing about? People learn all that stuff in high school. Why do they need to be reminded it of it every year with a special week or month covering it? How about we use that time to teach important things like math and science?

Re:Native?

[ccmay]

The first inhabitants of North America were white, like Kennewick Man. Then Asian interlopers came over and killed them all off, settling here and forming the various Indian tribes. We Europeans are just taking back what's ours. Let the Indians go back where they came from in Siberia if they don't like it.

-ccm

Re:Native?

[spun]

Can't tell if you are trolling, making a joke, or serious-but-deluded. Kennewick Man wasn't white. He was most similar to the Ainu.

Re:Native?

[ccmay]

This is, of course, before we even get mired in the way the US has handled its slavery and segregation issues.

We handled it excellently, in my opinion. Better than any civilization that came before us.

Slavery was part of the general human condition from the dawn of time. Who finally put a stop to it, at least amongst civilized people, once and for all? White Europeans and their descendants in America, that's who. The Union Army and the Royal Navy did more to abolish slavery than any other institutions in human history. One of my own ancestors ran a station on the Underground Railroad, and another was an officer in the Union Army and shed his blood to set the slaves free. Nobody in my family ever owned a slave.

Black people should be gratefully thanking us white folks, instead of bitching about their raw deal and adopting Muslim names. The Arabs were enslaving black Africans a thousand years before Americans, and they're still doing it today.

I don't accept any guilt for what people who looked like me but were not related to me did hundreds of years ago. Period. I won't apologize, or pay any reparations, or accept anything less than fully color-blind treatment before the law, with no set-asides, quotas, preferences, or affirmative action. Period. Not now, not ever. Any minority who doesn't like it can go fuck himself. I do not care. I don't owe him jack-fucking-shit.

-ccm

Re:Native?

[ccmay]

Totally serious. You ever met a real Ainu? I have. Reddish brown hair, hazel eyes, olive skin, very heavy beard. Definitely not of East Asian or American Indian appearance, not even close. Could have been an Armenian, or Black Irish, or southern Italian.

If we're going to grant government handouts based on whose people were here first, the Indians lose. There are just too many archaeological discoveries that show they are relative latecomers who exterminated the indigenous Caucasoid population.

Far better that we all treat each other based on who we are, rather than who our ancestors were, with totally color-blind government policies. Race is meaningless to citizenship. I wish they wouldn't even collect the statistics.

-ccm

Re:Native?

[Captain Splendid]

Thanks for the killer sig.

Re:Native?

[spun]

They might not be East Asian in appearance, but that's where the Ainu are from. While they may look Caucasian, genetic testing shows they have absolutely no Caucasian ancestry. There are no mainstream archaeological discoveries that show that there were any Caucasians here prior to people migrating here over the land bridge. Indians, or rather their Asian ancestors, were here first. I challenge you to show me even one legitimate peer reviewed article claiming otherwise. And as I said, Kennewick Man was Ainu, and Ainu are East Asian. This study of genetics only proves what every mainstream archaeologist without weird racial motivations has been saying for the last twenty years.

If people were blind to race, then government could be. Racism is still a huge problem here in America.

Re:Native?

[elakazal]

We handled it excellently? What, by being the second to last country in the Americas and Europe to outlaw it? (Third if you want to count the Ottoman Empire...). If you beat your kid for years, do we say you "handled it excellently" when you finally stop?

  The Japanese banned slavering in the 1500's, long before most of Europe. Cyrus the Great of Persia banned it in the Persian Empire (which constituted much of the "civilized people" at the time). Abolition was hardly invented by white Europeans. And much like you shouldn't be saddled with the blame for slavery, you really don't get any credit for your ancestors' roles (if any) in ending slavery, so don't go looking for thanks.

Apparently although "slavery was part of the general human condition from the dawn of time", you have researched the slave owning habits of your ancestors back to the dawn of time and realized that not one person ever owned a slave. That's mighty impressive work. Let me be the first to compliment you on your genealogical research skills.

Article abstract

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"We examined genetic diversity and population structure in the American landmass using 678 autosomal microsatellite markers genotyped in 422 individuals representing 24 Native American populations sampled from North, Central, and South America. These data were analyzed jointly with similar data available in 54 other indigenous populations worldwide, including an additional five Native American groups. The Native American populations have lower genetic diversity and greater differentiation than populations from other continental regions. We observe gradients both of decreasing genetic diversity as a function of geographic distance from the Bering Strait and of decreasing genetic similarity to Siberians--signals of the southward dispersal of human populations from the northwestern tip of the Americas. We also observe evidence of: (1) a higher level of diversity and lower level of population structure in western South America compared to eastern South America, (2) a relative lack of differentiation between Mesoamerican and Andean populations, (3) a scenario in which coastal routes were easier for migrating peoples to traverse in comparison with inland routes, and (4) a partial agreement on a local scale between genetic similarity and the linguistic classification of populations. These findings offer new insights into the process of population dispersal and differentiation during the peopling of the Americas."

If only...

[Anonymous Coward]

If only they had listened to Al Gore and stopped driving those nasty SUVs, the seas wouldn't have risen and the land bridge would still be here today.

Re:If only...

[rubycodez]

the oceans have been rising since the last ice age, Al Gore forgets that part

Re:If only...

[vux984]

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."

Re:If only...

[rubycodez]

you wrote alot of stuff starting with "no", but you completely ignored the absolute truth of my statement that the oceans have been rising since the last ice age. With or without the minute contribution to the ocean levels by climate change, the peoples who are relocating because their lands were within inches of sea level would have to do so in future decades anyway, because sea levels will continue to rise with or without man's contribution.

Re:If only...

[vux984]

you completely ignored the absolute truth of my statement that the oceans have been rising since the last ice age.

Probably because the absolute truth about that absolute truth is that it is irrelevant.

With or without the minute contribution to the ocean levels by climate change, the peoples who are relocating because their lands were within inches of sea level would have to do so in future decades anyway, because sea levels will continue to rise with or without man's contribution.

Again, No. The oceans have been rising since the last ice age because the polar ice is melting and the glaciers have been retreating since then. But THIS much ice doesn't usually melt; and the ocean's don't usually rise this much.

In other words, the people who have to move right now due to rising oceans would be just fine, if this was -any- other inter-ice-age period in recorded history.

So, no, they shouldn't 'have to move in future decades anyway'. The ice that is melting NOW, didn't melt after the Ice Age before it, nor the ice age before that, nor even the ice age before that, and on down the line.

This ice doesn't normally melt between Ice Ages! Get it?! But its melting NOW!

Not ALL the ice on the planet melts between Ice Ages. The glaciers retreat, but they only retreat so far. You knew that didn't you? Well THIS time the Ice that doesn't get melted between Ice Ages is melting.

And as a result the oceans are rising MORE *IN TOTAL* than they normally rise between ice ages.

Re:If only...

[sumdumass]

He doesn't forget it, you just can't make money off the carbon trade if people think it is natural. It all has to be your fault, and there has to be something that can be done about it.

Re:If only...

[E 99]

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. ...
The issue here is that the evidence shows that we're FAR FAR beyond where we usually peak between Ice Ages.

That is totally wrong. Even the IPCC report correctly state that the peak temperature during the last interglacial was significantly higher than present temperatures. (It blames a difference in orbital factors, which is unfounded.) There is nothing climatic that is outside the normas at all, certainly not temperature. The only thing that is outside the norms is CO2 concentration.

Re:If only...

[rubycodez]

the first half of the 20th century had the greatest rate of ocean level rise, that fact doesn't help your religious arguments

Re:If only...

[rubycodez]

This ice doesn't normally melt between Ice Ages! Get it?! Actually, the way you are using the term, the recent ebb and flow of glaciers in the last few hundred thousand years are all part of a single true ice age (we're in one now because of landed ice existing). Over the larger timescale of true ice ages there are periods of time when *no* landed ice exists. Therefore your statement is absurd and unscientific, the ice DOES all melt between true ice ages.

Re:If only...

[vux984]

Even the IPCC report correctly state that the peak temperature during the last interglacial was significantly higher than present temperatures. (It blames a difference in orbital factors, which is unfounded.) There is nothing climatic that is outside the normas at all, certainly not temperature. The only thing that is outside the norms is CO2 concentration.

Yeah, I misspoke. I started out by simply saying 'norms' which is what I meant, but yeah, I followed up by talking about 'warmer', and then followed that up by talking about how we were way beyond the peak. Chalk it up to bad re-editing, so that the statement about far far beyond the peak followed the statement about warmer, instead of the statement about norms.

Thanks for correcting that. I didn't mean to say the world was warmer now that it had ever been.

Re:If only...

[Evil Pete]

What on earth have you been smoking? Look here. Sea level has been pretty static for a long time. Now it is on the way up again. Just to put current rises in perspective, the steepest part of the rise in that graph comes out to about 15 mm per year. Whereas recent sea level rises show an increase of about 20 mm per year.

Re:If only...

[lgw]

We are not in a warming period between ice ages. We are in a warm period within an age ice. Ice ages last a long time, and consists of long periods of glaciation punctuated by brief warm periods, like the one we're in now. The current ice age started in the Pleistocene epoch, and includes the entire Holocene thus far.

Current global temperatures and CO2 levels are abnormal within the current ice age, but not at all extreme in Earth's history. CO2 levels in the Silurian period were 6-10 times as high as they are now, and temperatures were a bit warmer, but not extreme.

The mechanisms which regulate global CO2 levels are simply not well understood, except perhaps for the largest, longest cycle. In this cycle, CO2 levels are governed by rock weathering, trapping carbon in the lithosphere to be released eventually through gelological activity (mostly volcanic). The carbon in the lithosphere (including calcium carbonate marine sediments, not including fossil fuel deposits) accounts for over 99.5% of the Earth's carbon store. That's a long cycle, however, hundreds of millions of years.

Re:If only...

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell is wrong with you? "Religious arguments"? I don't know (or care) which of you two is right, but accusing your opponent of basing his argument on religious dogma (when there's no sign that is the case whatsoever) is just really weak and childish.

Re:If only...

[Crispin Cowan]

The issue here is that the evidence shows that we're FAR FAR beyond where we usually peak between Ice Ages.

Please either justify or qualify this claim. Are there not archaeological finds that document palm trees in Alaska, grasslands and wildlife under what is now Siberian permafrost, etc.? This seems to suggest that our warm peaks have in fact been much warmer than we are now.

In fact, this historic temperature plot shows that our current temperature, while on the high end, is actually well below the temperature peaks reached 130K years ago, 250K years ago, and 340K years ago.

So while there is clearly cause for concern, I submit that your emphatic assertions that we are in unexplored territory and the GP is mad for questioning this are sheer bunk.

Crispin

Re:If only...

[Kymermosst]

Well, that and this whole 100,000 year large ice age thing might have really started when the isthmus of Panama formed and prevented the ocean from getting even warmer at the equator than it does now. This extra warmth would have propagated away and moderated global temperatures. Since that warmth cannot accumulate, the cyclical changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun would cause lower dips in temperature allowing ice accumulations during the colder periods.

During the cretaceous, the Earth was likely 10 C warmer on average than it is now, with ocean surface temperatures up to 20 C higher, and there is no evidence that polar ice caps existed during the Cretaceous (note: this is not the same as saying that they didn't exist).

12000 years ago?

[gentimjs]

Twelve thousand years ago? Pshaw, that's twice as old as the earth itself is! ... right ? ....

Re:12000 years ago?

[geekoid]

Only to certain misguided evangelicals.
Most interpretations disagree. St. Augustine being the most notable.

The real question is "Can God kill himself?" ;)

Re:12000 years ago?

[pwnies]

Well theoretically, under trinitarian doctrine Jesus IS God, and God sent Jesus down to die. Therefore God did kill Himself.

Re:12000 years ago?

[pete.com]

I think the story goes.... God sent Jesus, and the Jewish elders had him killed by the Romans.

Re:12000 years ago?

[Some_Llama]

"Well theoretically, under trinitarian doctrine Jesus IS God, and God sent Jesus down to die. Therefore God did kill Himself."

Actually since all three of the "trinity" are spirit in nature, wouldn't it just be the body that was sacrificed? "fear him who can kill body AND spirit?"

