Let's take a look at our racist past - MEXIDIANS

quote:

---

MEXIDIANS

---

I can't speak for the MEX but you racist bastards KILLED many of my IDIANS forefathers, stole our land and put what remained our tribes on a few of the most useless acres of property that is on this continent.

Killing people is your racist past my good friend.

Should have fought harder

quote:

---

stole our land and put what remained our tribes on a few of the most useless acres of property that is on this continent.

---

Oh bullshite already with that tired meme. Many of your land stealing savage forefathers killed others of your forefathers and stole their land, their grazing lands, their water, their children, their women, and thought nothing of genociding any tribe they could. Thats the way it was back then. Those people met a force they couldn't beat. Enough with the "Noble Savage" meme.
It never existed. I would guess that if some of your forefather had the power that the conquering Spanish, French, British, etc, had, a few tribes would have issued a real genocide against any not in their tribe.

Thats reality. Deal with it already.

Mexican is not a race it's a nationality
Native American is not a race

quote:

---

Killing people is your racist past my good friend.

---

My people didn't come here until 1903 but nice try. Keep on blaming white people for the failures of your race. Wow I have never heard that excuse before.

quote:

---

Meh, by the time the white man came along the Indians were already busy killing the male members of other tribes, enslaving their women and stealing their land.

---

Don't forget some of those noble red men were cannibals.

quote:

---

Killing people is your racist past my good friend.

---

It's humanity's racist past my friend. Unfortunate but the truth

Your ancestors raped and pillaged fellow Indians by the way. If not then would you would be on the wrong side of history and not here at all. Maybe even cut out their hearts after taking land and slaves. Are you a terrible person because of what they did?

I'm sorry Europeans developed superior technology to Native Americans. If it were the other way around we'd be on a reservation in Europe if you were kind enough to allow it.
You would have had to compete with the Muslims in Europe though, as they would have wiped us out in the dark ages if we were any more primitive at the time. They almost Did

Also it would be have been Asians that swallowed the Americans if they weaponized gunpowder before Europeans anyway. Then they would be the racists and we would hate them alongside you right? While we both would be no less racist than they are in reality. See how real life works?

I would want no part of it today, I'm not justifying it. Terrible things happened to the Indians just as had always happened to every race. I take no pleasure in it and feel for the misery of people of all races on the wrong end of human nature (yes, including white people).
Don't blame others today for things they never did with the cut throats ways in which the current world came to be. It only shows you choose ignorance and emotion over logic, even though it is understable

American Indians are Mongol-Siberians that crossed the Bering Strait during the last Ice Age following the path of the bison. The Amerinds are Turko-Mongol with their ORIGINAL roots in the Altai Mountain region of southwest Mongolia. The Human Genome Project revealed this fact already.

quote:

---

That's fine I have no reason to not believe. Im not personally familiar with the specifics of the people that crossed the Bering Straight but obviously two different humanities didn't developed independently of each other. It changes nothing in my post however.

---

Actually, it does. It means that the American Indians were never indigenous to North America. Their homeland is in Asia.

quote:

---

If you mean no land is truly anyone's homeland besides where ever humanity began in Africa you are not wrong.
It does not contradict my first post and I never argued that. The Asians I referenced are not the same genetically as the people in the Americas when Europeans arrived. Should we call all humans Africans? It's not wrong but not the most streamline way to categorize today's populations

---

The theory that all Homo Sapiens originally came from Africa is not a proven fact yet.

There is also the Regional Continuity Model theory.

quote:

---

Replacement Model Arguments

There are two sources of evidence supporting the replacement model--the fossil record and DNA. So far, the earliest finds of modern Homo sapiens skeletons come from Africa. They date to nearly 200,000 years ago on that continent. They appear in Southwest Asia around 100,000 years ago and elsewhere in the Old World by 60,000-40,000 years ago. Unless modern human remains dating to 200,000 years ago or earlier are found in Europe or East Asia, it would seem that the replacement model better explains the fossil data for those regions. However, the DNA data supporting a replacement are more problematical.

