Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 4:12 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The 'First Nations' have some explaining to do
#11
RE: The 'First Nations' have some explaining to do
On a more serious note, why do you prefer the genocide explanation over changes in habitat and megafauna/technological inferiority/unsuitability of specific adaptations? It's pretty hard to round up enough people to commit genocide, it stretched (possibly broke) the backs of a highly mechanized nation in the 30's and 40's, and yet you're comfortable giving this explanation for stone age hunter/gatherers?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#12
RE: The 'First Nations' have some explaining to do
(February 29, 2012 at 9:28 am)Rhythm Wrote: If europeans colonized the americas in any substantial way before the Native Americans (an amusing term, regardless, and discussions like this emphasize exactly why)

I may have news for you: the Solutreans weren't the first hominids to get to the Americas either. I bet Homo Erectus already got there maybe even half a million to a million years earlier! Walking, wading, hunting, and gathering along the world's coastlines. When sea levels were 400 feet lower than today.
Any remains would now obviously be submerged, and far out to sea.
Reply
#13
RE: The 'First Nations' have some explaining to do
An interesting thing to ponder, sure, but as of yet I'm not aware of any evidence of anything before h.s.s migrations to N. America. What may have been possible and what can be shown to have occurred are often entirely different things, and it's important to keep that distinction. If we don't, anyone's crackpot theory is as good as the next guys. It would be difficult to form a coherent picture of prehistory in this manner.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#14
RE: The 'First Nations' have some explaining to do
(February 29, 2012 at 10:59 am)Rhythm Wrote: An interesting thing to ponder, sure, but as of yet I'm not aware of any evidence of anything before h.s.s migrations to N. America. What may have been possible and what can be shown to have occurred are often entirely different things, and it's important to keep that distinction. If we don't, anyone's crackpot theory is as good as the next guys. It would be difficult to form a coherent picture of prehistory in this manner.

It's called extrapolation.
HE got from Africa to Malaysia 1,8 MYA, to Java 1,57 MYA, and to Peking around 800 KYA. There's indisputable evidence of that.
And I'll bet you a thousand bucks they kept walking! To America!
Reply
#15
RE: The 'First Nations' have some explaining to do
No, I understand. I'm not saying that having a hunch is a bad thing. I'm just wary of any claim that contains within it a reason as to why it cannot be proven (or implies so, if not making a direct claim).

For example, I can give you the bit about being buried underwater, we see that all the time (but we also find artifacts and remains underwater as well). Assuming that they made the trip, they would have followed the banks of a river when they came acrossed it, and so we would expect to find something, some bones, some artifact along those rivers (or where those rivers once were). The sea does not erase all traces of hominids elsewhere, so why are we assuming that it did in N. America? As an explanation for a lack of evidence? Unsatisfactory.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#16
RE: The 'First Nations' have some explaining to do
(February 29, 2012 at 11:07 am)Rhythm Wrote: No, I understand. I'm not saying that having a hunch is a bad thing. I'm just wary of any claim that contains within it a reason as to why it cannot be proven (or implies so, if not making a direct claim).

For example, I can give you the bit about being buried underwater, we see that all the time (but we also find artifacts and remains underwater as well). Assuming that they made the trip, they would have followed the banks of a river when they came acrossed it, and so we would expect to find something, some bones, some artifact along those rivers (or where those rivers once were). The sea does not erase all traces of hominids elsewhere, so why are we assuming that it did in N. America? As an explanation for a lack of evidence? Unsatisfactory.

If they were gathering sea food (which was far easier, more productive [the whole family/tribe could partake], more nutritional, and much less risky than hunting game inland) there would have been plenty of reasons for not following rivers inland: too risky.

(February 29, 2012 at 11:07 am)Rhythm Wrote: (but we also find artifacts and remains underwater as well)

Hardly! Until now those are extremely rare finds. The era of underwater archaeology is only beginning. Bob Ballard paved the way.
But as underwater archaeology develops we will find more stuff, of course. We simply haven't found it yet. But that doesn't mean it's not there. In fact logic and circumstantial evidence tells us it must be there (if it wasn't eroded or perished)! It's just a matter of time before we identify it.
Reply
#17
RE: The 'First Nations' have some explaining to do
Rivers are also chock full of easy seafood, and we know that our ancestors have a tendency to follow rivers. There's nothing more risky about dry land when it comes to hominids. Water isn't so friendly.

I prefer to have the evidence in hand, rather than a prediction that I someday will. Predictions only have explanatory power or value when they pan out, not before. (I use this in the sense of calling something a fact, or implying that it is or one day will be)

"Science will one day find evidence which supports the biblical account" for example.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#18
RE: The 'First Nations' have some explaining to do
(February 29, 2012 at 12:28 am)popeyespappy Wrote: I like the Solutrean Hypothesis. Beyond the tools themselves I find the Northeast out spread of the technology according to dates of some of the sites very compelling evidence. I do understand though that many of the old dates are not well accepted by mainstream American archeology. It’s also my understanding that people looking at the genetics in the last few years have rejected that part of the hypothesis too. So I think the whole thing is far from a done deal at this point.

It would have also been nice if the article linked in the OP had cited some sources for the more recent claims. Min, do you know if the new book you linked is the source for some of that? If so has any of it been peer reviewed yet?


I haven't read it yet, Pap. It might be like Finkelstein's or Dever's books which are aimed at the general population but cite individual excavation reports which have gone through the peer review process.

Frankly, anyone who has actually read a genuine archaeological paper knows that they are not exactly page-turners. No one ever made a movie out of one of them.
Reply
#19
RE: The 'First Nations' have some explaining to do
(February 29, 2012 at 11:45 am)Rhythm Wrote: Rivers are also chock full of easy seafood

Not nearly as abundant as along the sea's waterline.

Quote:and we know that our ancestors have a tendency to follow rivers.

Only when the rewards outstrip the risks.

Quote:There's nothing more risky about dry land when it comes to hominids. Water isn't so friendly.

On 'dry', heavily wooded land predators lurk behind every tree. On the shore you can see danger coming for miles! And you can see where you're going. And the bulk of your food is there!
Reply
#20
RE: The 'First Nations' have some explaining to do
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNztRITH6ZTzra2jHdjUO...RRq4kkdQjA]

Gators aside, that's looking like a great place to spot predators coming (and I feel comfortable laying aside gators since you're laying aside sharks) The waters edge is always productive, more so on fresh water, since you're looking at edible plants as well as seafood (sorely lacking on the beach).

Like I said, it's a good hunch, and it's entirely likely that we will find something as we get better at sifting through submerged sites, but pinning that something down to specifics without the evidence is hand as though it were inevitable...well...

Ah, speaking of, they found a nice big fat abandoned village under two or three feet of water across the highway where I grew up. They never even imagined that it was there until a decade of drought dropped the lakes levels. So I'm not trying to imply that it doesn't happen, or that it's far fetched, only urging a little caution.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3557107

Good stuff if you're into this kind of thing.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  I have some real politics for you. brokefree 6 463 June 10, 2021 at 1:48 am
Last Post: The Architect Of Fate
  "Idiot" Would Not Have Been My First Choice Minimalist 15 3910 July 10, 2017 at 11:18 pm
Last Post: Fireball
  Good job, Nebraska! I think I'll have some celebratory corn tonight. Alex K 8 1568 May 28, 2015 at 11:57 am
Last Post: Pyrrho
  Are the USA and China "peace-loving nations"? Aractus 16 4499 January 30, 2013 at 12:53 pm
Last Post: Question Mark
  Due process possibly being abolished. Article & Petition Explaining. Handprint 23 5719 December 14, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Last Post: Minimalist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)