Superiour White People - ?

[Riverwind]

I stated that those in the scientific community who perpetuate the myth that the natives have to be immigrants are racist...and I explained the reasons why.

Why is stating a scientific fact racist? Natives immigrated to the Americas and no credible scientist believes otherwise. Your suggestion that natives evolved independently from the rest of humanity is completely absurd for the reasons that have been raised in this thread. Are you willing to acknowledge this or do you cling to your claim despite the complete lack of scientific rational? Edited November 28, 2007 by Riverwind

[AngusThermopyle]

Then his opinion is as worthless as the mouthwash he has been using.

Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

I would say look in a mirror when you state such things. You offer no proof whatsoever of this ridiculous fairy tale that you propose. Any person with an IQ above room temperature can tell you that your whole simultaneous evolution "theory" is the biggest pile of none sense ever to roll down the turnpike.

Will you now tell us that you have the credentials to personally prove this garbage you spout? Why not? It would fall right in line with your other bullsh*t posts about being military (a Captain), about some fictitious MA, and all the other false and disingenuous bull you've posted.

I don't know what planet you're currently wandering around on but you really should try joining the rest of us back on Earth.

[White Doors]

What is illegal masturbation?

Ask Peewee Herman.. George Michael... etc etc

[White Doors]

Are you a scientist?

I don't have to be to know that humans evolved in Africa. ALL humans.

Please tell us again how this isn't true. People used to think Mice spontaneously generated from potatoe sacks and hay, but they got over that in the 1800's.

[White Doors]

Then his opinion is as worthless as the mouthwash he has been using. Legal masturbation - using the law for self-gratifying purposes....i.e. Calling the police to your neighbour's house because he didn't invite you to his party.

I don't have to be a scientist to have a valid opinion.

For the record, my opinion is that 'natives' in the America's are of the same stock as are the 'natives' in Ethiopia. That is the accepted scientific theory and all valid testing bears this out.

You might as well be arguing against gravity.

How about you provide us some proof?

Or is that too much to ask?

[Posit]

I don't have to be to know that humans evolved in Africa. ALL humans.

Please tell us again how this isn't true. People used to think Mice spontaneously generated from potatoe sacks and hay, but they got over that in the 1800's.

The "out of Africa" idea is just a theory, albeit a credible one based on archaeology. However, as the archaeology of Austrialia, and the Americas progresses it raises questions about large gaps in the theory. The simultaneous evolution theory isn't my theory. It is one put forward by a number of scientist who have studied the data and postulated that a simultaneous evolution could have occurred. Modern interpretations of archaeological data suggest that the Americas was populated better than 100,000 years ago - long before "boat technology came into existence. The expansion out of Africa was by foot.

Other scientists while holding on to the "out of Africa" theory have suggest that early occupations of the Americas could have been via Australia and Antarctica and are awaiting geological data to determine if Antarctica might have had a hospitable climate during that period and before. If they can't prove the land migrations then it adds fodder to the simultaneous theory. One of the basis of this theory holds that marsupials evolved both in Australia and South America at about the same time. It is "possible" in theory, that hominids also developed in the Americas at the same time.

I understand that many of you don't find any theory plausible except one that supports your very limited view of the world. Even after Columbus proved the world was a sphere, there were still many naysayers right up until the 17th century. Darwin's theory is still a hold out for racists because it supports the superior race ideology. Yet Darwin has been debunked as well and still many hold on to some essence of hope that is might somehow be resurrected as scientific study. I would suggest that your objection to theories being presented is ingrained in your world view of Christian male dominance, which by evidence of parallel societies is absolute nonsense. That theory was debunked the minute Jesuit and Sulpician missionaries first arrived in North America - a place they called "Paradise", the Biblical reference to Heaven. And les savauges had it all.....

Edited November 28, 2007 by Posit

[M.Dancer]

In others words, no he doesn't have any credible links.

[AngusThermopyle]

In others words, no he doesn't have any credible links.

Are you really surprised?

[M.Dancer]

After reading that Darwin has been debunked? No.

The kind of person that thinks that Darwin's theory was case closed on evolution doesn't really have room for science in their nut. I doubt even that Darwin thought that his theory on the origin of species would be the end of the tale. In fact, Darwin's theory was the first brick in a wall and every other brick has been built upon his opus. Darwin would not have been surprised to find that later scientists have modified and polished his original. And with the advent of new disciplines like genetics with DNA technology, they are discovering more about the origens of species every day.