Beginning in the 1980's, Rebecca Cann, at the University of California, argued that the geographic region in which modern people have lived the longest should have the greatest amount of genetic diversity today. Through comparisons of mitochondrial DNA sequences from living people throughout the world, she concluded that Africa has the greatest genetic diversity and, therefore, must be the homeland of all modern humans. Assuming a specific, constant rate of mutation, she further concluded that the common ancestor of modern people was a woman living about 200,000 years ago in Africa. This supposed predecessor was dubbed "mitochondrial Eve" click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced. More recent genetic research at the University of Chicago and Yale University lends support to the replacement model. It has shown that variations in the DNA of the Y chromosome and chromosome 12 also have the greatest diversity among Africans today. John Relethford and other critics of the replacement model have pointed out that Africa could have had the greatest diversity in DNA simply because there were more people living there during the last several hundred thousand years. This would leave open the possibility that Africa was not necessarily the only homeland of modern humans.

Critics of the genetic argument for the replacement model also point out that the rate of mutation used for the "molecular clock" is not necessarily constant, which makes the 200,000 year date for "mitochondrial Eve" unreliable. The rate of inheritable mutations for a species or a population can vary due to a number of factors including generation time, the efficiency of DNA repair within cells, ambient temperature, and varying amounts of natural environmental mutagens. In addition, some kinds of DNA molecules are known to be more subject to mutation than others, resulting in faster mutation rates. This seems to be the case with the Y chromosome in human males.

Further criticism of the genetic argument for the replacement model has come from geneticists at Oxford University. They found that the human betaglobin gene is widely distributed in Asia but not in Africa. Since this gene is thought to have originated more than 200,000 years ago, it undercuts the claim that an African population of modern Homo sapiens replaced East Asian archaic humans less than 60,000 years ago.


Regional Continuity Model Arguments

Fossil evidence also is used to support the regional continuity model. Its advocates claim that there has been a continuity of some anatomical traits from archaic humans to modern humans in Europe and Asia. In other words, the Asian and European physical characteristics have antiquity in these regions going back over 100,000 years. They point to the fact that many Europeans have relatively heavy brow ridges and a high angle of their noses reminiscent of Neandertals. Similarly, it is claimed that some Chinese facial characteristics can be seen in an Asian archaic human fossil from Jinniushan dating to 200,000 years ago. Like Homo erectus, East Asians today commonly have shovel-shaped incisors while Africans and Europeans rarely do. This supports the contention of direct genetic links between Asian Homo erectus and modern Asians. Alan Thorne of the Australian National University believes that Australian aborigines click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced share key skeletal and dental traits with pre-modern people who inhabited Indonesia at least 100,000 years ago. The implication is that there was no replacement by modern humans from Africa 60,000-40,000 years ago. However, the evidence does not rule out gene flow from African populations to Europe and Asia at that time and before. David Frayer, of the University of Kansas, believes that a number of European fossils from the last 50,000 years have characteristics that are the result of archaic and modern humans interbreeding.


Assimilation Model

It is apparent that both the complete replacement and the regional continuity models have difficulty accounting for all of the fossil and genetic data. What has emerged is a new hypothesis known as the assimilation (or partial replacement) model. It takes a middle ground and incorporates both of the old models. Gunter Brauer, of the University of Hamburg in Germany, proposes that the first modern humans did evolve in Africa, but when they migrated into other regions they did not simply replace existing human populations. Rather, they interbred to a limited degree with late archaic humans resulting in hybrid populations. In Europe, for instance, the first modern humans appear in the archaeological record rather suddenly around 45-40,000 years ago. The abruptness of the appearance of these Cro-Magnon people could be explained by their migrating into the region from Africa via an eastern Mediterranean coastal route. They apparently shared Europe with Neandertals for another 12,000 years or more. During this long time period, it is argued that interbreeding occurred and that the partially hybridized predominantly Cro-Magnon population ultimately became modern Europeans. In 2003, a discovery was made in a Romanian cave named Pestera cu Oase that supports this hypothesis. It was a partial skeleton of a 15-16 year old male Homo sapiens who lived about 30,000 years ago or a bit earlier. He had a mix of old and new anatomical features. The skull had characteristics of both modern and archaic humans. This could be explained as the result of interbreeding with Neandertals according to Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St. Louis. Alan Templeton, also of Washington University, reported that a computer-based analysis of 10 different human DNA sequences indicates that there has been interbreeding between people living in Asia, Europe, and Africa for at least 600,000 years. This is consistent with the hypothesis that humans expanded again and again out of Africa and that these emigrants interbred with existing populations in Asia and Europe. It is also possible that migrations were not only in one direction--people could have migrated into Africa as well. If interbreeding occurred, it may have been a rare event. This is supported by the fact that most skeletons of Neandertals and Cro-Magnon people do not show hybrid characteristics.

---

LINK