Not to mention that he sent him down to be a sacrifice.

Re:12000 years ago?

[meringuoid]

Actually since all three of the "trinity" are spirit in nature, wouldn't it just be the body that was sacrificed? "fear him who can kill body AND spirit?"

Yeah. Less like being killed, more like having your car torched. It's a nuisance, but you can get another one, and with good insurance you can have a courtesy car ready in as little as 36 hours...

Ummm... Yes.

[GradiusCVK]

In short, yes... this has been pretty widely known for a long time. That's not their point. Their point is that all the people who over to North America came from a single, highly localized area in East Asia... not from all over the place in Asia and elsewhere.

Re:Ummm... Yes.

[KudyardRipling]

The Walam Olum may not be a hoax after all.

Food

[Anonymous Coward]

This marks the first time someone in Asia said "hey, anybody up for American?"

Journey of Man

[Toe, The]

If you haven't seen it yet, watch (or read, I suppose) "Journey of Man."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Journey_of_Man:_A_Genetic_Odyssey
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html

It provides a great grounding in the science and methodology, and the documentary is narrated by the scientist who did much of the research (a rare treat).

Re:Journey of Man

[CodeMunch]

Thanks for the link, I'll check that out. From that page, it states: " he explains how he traced the exodus of modern humans from Africa by analyzing genetic changes in DNA from the y-chromosome". I recentely read Seven Daughters Of Eve by Bryan Sykes which recounts a similar tale (Euro centric though) based on the mitochondrial DNA which we inherit from our Mothers (X chromosome).

The author (and the scientist) also touches on the imigration of Native Americans from Asia.

Interesting

[Bombula]

This is interesting stuff, although from the article the issue doesn't seem to be closed completely. But even if it was a single migration event, that doesn't mean there wasn't subsequent trading contact - we know that happened on the East coast of North America long before Columbus, and it would be fascinating to see a full account of the West coast evidence. That's something I've heard rumors about but have never actually seen.

GP Moderated Insightful?

[GradiusCVK]

Are you guys serious? Seriously, who DIDN'T already know this? This is a troll... like asking "so Linux is some kind of operating system?" in an article about the new scheduler. Well, maybe it's worth some "Funny" moderation...

Re:GP Moderated Insightful?

[Major Blud]

Yeah, funny is what I was aiming for.

Re:GP Moderated Insightful?

[mschuyler]

Actually, that's not the case. Recent studies have suggested the single-source theory was wrong and that a significant migration came from Portugal by mariners following a sea route by hugging the coast of Europe, then Greenland, over to Canada, and down the east Coast. THIS study proves them wrong.

Re:GP Moderated Insightful?

[fsmunoz]

When you say "significant migration" from Portugal, what time-frame are you refering to? Pre-historic movement? Because what you describe looks like the Portuguese-Danish joint venture in the XV century, which can hardly be qualidied has a migration, so that's not what you are refering to...

The only knowledge I have of a non-Mongoloid migration to the Americas is the hypothesis raised by ancient Europoid skulls that arguably were there before the NA. Not sure if the origin is Iberia though.

Re:GP Moderated Insightful?

[tehdaemon]

I believe you are referring to this. And no, this gene study does not prove it wrong. RTFA, and you will see that there were no gene samples from the eastern seaboard, where the Solutreans would have landed, and only one group from eastern north america - in canada no less. In other words, if there is Solutrean DNA in native americans, this study would almost certainly have missed it. That the bulk of native americans came from Siberia is common to both theories/studies.

T

Insightful? Bah!

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Maybe 12,000 years ago that was true, but not today. Otherwise you might as well say humans aren't native to anywhere but Africa, or that land creatures aren't native to anywhere but the sea.

People can't really help where they're born.

Mexicans

[ThatsNotFunny]

So does this mean that I really have Chinese people working on my lawn, not Mexicans?

Hmmm... we might want to reconsider building that wall along the Mexican boarder. Didn't seem to work too well on the Mongolians.

Re:Mexicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you mean: Didn't seem to work too well on the Mongorians .

Re:Mexicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Mah shitty waaw!

It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[shoor]

I've seen documentaries on TV about this stuff. Unfortunately, I
can't cite sources only do this from memory. (Maybe somebody else
can provide links/references.)

But, as I recall, there is evidence that there was a signicantly
different ethnic group (race?) of people here who were possibly
wiped out by the invading ancestors of present day Native Americans.
There was a fossil human found in the Pacific Northwest, whose
face was reconstructed and found to resemble Patrick Stewart.
There's been a lot of controversy as it's a very sensitive subject
for some modern day Native Americans.

If an earlier group of people were wiped out, the only genetic
signatures you'd find for them would be in fossils, right?

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[eli pabst]

I think much of that is based on carbon dating of prehistoric settlements found in various parts of North America. Some of the carbon dates appear to predate the estimated earliest migrations across the Bering strait land bridge. AFAIK, there is significant controversy as to whether the dates are correct.

If an earlier group of people were wiped out, the only genetic signatures you'd find for them would be in fossils, right?

If they exterminated the entire population, then yes. However, you often see examples where only the males were killed and the women were "appropriated". In that case you'd expect to see sudden introduction of new variants into those populations.

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[Anonymous Coward]

>There was a fossil human found in the Pacific Northwest, whose
>face was reconstructed and found to resemble Patrick Stewart.

Well, duh.

In our timeline, Wesly created a rip in the fabric of time when setting up his science fair project... and, yada, yada, yada ... Picard crashed the Enterprise on stone-age Earth.

This post would have been better if it weren't for the writer's strike.

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[Anonymous Coward]

Was this supposed to be a poem?

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[northnomad]

I believe your talking about this gentleman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[thexdane]

actually that is correct, there is evidence of other groups coming over here before the bering strait migration. they do come from what would become southern france. i'm sorry but i forget the name of the discovery channel show called stone age columbus

the jist of the show is they followed the ice cap to north america, much in the same way the inuit do today when hunting in the arctic. they landed on the east coast and lived there and migrated around a bit.

the cool part about the show was they showed an inuit lady a bone needle and said "this is 30 000 years old" and she looked at them and picked one off the table and said "i made this yesterday". the cool part was they looked identical

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[shoor]

No. Why do you ask?

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[thisissilly]

Also, there is evidence of early contact with Polynesia (pre-Columbus), thanks to (of all things) chicken DNA.

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[alan_dershowitz]

You are talking about the Kennewick Man, which is believed to be of an ethnic group that modern Native Americans descended from over the past several thousand years. The controversy was regarding its alleged caucasoid features combined with its dating before the Bering migration. IIRC the forensic artist reconstructing the face was watching an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, noticed some resemblance in bone structure to Capt. Picard, and more or less made the model look like that.

It has the amazing ability to make anyone associated with it act like an asshole, as represented by white supremacist groups claiming that white people colonized the continent before the Native Americans; and Native American groups attempting to prevent research on the skull by asserting tribal affiliation despite the fact that it doesn't look like any modern Indian, and could not possibly be a former member of any existing tribe. They object to research possibly in part in fright of an invalidation of their origination claim to the continent, but also because of a general (and somewhat justified, based on Native American history) distrust of the impartiality of white man science. I am going to go out on a trollish limb here, but their passed-down "history" is unfalsifiable mythological fiction, and just because science has screwed over Indians doesn't mean they have the right to have their fake history uncritically accepted by the scientific community when it comes to Native American origins. they don't know where the skull came from, but at least scientists have the tools to find out, unlike someone just waving their hands and saying "discussion over, it's a Blackfoot and we were still here first" (or whatever.) By all accounts it was NOT a white man, but it wasn't a modern Indian either, it seems.

If I am wrong about any of this, please correct me. But I highly recommend reading the book "Skull Wars" regarding this skull and the historical reasons for Native American distrust of scientific method with regards to Native American anthropology and history. It will likely make you angry, but you will understand more the Native American position on this even if you don't entirely agree with it. This is the position I am in now.

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[max99ted]

Perhaps you're referring to the Dorset peoples? They were supposedly establised before the ancestors of the Inuit (eskimo) arrived, the Thule.

Wiki says that the Thule referred to the Dorset as 'giants' although technically inferior to the Thule (they had no dogsleds, for example). The Thule had completely replaced the Dorset by the 15th century. It also goes on to say there were other pre-Dorset cultures but there is little information available.

IANAGNA (I am not a geneticist nor anthropologist)

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a fossil human found in the Pacific Northwest, whose
face was reconstructed and found to resemble Patrick Stewart.

Looks like someone miscalculated and went back a little further than 2063.

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[Lord Ender]

You have random, unnatural linebreaks. Such a writing style only makes sense for poetry or when trying to fit your text on a 1980's green-screen terminal.

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[HungWeiLo]

If you look at people from Central Asia (Persia, Kazakhstan, etc.), they resembled Europeans much more than East Asians. I'm sure some of the migration from Asia stemmed from Central Asia.

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[Hucko]

It has the amazing ability to make anyone associated with it act like an asshole, as represented by white supremacist groups claiming that white people colonized the continent before the Native Americans;

Then, wouldn't be safe to say that the original whites weren't so supreme?

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[Anonymous Coward]

The Kennewick Man and the sight were not studied long enough to get a good idea what was what with it. The Army Corps of Engineers (on their own I believe) decided to seal the sight by dumping tons of boulders on it destroying much of the physical evidence.

I for one say open it up to modern science that is peer reviewed and published for all to see. Let multiple groups of researchers have their look at everything. If there are disagreements then let them be published and debated openly in scientific journals and in public forums.

The scientific method is not white, red, black, yellow, green, blue, purple, or pink with purple dots. Science done in the open for peer (and public) review is the best hope any group has at figuring out what's what. Period!

Also, there is good evidence that on the East Coast Europeans came over via an "ice bridge" PRIOR to the Asian migration in the West. Today there are genetic markers that east coast Native Americans share with Europeans after the two groups mixed.

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[Crispin Cowan]

You seem to be referring to Kennewick Man. It is his genetics, rather than his supposed resemblance to Patrick Stewart :-) that shows that he is unrelated to contemporary Native Americans

. Crispin

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. There is also speculation that the Aboriginals are not the first people in Australia.

-j

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC the forensic artist reconstructing the face was watching an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, noticed some resemblance in bone structure to Capt. Picard, and more or less made the model look like that.

That will be all explained in next sequel, including the wormhole, time travel and unfortunate fate of poor Captain Picard.

Joke aside, Patrick Stewart has not a typical "Caucasian" face. In fact, Capt. Picard in Star Trek very much resembled some faces of Native Americans which early European explorers drew. Perhaps he is a Native Canadian^W Quebec-ian naturalized into a ... Quebec French?

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[falconwolf]

If you look at people from Central Asia (Persia, Kazakhstan, etc.), they resembled Europeans much more than East Asians. I'm sure some of the migration from Asia stemmed from Central Asia.

Some Europeans did migrate from Central Asia or India. One such group was the Aryans who had migrated from India.

Falcon

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[jc42]

[T]here is evidence of early contact with Polynesia (pre-Columbus), thanks to (of all things) chicken DNA.

Yes, but that's not the first evidence of such contact. Many decades ago, botanists pointed out that the sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas] plants that were growing all over Polynesia and southeast Asia actually evolved in South America. It seemed unlikely that the plant could have migrated out into the Pacific on its own; transport by humans was the most reasonable conclusion. Also, the archaeological evidence for the plant seems older in the central Pacific than in areas farther west.

Of course, it's always good to have multiple independent kinds of evidence for such claims. This is especially true in the tropics, where biological remains often aren't preserved too well. Further DNA studies of domestic animals and plants will probably add more support to this idea over the next several decades.

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[shoor]

Ah, I see. Well, I did use old fashioned manual typewriters for many years, and then I used the old 1980s green-screen terminals (actually, they were 1970s hazeltines mostly), and I guess old habits die hard. I'm not doing my own line brakes for this post and it feels extremely weird.

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[Lord Ender]

That's totally understandable. So, on behalf of the rest of the Internet, I welcome you to the 1990s! May your enter key relax and your column width be variable.

Oblig. Simpsons

[brunes69]

Lisa: "You know, in a way, all Americans are immigrants. Except, of course Native Americans."
Homer: "Yeah, Native Americans like us".
Lisa: "No, I mean American Indians."
Apu: "Like me!"

