European were here first!

[OdinPatrick]

http://www.macleans.ca/culture/lifestyle/a...117_16513_16513

Sponsored by National Geographic, where Wells is an explorer-in-residence, and IBM, the study, known as the Genographic Project, is examining how and when early man emerged from Africa, when he settled in Europe and Asia, and other genealogy questions, such as which ethnic groups have Jewish ancestry and whether Homo sapiens mated with other extinct hominid groups. His research is also looking at whether Europeans settled in the New World long before the days of Christopher Columbus. There is a theory that there was a separate, earlier migration to North America from Europe about 13,000 to 18,000 years ago across the Atlantic, which would mean Europeans may have settled in Canada long before Jacques Cartier ever caught sight of the St. Lawrence.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread...a-341384p2.html

Now the Natives cant even say "We were here first!" Canada should educate itself and stop bending over backwards because we were here first.

[M.Dancer]

http://www.macleans.ca/culture/lifestyle/a...117_16513_16513

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread...a-341384p2.html

Now the Natives cant even say "We were here first!" Canada should educate itself and stop bending over backwards because we were here first.

As expected, when someone links to a stupid neo nazi site, their post is invariably, stupid.

A theory, and this one being quite new and radical is a long way from being recognized as fact. I doubt that it will simply because the technological ability for neolithic man to navigate open arctic water is doubtful.

A simpler explanation for DNA in common with europeans is that it came from Asia by eurasians who became north american aboriginals.

....Now speaking of migrations, is it my imagination or are we seeing more of the ubertards from Stormfront here?

[iForgot]

thats nice.

[kengs333]

As expected, when someone links to a stupid neo nazi site, their post is invariably, stupid.

A theory, and this one being quite new and radical is a long way from being recognized as fact. I doubt that it will simply because the technological ability for neolithic man to navigate open arctic water is doubtful.

A simpler explanation for DNA in common with europeans is that it came from Asia by eurasians who became north american aboriginals.

....Now speaking of migrations, is it my imagination or are we seeing more of the ubertards from Stormfront here?

I'm not sure that the theory is "radical". The DNA testing of Indians revealed that the Ojibway have a genetic marker that links them with what is now southern Europe, and the theory is that migrated to North America not via "open arctic water" but along ice that covered much of the North Atlantic. This would not be inconsistant with long distance movements that the Inuit have been known to undertake in more recent times. Some Indians may be decended from peoples who at some point were situated in southern Europe, but that hardly makes them "European".

I suspect that the OP has the same motive as "Archangel" and may in fact be the same person. I'm thinking that someone at Stormfront wouldn't even be this stupid seeing that they are suggesting is that non-whites were the first Europeans; not to mention the fact that posting it on a forum such as this would immediately discredit their assertions.

[iForgot]

Kennewick Man was declared as Southeast Asian or Northern Japanese wasn't he? I know European was ruled out.

Edited February 4, 2008 by iForgot

[M.Dancer]

Kennewick Man was declared as Southeast Asian or Northern Japanese wasn't he? I know European was ruled out.

That's correct. His skull appeared to have caucasoid features, which is not to say he was caucasian. The aboriginal Ainu of Japan are caucasoids....so are the dravidians of India.

[eyeball]

European were here first!

Actually, Earthlings were.

[kengs333]

That's correct. His skull appeared to have caucasoid features, which is not to say he was caucasian. The aboriginal Ainu of Japan are caucasoids....so are the dravidians of India.

No, the Ainu were not caucasoids--there were theories and debates as to whether or not they were Caucasoid of Mongoloid, but genetic testing has shown that despite their appearances they have no genetic connection to Europe, that they were most closely linked to the Japanese.

[M.Dancer]

No, the Ainu were not caucasoids--there were theories and debates as to whether or not they were Caucasoid of Mongoloid, but genetic testing has shown that despite their appearances they have no genetic connection to Europe, that they were most closely linked to the Japanese.

duh!

Europe has nothing to do with it.

2 : of, constituting, or characteristic of a race of humankind native to Europe, North Africa, and southwest Asia and classified according to physical features —used especially in referring to persons of European descent having usually light skin pigmentation

In this particular usage, it has to do with the shape of the skull, not the colour of the skin or the race.

[gc1765]

Now the Natives cant even say "We were here first!" Canada should educate itself and stop bending over backwards because we were here first.

It's not about who was here first, it is about who is the rightful owners of the land. If it were all about who was here first, I'd go back to the person I sold my house to and demand my house back since I was there first!!

[Brain Candy]

Stormfront link aside, this is quite an interesting possibility. Unfortunately as Ive heard It their had been an instance of bones from people of african descent being discovered on reserves, though the first nations (should their be a quote around that now?) demanded the evidence back for proper burial.

