United States The United States and Immigration Policy

[Captain X]

Ah, ok.

I vaguely remember the Kennewick Man issues from an anthro class I had, where they used it as an example of how NOT to do anthro work.

As for the one in South America, do you remember where?

Because they've found Roman shipwrecks off the coast of Brazil which likely ended up there because of storms off the West African coast (Morocco was a big Roman industrial area for clay urn/vessel making). It's not inconceivable some Romans or other Med people found thier way to S. America by accident, and stayed because they couldn't return home.

Same with the Zuni and how it seems they likely interbred with some Japanese Buddhist monks who somehow ended up in the Gulf of Cali centuries before Europeans got to the area.

Then there's the whole Polynesian/S. America issue where it seems the Polynesians might have had some presence on the west coast of S. America for a time.

Sorry, little bit of a tangent there regarding some of the lesser known situations where 'non Natives' made it to the America's and may have interbred with the locals before the Europeans got here.

I don't recall where exactly he was found. Mostly what I remember was discussion about his age, which is what gave the idea that he was European more significance, as he was far too old to be some ancient Greek or Roman who had somehow managed to make it across the Atlantic, and would have actually pre-dated the Natives in the region.

 

[Bacle]

I don't recall where exactly he was found. Mostly what I remember was discussion about his age, which is what gave the idea that he was European more significance, as he was far too old to be some ancient Greek or Roman who had somehow managed to make it across the Atlantic, and would have actually pre-dated the Natives in the region.

Pre-dates the natives in the area?!

Ok, that is a genuine oddity, if real, and makes me think the whole thing was probably the result of poor data collection, analysis, or interpretation on somebodies part.

The only way you get non-Natives in S. America, before the local natives got there, is if some African people made the crossing in the narrower bit of the Atlantic between West Africa and Brazil.

 

[LordsFire]

Pre-dates the natives in the area?!

Ok, that is a genuine oddity, if real, and makes me think the whole thing was probably the result of poor data collection, analysis, or interpretation on somebodies part.

The only way you get non-Natives in S. America, before the local natives got there, is if some African people made the crossing in the narrower bit of the Atlantic between West Africa and Brazil.

Thor Heyerdahl actually tested this. He's more famous for 'Kon Tiki,' a raft built with period-available technology to prove the viability of the theory that South Americans travelled the Pacific to become the first Polynesians, but he also built two Papyrus-reed boats, Ra and Ra 2, to prove that Africans could have sailed to South America, and almost certainly did, forming its first wave of inhabitants.

 

[Bacle]

Thor Heyerdahl actually tested this. He's more famous for 'Kon Tiki,' a raft built with period-available technology to prove the viability of the theory that South Americans travelled the Pacific to become the first Polynesians, but he also built two Papyrus-reed boats, Ra and Ra 2, to prove that Africans could have sailed to South America, and almost certainly did, forming its first wave of inhabitants.

I know about the Kon Tiki, but what was proved there was that Polynesians could have reached S. America, not the Polynesians CAME from S. America.

Pretty much all evidence points to Polynesians coming from Asia, not from S. America.

However, I'll admit this might be getting close to an off-topic derail from the actual topic of Immigration.

Do we have a thread for discussions around the peopling of the America's, or paleolithic migrations/movements of people across the globe? Because it is a fascinating subject to dive into.

 

[LordSunhawk]

Feel free to start one, @Bacle

 

[Captain X]

Pre-dates the natives in the area?!

Hence why Natives tend to have very strong feelings toward anything that even remotely suggests they weren't here first. I doubt there'd have been any uproar over the idea that some Roman got lost and ended up in South America.

Ok, that is a genuine oddity, if real, and makes me think the whole thing was probably the result of poor data collection, analysis, or interpretation on somebodies part.

IIRC, it started because of the artist who did the reconstruction of his face based on the skull ended up with something resembling a European, and after much drama and speculation, the DNA results put an end to it.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

It is mainly stemming from the idea that white people are trying to de legitimize Natives' claim to the Americas, so this isn't a problem with all of humanity originating in Africa so much as smug white people using the "you're just immigrants, too" line and things like certain ancient remains being said to more closely resemble white people than Natives.

This is similar to the ongoing attempts to delegimitise the indigeneity of whites to Europe. Cheddarman had a darker phenotype than modern British, therefore Nigerians are the real native British.