Re:Oblig. Simpsons

[HungWeiLo]

There's a large concentration of Indians (people from India) in the Redmond area (because of high-tech). It's always amusing to go to the mall when the native tribal council puts on a cultural display (music, arts, etc.) and watch the ensuing confusion from the passersby.

Sailing across the Pacific

[stupidfoo]

Does this kill the idea that some South Americans got here by sailing across the Pacific?

Re:Sailing across the Pacific

[mothlos]

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.

Re:Sailing across the Pacific

[falconwolf]

Does this kill the idea that some South Americans got here by sailing across the Pacific?

I don't think so. Neither TFAs say anything about Monte Verde, Chile which existed more than 1000 years before the Siberia Alaska land bridge existed. And Monte Verde is the furthest south you can get and still be in the Americas.

Falcon

Re:Sailing across the Pacific

[Anonymous Coward]

more likely sailing down the coasts...there was an exhibit some years ago @ natural hist. in d.c. on the coastal/valley cultures of pre-columbian peru; each valley was a separate fiefdom that warred with its neighbors...what struck me was the amazing similarity of the battle helmets to japanese samuri helmets...

Picard

[brunes69]

So what you are saying is that Captain Picard time traveled back to the 15th century only to be killed by his great-great-great-great grandfather, thus completing the paradox?

Re:Picard

[Tetsujin]

So what you are saying is that Captain Picard time traveled back to the 15th century only to be killed by his great-great-great-great grandfather, thus completing the paradox? Wow... Seven generations in 900 years? Those Picards are seriously long-lived... I'm trying to imagine how a 120 year old Picard could get any pre-menopausal woman to have his baby...

Re:Picard

[Azar]

Phasers on stun I'd imagine.

Re:Picard

[greyphi]

Nah, he was killed when his shakespearian monologues droned on too long.

will all the genuine 'purebreds' raise your mouse

[Anonymous Coward]

& repeat after us: most of us don't know the full contents of our gene pool, although we frequently claim to.

no surprise there, as most of US are being constantly being mis-re-trained/held hostage by scriptdead mindphuking corepirate nazi hypenosys.

alternativelt, the creators' newclear powered planet/population rescue initiative is as free & open as any format can be. it recognizes no difference between race/culture/heritage. it requires no gadgets, or payper liesense hostage taking scams. that puts it ahead of the curve from the getgo. plus, you'll be able to live with the results, & everybody else, in peace & harmony, caring for/about one another. sounds like a dream? no, it's just time to get real.

meanwhile if you're not too busy, take a chance & look up at the sky from time to time. also, take the extra effort to look into the eyes of people as you pass by them during the day. you can pretend that everything's in order, but you'll miss the actual content of your effort. the lights are coming up all over now. pay attention. it's cost effective, & could lead to yOUR participation in the better days ahead. try considering whois the 'main competitor' of all that is wrong/fatal.

never mind attempting to second guess/deny the creators, consider more the blood, guts & dead people, as well as innocent children being starved/blown to pieces. takes some of the excitement of the techno babble out of it. yOUR 'mainstream' media has failed us whoreabully (futile attempts at mass hypenosys) in this aspect.

don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, so you'll be alert when witnessing the big flash.

there's lots to be done. the planet/population remains in crisis mode.

we're intending (do not underestimate intentions) for the philistine nazi execrable to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying [google.com] [google.com] [google.com] [google.com]

micro management of populations/anything has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster/death.

the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption.

fortunately there's an 'army' of 'angels'(light bringers, for those who are afraid of/confused by heavenly stuff), coming yOUR way

do not be dismayed, it is the way it was meant to be.

the little ones/innocents must/will be protected.

after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit?

for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way), there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available after the big flash occurs.

beware the illusionary smoke&mirrors.con

all is not lost or forgotten.

no need to fret (unless you're associated/joined at the hype with, unprecedented evile), it's all just a part of the creators' wwwildly popular, newclear powered, planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

or, it could be (literally) ground hog (as in dead meat) day, again? many of US are obviously not interested in how we appear (which is whoreabull) from the other side of the 'lens', or even from across the oceans.

vote with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable.

we still haven't read (here) about the 2/3'rds of you kids who are investigating/pursuing a spiritual/conscience/concious re-awakening, in among

Land bridge vs ?

[CodeShark]

Very interesting articles, and no, in advance I am not a geneticist.

What I find interesting about this article isn't in the science -- it's in the data as reported. So they gathered Native American folks together and performed some very advanced genetic analysis -- which in essence leads to the conclusion that "all folks in the group have certain genetic markers", and the closer you get to the so called "Bering land bridge" (heck, coulda been ice and canoes too....), the more genetically alike the people are. Okay, I'll buy that. Considering that the Inuit peoples, etc. are even now visually related to the folks from the step areas of northern China and Siberia than say, the native folks from Columbia. Who are more related to each other and the folks just north than say, I am [my ancestry is such that I'm one of those blue eyed migrant mutt imports from northern European countries who emigrated to what is now the US in the 17th and 18th centuries ]. What I don't see is evidence that says "all ancient peoples from all cultures including dead ones" (Mayan, etc.) share this same gene pool and no one else. Or that the folks from the Steppes of east Asia aren't themselves migrants at the same time and from the same gene pool as folks that arrived in the Americas at some distant point in the past.

My point is, the science seems interesting...but the explanation of the data is not exclusive nor conclusive regarding other possible genetically analyzable possibilities. So the jury will still be out until at some point in the future, until all of the other plausible possibilities have been ruled out.

Re:Land bridge vs ?

[non]

all modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens, as they're known) can be traced back to a single maternal ancestor via mitochondrial RNA. is that what you meant? do some research on 'Lucy'.

Re:Land bridge vs ?

[CodeShark]

No, not that. Just more breadth in the science that says "we believe this hypothesis is correct because it is exclusive for testable reasons x,y, and z".

An "testable" reason, for example might be a "working with DNA from Mayan mummy #abc (IIRC the Mayans are considered a lost civilization, right?) that has been dated to X hundred years b.c. was found to have the same markers as related to the steppe people from Siberia etc." combined with "these markers are unique because...." where the "because" is fairly exclusive in terms of the genetics involved, that is, something along the lines of "the Steppe peoples and their mummies (pun intended) all have Gene xyz variants, and almost no or no other peoples and their mummies have that unique genetic signature"

Re:Land bridge vs ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey man, stop poking holes in the soft sciences. You get no point for pointing out water is wet.

Re:Land bridge vs ?

[triffid_98]

Such as the blue eyed migrant mutt imports from Norway who arrived in 1000AD?

I am [my ancestry is such that I'm one of those blue eyed migrant mutt imports from northern European countries who emigrated to what is now the US in the 17th and 18th centuries ].

Re:Land bridge vs ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all wrong. What geneticists found was that when you draw your family tree, with 2 parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, etc, then at some point in your strictly maternal lineage the same woman appears in everyone's tree, provided you go sufficiently far back. In other words, that "single maternal acestor" is in truth one out of about 1 billion ancestors you have in that huge tree.

Re:Land bridge vs ?

[Saija]

are even now visually related to the folks from the step areas of northern China and Siberia than say, the native folks from Columbia
Hey buddie its Colombia, not Columbia... thanks ;)

Re:Land bridge vs ?

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC the Mayans are considered a lost civilization, right?

There are millions of Mayans still alive today.

Re:Land bridge vs ?

[falconwolf]

all modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens, as they're known) can be traced back to a single maternal ancestor via mitochondrial RNA. is that what you meant? do some research on 'Lucy'.

There is no proof of "Eve" out of Africa, even Mt RNA, just as there is no proof of the Multiregional hypothesis. Here's a paper on GENETICS AND RECENT HUMAN EVOLUTION discussing some flaws in studies suporting the Out of Africa hypothesis.

Falcon

Re:Land bridge vs ?

[non]

thanks for the link

Hey you kids, get off my lawn !

[UberHoser]

And so it started.....

So why did they name the study after Rodenberry

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they use a tricorder analysis or something? Why call it a Gene study and name it after the Star Trek creator? Perhaps it was a tractor beam and not a land bridge? Or where people transported across by Scotty?

GRRRRRR, liberalism

[Anonymous Coward]

What is sad is that so many people will except this "12,000 years ago" crap without bating an eye. It is a sure sign of how bad public education has gotten in this country, kids don't learn anything that isn't evolutionistic or other lib propaganda in nature, it's even worse to see crap like this on /.

Re:GRRRRRR, liberalism

[geminidomino]

Weaksauce troll. 1/10.

Even the christians on slashdot are generally too intelligent to buy into that young-earth crap. Try digg.

Re:GRRRRRR, liberalism

[Sesticulus]

Perhaps you're right, the public education is bad, you can't even use the word except correctly. Did you intend to use accept?

Re:GRRRRRR, liberalism

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't seem to write a grammatically correct sentence. You try to get all "high and mighty" with your moronic, run-on sentence (three in one, no less!). "Hello pot. This is the kettle. You're black!"

Re:GRRRRRR, liberalism

[Anonymous Coward]

The campaign against run-on sentences seems to be almost an entirely modern thing. Perhaps the TV induced decline of attention spans is spreading even to Prose?

Try reading a book written one or two hundred - or even fifty - years ago, and you'll see how short and concise even the worst so called "run on sentence" is in comparison.

Using entirely the wrong word is a far worse sign of a lack of grammar than adhering to a certain specific and relatively modern style guideline.

Land bridge vs Land shark

[spun]

In a knock down drag out no holds barred fight to the finish. Did we mention that the land shark has a fricken laser? We'll sell you the whole seat, but you'll only need the edge, edge edge!

Sorry, I've been stuck in the server room for two hours watching the HVAC guys and the fan noise has obviously driven me insane.

Amerigo Vespucci

[Anonymous Coward]

Cartographer, largely regarded as the source of the name "America" from his maps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Vespucci

wtfbbq!!11!!

[Anonymous Coward]

12 thousand years ago? Inconseavable. Not possible. How did they survive the flood? The earth isnt even that old!

What about those French Native Americans?

[sckeener]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/columbus.shtml

So I guess this study conflicts with the OP....

Stone Age Columbus - programme summary

Who were the first people in North America? From where did they come? How did they arrive? The prehistory of the Americas has been widely studied. Over 70 years a consensus became so established that dissenters felt uneasy challenging it. Yet in 2001, genetics, anthropology and a few shards of flint combined to overturn the accepted facts and to push back one of the greatest technological changes that the Americas have ever seen by over five millennia.

The accepted version of the first Americans starts with a flint spearhead unearthed at Clovis, New Mexico, in 1933. Dated by the mammoth skeleton it lay beside to 11,500 years ago (11.5kya), it was distinctive because it had two faces, where flakes had been knapped away from a core flint. The find sparked a wave of similar reports, all dating from around the same period. There seemed to be nothing human before Clovis. Whoever those incomers were around 9,500BC, they appeared to have had a clean start. And the Clovis point was their icon - across 48 states.

An icon that was supremely effective: the introduction of the innovative spearpoint coincided with a mass extinction of the continent's megafauna. Not only the mammoth, but the giant armadillo, giant sloth and great black bear all disappeared soon after the Clovis point - and the hunters who used it - arrived on the scene.

But from where? With temperatures much colder than today and substantial polar ice sheets, sea levels were much lower. Asia and America were connected by a land bridge where now there's the open water of the Bering Strait. The traditional view of American prehistory was that Clovis people travelled by land from Asia.

This version was so accepted that few archaeologists even bothered to look for artefacts from periods before 10,000BC. But when Jim Adavasio continued to dig below the Clovis layer at his dig near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, he found blades and blade cores dating back to 16,000BC. His findings were dismissed as erroneous; too astonishing to be credible. The Clovis consensus had too many reputations behind it to evaporate easily. Some archaeologists who backed Adavasio's conclusions with other similar data were accused of making radiocarbon dating errors or even of planting finds.

Decisive evidence would have to come from an independent arena. Douglas Wallace studies mitochondrial DNA, part of the human chromosomes that is passed unchanged from mother to daughter. It only varies when mistakes occur in the replication of the genetic code. Conveniently for Wallace's work (piecing together a global history of migration of native peoples) these mistakes crop up at a quite regular rate. The technique has allowed Wallace to map the geographical ancestry of all the Native American peoples back to Siberia and northeast Asia.

