49ersfootball
Well-known member
Honestly it just comes off as a form of theft to me.
Following this very closely.
Honestly it just comes off as a form of theft to me.
Our tribes grew.
That's how it's worked for all of human history.
Your native ancestors did it, too.
Then you are seriously misinformedI don't think EVERY group in in the world has stolen land and killed off the previous inhabitants.
As if it my personal philosophy... It's just the nature of states, the entity that holds a monopoly on violence is the legitimate government of a given areaHow wonderfully civilized...
So you think that there is no group that reached an uninhabited area free of humans first and managed to kill off those who came later and tried to invade? No not one?Then you are seriously misinformed
As if it my personal philosophy... It's just the nature of states, the entity that holds a monopoly on violence is the legitimate government of a given area
Not in the Homo Sapiens history. All areas that Homo Sapiens had expanded to (except Arctic circle, perhaps) there used to be other hominids before us.So you think that there is no group that reached an uninhabited area free of humans first and managed to kill off those who came later and tried to invade? No not one?
The only things that have rights are humans. Other species aren’t Homo sapiens.Not in the Homo Sapiens history. All areas that Homo Sapiens had expanded to (except Arctic circle, perhaps) there used to be other hominids before us.
So... Inuits, perhaps. Other than them, answer to your question is a clear NO.
Even in regards to homo sapiens the answer is noThe only things that have rights are humans. Other species aren’t Homo sapiens.
So there is no group that got their first and outfought the new immigrants who came later? None?Even in regards to homo sapiens the answer is no
Why are you dead set on there being this mythical "native?" People have been moving across the world for hundreds of thousands of years and even in north America there were multiple waves of settlement each one wiping out the last. Maybe New Zealand counts, but your striving to find a single example is moot because the point is that this is the way the world works. Land is owned by those who can hold it, it isn't stolen when a previous people loses a monopoly on violence and I'm not "uncivilized" for pointing out this objective truth.So there is no group that got their first and outfought the new immigrants who came later? None?
Protip, anything with 'homo' in the species name is human, we were just so amazingly good at outbreeding everything that we're the only ones left.The only things that have rights are humans. Other species aren’t Homo sapiens.
Fun fact: those other species are considered human, too.The only things that have rights are humans. Other species aren’t Homo sapiens.
Another fun fact: If you aren't 100% sub-Saharan African you are part Homo neanderthalensis. Typically 1-4%.Fun fact: those other species are considered human, too.
That's a scientific definition.
That's not true at all, even the most pureblooded African today is like 20%+ of some other species.Another fun fact: If you aren't 100% sub-Saharan African you are part Homo neanderthalensis. Typically 1-4%.
Only someone 100% sub-Saharan African is 100% Homo sapiens sapiens.
West Africa != Sub-Saharan Africa and Neanderthals went extinct around when that article says the interbreeding occured.That's not true at all, even the most pureblooded African today is like 20%+ of some other species.
Loading…
www.reuters.com
It's unlikely there's been a 100% pure Homo Sapiens for a LONG time.
Show me a confirmed 100% genetically pure Sub Saharan.West Africa != Sub-Saharan Africa and Neanderthals went extinct around when that article says the interbreeding occured.
I'm certain this is backwards, africans tend to have a higher percentage of other hominids (although not neanderthal)Another fun fact: If you aren't 100% sub-Saharan African you are part Homo neanderthalensis. Typically 1-4%.
Only someone 100% sub-Saharan African is 100% Homo sapiens sapiens.
What does Homo mean in Latin?Whoa listen if you can interbreed with someone you are the same species Neanderthals are human, but erectus isn’t.
Man.What does Homo mean in Latin?
Genetics are really complicated and are more like guidelines than rules sometimes. Yeah we could fuck a Neanderthal and make viable offspring which could then breed other stuff.Man.
But scientists have mischaracterized some things like erectus in the homo family.
If you brought back a Neanderthal it could interbreed with us. Not so with hablis or erectus they are unfuckable monkeys.