The Real First Nations

[Shady]

I read this very interesting piece from The Washington Post yesterday. I wasn't really sure where to post it, but it's very interesting, with many different political and historical implications.

Radical theory of first Americans places Stone Age Europeans in Delmarva 20,000 years ago

When the crew of the Virginia scallop trawler Cinmar hauled a mastodon tusk onto the deck in 1970, another oddity dropped out of the net: a dark, tapered stone blade, nearly eight inches long and still sharp.

Forty years later, this rediscovered prehistoric slasher has reopened debate on a radical theory about who the first Americans were and when they got here.

...

Whoever fashioned that blade was not supposed to be here.

Its makers probably paddled from Europe and arrived in America thousands of years ahead of the western migration, making them the first Americans, argues Smithsonian Institution anthropologist Dennis Stanford.

WP

It's good to be home.

[dre]

I read this very interesting piece from The Washington Post yesterday. I wasn't really sure where to post it, but it's very interesting, with many different political and historical implications.

It's good to be home.

Sweet. The indians better give us our land back!

[WWWTT]

I have heard this before.

Actually in Mexico there was a Neanderthall skull discovered,when I last heard it was dated 40 000yrs BC however it has bein dismissed.

In fact many findings that don't align with popular belief are brushed aside as having no relevance/merit despite their authenticity.

Beware Shady this topic falls under the conspiracy theory heading!

WWWTT

[jbg]

Sweet. The indians better give us our land back!

All kidding aside, I do not like arguments about who got where "first". The logical outcome of those arguments is making the Great Rift Valley of Africa a very crowded place.

There have, throughout history, been huge migrations of people generated by both needs to depart various areas, and better opportunities in other areas. Take the very first migration, from Africa. Africa, as we know today, has many areas which don't support much in the way of agriculture. Some of it is Sahara Desert. Other areas are rain forests where the soil washes away of cleared for farming. In short, while Africa may have been the place where apes jumped the species line and became humans it was a less, on balance, favorable place for civilization than nearby areas of Asia or Europe, or then-easily reachable Australia.

Other mass migrations are far more modern. As Europe erupted into almost a millennium of bloody warfare, people first explored the Orient and then, more or less by accident, happened upon the Americas. Smallpox did the job that armies could not have done in decimating the native populations in both the Americas and Australia. This did not happen in Asia or Africa since the joined continents fostered partial immunity from those diseases.

Thus, for example, when it comes to the Middle East I don't get hung up on whether the Arabs, Hebrews or some other peoples were there "first". People move and arrive. Ditto the native populations of North America.

[Shady]

All kidding aside, I do not like arguments about who got where "first".

I tend to agree, but unfortunately that ship has already sailed. So I'd rather have the actual facts regarding science and history properly correct the record. Especially since we have a political structure in place that transfers billions of dollars every year under the gise of what looks to be a false historic narrative. If we were all treatd equally, this wouldn't otherwise matter.

[Guest Peeves]

I read this very interesting piece from The Washington Post yesterday. I wasn't really sure where to post it, but it's very interesting, with many different political and historical implications.

It's good to be home.

Same old C&P crap. Ever had an original thought, or are you just trolling?

[Yukon Jack]

The very notion of "First Nations" (note the word 'Nations' in the plural) is ridiculous to the extreme.

The word "First" means the one who came before all others, and by definition, there can be only ONE.

And yet, when I drive from Winnipeg to Huntsville on HWY 11, I see at least five signs telling me that I am entering some so-called "First Nation" territory. Even more, when I take the road home, on HWY 17 on the way home.

Let written history prove that one so-called aboriginal 'nation' preceded all other aboriginal 'nations', and then I will start giving credit to the argument that there is really just one First Nation.

Besides, all through history, there were conquerors and conquered. Until recently the conquered accepted their fate and made the best of their failure to defend and protect themselves. Nobody in history have ever made the attempt to cash in on their own incompetence and demand (and get) billions of dollars from those who managed their affairs wisely and powerfully, until recently.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Yukon Jack

[jbg]

I tend to agree, but unfortunately that ship has already sailed. So I'd rather have the actual facts regarding science and history properly correct the record.

Correct the record as to what?