Even though the genes of Cheddarman are found in the native British and not Nigerians, the fact he had a darker phenotype is used to indicate that the native whites have no claim to indigeneity.

I remember arguing with some folks on my side of the political divide about the solutrean hypothesis and Kennewick man. I think its highly likely that very small groups of people from europe likely found themselves marooned in the Americas over the millennia prior to Columbus. It sometimes happened the other way around..we have records of what were likely to be inuit getting marooned in scotland.

But their genes long ago melted into the general genepool of the natives and they left no real trace. If Kennewick man was not related to modern natives he wouldnt have been white anyways. He would likely have been from a group related to the modern Ainu.

 

[Captain X]

This is similar to the ongoing attempts to delegimitise the indigeneity of whites to Europe. Cheddarman had a darker phenotype than modern British, therefore Nigerians are the real native British.

And likely for the same reasons as the WN types for trying to delegitimatize Natives' claims to the Americas, though in this case rather than excusing past atrocities, it's to excuse possible future atrocities.

 

[Abhishekm]

It is mainly stemming from the idea that white people are trying to delegitimize Natives' claim to the Americas, so this isn't a problem with all of humanity originating in Africa so much as smug white people using the "you're just immigrants, too" line and things like certain ancient remains being said to more closely resemble white people than Natives.

Wait hold on, does that mean they honestly claim they had no territory conflicts in that timescale? Like what? They have not had a territory conflict either way since literally evolving from monkeys in their land? Huh?

Doesn't mean they don't have a claim. Just saying this whole 'first' thing doesn't really hold water on a evolutionary timescale.

And likely for the same reasons as the WN types for trying to delegitimatize Natives' claims to the Americas, though in this case rather than excusing past atrocities, it's to excuse possible future atrocities.

Honestly atleast consider the idea all variations of it are the equivalent of 'Ancient Chinese Territory' bullshit.

 

[Captain X]

Wait hold on, does that mean they honestly claim they had no territory conflicts in that timescale? Like what? They have not had a territory conflict either way since literally evolving from monkeys in their land? Huh?

No. Not sure where you get that from.

Doesn't mean they don't have a claim. Just saying this whole 'first' thing doesn't really hold water on a evolutionary timescale.

I would say "first" based on actually getting here first. As for them, you realize Christianity isn't the only religion to have ideas about creationism, right?

Honestly atlast consider the idea all variations of it are the equivalent of 'Ancient Chinese Territory' bullshit.

That certainly doesn't seem to be the case from what I've seen, with the argument essentially being that it was okay for white people to come along and slaughter the Natives and steal their land, because as far as their concerned, that's all the Natives ever did to each other. So basically it's an example of whataboutism.

 

[Abhishekm]

I would say "first" based on actually getting here first. As for them, you realize Christianity isn't the only religion to have ideas about creationism, right?

Whose on first? But jokes aside I mean how much do they think that covers in terms of 'historical claims' to land anyway? Because the point would be no single tribe or equivalent would be able to track ahistory of land settlement unto 'first'. Honestly ethnic infighting and tribal conflicts being what they were everywhere any individual regardless of race is likely to be decended from genocidal fighters that killed the first through hundred settlers of any land they can date thier lineage to in the modern day as that mythicised 'first'.

Chances are the 'first' to 'hundreth' settler people of any inch of land you care to name on the planed died of natural caused or a blood death at the hands of the succeeding numbers leaving few to no descendents behind.

The only way to dispute that effectively is to claim as was implied that they literally evolved in the location and never had migratory conflicts prior to Columbus. That or claim that they evolved inside the area and had no ethnic deviations and cross subgroup displacements during that time.

As to the Christianity bit, apart from that one spot of dirt in the middle east any land claims actually based on religious grounds? Like don't really see the point there?


Like historic land claims are to a point valid and are pretty important. But I don't get the subgroups and people that fixate on that and try to stretch that out to the time frame of 'We've been here since before mankind was a thing'.

 

[Captain X]

So you're basically making that argument I was talking about.

 

[Abhishekm]

So you're basically making that argument I was talking about.

Kinda yeah? Never said I disagreed with you. Mostly armchair commentary. I just find the whole historical ethnicity thing more interesting to comment about.