[Rue]

There is a huge difference between oral traditions related to 'technology' (i.e. knowledge of the plants and animals around) and oral traditions related to history. Oral traditions related to 'technology' can be verified and corrected if our experiences today contradict the oral tradition. Oral traditions related to history might have some basis in truth but they will always be self-serving since they form part of the mythology that is used to unify a culture. In other words, any history that does not present the group in a flattering light will be conveniently forgotten and any 'outsiders' are painted a caricatures. This problem of biased perspective exists with western histories as well, however, the fact that so much was written down makes it possible to go back and revise the tales spun by western historians when necessary. This makes written histories more useful than oral histories when it comes to understanding what really happened in the past.

I appreciate the distinction and points you made.

[Rue]

To Jefer;

"Rue, no one is saying that there is no use for oral history. Of course there is. And in some situationas it can be very useful as an aid to historical research as well. But it is hardly ever an example of concrete evidence. "

As clarified above I concur and that you for stating in the above manner. That was the only point I was trying to make too. You said it better and more susinctly.

"You seem to labour under the assumption that people on the other side of the argument have the same hang ups with history"

I am simply saying we all have cultural biases that flavour how we view historic value and importance.

" none of the whiteys alive today were alive when colonialism happened and neither were any of the natives today."

I am not sure what you are inferring from the above. Do you think we can ignore the past? Could it be you feel this way because of a cultural bias flowing from someone who asssumes his status in life is justifiable and so will not question it and just assumes its there because it should be?

In law, when we discuss aboriginal rights. we state that aboriginal legal rights preceded confederation and continued after confederation and precisely because of the fact they preceded confederation's existence, the federal government inherited the responsibility to honour the treaties entered into by the Crown prior to Canada's existence.

When we formed a nation we gave our word that the treaties signed with the Crown preceding confederation would be inherited by our government and honoured. However we legally breached most of them.

Now you say you shouldn't be responsible and no one cares? I think polls have shown in fact the majority of non aboriginal Canadians do care. Gallup polls have shown time and time again Canadians acknowledge there are beached treaties we need to remedy. The fact remains the government that breached these treaties is OUR government and so we legally inherit its collective responsibilities and the consequences of its past actions and have a moral and legal obligation to resolve them otherwise what are we?

For me, you can't have it both ways. You can't expect to call yourself a Canadian citizen when its convenient but not accept the responsibilities that go with nationhood that are not always self-serving. Nations have many things we inherit not just the things that are convenient to us in the present tense.

Funny how I find the same people that lambast immigrants of being crass opportunists who just want to use medicare and contribute nothing are the same people that take their citizenship for status and just assume its their right to retain things that do not belong to them.

As a lawyer and as a fair person and like yes most Canadians, I believe our federal and provincial governments have a legal and moral responsibility to remedy all the breached treaties otherwise we live a legacy and in a nation built on a legacy of lies and theft.

Am I responsible for the breached treaties because I was not born a hundred years ago-why of courser. If I continue to support a government that provides me rights that come from illegally taking them away from others what does that make me? Can I live off of the avails of theft and say well I didn't steal them they were just here when I was born?

Yah I have heard the Swiss bankers make that arguement for refusing to return billions in stolen money and property from Jews from all over Europe. Excuse me but it doesn't god own to good with me.

Me I definitely think all of us collectively as Canadians if we claim to be a nation can not in good faith ignore the legacy of history of the native peoples and pretend we can simply ignore it.

Thanks but when I travel to Britain and France and see their museums and government institutions filled to the brim with stolen property they call their own do you think it makes it valid simply because they won't return it? Its a legacy and living monument to theft until its returned and call me crazy but I think people who possess stolen goods are condemned to imperfection and negative consequence until they balance the imbalances and return things to where they rightfully belong where possible.

I also think some of the posters mistake what it means to precede by trying to argue we are all immigrants. That misses the entire point. Everyone comes from everywhere. We all concede that. The point though is that aboriginals did not proceed us, they preceded us and their collectives and societies that lived before ours did not own and possess property. That is a Western notion. Aboriginals did not establish their collectives by wiping out life and then imposing their own as we did.