It's a very dangerous discussion when you're talking about the rights of people we call "Westerners" virtually anywhere in the world other than northern Europe.

[Michael Hardner]

Let written history prove that one so-called aboriginal 'nation' preceded all other aboriginal 'nations', and then I will start giving credit to the argument that there is really just one First Nation.

Well, there may have been one nation when they migrated from Asia, but they evolved into nations - plural. This idea isn't controversial as far as I know.

Besides, all through history, there were conquerors and conquered. Until recently the conquered accepted their fate and made the best of their failure to defend and protect themselves. Nobody in history have ever made the attempt to cash in on their own incompetence and demand (and get) billions of dollars from those who managed their affairs wisely and powerfully, until recently.

Also until recently, you could make slaves out of your conquered peoples too. I think billions of dollars in aid has gone to the conquered in many examples, and Canada was founded as a nation of three separate peoples, with concessions made to the conquered so it sounds to me like you really want to turn back the clock.

[Yukon Jack]

Well, there may have been one nation when they migrated from Asia, but they evolved into nations - plural. This idea isn't controversial as far as I know.

Also until recently, you could make slaves out of your conquered peoples too. I think billions of dollars in aid has gone to the conquered in many examples, and Canada was founded as a nation of three separate peoples, with concessions made to the conquered so it sounds to me like you really want to turn back the clock.

Not at all!

I immigrated to Canada from a small country, a small nation, that has been conquered by Tatars, Turks, Hapsburgs and Soviets.

Never once did Hungarians ever demanded billions of dollars for maintenance from the conquerors. They just outdid them in sports, arts, sciences and every moral measure worth considering by civilized people.

Hungarians also started the movement that eventually helped to destroy the most oppressive regime in the history of mankind, you know, the Soviet Union, although all the credit nowadays is given to the 1968 Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, and the Polish Unions, 12 years and 33 years after the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, respectively.

Anyways, my point is that the so-called "First Nations" need to grow up, and stop crying over spilled milk.

[jbg]

Hungarians also started the movement that eventually helped to destroy the most oppressive regime in the history of mankind, you know, the Soviet Union, although all the credit nowadays is given to the 1968 Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, and the Polish Unions, 12 years and 33 years after the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, respectively.

The "Velvet Revolution" was actually in November 1989. 1968 was called the "Prague Spring" after which the "Arab Spring" was dubiously named.

Hungary deserves a lot of the credit for 1989 since it, at great risk of Soviet retaliation, threw open its borders, providing an escape route for people from other Warsaw Pact countries, especially East Germany. The direct result was that hundreds of thousands a day were fleeing. It was not Gorbachev being a nice guy that caused the breach in the Berlin Wall; it was the Hungarian opening.

[Yukon Jack]

Well, there may have been one nation when they migrated from Asia, but they evolved into nations - plural. This idea isn't controversial as far as I know.

Also until recently, you could make slaves out of your conquered peoples too. I think billions of dollars in aid has gone to the conquered in many examples, and Canada was founded as a nation of three separate peoples, with concessions made to the conquered so it sounds to me like you really want to turn back the clock.

Not at all!

I immigrated to Canada from a small country, a small nation, that has been conquered by Tatars, Turks, Hapsburgs and Soviets.

Never once did Hungarians ever demanded billions of dollars for maintenance from the conquerors. They just outdid them in sports, arts, sciences and every moral measure worth considering by civilized people.

Hungarians also started the movement that eventually helped to destroy the most oppressive regime in the history of mankind, you know, the Soviet Union, although all the credit nowadays is given to the 1968 Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, and the Polish Unions, 12 years and 33 years after the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, respectively.

Anyways, my point is that the so-called "First Nations" need to grow up, and stop crying over spilled milk.

I agree with you, Hungarians were never OFFICIALLY slaves. But just go ahead and ask anyone who managed to escape the Soviet yoke if they would ever consider themselves slaves, under Stalin.

I don't know about you, but Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison, Monroe,Jackson and van Buren sounds a heck of a lot friendlier than Lenin and Stalin.

[Shady]

Same old C&P crap. Ever had an original thought, or are you just trolling?

What's C&P? And what does it have to do with the Washington Post piece from yesterday? I don't get it.