Multiple groups coming here at multiple times, then dying off due to various cause would make sense, I wonder if their was any contact between the groups, any wars and the like? Either way I think the current way we treat the natives as far as reserves just helps keep them living in poverty.

[Brain Candy]

It's not about who was here first, it is about who is the rightful owners of the land. If it were all about who was here first, I'd go back to the person I sold my house to and demand my house back since I was there first!!

But they did sort of sell the land, but aside from that if their were populations here before do you think its likely that they came in contact with the natives, and either contacted diseases from them or were killed in a large scale war?

[JerrySeinfeld]

The "we were here first" argument holds no water anyway - otherwise we'd all be telling Muslims to shut their traps and integrate already.

[kengs333]

duh!

Europe has nothing to do with it.

In this particular usage, it has to do with the shape of the skull, not the colour of the skin or the race.

The point is that you are using outdated classifications of race which supposes that "whites" are all related, ie. are "caucasoid," when really the basis for determining relationships between groups of people is based on genetic markers. If Kennewick Man is in fact related to the Ainu, the fact that "the shape of his skull" is "caucasoid" is irrelevant, since he would genetically be most closely related to the Japanese.

Former racial classification used for any of the light-skinned peoples of the world, one of three theoretical major varieties of humans. The Caucasoid group included the indigenous peoples of Europe, the Near East, North Africa, India, and Australia. They were so named because the German anthropologist J F Blumenbach (1752–1840) theorized that they originated in the Caucasus.

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/caucasoid

Many also disapprove of the racialized language that has been used surrounding Kennewick Man. Many have insisted that use of the term "Caucasoid" to begin with was an enormous mistake on Chatters's part. In speaking so, "Chatters has given a racial identification to something that may ultimately deft racial categories. As Alan Goodman, professor of anthropology at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., put it, 'Kennewick Man has become a textbook example of why race science is bad science.'" (New York Times 4/2/98, A12).

Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? (page 227)

[M.Dancer]

The point is that you are using outdated classifications of race which supposes that "whites" are all related, ie. are "caucasoid," when really the basis for determining relationships between groups of people is based on genetic markers. If Kennewick Man is in fact related to the Ainu, the fact that "the shape of his skull" is "caucasoid" is irrelevant, since he would genetically be most closely related to the Japanese.

I'm not arguing he was caucasian or European and I'm pretty sure he wasn't, simply that Kennewick man's skull was described as having caucasoid traits. I would hazard a guess that by using the standards applied by the anthropologist who made that statement on numerous other peoples, a fair but small amount would also be described as caucasoid.

Now the Ainu are a different matter.

Ainu men generally have dense hair development. Many early investigators proposed a Caucasian ancestry, although recent DNA tests have found no traces of Caucasian ancestry. Genetic testing of the Ainu people has shown them to belong mainly to Y-haplogroup D.[3] The only places outside of Japan in which Y-haplogroup D is common are Tibet and the Andaman Islands of India.[4] About one in eight Ainu men have been found to belong to Haplogroup C3, which is the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup among the indigenous populations of the Russian Far East and Mongolia. Some researchers have speculated that this minority of Haplogroup C3 carriers among the Ainu may reflect a certain degree of unidirectional genetic influence from the Nivkhs, with whom the Ainu have long-standing cultural interactions.[5] According to Tanaka et al. (2004), their mtDNA lineages mainly consist of haplogroup Y (21.6%) and haplogroup M7a (15.7%).

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

Edited February 5, 2008 by M.Dancer

[kengs333]

I'm not arguing he was caucasian or European and I'm pretty sure he wasn't, simply that Kennewick man's skull was described as having caucasoid traits. I would hazard a guess that by using the standards applied by the anthropologist who made that statement on numerous other peoples, a fair but small amount would also be described as caucasoid.

But the use of the term "caucasoid" was viewed by many as being problematic as it introduced a racial notion of identity that was not legitimate, and was based on antiquated concepts of race. Of course the situation isn't really helped all that much by the fact that the local Indians claim him as one of their own and proper testing couldn't be conducted, and still hasn't as far as I can determine.

[daniel]

If we want to discuss this topic on the basis of anthropology and DNA, the how far back in time should we go? All of current humanity as we know it are descendants from 500 people from Africa. So the title should be changed to "Africans were here first - and still are."

Just by setting foot on a location does not lay claim to ownership. Leif Eriksonn had made temporary settlement in Newfoundland and then left. The Chinese have visited the west coast North America and then left. There may even be some evidence of Chinese influence amongst the Miq'mak.

Even today, I have personally set foot in many open-houses. How relevant would it be for me to lay claim to all of them now?

Even if it's a matter of who took over control or who is currently changing the culture of a certain society can we say for all of the Normans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Danes, and the Celts to leave the UK? For it was the Iberians who were there first.