The route of the Clovis hypothesis was right. The date, however, was wrong - out by up to 20,000 years. Wallace's migration history showed waves of incomers. The Clovis people were clearly not the first humans to set foot across North America.

Dennis Stanford went back to first principles to investigate Clovis afresh, looking at tools from the period along the route Clovis was assumed to have taken from Siberia via the Bering Strait to Alaska. The large bifaced Clovis point was not in the archaeological record. Instead the tools used microblades, numerous small flint flakes lined up along the spear shaft to make its head.

Wallace's DNA work suggested migration from Asia to America but the Clovis trail contradicted it. Bruce Bradley stepped in to help solve this dichotomy, bringing with him one particular skill: flintknapping and the ability to read flint tools for their most intimate secrets.

He spotted the similarity in production method between the Clovis point and tools m

Re:What about those French Native Americans?

[sherriw]

Very interesting comment. Thanks for posting that! Wish I had mod points.

Re:What about those French Native Americans?

[pln2bz]

I have to agree, based upon my own reading, that the idea that man did not reach the Americas prior to 12,000 years ago is little more than orthodoxy at this point. There is ample evidence that points to alternative conclusions. If you doubt this, and are not afraid to challenge your own beliefs in this regard, then read Charles Ginenthal's "The Extinction of the Mammoth". Regarding the excerpt you post here:

An icon that was supremely effective: the introduction of the innovative spearpoint coincided with a mass extinction of the continent's megafauna. Not only the mammoth, but the giant armadillo, giant sloth and great black bear all disappeared soon after the Clovis point - and the hunters who used it - arrived on the scene.

This is a gigantic over-simplification. Ginenthal removes *ANY* doubt whatsoever in his analysis that the mammoths were not killed by people. The reasons are numerous. His logic is impeccable. I would argue that no rational person could read that book and come out of it still believing that the mammoths were slaughtered by people. Perhaps most damning of all is the fact that the list of species that went extinct with the mammoths include animals that man could not have possibly killed off -- including 10 classes of North American birds, small burrowing rodent-like animals in Alaska (the American badger and the black-footed ferrets), the tiny Aztlan rabbit, mullosks and even frogs! We're not talking about diminished populations here. We're talking about total eradication from their native areas of the time.

In the words of Charles Lyell himself, "we know how tedious a task it is in our times, even with the aid of firearms to exterminate a noxious quadruped ..." As for the rabbits, well they tend to f*ck like rabbits! How man managed to wipe out species of birds with no firearms remains a legitimate open question.

What's also particularly damning is the fact that other fairly large fauna completely escaped the apparently ruthless Clovis hunters. There is little support for the notion that these people came in here and just wiped out everything that was worth hunting. The extinction event was highly selective. In particular, the musk oxen survived, which is highly enigmatic because these creatures will allow the entire herd to be obliterated if just one within their self-defensive circle is killed. They'll just stand there and take it. Why did those creatures survive? Why would the Clovis people specifically target the mammoths, which arguably possess woolly matting (8 inches), thick skin (another inch) and thick fat (an additional 6 inches) that is completely impenetrable to spear heads? Driving large herds of mammoths over cliffs would require hundreds, if not thousands, of hunters -- numbers which do not accurately portray the Clovis populations. If using spears, the prey would not instantly die. It would have to be trailed for many miles before you even had a chance of it bleeding itself to death. The arguments against the proposed kill-off scenario are actually far too numerous to list. What you see here is just a small sample of Ginenthal's explanation. Ultimately, every possible kill-off scenario is essentially unsupported by the evidence.

In truth, the extinction *OF* the mammoth was in truth an extinction event that *INVOLVED* the mammoth and numerous other creatures that man could not have possibly killed off.

What is particularly telling about the whole Clovis thing, in my own opinion, are the actions of Hrdlicka and the infamous "Clovis Police". Words to the wise: BUYER BEWARE when it comes to controversial issues within the natural sciences. If you sense any impropriety whatsoever, look into it with an open mind, as there is a long and detailed history of anthropologists defending their theories using completely unethical tactics. It can be hard for honest people to understand it, but many people in the field are far more interested in making sure that their theories survive the test of time than in finding the truth. If you think I'm full of it, then read Ginenthal's book and decide for yourself!

Re:What about those French Native Americans?

[Reziac]

You don't use hundreds or thousands of hunters to drive a herd of large animals over a cliff.

You set one grass fire, and let the wind drive it toward the cliff. Herd animals will jump into the unknown (ie. over a cliff) rather than try to face a fire. Just because a people are primitive doesn't mean they're too stupid to figure this out!

BTW this is how the plains Indians hunted bison, before acquiring horses and firearms (tho a bison can run down and kill a man on horseback just as easily as it can a man afoot, so that's not a good way to hunt 'em regardless). Set a grass fire, run the whole herd over the cliff. And when the boneyards under various "buffalo jumps" have been excavated, it was discovered that almost the entire herd went to waste, with only the top few animals being butchered for meat, hides, etc. Conclusion: the encroachment of eastern Indians into the plains subsequent to the Iroquois wars was the primary cause of declining bison populations by the late 1800s. The narrow swath along railways, where Europenas hunted with rifles, had little to do with it. In fact, had not whites come along and largely put a stop to "grassfire hunting", by now bison would probably be extinct.

Re:What about those French Native Americans?

[pln2bz]

Do grass fires work for birds, frogs and mullosks too?

But what about the fires? Let's look closer ...

Probably the most destructive methods of hunting elephants is setting fire to the vegetation in a circle surrounding them. This method was used throughout Africa in the past and was "responsible for the deaths of many hundreds or even thousands of elephants each year." According to Sir Samuel Baker, writing in 1890:

"During the dry season, when the withered herbage from 10 to 14 feet in height is most inflammable, a large herd of elephants may be found in the middle of such high grass that they can only be perceived should a person be looking down from some elevated point. If they should be espied by some native hunter, he would immediately give due notice to the neighborhood, and in a short time the whole population would assemble for the hunt. This would be arranged by forming a circle of perhaps 2 miles in diameter, and simultaneously firing the grass so as to create a ring of flames around the center. An elephant is naturally afraid of fire, and it has an instinctive horror of the crackling of flames when the grass has been ignited. As the circle of fire contracts in approaching the encircled herd, they at first attempt to retreat until they become assured of their hopeless position; they at length become desperate, being maddened by fear, and panic-stricken by the wild shouts of the thousands who have surrounded them. At length, half-suffocated by the dense smoke, and terrified by the close approach of the roaring flames, the unfortunate animals charge recklessly through the fire, burnt and blinded, to be ruthlessly speared by the bloodthirsty crowd awaiting this last stampede. Sometimes a hundred or more elephants are simultaneously destroyed int his wholesale slaughter."

If this method works so well, one must ask why didn't the Africans kill off the elephants?

Not only were the numbers of Clovis insufficient to perform such maneuvers, but the idea that the Clovis could have in 1,000 years single-handedly destroyed the mammoths and mastodons in North America, Central and South America, but also the horses, camels, giant peccaries, mountain deer, giant beavers, four-pronged antelopes, ground sloths, dire wolves, native lions, and giant short-faced bears, as well -- it's a bit much to handle. If such a solution to the extinction is thought to be appropriate in this case, then we can draw upon no other historical scenario that might have set the precedent. On every other continent, human-induced extinctions took tens of thousands of years. It is also scientific fact that there is no technological advance that can explain why the Clovis were able to do this in 1,000 years where it took other cultures ten times that. Uniformitarianism is one of the fundamental philosophies that got us to this point in blaming the humans for this carnage. But if this level of carnage has never before been observed, then that in itself is a violation of uniformitarianism (more properly "actualism"), as we're supposing that something happened that we can find no precedent for.

Some scientists have resorted to calling the American animals dumber. Regardless, the dates associated with mammoth fossils in North America do not demonstrate a rolling wave of Clovis terror sweeping the continent. If we accept the timing derived by various dating techniques, many species became extinct in the south earlier compared to those in the north.

One is left wondering though how you exterminate a species with cliffs. That would imply that EVERY SINGLE MAMMOTH was driven by fire to a cliff. Some of the Americas are in fact populated by forests. It is not all grasslands, and there is no reason why the mammoths would not have populated these areas too.

You may be surprised to also learn that there are fewer than a dozen sites in North America that point to a link between humans and mammoths. In a scientific sense,

Re:What about those French Native Americans?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it is impossible for people to have made their way to North America along a icesheet costline from europe. But I think the population numbers would have been very small, and it could have been at the same time or even later than the first Siberian settlers.

However, these Solutreans europeans wouldn't have been the same europeans who came over in the last 500 years, at least not entirely. About 5000 years ago, indo-europeans migrated out from south-eastern russian, some going into europe, some going eastward into china, others going south, becoming the medes and persians, others going south-east into india, becoming the vedic northern indians. The indo-europeans who went westard into europe mostly replaced the previous european populations, which were very small and not technologically advanced. The chinese entirely absorbed the indo-europeans (tocharians) who settled in western china over time. The previously existing populations in persia and india were also large and their cultures were more advanced than the eurpeans. They were conqured, but their numbers and sophistication allowed them to make a significant impact on the genetics and culture of the Mede/Persian/Iranians and the Indians. In Europe, only in southern italy, southern greece, the basque region and maybe the Etruscan area did the previous peoples culture/genetics make much of an impact. Elsewhere there probably was some mixing of populations but except for greece and italy, the previous european populations were too small to make much impact on the european invaders.

History is a fascinating subject, the sad thing is how much of our history has been lost due to accident, but even worse is the history intentionally destroyed, evidence suppressed or burned by religious groups.

12 is too young

[toddhisattva]

But there were people here before 12kya, learning the "Clovis" point from the French, inventing chewable crack cocaine by themselves (using calcium carbonate), and generally having a good time.

Folks have been here so long it is hard to calibrate their radiocarbon dates.

Genes can be killed off. We have artifacts older than genes. I guess the Old Ones got killed off. Was Kennewick Man (portrayed by Patrick Stewart) an Old One?

Anyone with specialist knowledge, please comment.

Follow the trails

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that a migrating group 12,000 years ago wasn't moving fast and had few choices of routes. Even if several groups crossed to North America, they came through a small region of Asia (even smaller before glaciers retreated). Plenty of chances for groups to exchange genes with a small group of Asians. It's not surprising that there are common genetic markers.

European Migration?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't there some studies being done discussing a possible migration from Western Europe to America by means of a glacial landbridge?

typical pangaean lower class thinking

[circletimessquare]

just don't sully the bloodlines of us pure rift valleyians

Chinese Explorers: Motives?

[handy_vandal]

However, the difference is the Chinese didn't come here to STAY, invade, expurgate, demolish, or hijack an existing, thriving human ecosystem (competitive and warring, true), nor to subject the Natives.

What evidence do we have for these assertions?

Given the scant archaeological evidence -- very interesting evidence, yes, but scant -- how can we say anything more than "Chinese ships arrived at an early date, carrying glass beads" and "some tombstones and obelisks appear to be Chinese" ...?

I submit that these archaeological evidences tell us more or less nothing about Chinese motives. Perhaps the Chinese attempted to conquer the native peoples, and failed. Or, maybe the Chinese were noble non-invasive explorers. No way to tell.

-kgj

Re:Chinese Explorers: Motives?

[TrevorB]

On any such conquest, genetic mixing occurs. The strong plunder the weak, and sadly this involves raping their women. Considering natives are descended from Asia, it's not so far of a stretch.

However, if we're seeing no genetic markers, the likelihood of this occurring is very low. At best you might have a passing tradeship. Even then there would be some sort of goods as evidence to prove it, and we haven't seen them.

Yes, the Chinese had a great Navy before Columbus. But there is, as of yet, no evidence they traveled to the Americas.

What That Means for Monte Verde

[yakmans_dad]

Either Monte Verde is bogus or it means that an earlier population just simply died out.

Re:What That Means for Monte Verde

[falconwolf]

Either Monte Verde is bogus or it means that an earlier population just simply died out.