Correct the record as to what?

The truth. Which should never be a dangerous discussion. Or should we all just keep our heads in the sand?

[Michael Hardner]

Hungarians also started the movement that eventually helped to destroy the most oppressive regime in the history of mankind, you know, the Soviet Union, although all the credit nowadays is given to the 1968 Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, and the Polish Unions, 12 years and 33 years after the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, respectively.

Anyways, my point is that the so-called "First Nations" need to grow up, and stop crying over spilled milk.

I agree with you, Hungarians were never OFFICIALLY slaves. But just go ahead and ask anyone who managed to escape the Soviet yoke if they would ever consider themselves slaves, under Stalin.

What I don't understand from your double response, is that you seem to be advocating total subjugation of the conquered, which is what the Soviets did.

I don't know about you, but Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison, Monroe,Jackson and van Buren sounds a heck of a lot friendlier than Lenin and Stalin.

I agree.

[bleeding heart]

I agree with you, Hungarians were never OFFICIALLY slaves.

I don't know about you, but Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison, Monroe,Jackson and van Buren sounds a heck of a lot friendlier than Lenin and Stalin.

Just to point out that six of the seven Presidents you mention here did own slaves..."officially."

But I still agree with you about ol' Lenin and Stalin. Not the better of the world's slavedrivers.

Edited March 18, 2012 by bleeding heart

[jbg]

Just to point out that six of the seven Presidents you mention here did own slaves..."officially."

I don't think Van Buren or Adams owned slaves.

[jacee]

I tend to agree, but unfortunately that ship has already sailed. So I'd rather have the actual facts regarding science and history properly correct the record. Especially since we have a political structure in place that transfers billions of dollars every year under the gise of what looks to be a false historic narrative. If we were all treatd equally, this wouldn't otherwise matter.

It will be interesting to continue to learn more about the history of North America. However, it will not change anything about our current reality - our legal obligations to First Nations.

The Aboriginal and treaty rights recognized by our Constitution are not based on them being the first inhabitants of North America, but on the fact that they were here before us.

I'm not the first inhabitant of my house, but anyone else who wants to move in has to make an agreement with me, and it will cost them money.

Same principle.

Give it up Shady. It's a non-starter.

But continue the quest for information. It's intriguing.

Edited March 19, 2012 by jacee

[jbg]

But here as I pointed out 95% of the FN population died just as colonization was getting under way. 5% of the population doesn't get 100% of the land. There have been movements of peoples throughout history. Get used to it.

[jacee]

But here as I pointed out 95% of the FN population died just as colonization was getting under way. 5% of the population doesn't get 100% of the land. There have been movements of peoples throughout history. Get used to it.

I'm not commenting on the US situation as I'm not familiar with the legalities there.

In Canada though, the treaties stand.

[jbg]

I'm not commenting on the US situation as I'm not familiar with the legalities there.

In Canada though, the treaties stand.

My statement had nothing to do with treaties.

[BC_chick]

But here as I pointed out 95% of the FN population died just as colonization was getting under way. 5% of the population doesn't get 100% of the land.

They're the remaining members, why wouldn't they be entitled to it?

[bleeding heart]

I don't think Van Buren or Adams owned slaves.

Adams didn't...that's why I said "six of the seven."

Edited April 17, 2012 by bleeding heart

[jbg]

Adams didn't...that's why I said "six of the seven."

That is skewed by the fact that those "six of the seven" hailed from Southern states, all but Andrew Jackson being from Virginia.

[jbg]

They're the remaining members, why wouldn't they be entitled to it?

Population and demographic shifts are perpetual. Or else the Great Rift Valley of Africa would be a mighty crowded place.

[Black Dog]

Other mass migrations are far more modern. As Europe erupted into almost a millennium of bloody warfare, people first explored the Orient and then, more or less by accident, happened upon the Americas. Smallpox did the job that armies could not have done in decimating the native populations in both the Americas and Australia. This did not happen in Asia or Africa since the joined continents fostered partial immunity from those diseases.

And what smallpox didn't get, the Seventh Cavalry tried to. It's amazing how many people seem unaware of the fact that the genocide of the American aboriginal population was a matter of policy based on the white supremacist beliefs of the day.