[Rue]

As expected, when someone links to a stupid neo nazi site, their post is invariably, stupid.

Lol no. Very predictable but in this case for the first time I find Keng's response without beligerence and hatred and clearly stated without simply repeating his own hateful feelings.

Now as for this ridiculous notion that engaging in a simplistic arguement that aboriginals did not "come to America " first can be used to justify their mistreatment, etc., is laughable.

Many believe we all originate from Africa others somewhere in Persia and then spread out. How does that matter? The fact is aboriginals clearly migrated from the Mongolian planes and came across the ice from Russia and preceded the Spanish, Anglos and French. It's not rocket science.

You want to get into a technical arguement as to whether some of us are caucasian, mongoloid or negroid be my guest. Those three racial sets are not meant to be exhaustive or exclusive. The fact is the dna within the three groups is no more then the same as it is with the other groups.

The fact is we are all apes with 97% of our dna the same as a chimpanzees. All we are is apes that stand up-right and have lost fur and exhibit a unique form of behaviour-killing for the sake of killing. While our violence is no different then a chimp's our propensity to kill simply for the sake of killing makes us unique from all other sapiens and life forms on the planet.

Some of us apes lived in places prior to others and history is replete with examples one pack of apes trying to fight another pack of apes for territory when there was plenty of room for everyone. That is what we do-kill for the sake of killing not out of necessity.

Some of us apes still think when we gesticulate, jump up and down and bare our fangs in an effort to scare other apes away that this is intelligent discussion. No its pre-programmed genetic predisposition to showing anger and hostility.

Now please excuse me I have to go eat fleas from my co-worker's hair. (I prefer grapefruit to bananas)

Edited February 8, 2008 by Rue

[Brain Candy]

Actually we share alot of dna with mice and plants, so all we really are is a grotesque mice plant hybrid, except for our pesky nature of creating civilisation and pondering the meaning of existence. Small differences in DNA= major differences in traits.

[Law&Order]

The use of mitrochondrial dna haplogroups to determine migration and origin is a huge debatable theory. It can't pinpoint any timelines, or path of migration. It only links huge groups of similar DNA (we're talking about billions of people in one group) together and suggests that because one part of the group is located in one region, then all other parts of the group must be descended from them. The presence of mtDNA markers only suggest a connection to the group in theory, not necessarily as belonging entirely to that group.

Archaeologically speaking the Europeans are relative late-comers to Europe compared with the archaeological findings in the Americas since the earliest archaeological discoveries here predate Europes by almost 10,000 years. So the idea that Europeans could have been here before aboriginal people is somewhat absurd.

[buffycat]

Archaeologically speaking the Europeans are relative late-comers to Europe compared with the archaeological findings in the Americas since the earliest archaeological discoveries here predate Europes by almost 10,000 years. So the idea that Europeans could have been here before aboriginal people is somewhat absurd.

Absurd? Not necessarily. Consider if you will, that the shorelines of the North American continent, especially on the Eastern shelf were exposed due to the lowered sea levels of the last glaciation and you wind up with much archeological evidence now burried under water. Also, keep in mind that as the glaciers retreated northwards they scoured the earth removing much evidence of was there during the glacial periods. It is also important to realize that even during the glacial events, there was ebb and flow of the ice, with corridors opening and closing and severity of climate also continually changing. Climate and weather are NOT static - nothing in the natural world is. So, with this in mind and noting that Atlantic sea ice would have also extended much farther south than present day, the ocean route from western Europe to the eastern coasts of NA would be quite short. If we agree and contemplate the movements of peoples across the southern Pacific to populate the western zones of SA, a much longer voyage, then reasonably we can make an educated guess that there may have also been population movement from the Western parts of Europe to the Eastern parts of NA. These may well have been seasonal - following migrations of sea mammals for food; etc. It is not beyond reason to think that temporary or even permanent settlements could have arisen, peopled by natives of Western Europe. As the ice sheets over the ocean recede, as well as those on land the journey would have been longer, and less likely. Those who perhaps stayed behind would have been assimilated with those who migrated from the other direction (Beringia, South Pacific etc).

IOW - it is not absurd. People seem to forget about the land configurations and lowered sea levels during the last glaciation - as well as the paleoclimate involved.

A little more Earth History in high school would do a lot of good for many.

[M.Dancer]

Archaeologically speaking the Europeans are relative late-comers to Europe compared with the archaeological findings in the Americas since the earliest archaeological discoveries here predate Europes by almost 10,000 years. So the idea that Europeans could have been here before aboriginal people is somewhat absurd.

There are numerous examples of European habitation of europe by man dating back to before 35,000 BC to as far back as 50,000 BC.

There is very little uncontested evidence of human habitation in the new world earlier than 25,000 BC .

Never the less, the chances of europeans in the NEw world before the asians is very remote.