The people from Monte Verde didn't have to die off, they could have migrated. They may even have interbred with others. Few if any tribes didn't intermarry or interbred.

Falcon

Not a theory?

[4D6963]

Excuse me, could someone explain to me how "the theory that the ancestors of modern native peoples throughout the Americas came from a single source in East Asia" is not a theory, as the !atheory tag seems to point out?

Re:Not a theory?

[zulater]

This is historical science and as such is not repeatable. Sure we can make good guesses or hypothesize about what happened but we can't set up a repeatable experiment that can be falsifiable. As such it cannot be a theory just like evolution and the big bang can't be theories but at best hypotheses.

Re:Not a theory?

[abigor]

No, you're wrong: the experiments that turned up the genetic markers can indeed be repeated. You have no idea what you're talking about. Same goes for evolution and Big Bang theories, by the way.

Re:Not a theory?

[4D6963]

but we can't set up a repeatable experiment that can be falsifiable.

So that means that for example we couldn't analyse the DNA of samples of people from Asia, America and other continents and compare them and do it again with other samples of population and find the same results, just because it's all about history?

Crap.. I guess the Big Bang is not a theory either then, as it happened a long time ago and cannot be repeated..

At a glance

[Frantactical Fruke]

A single glance at pictures of Tibetans and natives from the Andean highlands convinced me of that years ago - but then I'm not a scientist and don't work under any burden of proof, so I have it easy.

Typical Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Go against the group think, and you get modded down into oblivion.

Re:Typical Slashdot

[vux984]

Go against the group think, and you get modded down into oblivion.

It happens when you say something just out-and-out stupid too.

Re:Typical Slashdot

[rubycodez]

out-and-out stupid: that's a nice label for facts that contradict prejudices and arm-flapping spittle-flying religious dogma.

Re:Typical Slashdot

[vux984]

out-and-out stupid: that's a nice label for facts that contradict prejudices and arm-flapping spittle-flying religious dogma.

It had nothing to do with you. I'm just sick of AC's who blame everything the mods do on 'groupthink'.

Mormon's story of how the America's were populated

[mAineAc]

This totally ruin's their theory that ships came across from northern Africa to South America. Sort of blows all sorts of holes in their religion.

Vikings

[Mr. Underbridge]

. Few can argue that Columbus is the first non-native person to set foot on the Americas since the original migration

Actually, there's a pretty solid chance the Vikings made it to Canada for a bit. So they beat Chris by almost 500 years.

Re:Vikings

[rucs_hack]

Actually, there's a pretty solid chance the Vikings made it to Canada for a bit. So they beat Chris by almost 500 years.

It's plausible, but is there any actual Archeological evidence of Norsemen getting to the US?

FYI The Word Viking was made up a lot later, They were Norsemen, a Germanic Tribe, and they never *ever* wore horned Helmets.

Re:Vikings

[Eternauta3k]

English, motherfucker. Do you speak it? Your point agrees with his.

Re:Vikings

[db32]

There is tons of evidence that they made it to the US. Google around for it. They have found evidence as far in as Oklahoma. And they most certainly did beat that lost fool thinking he found India.

Re:Vikings

[Mr. Underbridge]

It's plausible, but is there any actual Archeological evidence of Norsemen getting to the US?

Pretty solid evidence. Archaelolgical evidence as well as recorded documents by Icelanders and others. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland

Re:Vikings

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also DNA evidence that some ancient europeans might have merged into into indian tribes. Not a geneticist, but I believe its called the haplogroup X mtDNA that exists in both indian and europeans.

This is pretty compelling evidence.

Re:Vikings

[Mr. Underbridge]

OP: "Few can argue that Columbus is the first non-native person to set foot on the Americas since the original migration"

English, motherfucker. Do you speak it? Your point agrees with his.

I realize that now, thanks Samuel L Jackson. His post was long and vague so I zoned out when I read the above, grammatically-vague gem.

Oh, and give me my wallet out of that bag. You know which one it is.

Re:Vikings

[Darby]

They were Norsemen, a Germanic Tribe, and they never *ever* wore horned Helmets.

So not once did one of the Norsemen decide to dress up like a Viking for Halloween?!?

Re:Vikings

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and give me my wallet out of that bag. You know which one it is.

Not really. Unless there are only 2 wallets in the bag, then since you called him Samuel L Jackson all we can say about your wallet is that it *isn't* the one with "Bad Motherfucker" on it.

Truth be told ...

[sgunhouse]

I do wish people wouldn't make such baseless claims as that. "... the first ..."? We have found some fossil remains that predate that (as in, more than 12000 years ago) by quite a bit. One could claim that those others failed to survive where they'd have descendents alive today - raising the question of when they died out and for what reason - but claims that the first humans in the Americas arrived 12000 years ago are obviously false.

Re:Truth be told ...

[falconwolf]

We have found some fossil remains that predate that (as in, more than 12000 years ago) by quite a bit.

Such as Monte Verde, Chile.

Falcon

Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably I'll get modded troll or off-topic by some of the short-sighted with accounts here.

Probably you got modded Off Topic because you started your comment with "Probably I'll get modded troll or off-topic ..."

Probably.

Unfounded Conclusions

[E 99]

Unlike what is claimed in the summary, the study makes no claims about the "first humans" in the Americas, only about the ancestry of the existing descendants of early settlers.

IMHO, it is a stretch to use the analysis they did for making conclusions about migration routes and so forth. We're talking about an analysis of general DNA diversity after over 10,000 years of empires, wars, and extinctions of many lineages.

1) We know there existed in the south, especially the extreme south, morphological diversity non-existent in the north. Some examples are the "giants" Magellan and others saw in Patagonia -- even if you discount his reports, the most conservative estimates still put them at 6 1/2 feet tall, which is still "giant" by comparison to everything else at the time; There is another extinct race -- whose bones we actually have, not based on reports of others -- from the same region, with thick bones, large vertebrae, and prominent browridge, almost as if they were a cross with neanderthals.

2) Analysis of the Y-chromosome DNA distribution and the mitochondrial DNA distribution, show a much different, and apparently unrelated, distribution between the male ancestry of the current populations, and the female ancestry. As with most of Asia and Europe, the female ancestry in the region is older, which stands to reason as with new invasions, female populations are kept, while male populations are killed off and replaced by the invaders. Except, in the Americas, the last successful invaders seem to have a significantly different genetic history than the original females.

3) Certainly, there were migrations over the Bering Strait. There's lots of evidence for that. But IMHO, the only reasonable conclusion is that there were also migrations by sea to the west coast of South America around the same time. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support it, and the only argument against is that people 10kya were too "primitive" to navigate the ocean -- which is nothing but "cave man" prejudice.

Re:Unfounded Conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, after reading your article on Nancy Pelosi, I am less inclined to take your word for these assertions. Just to take one point, if you think the wider the gap between rich and poor the healthier the economy, Brazil must be a sure paradise! Perhaps in the near future in the US we will see if your diagnosis is true, as real wages for 50% of the US population have stagnated or declined since the early 70s.

only surviving populations

[m2943]

That's only the surviving population; it doesn't tell you whether there were previous migrations that didn't survive, or small previous migrations that just completely got absorbed in the last big one.

People that are hypothesizing previous migrations (and there is some archaeological evidence) generally also assume that those populations died out, were killed, or were absorbed by the "native Americans".

Bering Land Bridge

[Anik315]

The land bridge connecting Siberia to North America was still in existence 6000 years ago, and there was most likely migration into and out of the Siberian territory and North America between 12,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago.

Re:Bering Land Bridge

[falconwolf]

The land bridge connecting Siberia to North America was still in existence 6000 years ago, and there was most likely migration into and out of the Siberian territory and North America between 12,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago.

However Monte Verde, Chile existed more than 1000 years before the Siberia Alaska bridge existed.

Falcon

I wonder how the Mormons will spin this...

[Black Art]

The Mormons claim that the American Indians are decendants of the ancient Israelites. (Main storyline of the Book of Mormon.)

Problem is that all of the evidence, including this, disprove that conjecture. Not that Mormons look at evidence that might challenge their beliefs. (They are taught to look the other way when faced with proof that their beliefs are total fantasy.)

Of course the history of The Pearl of Great Price's translation should have shown them that the Church is not true, no matter how many times they repeat the mantra in testimony meetings.

Re:I wonder how the Mormons will spin this...

[BattleBlow]

They'll ignore it. The LDS church hierarchy never comments on stuff like this anyway. You might see some apologist from BYU or FARMS write an article that will allow wavering intelligent saints who actually read studies like this to paper over yet another crack in the fabric of their reality, but that will be the extent of it.

Besides, for most of them this isn't a new "stunning disproof" of their religion since there have been previous genetic studies of Native Americans which have shown them to not be Semitic in the slightest. Even if it were such a "stunning disproof" the "true believers" would still ignore it.

Remember that you're talking about people who believe they need to learn secret pass phrases and handshakes to get into the celestial kingdom. Not to mention the magic undies :).

Re:I wonder how the Mormons will spin this...

[BobMcD]

The Mormons claim that the American Indians are decendants of the ancient Israelites. (Main storyline of the Book of Mormon.)

Problem is that all of the evidence, including this, disprove that conjecture. I've got no stake in this, being neither Mormon, nor Israeli, but what exactly got disproved?

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that those individuals living in Israel now are not direct descendants of the ancient Israelites, thereby explaining why the DNA does not match?

In all seriousness, which makes for a better 'promised land'? North America, or the Gaza Strip???

I'm intrigued by the topic, and will research it independently, but please do explain what you mean.

Re:I wonder how the Mormons will spin this...

[ishpeck]

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=372005&cid=21495661

Re:I wonder how the Mormons will spin this...

[Blain]

Okay, I'll play. Your claim that Mormons never look at evidence contrary to what is commonly believed is false, and I'm far from the only counterexample that blows that overgeneralization out of the water. Looking into relevant words like "Sunstone," "FAIR" and "Mel Tungate" will provide you with solid proof of the inaccuracy of your claim. The fact that you make it shows that you're more than a little ignorant about the body of people called Mormon, and that you're also more than a little ignorant about what the Book of Mormon actually says. Which puts you close to the group of people called "almost everyone," although you were stupid enough to speak here in spite of your ignorance, and that's a much smaller group.

Now, the purpose of the Book of Mormon is spiritual, not historical or scientific, which purpose is not impacted remotely by the (gasp!) notion of cross-Bering migration (which is far from news). The Book of Mormon itself provides evidence that not everyone in the land it speaks of was of Lehite, Jaredite or Mulekite ancestry -- I'd suggest you look to the first use of the terms "Nephite" and "Lamanite" closely to see whether the labels are ethnic or political in nature, and how it leaves the door open to non-Lehites.

Unless, of course, you just want to stay ignorant and keep on throwing these ideas around anyhow.

Science doesn't disprove religion. Science is a methodology for exploring and explaining natural phenomena, and the body of information that methodology has yielded. Religion is about matters of faith, morality, spirituality, theology, and ways of living. Both are human-created, and both are fallible. Some people do stupid things with both from time to time, while others do pretty amazing things with them from time to time, and neither of those patterns proves or invalidates either approach. Trying to put them at odds is simply fallacious false dichotomy.

Re:I wonder how the Mormons will spin this...

[Darby]

Now, the purpose of the Book of Mormon is spiritual, not historical or scientific, which purpose is not impacted remotely by the (gasp!) notion of cross-Bering migration (which is far from news).

No, the purpose is financial pure and simple. Joseph Smith wanted to get rich duping fools, so following a long line of tradition he made up a religion for that express purpose.

Now if you can't even grasp something as simple as *why* the religion was made up, you really shouldn't attempt to discuss it because you're clearly extremely ignorant (or possibly even deluded).

Re:I wonder how the Mormons will spin this...

[Blain]

Nice try. Thanks for playing. I've already demonstrated a far greater understanding of things Mormon than you have, yet you call me "extremely ignorant"? I can not only grasp the claim you're trying to make (without providing any evidence to support it), I am also aware of enough of the history to know the basis for your claim and why I don't find it persuasive. And that's without getting into the spiritual aspects of this, which I'm not nearly stupid enough to discuss in this forum.

I'm regretting the stridency of tone in my prior post. I'm almost regretting that I'm not going to match it in this one, but I'm tired and, frankly, I don't see any point.