If aboriginal collectives have treated each other unfairly, they cleansing and healing rituals to resolve such imbalances between them. They practice what they ask us to do.

What I am saying is to call aboriginals immigrants just like anyone else is idiotic. They preceded all of us. Trying to pretend that is not so with fictional arguements as to where we come from does no change this fact and its a transparent way to try evade it.

The fact is our society continues to enjoy certain collective rights at the present that come from theft and dishonesty and its those I want cleaned up because yes if I live off of the avails of theft, I am a thief and no trying to argue I just ended up with them is to me a gutless way to deal with consequences.

" I think with your last few posts it is obvious who is stretching science and archaeology for political reasons."

Look Jefferiah I agree I may come off quaint or childishly romantic to you - but I am quite serious. Many people like me also feel the same way. we want to do the right thing.

As for the archeology and science, you refer to I have not engaged in any reference to archeology and will not. Tnanks I pass on archeology and these debates as to where we come from. The last time I looked we all came from a woman's pelvic region.

Modern hospitals and modern science are not stretching anything when they incorporate and learn from aboriginal traditions. They actually find them quite compatible and beneficial.

Edited November 28, 2007 by Rue

[jefferiah]

Actually Rue. I'd like to apologize fornot making my post clear enough. Rereading it it see it was not written very well, but I was in a hurry. The first paragraph of my post where I make reference to oral tradition I was addressing you personally. The second paragraph I was referring to and addressing Posit. Sorry for the misunderstanding, Rue.

See if you re-read that post you will see where after that first small paragraph, I then turn over to Posit. I find it funny that he would assert these ridiculous Pangea theories and say that they are the most commonly accepted ones. And that all other historical theories of how natives got here are some attempt to ease white man's guilt. Even though I think his theory is ridiculous, I then go on to say, that generally most of us on this side of the argument do not look at things that way anyway. You know, as JBG has stated in similar topics, mankind and various tribes and groups within mankind have moved constantly throughout history. It was not so relatively long ago that there were no Turks in what we now call Turkey. And that Turkish invasion pretty much coincides with the same period in which the Normans invaded in Britain. Now no one is saying that all these invasions were just hunky dory. But after a few hundred years most of us tend to forget about it, when it comes to seeking some sort of reparation from the descendants of some offending tribe. So I was making the argument to Posit that most of us don't feel the need to rewrite history or tamper with archaelogy because we don't think in that way anyway. To me it doesn't matter a bit anymore that natives were here first. Because we have been here a long time. And as far as I am concerned, having been born in 1980 (I am pretty young still), this means I was here before any so-called natives born in 1981. But then I go on to point out (not referring to you though Rue but to Posit), that here he is tossing out some of the silliest theories on here, calling them commonplace and accepted and saying that anyone who disagrees is a racist trying to ease white man's guilt. But really Rue. You have seen what Posit is asserting. Who do you think is more likely stretching some truth for the sake of his own agenda?

Anyways I apologize once again for the misunderstanding.

Edited November 28, 2007 by jefferiah

[Riverwind]

The simultaneous evolution theory isn't my theory. It is one put forward by a number of scientist who have studied the data and postulated that a simultaneous evolution could have occurred.

Only by people who don't understand the nature of evolution. Random mutations over 50 million of years produced creatures ranging from lemurs to gorillas from the same ancestors. If parallel evolution of humans did occur it should have produced distinct species that probably could not interbred. That did not happen which implies that aboriginals in the Americas were separated from their cousins relatively recently. New discoveries may suggest different pathways and time lines but they don't alter the fundamental conclusion that modern homo sapiens migrated around the world from Africa.

One of the basis of this theory holds that marsupials evolved both in Australia and South America at about the same time. It is "possible" in theory, that hominids also developed in the Americas at the same time

The common ancestor of marsupial migrated between the continents. Once the continents were separated evolution produced distinct species. The differences between south American and australian marsupials is huge compared to the differences between American aboriginals and Asian homo sapians. IOW - the example of the marsupial demonstrates that a parallel evolution of hominids likely did not occur. Edited November 28, 2007 by Riverwind

[Don Cherry]

Im no expert on this subject but what about Kennewick Man? If you do a web search you will find lots of info on him.