 

[strunkenwhite]

Because the point would be no single tribe or equivalent would be able to track ahistory of land settlement unto 'first'. Honestly ethnic infighting and tribal conflicts being what they were everywhere any individual regardless of race is likely to be decended from genocidal fighters that killed the first through hundred settlers of any land they can date thier lineage to in the modern day as that mythicised 'first'.

Chances are the 'first' to 'hundreth' settler people of any inch of land you care to name on the planed died of natural caused or a blood death at the hands of the succeeding numbers leaving few to no descendents behind.

While this is probably true* if you look at a sufficiently long timescale, would you agree there's little reason to think that pre-Colombian Native American movements were much more volatile than, say, European movements?

*Mostly, anyway: I'd question, for instance, the part about conquered people "leaving few to no descendants"—wouldn't they more likely be displaced or enslaved than exterminated? I don't know much about this topic but I got the idea somehow that losing more than 10-30% of the population to massacre was rare.

 

[Abhishekm]

While this is probably true* if you look at a sufficiently long timescale, would you agree there's little reason to think that pre-Colombian Native American movements were much more volatile than, say, European movements?

*Mostly, anyway: I'd question, for instance, the part about conquered people "leaving few to no descendants"—wouldn't they more likely be displaced or enslaved than exterminated? I don't know much about this topic but I got the idea somehow that losing more than 10-30% of the population to massacre was rare.

As to the difference id expect there to be mot much honestly. Don't know much ons tulips and wouldn't know how l reliable they were anyway. But go long enough and it really shouldn't be much different as ther right much cause to be.

As the massacre stuff its more in the lines of general information on just how many humans actually ended up having lines that survived to the modern day. Even if you assume massacres only killed say a fourth or fifth of a people ok average that still leaves the rest to other elements of decline from general disease and starvation to just not having viable offspring that beat the odds as well.

Whats left would mix with those that subjugated them sure but by that point assuming most of the massacreing is of the 'kill the men, enslave the women and do either or both to the children's variety which was generally a lot more common than people like to think about (as was just killing them all and being done with it) thats at the "dna test says I'm 1% aboriginal where are my bongos" levels of diluted.

Short answer to my opinion on the subject is Cain is a of our many times great granddad because all of our great grand parents Genghis Khan'd somebody whose lines did not make it.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

Short answer to my opinion on the subject is Cain is a of our many times great granddad because all of our great grand parents Genghis Khan'd somebody whose lines did not make it.

Err, actually he's our great-repeat-as-often-as-needed-grand-uncle, with Seth being our actual many times great granddad.

 

[Abhishekm]

Err, actually he's our great-repeat-as-often-as-needed-grand-uncle, with Seth being our actual many times great granddad.

Cain, Seth, Setra, Set. I'm Hindu so its all Greek to me.

 

[FriedCFour]

*insert Obi-Wan's "from a certain point of view" here*

No certain point of view. We built this into a country. Under what point of view could you say otherwise lol.

It is mainly stemming from the idea that white people are trying to delegitimize Natives' claim to the Americas, so this isn't a problem with all of humanity originating in Africa so much as smug white people using the "you're just immigrants, too" line and things like certain ancient remains being said to more closely resemble white people than Natives.

I mean that’s silly. To delegitimize it just point out that the wars were won and they lost, and that there isn’t anything that makes native Americans different than any of the other losers of wars throughout all of human history who were displaced by different ethnic groups. They aren’t any special but we treat them as noble savages to feed into white guilt.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I mean that’s silly. To delegitimize it just point out that the wars were won and they lost, and that there isn’t anything that makes native Americans different than any of the other losers of wars throughout all of human history who were displaced by different ethnic groups...

Same thing could be said about modern day whites, doesn't stop us from crying and moaning on social media about how we were kings and all of that.

 

[ShieldWife]

No certain point of view. We built this into a country. Under what point of view could you say otherwise lol.



I mean that’s silly. To delegitimize it just point out that the wars were won and they lost, and that there isn’t anything that makes native Americans different than any of the other losers of wars throughout all of human history who were displaced by different ethnic groups. They aren’t any special but we treat them as noble savages to feed into white guilt.

The only thing unique about Western civilization (ie white Christian nations) is that they were unusually kind towards the other peoples they conquered. They were uniquely kind towards their defeated enemies and yet are regarded as uniquely evil.