Re:I wonder how the Mormons will spin this...

[Darby]

I've already demonstrated a far greater understanding of things Mormon than you have, yet you call me "extremely ignorant"?

You have demonstrated nothing of the sort. You are, apparently, unable to grasp the simple basic idea behind why people make up religions. It's been the same for thousands of years. So when you fail to grasp a very simple concept in spite of 100% of the evidence backing it up, you demonstrate yourself to be extremely ignorant. You're the one who stated that loud and clear,. I merely pointed out that that is what you said.

I'm sorry if you don't like having your actions and statements put in a clear, accurate and honest context, but that's your problem, not mine.

I mean, seriously, when you have a "religion" that changes the rules based on profit making deals it signs with corporations ( you do know that's why you can drink Coke now, right? You did not use to be able to do that.) then it's a (scam ) business, not a religion, and pretending otherwise makes you look really stupid.

Again, the stupidity of that action is obvious, and it's not my fault that you qualify for that description. It's entirely yours.

Re:I wonder how the Mormons will spin this...

[Blain]

It would be nice if you knew half as much as you think you do, but you just don't. This is the last time I'm going to play, so pay close attention -- you can have the last word if you really want it.

1. You've provided no (as in zero) evidence that my religion was made up. Look over your posts very closely -- it's not there. Noticing that you've provided zero evidence is not a sign of ignorance -- it's a sign that I can read. If you want to think you're outside of the world of made up religions, feel free, but don't think you can begin to speak to my experience -- you don't even know where to start.

2. You seriously believe the old UL about the Church owning Coke (or Pepsi)? Lots of folks have, but it's not and never has been true. Check out Snopes for more about that. This would be the time for you to post evidence to back up your claim if you have any so it can be reviewed and assessed.

3. You show no sign of understanding where the idea that there is a problem drinking Coke (or Pepsi) came from, what form it took, or any of that. The truth is, my whole life it's never been a problem whether I did or didn't drink it. I've had Mormons who have had a problem with it, but the Church never has. The standard always has been "hot drinks are not for the body or belly" with "hot drinks" referring to coffee and tea. There has been lots of speculation about the reasons behind that, which some have taken to be the caffeine in both drinks, from which they have projected it to other drinks with caffeine in them. However, drinking colas has never been on par with drinking coffee or tea, and that absence of prohibition was in no way connected with the Church's non-ownership of any beverage company. For more clarity, this was a First Presidency statement from 1972:

"With reference to cola drinks, the Church has never officially taken a position on this matter, but the leaders of the Church have advised, and we do now specifically advise, against the use of any drink containing harmful habit-forming drugs under circumstances that would result in acquiring the habit. Any beverage that contains ingredients harmful to the body should be avoided." (Priesthood Bulletin, Feb. 1972, p. 4.)

.4. If you want to be an anti-Mormon without sounding like an idiot, I think you might want to look into the work of Jerald and Sandra Tanner. They haven't got a good thing to say about the Church, but they generally get their facts straight, and that's head and shoulders better than you've done.

Now, I've discussed Mormon doctrine, Mormon culture, and even anti-Mormon writers, illustrating my points with evidence, while all you've discussed is anti-Mormon urban legends with no evidence. You can point fingers at my supposed ignorance as much as you want -- it won't change the facts.

And, with that, I'm done chatting with you. If the other guy I responded to is reading this, I'm sorry that I attacked his intelligence. That was uncalled for. What he said wasn't nearly as stupid nor as arrogant as what you've had to say here.

Don't paint an entire continent with one brush

[spun]

You speak of Native Americans as if they were all the same culture. Some tribes did live in peace and harmony with each other. Others were warlike. You do know that we got our idea of a Republic from the Iriquois Confederacy, right? Obviously, you didn't get very accurate or in depth "native American heritage".

Re:Don't paint an entire continent with one brush

[stdarg]

You do know that we got our idea of a Republic from the Iriquois Confederacy, right? Obviously, you didn't get very accurate or in depth "native American heritage". I haven't ever heard that, but admittedly I don't know a whole lot about Native American heritage. I assumed that our idea of a Republic came from Greek, Roman, and European sources. What evidence is there that it stemmed directly from the Iroquois?

Re:Don't paint an entire continent with one brush

[spun]

Uhm, is the fact that the Iroquois were a confederation of semi-independant states, and those others you mentioned were not, good enough for you? Then here's the wiki page. You may also want to look at the pages for "Democracy" and "Republic" to refresh in your mind what the differences are, if you're unclear on that.

Re:Don't paint an entire continent with one brush

[umbra_dweller]

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.

Re:Don't paint an entire continent with one brush

[stdarg]

Uhm, is the fact that the Iroquois were a confederation of semi-independant states, and those others you mentioned were not, good enough for you? Then here's the wiki page. You may also want to look at the pages for "Democracy" and "Republic" to refresh in your mind what the differences are, if you're unclear on that. Are you saying Rome wasn't a republic before it was an empire? Are you saying democracy is an entirely separate concept? I have to disagree with those notions. I thought you would offer some sort of proof that the specific instance of the US was modeled after the Iroquois, not make some ridiculous claim that Rome wasn't a republic or European writers never discussed the subject!

You may want to look at Wikipedia's list of republics with special focus on the Antiquity section if you're unclear on that.

Re:Don't paint an entire continent with one brush

[spun]

In what way was the historical political entity know as the Roman Republic like the Iroquois, or like our Republic? Was it some sort of confederation of states? Any state can call itself anything it likes. North Korea and China are both on that list you linked to, did you know that? Are they Republics like ours? What I tried to do was show that our Republic was like the Iroquois, and unlike the Roman or Greek idea. I don't think you've shown anything to refute that hypothesis. If anything, including a list of Republics that includes China and North Korea only makes my point stronger.

Re:Don't paint an entire continent with one brush

[stdarg]

What I tried to do was show that our Republic was like the Iroquois, and unlike the Roman or Greek idea. Well that's a much weaker claim than what you originally made, which was that "we got our idea of a Republic from the Iriquois Confederacy", but I still disagree.

There are many, many ways in which our government incorporates ideas from Western philosophy, including Greek and Roman ideas. Did the Iroquois have jury trials? Were tribal chiefs elected? Did they have term limits? Were minority rights protected from majority rule in some way (to distinguish from pure democracy)?

The only point I've seen you make is that the Iroquois wad a confederation of states and so are we. Yes, that is a good similarity. No, I'm pretty sure that isn't unique in history. Furthermore, you act as if that is the defining characteristic of a republic (or at least, our republic) but in fact there are many others, and we are more similar to other societies in a lot of those ways.

Re:Don't paint an entire continent with one brush

[spun]

Wait, what? You are actually arguing that our idea of a republic is in no way based on the Iroquois Confederacy? That's not open for debate, it's a known and documented historical fact. I'm sorry, I was confused. I thought everyone was taught that in grade school. You must have been born before 1970 or so :-) So rather than point to the literally tens of thousands of scholarly papers on the subject, I'll give you a nice google search and you can pick and choose. Really, I'm not just making this up: the Haudenosaunee have at least as much to do with the founding of our republic than ancient Greece or Rome do. Have fun, it's an interesting part of American history.

Re:Don't paint an entire continent with one brush

[stdarg]

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. Anyway, reading some of those search results and the other posts in this thread gave me some of the information I initially hoped that you would provide, but you seem to be more interested in other things (appropriate sig heh).

The consensus seems to be that the Iroquois definitely had an influence, if only that they provided a nearby example of a participatory democracy. There is an overwhelming consensus against your claim that our government wasn't influenced by Greek, Roman, and European sources.

By the way, I learned about the Iroquois in grade school, but we were not taught about the influence of the Iroquois on our government. And I was born after 1970. It is an interesting idea to explore and I hope that it is taught today, but you are doing a disservice by taking it too far.

Re:Don't paint an entire continent with one brush

[spun]

Reread this thread. I just did, to make sure. I never said that we weren't influenced by other sources, just that we were influenced by the Iroquois, and that our Republic is closer in form to theirs than to the others mentioned. Which I've shown to be correct. So how exactly am I doing the idea a disservice? Other than by being my usual prickish self, of course.

Even the Athabascans and the Navajo?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was under the impression that speakers of Na-Dene languages were believed to be from a distinct and separate migration that occured after the other migrations.

I find it odd that the article did not touch on the Na-Dene, given how widely believed that there is something distinct with them.

Bollocks...

[goldspider]

We ALL know that scientific conclusions supported by consensus are beyond reproach, and this... Clovis Denier... should be run out of the scientific community in disgrace!

"a consensus became so established that dissenters felt uneasy challenging it."

Good thing our scientists have grown beyond such close-mindedness!

Two problems with the study

[edwardpickman]

First it doesn't allow for multiple migrations from the same Asia population and it doesn't take into account the possibility of extinct migrations. It's possible several migrations failed and all immigrants died whether from starvation or even being wiped out by future migrations like in New Zealand.

Re:Mormon's story of how the America's were popula

[moderatorrater]

The Book of Mormon isn't clear on which direction the ships came from, but the most widely-believed theories are that the earlier migration was from the East (Europe/Africa) while the later one was from the West (India/Asia), both by boats. Also, it doesn't "blow all sorts of holes in their religion", it merely contradicts one of the beliefs.

I CALL BULLSHIT....

[yalmissari]

[rant]

Why is it that it's always assumed that they crossed via a land bridge? Just because there was a ice age then?

This is what drives me farking insane about some 'scientific' research. THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE ARE REPRESENTED AS FACT!

If you don't know how they got here.. because there is NO way to know.. than SAY SO or don't say anything @ all. Just state what you have learned.

Just because something has been repeated often enough does NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

[/rant]

There I feel better. :)

Re:I CALL BULLSHIT....

[Anonymous Coward]

Look Mr.
As Al Gore said "THE DEBATE IS OVER!!!!" it wasn't ice, they didn't use a boat,
it was a land bridge. If you don't believe it just go watch the video on YouTube.
Dont you dare question it. Dont question science!!!!!
THERE IS NO ROOM IN SCIENCE FOR QUESTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!! HELLO ?

Re:I CALL BULLSHIT....

[JoeInnes]

Assumptions have to be presented as fact. Scientific theory involves creating a hypothesis, and either proving it, or disproving it. If for example, I hypothesise that men are more likely to accept an offer of sex from a prostitute if they are straight, I am making a number of assumptions.

• Men like sex
• Prostitutes are women
• Prostitutes offer sex to men

etc. I will almost certainly find that hypothesis to be true, based on assumptions I have made, and data I have gathered. It is impractical to say "Straight men that like sex are more likely to accept an offer of sex from a female prostitute who offers sex to them than gay men", because it is difficult to read, difficult to comprehend, and not necessarily an exact explanation of what I intended to find out.

Obviously, I've simplified here to a ridiculous level, but if we take an assumption that we apply to this study, for example, "It is not possible for genes to be more than X% similar if one of these people is from Asia, and one from America", how is that different. Statistically, there is a chance that person A and person B have the exact same DNA. It's unlikely, but still possible. If we take another assumption, "If a person with an Asian genome is found in America, then that person immigrated over land". This is where the problem arises. Your argument is that it is not necessary for such a person to have immigrated over land, which is legitimate. The study in and of itself though, was not interested in whether people travelled by land, by sea, or by spaceship, only the similarity between Asian and American genomes. If you can show that there is a large degree of similarity, then you can say that it is highly likely there was a migration. If this migration was likely to be across the Bering Strait, so be it. If not, then do a study with the hypothesis "Migration into America did not occur across the Bering Strait." and give me some conflicting statistics, before you rip apart what otherwise seems like an excellent study.

Re:Mormon's story of how the America's were popula

[dwye]

This totally ruin's their theory that ships came across from northern Africa to South America. Sort of blows all sorts of holes in their religion.

That was just one small population, not all "native" Americans. IIRC, that group eventually was killed off, as well.

And so...

[enjerth]

People are bitching about global warming then because they want to see another ice age?

I rather enjoy short, mild winters and warm summers. You've pretty much convinced me NOT to worry about global warming, cause it's good for us!

If "normal" is having long-term periods of global freezing, then to hell with what is "normal"! It's a lovely day out! Let's keep it that way.

