Columbus Day or Indiginous People'd Day?

Quote: Tanko

We don't honor them with a national holiday.

The did not discover a new world.

Quote: AZDuffman

Yes, I make that claim. Did they have celestial navigation? If they made all these crossings, why did they not continue their exploration? Why were they so amazed at the boats the Euros had? DNA research? What that is proving is people moved across the old land bridge to North America and spread out. If these peoples had all this capability, what happened to it? A few guys going out on a kayak does not mean the were capable of open ocean travel. It means a few got lucky they did not die in the process.

Celestial nav? Of course yes. Many different native cultures did, as well as many other non-European cultures around the world. I mentioned the Polynesian / Mayan connection earlier. Mayan's ruled the Yucatan. That's southern Mexico. There's evidence from DNA samples in humans, DNA samples in unearthed chicken bones, the presence of sweet potatoes; basically the same science we use to show Africa and South America were once connected are used to show that humans interacted across the whole of the Pacific, only in this case it could only come by way of boat, as they were never previously physically connected. Cave drawings dated back to 1000CE in New Mexico showing sky maps, the stars they used for travel. The Mayan calendar. Hunting, farming, religion, travel, all based on their knowledge and ability to plot the stars, same as pretty much every single culture in existence.

None of this has a whit to do with a land bridge; in fact, the idea of America's settlement via some Russian walkway has largely been debunked, thanks to our successes with DNA. Instead, through the studies of DNA and ancestry, scientists are finding enough connection and evidence to show trans-Pacific travel was much more common that ever realized, and show those people left south Asia for the islands of Polynesia, continued on to settle Hawaii, and carried on ever further to settle Cascadia. Similarities in tools and petroglyphs have some stating that the actual "discovering of the America's" happened some 15,000 years ago. Certainly no one carried a yam from Guatemala to New Zealand, no way.

As to why they stopped,... it doesn't appear they ever did. They just went the other way. Until they were exterminated.

Quote: Face

None of this has a whit to do with a land bridge; in fact, the idea of America's settlement via some Russian walkway has largely been debunked, thanks to our successes with DNA. Instead, through the studies of DNA and ancestry, scientists are finding enough connection and evidence to show trans-Pacific travel was much more common that ever realized, and show those people left south Asia for the islands of Polynesia, continued on to settle Hawaii, and carried on ever further to settle Cascadia.

This is news to me. I thought the theory of the land crossing of Berengia was alive and well. Obviously Hawaii was settled by boat in two different waves.

Quote: Pacomartin

This is news to me. I thought the theory of the land crossing of Berengia was alive and well. Obviously Hawaii was settled by boat in two different waves.

Archaeology is well outside my area; most of this has come by way of trying to understand myself through my history. As such my reading is still very "surface" and I've no deep insight nor have I spent hundreds of hours on the subject.

But one of my readings focused on the DNA aspect, and it was that reading that mentioned the debunking of the Strait theory. It was a bit of a rabbit hole as Native research took me into the Polynesian and it was my reading about them where this claim was made. And they said basically what I said here; DNA research had been conducted, I believe it was a study specifically about the Poly and their relationship to Asia. And they found that migration over there did not happen as they expected (something about how it didn't follow a sort of rational path ie mainland to near islands to far islands, but rather that the Poly's had left the mainland and skipped many of the nearby islands, instead carrying out into the ocean forever). And in trying to understand the Poly's, they found all these connections to ancient Mayans, which led them to looking to other relationships with the Americas, which led them to finding that Poly's had settled the PNW.

Perhaps "debunked" was too strong a word, as it does not mean no peoples ever crossed, and despite my culture's stated stance (we were here forever), it would be tough for you to convince me of that fact. People crossing on foot cross the Strait is nigh on a mathematical guarantee, IMO. I only meant to say that the idea that people got here ONLY by that means has been shown to be false.

Quote: Face

People crossing on foot cross the Strait is nigh on a mathematical guarantee, IMO. I only meant to say that the idea that people got here ONLY by that means has been shown to be false.

Based on what I see today, it's seems possible the people moving away from European civilization whole purpose wasn't to go develop their own advanced civilization but to get away from all that mess that was developing. Tribal wanderers were escaping, not envying the big megalopolises, and went into places like the North America with no intention of building the same as they left.

I have no proof of course, but I like the idea of spinning who was really more enlightened. Generally that's what a lot of people still do today. They're not more primitive than the ones they left, but had different goals. Just like people could be mistaken that the Amish are primitive because they aren't smart enough. Not true, but if you only looked at remains of what they left you might think so.

Sure the Europeans eventually showed up and ruined everything.

I think the Clovis people came from Europe to north America. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-very-first-americans-may-have-had-european-roots-5517714/

The Navajo have DNA from the Tlingits in Alaska, and I believe they walked across from Asia.

Ancient Chinese Script may prove Asians discovered America 3,300 years ago.

Quote: rxwine

Based on what I see today, it's seems possible the people moving away from European civilization whole purpose wasn't to go develop their own advanced civilization but to get away from all that mess that was developing. Tribal wanderers were escaping, not envying the big megalopolises, and went into places like the North America with no intention of building the same as they left.

I have no proof of course, but I like the idea of spinning who was really more enlightened. Generally that's what a lot of people still do today. They're not more primitive than the ones they left, but had different goals. Just like people could be mistaken that the Amish are primitive because they aren't smart enough. Not true, but if you only looked at remains of what they left you might think so.

I might buy that a little more than they were crossing the Pacific and then stopped for reasons we do not know. I more buy that there were tribes wandering all the time that just did not evolve past the hunter-gatherer level. Hunting-gathering takes a lot of open land. It needs so much is why they do not get huge populations same as farming cultures do.

I have even heard that Indian tribes could have started by being one of the lost tribes of Israel.

I am not really sold on the DNA thing. The "all races are the same" crowd has told us here on these boards that scientists have done research and find no differences in the makeup of people across the world. Now I am being told here otherwise.

It is only in recent times that peoples from one place might treat those they invade with any respect whatsoever, or a even a respectable deviation from completely genocidal behavior. And that modern sensibility breaks down as often as not in modern times too.

What the Indians needed and couldn't come up with, was any ability to control their borders at all. The Black Hills are a good example. If white people could have been kept out, then the situation wouldn't have developed of trying to keep the peace. Basically, at some point the choice is asking US soldiers to fight against US citizens in order to preserve the rights of the native Americans who were promised the land, or not. The soldiers won't fight against their own, this is known, and they aren't even asked to; now the only thing left seems to be ordering the Indians out in order to end conflict.

It really illustrates the need to be able to control your borders if you really want to have a nation.

Quote: odiousgambit

It really illustrates the need to be able to control your borders if you really want to have a nation.

It does, but the Indians were not a "nation" no matter the word was used in some of their legal docs. Borders were roughly defined if defined at all. The open borders crowd does not see this. While there were Indian Wars, the Indians lost most of it without shots being fired. Today we allow no-go zones to develop in western countries. We allow unrestricted immigration to make areas de facto control by those groups. We allow our natives to be forced out in the same way.