Been a few years since I have read anything about it but to sum it up it the way I remember it. Seems like a lot of native people are scared of allowing any research to be done.

Edited November 28, 2007 by Don Cherry

[kengs333]

Im no expert on this subject but what about Kennewick Man? If you do a web search you will find lots of info on him.

Been a few years since I have read anything about it but to sum it up it the way I remember it. Seems like a lot of native people are scared of allowing any research to be done.

In that respect, I think they are much like many Christians who don't want to see their interpretation of the Bible upset by factual evidence. Namely, those people who staunchly believe that the Earth was created in 4004 BC when in fact nowhere in the Bible does it state when the Earth was created, just that it was created and that it took seven days.

They also don't want to believe that their ancestors originated with Adam and Eve because they've gone over to different types of worship that deny God.

[M.Dancer]

Im no expert on this subject but what about Kennewick Man? If you do a web search you will find lots of info on him.

Been a few years since I have read anything about it but to sum it up it the way I remember it. Seems like a lot of native people are scared of allowing any research to be done.

Kenniwick man is a skull that displays caucasoid features. Note that the word is caucasoid, not caucasion. No one knows what colour he was, whether his eyes were round or slanted, his lips thick or thin. There are many interesting theories about Kennewick man from the poetic (such as when genetic pools are isolated interesting mutations appear to the straightforward. Kennewick man is not dissimilar from other caucasoid asians, namely the Ainu of Japan or even southern indians ( of india).

[M.Dancer]

On PBS right now, a doc about the african origins od all humainty....The San are our great great great........grand progenitors.....

[Brain Candy]

Notwithstanding fantasy, canada has two official languages.

But Quebec only has one.

[M.Dancer]

On PBS right now, a doc about the african origins od all humainty....The San are our great great great........grand progenitors.....

I have read this before....the first humans in Europe still had african skeletal morphology....they were tall and thin limbed to better adapt to the warm african climate.....thousands of years will pass and they will adapt to the ice age climate of europe and produce me.

Well, the doc didn't mention me.....just the first cro-magnons....

[M.Dancer]

Oh Oh....NOVA DOC on now....A DNA marker found in the CHuChi.....related to the North American Indian....

RACISTS!!!!

[kengs333]

Oh Oh....NOVA DOC on now....A DNA marker found in the CHuChi.....related to the North American Indian....

RACISTS!!!!

They're discussing something along the lines of this, right?:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/x/

[jbg]

Seems like a lot of native people are scared of allowing any research to be done.

You're surprised?

[White Doors]

Oh Oh....NOVA DOC on now....A DNA marker found in the CHuChi.....related to the North American Indian....

RACISTS!!!!

Absolutely disgusting.

The Mohawks should be burning tires outside of PBS's headquarters. the racist pigs.

[M.Dancer]

Absolutely disgusting.

The Mohawks should be burning tires outside of PBS's headquarters. the racist pigs.

I find the topic of the ascent of man absolutely fascinating and I'm not at the least bit concerned my fore fathers left africa 10s of thousands of years ago.....actually, one census a few years back had ethnicity, and then a list of ethnicities....so I phoned and asked how far back I was supposed to go. The chap on the other end asked if my parents were mixed heritage (they were, Scottish and Anglo-Scots-Welsh) and I said yes. He said as far back as I felt comfortable and I was comfortable with my paleolithic ancestors.....

[Don Cherry]

Kenniwick man is a skull that displays caucasoid features. Note that the word is caucasoid, not caucasion. No one knows what colour he was, whether his eyes were round or slanted, his lips thick or thin. There are many interesting theories about Kennewick man from the poetic (such as when genetic pools are isolated interesting mutations appear to the straightforward. Kennewick man is not dissimilar from other caucasoid asians, namely the Ainu of Japan or even southern indians ( of india).

I was told{Rutherford Show-Calgary} kennewick man was important because he pre dates regular North American Natives. In other words "Natives" as we know them were not here first. There was another race of people here first who apparently didnt do so well. Example Kennewick man was speared to death. What happened to all of Kennewick people? Was there some kind of genocide going on?

Anyway nothing is proven. But the "Natives" are sure doing everything they can to prevent anything from being studied.