Of course, all of this is predicated on the unlikely event that you're assertion is correct.

Re:And so...

[Darby]

It's a lovely day out! Let's keep it that way.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you do not live in Chicago.

Uh... nice try, but not so

[Anonymous Coward]

The following is taken from the writings of LDS Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith:

JOSEPH SMITH LOCATES CUMORAH IN WESTERN NEW YORK.

Perhaps this matter could rest at this point, but the question of the territory now embraced within the United States having been in possession of Nephites and Lamanites before the death of Mormon, carries some weight in the determining of this matter. In the light of revelation it is absurd for anyone to maintain that the Nephites and Lamanites did not possess this northern land. While Zion's camp was marching on the way to Jackson County [Missouri], near the bank of the Illinois River [in Illinois] they came to a mound containing the skeleton of a man. The history of this incident is as follows:

"The brethren procured a shovel and a hoe, and removing the earth to the depth of about one foot, discovered the skeleton of a man, almost entire, and between his ribs the stone point of a Lamanitish arrow, which evidently produced his death. Elder Burr Riggs retained the arrow. The contemplation of the scenery around us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms; and subsequently the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thickset man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains. The curse was taken from Zelph, or at least, in part--one of his thigh bones was broken by a stone flung from a sling, while in battle, years before his death. He was killed in battle by the arrow found among his ribs, during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites."

HEBER C. KIMBALL TELLS OF DEATH OF ZELPH.

Elder Heber C. Kimball who was present recorded the following in his journal:

"While on our way we felt anxious to know who the person was who had been killed by that arrow. It was made known to Joseph that he had been an officer who fell in battle, in the last destruction among the Lamanites, and his name was Zelph. This caused us to rejoice much, to think that God was so mindful of us as to show these things to his servant. Brother Joseph had inquired of the Lord, and it was made known in a vision."

ANCIENT CITY OF MANTI IN MISSOURI.

The following is also taken from the history of the travels of the Kirtland Camp:

"The camp passed through Huntsville, in Randolph County [Missouri], which has been appointed as one of the stakes of Zion, and is the ancient site of the City of Manti, and pitched tents at Dark Creek, Salt Licks, seventeen miles. It was reported to the camp that one hundred and ten men had volunteered from Randolph and gone to Far West to settle difficulties."

The following account of the same event is taken from the daily journal of the Kirtland Camp, and was written by Samuel D. Tyler:

"September 25, 1838. We passed through Huntsville, Co, seat of Randolph Co, Pop. 450, and three miles further we bought 32 bu, of corn off one of the brethren who resides in this place. There are several of the brethren round about here and this is the ancient site of the City of Manti, which is spoken of in the Book of Mormon and this is appointed one of the Stakes of Zion, and it is in Randolph County, Missouri, three miles west of the county seat."

NEPHITE AND JAREDITE WARS IN WESTERN NEW YORK.

In the face of this evidence coming from the Prophet Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer, we cannot say that the Nephites and Lamanites did not possess the territory of the United States and that the Hill Cumorah i

Problem - no Inuit in sample

[whitehatlurker]

The Inuit peoples (aka Eskimos) are not represented in the study, and are generally considered to have different origins from the First Nations peoples. I wonder how their inclusion would have fit with the rest of the data.

Re:Problem - no Inuit in sample

[falconwolf]

The Inuit peoples (aka Eskimos) are not represented in the study, and are generally considered to have different origins from the First Nations peoples. I wonder how their inclusion would have fit with the rest of the data.

Seeing as how the Inuit of the US and Canada are related to the Inuit of Iceland and the Sami and Laplanders of the Artic and Northern Europe it could have thrown a hole in their theory.

Falcon

Re:Problem - no Inuit in sample

[Reziac]

And I was wondering if they'd checked European DNA from the "old" races, like the "little dark people" of the British Isles, who predate the Celts. You might still find some in Wales, I dunno.

The Topper Site

[Terrigena]

The "Topper Site" has radiocarbon dates to about 45,000 B.P. This indicates there were previous migrations. Over the course of 30,000 years, the genetic marker discussed in this study would have integrated itself into the entire population, regardless of when the root migration took place. I'm afraid the conclusions drawn by the researchers are not accurate, and do not reflect the latest archaeological data available.

other links

[lrohrer]

Here is another link (on the fringe perhaps) of asian/polnesian migrations.

http://users.on.net/~mkfenn/page5.htm

There is some genetic evidence and cultural evidence a group Japanese 2000 years ago became/interbred with the Zuni...

The Zuni language has several unique traits from other native Americans -- Japanese traits

Re:other links

[falconwolf]

There is some genetic evidence and cultural evidence a group Japanese 2000 years ago became/interbred with the Zuni...

I met one Native American Indian, she liked to use NDN, who made a remark on how the Ainu of Japan had similarities to the Inuits of Alaska and Canada.

Falcon

An obvious fake study!

[frank_adrian314159]

Man does not mutate because evolution is wrong!

The Flying Spaghetti Monster used many pirate ships over many years to bring them all across! Just because he touched their genes with his noodly appendage to make it appear that they were all genetically similar does not mean they all started that way.

This Assumes the Survivors are Representative...

[rtrifts]

This study may well be entirely supported and its sample group representative. I have no expertise in this matter at all.

That disclaimer aside, there is a chance that this study's base assumption belies a fatal flaw. The exact percentage of Indigenous peoples to the Americas that survived the epidemics unleashed upon them by the Early Europeans is unknown. The percentage of the survivors may be lower than 10% of the general population after 1492 than existed before that time.

Testing a population after a **massive** cull brought on by an epidemic centuries ago is a very slippery genetic slope.

By way of a poor analogy, Cystic fibrosis is a mutation traceable to Scandanavia in the middle ages where the mutation - as horrible as its longterm effects may be - played a significant role in the carriers of the mutation having a genetic advantage to survive infection by bubonic plague. What means miserable death now meant life, then.

If (and that's a BIG if) the genetic marker they are tracing played a role in the survival of the current population from the epidemic unleashed upon them by the Europeans (believed to be primarily small pox) then what is being studied as a representative sample of an entire population may, in fact, be an isolated view of a trait that the survivors of the smallpox epidemic all shared. As a consequence, this result may have nothing to do with the vastly larger genetic base of the those who died and the migration patterns THEIR genes would have shown.

We simply don't know. I suppose that DNA samples from those frozen Mayan children (whose genes were not selected in any way by epidemiology) could be illuminating on this issue.

If you are, in fact, examining a control group, but believe that biased control group to be a representative sample of a much larger general population, your data may well be fatally flawed.

Why should I trust their dates?

[glitch23]

Because the speed of light affects atomic decay and there is proof the speed of light has always been decreasing, radiocarbon dating of fossils and anything else is put into question. Not to say the values are wrong, but they aren't the final values because they don't take into account the fact that c has always been decaying which changes the carbon date results. Gary Setterfield has a ton of information on this topic on his site along with referenced research papers for those who think evolution (which needs millions/billions of years) is unquestionably correct. A timeline matching up traditional geological ages with the real ages of the universe is also on his site here which seems to be appropriate for this story. If anyone has some sites that refute these claims I'd like to read them.

Re:This Assumes the Survivors are Representative..

[rtrifts]

"I suppose that DNA samples from those frozen Mayan children (whose genes were not selected in any way by epidemiology) could be illuminating on this issue."

Looks like I was wrong about that part. Those Incan (not Mayan) children were sacrificed in the early 1500s, and do not appear to predate 1492. In fact, they may well have been sacrificed BECAUSE they were healthy at a time when the smallpox virus was otherwise ravaging their people. See link here: http://www.bookofjoe.com/2007/09/la-doncella-fro.html

Unless their DNA can be verified to pre-date Columbian contact, I don't think their DNA would reliably serve to shed any light upon this potential problem.

Re:This Assumes the Survivors are Representative..

[rtrifts]

And a further correction - the latent CF mutation quoted above protects against typhoid, not bubonic plague. When the CF mutation is no longer latent (roughly a 1 in 4 chance if both parents carry the gene) - you die. But the evolutionary strength of the latent mutation if you are in the 3 out of 4 people who simply are carriers is *very* real.

Accordingly, the problem presented by the epidemeology presented by smallpox appears to be a distinctly possible and very slippery genetic slope. Worse, there is no other human population group alive to compare the remaining indigenous peoples too in terms of smallpox resistance. By definition, the survivors don't appear that radically different from other populations - all of which also share the resistance.

We don't know if that's a shared genetic trait among the survivors - and it appears likely that we never will for sure.

Racial argument...lets throw in more stereotypes!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just buy you a cup of coffee (or a cold beer) next time I see you and we'll call it even.

Don't give him any alcohol! Didn't you read, he is part BOTH Native American AND Irish as well !!!

Taiwan and Tibet

[falconwolf]

China's relations with other states in the 15th century was varied, and assimilation/domination of other cultures was definitely within their repertoire.

And hasn't changed, either: Taiwan, Tibet etc.

While many of those who've heard of Tibet know it was invaded by China, it's nice to see someone especially here on /. that knows Taiwan isn't Chinese. When Chang Kai Chek's Nationalist Army invaded Formosa, Taiwan to many, between 18,000 and 28,000 Formosans were massacred by the KMT who then subjugated another 20 million Formosans. A date with a lot of meaning to Formosans is 28 February 1947.

Falcon

maps to America

[falconwolf]

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.

I've heard of the Basque as originators of maps to the Americas as well.

Falcon

Scurvy

[falconwolf]

China's fleets knew how to prevent scurvy. Did the Europeans of the day?

One way to prevent scurvy is by eating citrus fruit like oranges and despite both California and Florida growing a lot of oranges, oranges are native to Asia, China.

Falcon

Re:Scurvy

[davidsyes]

(In voice of Ruk, Dr. Corby's robotic assistant)

THAT is the missing equation... The OLD ONES.... This explains General Tso Chicken, Mandarin Orange Chicken and other delicious menu items.

Thanks!

Iroquois Confederacy

[falconwolf]

You do know that we got our idea of a Republic from the Iriquois Confederacy, right? Obviously, you didn't get very accurate or in depth "native American heritage".

I haven't ever heard that, but admittedly I don't know a whole lot about Native American heritage. I assumed that our idea of a Republic came from Greek, Roman, and European sources. What evidence is there that it stemmed directly from the Iroquois?

• "In 1727 political theorist and scholar Cadwallader Colden wrote of the Iroquois Confederacy: "The Five Nations have such absolute Notions of Liberty that they allow no Kind of Superiority of one over another, and banish all Servitude from their Territories."[3] The five nations of what is today the Finger Lakes region of upstate New York--the Onondagas, the Senecas, the Mohawks, the Cayugas, and the Oneidas--had ended their intertribal warfare and formed a federal union in approximately 1200. The constitution uniting the nations was called Kaianrekowa, the Great Law of Peace. Recorded and preserved in wampum, this document codified laws for each nation, rules for the confederacy, and consistent rights protection for all citizens. National membership remained open, and other peoples joined the confederacy. The northeastern body eventually became known as the Six Nations after the formal addition of the Tuscaroras around 1714."
• "Book Review: Great Law v. Handsome Lake Code"
• Mohawk Nation News: Great Law and the Handsome Lake Code

The idea of the form of government came from the Iroquois Confederacy however while the Iroquois also had liberty the liberty envisioned by the USA's Founding Fathers especially with Thomas Jefferson was grounded in the Age of Enlightenment in Europe.

Falcon

Re:Iroquois Confederacy

[DanielMarkham]

Er no. Try again.

Some obscure European political theorist writing about how he admires the Iroquois does not an invention make. Compare your sources to the tradition of the republic, democracy, and confederations passed down in western history and well, it just looks sad. Like somebody ripped you off and gave you a bunch of half-truths that made you feel better.

Look back at the discussions around the articles of the Confederation. No Iroquois there.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion. But not their own set of facts. The Iroquois were a great and proud people. They have ifluenced and honored themselves and others. But grand political theorists they were not.

Re:Iroquois Confederacy

[falconwolf]

Some obscure European political theorist writing about how he admires the Iroquois does not an invention make.

