January 30, 2006, - 9:42 am

Stolen Land?: Earwax, B.O. More Proof “Native” Americans Not Native

***To all the liberal idiots who’ve left dumb, insulting comments on this entry (and if you insult me, your comments will be deleted), as directed by similarly intellectually-challenged lefty websites, I’m well aware Indians came here over the Bering Strait, which you’d realize if you actually bothered to read what I wrote below in this entry. I simply quoted the NYTimes that this was yet more proof. Yet, there is no proof they were the first here. And even if they were, this is yet more proof that they originated in ASIA. Hello? . . . This is yet more evidence that we did NOT steal THEIR land. It means it was not THEIRS to begin with.***
Today’s New York Times details a Japanese scientific on earwax and body odor in Asians vs. Europeans and Africans. There is actually an “earwax gene” in DNA that determines this.
But the paper glosses over the most important finding. The study found that Europeans and Africans tend to have wet ear wax, sweat more, and have more under arm body odor than Asians, who have dry ear wax and don’t sweat much. But the study also found that “Native” Americans have dry ear wax and body odor similar to Asians, proving they migrated here from Asia.

So whom did THEY steal the land from? Somebody else, obviously. Yet, no “Dances With Wolves” and “Into the West” from Hollywood about that.
Here’s more from the NYTimes:

The dry form, the researchers say, presumably arose later somewhere in northern Asia, because they detected it almost universally in their tests of northern Han Chinese and Koreans. The dry form becomes less common in southern Asia, probably because the northerners with the dry earwax gene intermarried with southern Asians carrying the default wet earwax gene. The dry form is quite common in Native Americans, confirming other genetic evidence that their ancestors migrated across the Bering straits from Siberia 15,000 years ago.
They write that earwax type and armpit odor are correlated, since populations with dry earwax, such as those of East Asia, tend to sweat less and have little or no body odor, whereas the wet earwax populations of Africa and Europe sweat more and so may have greater body odor. Several Asian features, such as small nostrils and the fold of fat above the eyelid, are conjectured to be adaptations to the cold. Less sweating, the Japanese authors suggest, may be another adaptation to the cold climate in which the ancestors of East Asian peoples are thought to have lived.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

81 Responses

What a hoot!

Interested-Participant on January 30, 2006 at 11:10 am

Who said they stole the land from anyone?
As far as I’ve read, the scientific consensus is still that they were the first ones here. There were no homo sapiens on the Western continent until they came from across the Bering Strait.

resro on January 30, 2006 at 11:20 am

Native Americans, a/k/a Indians, stole the North American continent from the those who were here before them – the illegal aliens. They are now in the process of reclaiming America via wholesale invasion. I’m looking forward to the time when they start challenging the Indians and open gambling casinos of their own.
Just kidding, of course.

Thee_Bruno on January 30, 2006 at 11:46 am

Wow! You mean Native Americans didn’t just spontaneously appear in America? Who would’ve thought? Oh that’s right – everyone.

Clompo on January 30, 2006 at 1:21 pm

Clompo, I don’t know where your from, but around here the fact that Natives came across the Bering Strait is the first thing they teach you in high school history class.

resro on January 30, 2006 at 1:48 pm

Did you not catch the sarcasm in my comment resro?

Clompo on January 30, 2006 at 2:18 pm

“Yet, no “Dances With Wolves” and “Into the West” from Hollywood about that.”
You actually made me burst out laughing with that line Debbie. Thanks!