I only provided a starting point, and didn;t do all the research for you. But since you won't follow through with it Benjamen Franklin, a signer of the Declaration Of Independence, and Thomas Jefferson the writer of the DOI also studied and used the Iroquois Conferacy as a basis for the Constitution of the USA:

"The Six Nations:"
"Oldest Living Participatory Democracy on Earth"
The people of the Six Nations, also known by the French term, Iroquois [1] Confederacy, call themselves the Hau de no sau nee (ho dee noe sho nee) meaning People Building a Long House. Located in the northeastern region of North America, originally the Six Nations was five and included the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. The sixth nation, the Tuscaroras, migrated into Iroquois country in the early eighteenth century. Together these peoples comprise the oldest living participatory democracy on earth. Their story, and governance truly based on the consent of the governed, contains a great deal of life-promoting intelligence for those of us not familiar with this area of American history. The original United States representative democracy, fashioned by such central authors as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, drew much inspiration from this confederacy of nations."

"Although hotly debated, it is a historical fact that a number of founding fathers had direct contact with the Iroquois and prominent figures such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were closely involved with their stronger and larger native neighbor, the Iroquois."

"During the era, Benjamin Franklin published twenty-six treaty accounts and represented the state of Pennsylvania as an Indian commissioner. In the pre-Revolutionary period, when he and his friends were advocating a federal union of the colonies, no European model was found to be suitable. Franklin's contact with the Iroquois influenced many key ideas for a new form of government =96 federalism, equality, natural rights, freedom of religion, property rights, etc. At the 1744 treaty council, by Franklin's account, Canassatego, speaker for the great council at Onondaga, recommended that the colonies form a union in common defense under a federal government: 'We are a powerful Confederacy, and by your observing the same methods our wise forefathers have taken, you will acquire much strength and power; therefore, whatever befalls you, do not fall out with one another.'"
...
"Those who recognized the wisdom and long history of the Iroquois government did not consider the Indians as mere "savages." Like the Iroquois, Thomas Jefferson believed that public opinion and popular consent were key in maintaining freedom and good government. He held that the power of public opinion was an important reason for the Iroquois ' lack of oppressive government and class differences, and for the power to impeach officials who offended governing principles. Like the Iroquois, he also believed that the best government is the least government."

" John Adams and Thomas Jefferson have left us some additional evidence that the Iroquois and the Iroquois ideals of government may have influenced them. Johansen asserts that Adams, in his book Defence of the Constitution of the United States, discusses the 'fifty families of the Iroquois' as a model for the Americans to follow. (Johansen 1998:75) Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the quintessential libertarian in American history, wrote admiringly to John Rutledge during the Constitutional Convention 'The only condition on earth to be compared with

Re:Iroquois Confederacy

[DanielMarkham]

You do realize you made absolutely no point whatsoever, don't you? I mean, it's not even worth taking apart.

Franklin was a doddering old man when the DOI was signed. He played very little role in the AOC. Jefferson was a believer in natural law (from Locke.) Native Americans would have absolutely interested him, but not for the reasons you suppose. Check out Hobbes sometime.

I don't know which is worse -- your argument, or your lack of critical thinking skills in defending yourself. Quoting a bunch of biased articles? Mentioning how contemporary the Iroquois were to the founders? Mentioning some of the paralells? It's just not a defense of your ideas. It's a bunch of anecdotes and innuendo strown together. I could use these same techniques to show that Barbary Pirates founded the United States Marine Corps, or that Sam Brown was responsible for reconstruction. You can't write the words you've written and expect to persuade. Surely you know that, right? It's very simple: give me a quote from the AOC claiming Iroquois heritage, a quote from the authors of the AOC claiming inspiration, any direct reference supporting your claim. It's like you have no idea the true heritage of the things you're talking about, and instead cling to a bunch of loosely assembled pieces of stories. The real story is pretty cool too, you know.

Re:Iroquois Confederacy

[falconwolf]

You do realize you made absolutely no point whatsoever, don't you? I mean, it's not even worth taking apart.

My point was that the Iroquois Confederacy gave inspiration to the USA's Founding Fathers as to the form of government the USA would have, I however am wondering what your point was.

I don't know which is worse -- your argument, or your lack of critical thinking skills in defending yourself

That's easy, it's your argument, or lack thereof, that's worse. As you provide no evidence to support your position, only innuendo, it seems all you can do is troll.

Falcon

money

[falconwolf]

He doesn't forget it, you just can't make money off the carbon trade if people think it is natural. It all has to be your fault, and there has to be something that can be done about it.

I don't make money either way but if Global Warming is true then it will be future generations that will have to pay for what we are causing now.

Falcon

Re:money

[sumdumass]

That's an Oxymoron. The future generations have always had to deal with things being different then the previous. And a good majority of times, this was directly because of previous generations. To expect everything to freeze in time and remain the same is about as foolhardy as expecting to take things back to some magical point in time when you thought everything was perfect. The sad truth is that it was perfect because of changes another generation made. And the perceptions of the next generations will be different then your because of your influences.

It isn't as big of a problem as you want to make it. It isn't the end of life as we know it.

Re:money

[falconwolf]

That's an Oxymoron.

That is not an oxymoron, a "truthful lie" is an oxymoron.

It isn't as big of a problem as you want to make it. It isn't the end of life as we know it.

I don't know if I'm unlike you or not but I don't want to create problems, or make them worse, that future generations will have to deal with. If anything I want the world to be a better place for future generations. Much as the Iroquois Confederacy did, I believe in seeing what effects my actions will have on the Seventh Generation and not create problems for them.

Falcon

Re:money

[sumdumass]

Your right, because future generations that will have to pay for what we are causing now regardless of global warming. So what's the word I am looking for?

I don't know if I'm unlike you or not but I don't want to create problems, or make them worse, that future generations will have to deal with. If anything I want the world to be a better place for future generations. Much as the Iroquois Confederacy did, I believe in seeing what effects my actions will have on the Seventh Generation and not create problems for them.

It is idiotic to think that you can exist and not effect future generations. Something that you don't even see as bad today will be tomorrow. And stuff that you think id the worst thing ever today will appear as nothing significant in the future. So worrying about something that is inevitable today is foolish. And I say inevitable because we are not purposing anything drastic enough that could fix or stop global warming in it's tracts.

All the so called fixes to date are miracle band aids that won't stop a thing or some elaborate scheme to redistribute wealth. None of the fixes actually fix anything but man's ability to expand industrially. If you want to effect future generations, how about not making a geo political climate were wealthy nations have to farm all their dirty work to third world countries. How about making the environment friendly for them to be employed and actually buy something without government handouts.

Re: blue eyed mutts

[CodeShark]

Yah. But more of a late breaking "Anglo/Welsh/Scottish/Irish/Germanic mutt in my case..." relative to the 1000 a.d'ers... :-)

Re:Colombia

[Anonymous Coward]

me bad. In my defense it was a low caffeine count that induced the spelling difficulties, officer.

'Twill remember and do better next time.

Politicized science :-(

[Iowan41]

The actual data, including -historical- data, disprove their hypothesis, however, their claims are politically correct. It appears that the first humans in the Americas were Melanesians, similar to the Australian Aborigenes, possibly as long as 40,000 years ago. The next major wave appear to have been Europeans (though probably more like the Tuareg, Basque, "black Irish" and Saami, than blonds or redheads. These were the Red Paint People, and also the Clovis culture. Then came a -series- of migrations from Siberia, normally along the seacoast by boat, and NOT over the Bering land bridge. The most recent major migrations were the Athabascan/Dineh/Na-Dineh, then then Inuit, who finally eliminated the Dorset -after- the Norwegians had lived in Greenland for a few hundred years. To this day, Inuit peoples move freely across the Bering Straits in kayaks. The prevelance of a gene marker simply means that the locals intermarried, which we already know from their oral histories. Further, the local populations are not genetically homogenous; the Cheyenne show a higher than average European component probably going back to the Clovis people. The Olmec heads may show Melanesian ancestery. The culture of the PNE is nearly identical to that of the Jomon peoples of ancient Japan and Korea (now known as the Ainu of Hokaido, which have heavily interbred with the later Japanese invaders) The anime movie Princess Mononoke illustrates this in an anime fashion. Peoples moved around a lot. The dirt or stone pyramid building/human sacrificing culture can be found from St. Louis, Missouri to the Peruvian coastal plains. The cities of the Wari and Inca closely resemble those of the Ainu and Peublo peoples. The lodge-towns (or as they are called in early European cultures, "hall"s such as Heorot's Hall in Beowulf) culture is found from Canada to the Amazon. We should take the locals seriously when they tell us their oral histories about coming from different places, including Europe, and about their migrations in North and South America.

Re:We ALL don't "fit in"

[enmane]

I was part of a group discussion regarding education about 18 mos ago,
1 black
1 asian
1 white girl (from a poor W. VA coal mining community)
1 Puerto Rican
1 white male - me (a son of poor Italian immigrants who came over about 40 yrs ago)

we started talking about race and education and I quickly learned that being a white male can be a liability, no matter what is said. The interesting thing is that nobody else in the room except the other white girl understood that ALL of us felt "left out," "different" and excluded from the normal population. I can't say that I've EVER felt that I fit in - part of it is because of my upbringing and part of it is that most people I know don't think like I do about things. Anyhow, the white girl felt outside the "safe zone" because of her upbringing and coal-mining history. All of my examples of alienation or feelings of discomfort were met with the general attitude of "you have no idea, your white." This will continue for as long as we continue to group people together and use labels without actually listening to people.

I think that ALL of us have some inner voice wondering if we fit in. This should be understood before having any discussions. My pet peeve is quickly becoming using labels to group types of people.

It's amazing how many people who call themselves "Republicans" (yes, I did it) hear a couple of my questions about healthcare costs and quickly jump to the conclusion that I'm a "Democrat" and from that point on tune me out - no matter that I believe in lowering tax rates, shrinking gov't, and many other ideas that "Democrats" would use to call me a "Republican." The fact of the matter is that I'm an individual that believes in some of _these_ ideas and some of _those_ ideas. How I vote depends on who more closely aligns with the sum total of my ideas. I get lumped into a group of people called "Democrats" because I think it is outrageous to pay $18,000 to deliver a baby with NONE, ZERO, ZIP complications. God forbid you ask the question - How is the average American, earning $45k/yr, supposed to pay for a post-tax delivery of $18k? What, work for 6 mos to pay for 3 days in the hospital??? Something isn't right with the system.

Didn't mean to get political but that seems to be an area where labels get thrown around quickly.

How does this compare to the linguistic evidence?

[T.E.D.]

The last I heard (early 90's) the linguists studying New World languages were postulating 3 major migrations.

I'd put "major" in quotes myself. The straight itself really isn't that much of a barrier to humans. The native people currently living on both sides ("Aleuts") are very closely related, and take their boats back and forth across the date line (or US/Russia border, if you prefer) all the time.

what controversy?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't seem like the non-overkill theories are so suppressed anymore. This looks like pretty mainstream coverage to me:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/stoneage/megafauna.html

I saw that show and it was thoughtful and nicely done, and naturally didn't conclude those species were hunted to extinction. People are just following the evidence and realizing that overkill just doesn't compute. It's just too bad a few anthropologists won't.

"little dark people"

[falconwolf]

And I was wondering if they'd checked European DNA from the "old" races, like the "little dark people" of the British Isles, who predate the Celts. You might still find some in Wales, I dunno.

I don't recall ever hearing about "little dark people" before, so I Googled "little dark people" "british isles". Then I replaced "british isles" with wales, when I did I came across The Manx People and their Origins about the Manx on the Isle of Man. As I'm interested I'll have to go through the results. Thanks.

Falcon

more information

[Anonymous Coward]

More information on Native Americans and genetics can be found in the article: What Do Molecular Genetic Studies Tell Us About the Peopling of the Americas?. I think the genetic data is still up in the air.

thanks for the link

[falconwolf]

No prob, I'm nowhere near being an expert but I occasionally look into the Multi-regional vs Out of Africa debate.

Falcon

Remembering Gustav Whitehead and others...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the only reason the Wright Brothers are hailed as the first to achieve motorized flight is because their plane was only allowed on exhibition if they were claimed to be the first despite several reports of flights made months or years earlier. Are you suggesting that Columbus's claim is that tenuous?