Digger on January 30, 2006 at 2:47 pm

If memory serves me right, Asians and native Americans also share “shovel shaped” incisors, (a trait expressed in the hominid homo erectus) but does not show up in European or African populations. Scientific Evidence suggests people migrated to North America between 25,000 to 30,000 years ago. At that time, no other homo sapiens, or even hominoids for that matter (except MAYBE gigantopithecus) had crossed the Bering straits to North America. Essentially, they were the first people to get here and continued to live here for thousands and thousands of years until we finally showed up.
So you ask “whom did THEY steal the land from?” They didn’t steal it from anyone, do a little bit of research next time you write an article concerning anthropology, it would’ve taken you about 5 minutes on google.

nicholasedward on January 30, 2006 at 4:43 pm

I should clarify, the very first people were getting here 25,000 to 30,000 years ago, they didn’t all just show up at once.

nicholasedward on January 30, 2006 at 4:45 pm

Its cool that you respond to comments, so I have a question to pose. Does it matter, whether they were the first on this land or not, that they were there for 25000+ years? Doesn’t that land become there’s if they and their ancestors that live on that land for such a long period of time?

ArtElliot on January 30, 2006 at 5:16 pm

“But even if they were [first in the Americas], they originated in ASIA. Hello? . . . . This means we did NOT steal THEIR land. It means it was not THEIRS to begin with.”
Erm…Let’s say you have lived for a little while in some location, but decide for a number of reasons to move from your current urban apartment to a suburban house (hypothetically). You buy yourself a house in your new location. Let’s assume that, like many Americans, you didn’t feel like building your own house from the ground up, so instead you buy an already-built house from someone else. Now let’s say that someone decides, ala the crazy guy at the end of Unbreakable, that they like your house and just kind of barge in and take over, killing any family member who resists. You’re saying that they’re justified in doing that, because:
1) You haven’t lived in that house your entire life;
2) You weren’t in the house “first”, the person you bought it from was (or perhaps the person before them, or the one before them, ad naseum).
Am I reading you right? Or is there something in your argument and clarification that I’m missing?

randomliberal on January 30, 2006 at 5:18 pm

Dear Debbie,
According to your logic then, if someone kicked you off your land and took your house and property from you, it would be ok since…it wasn’t really YOURS to begin with (it appears that your ancestors migrated from somewhere else too, I mean, Schlussel, that’s German, HELLO). Gee, I always thought that private property was sacred to conservatives….it sure is news to me that nothing in this country belongs to anyone. I guess my own wet earwax has been keeping me from hearing the new communist gospel coming from bright conservative thinkers such as yourself….

mike on January 30, 2006 at 5:33 pm

I would argue that being here for some 15,000 years does come with property rights. Wouldn’t it? That’s over 500 generations. So I guess the question is, at what point do you think property rights do in fact kick in? Because if its greater than 15,000 years, than it’s greater than any written document by about 10,000 years, and that would invalidate any current property claims.
There is actually some evidence that in fact there were people here before the Bering migration, but if so, they must have been very small numbers, as they do not seem to have left any genetic traces in the mitochondrial DNA. I think it’s a moot point anyway. 15,000 years seems sufficient time to establish property rights.

Dr. T on January 30, 2006 at 5:47 pm

Actually, by this rationale, we can kick anyone we want out of the entire earth, except maybe The Indus River, the Yellow River, and the area between the Tigris and Euphrates. Since these areas are where mankind came from, they’re the only ones that anyone really OWNS. Everyone else is just squatting and can be kicked out by another group who will squat there for awhile.
I don’t really want the area between the Tigris and Euphrates, right now, but I’ve heard good things about the Indus River. So let’s move back home!

Stu on January 30, 2006 at 6:01 pm

For someone who complains about name-calling, you do a fair amount yourself:
“liberal idiots”
“intellectually-challenged lefty websites”
…but nevermind that.
You said, “So whom did THEY steal the land from? Somebody else, obviously.” And then you accuse others of not reading carefully: “I DIDN’T SAY THEY STOLE IT FROM ANYONE.”
If Native Americans were here first, then they didn’t steal anything from anyone. And if being there first doesn’t give you the rights to the land, then nobody has any rights to anything. Assuming the standard biological/anthropological account of the origins of humanity is correct (this article definitely does not contradict it), we all descended from a small tribe of homonids in Africa. Thus, by your standard, the only property human beings are allowed to own is the territory owned by that one tribe at the time they became humans.
In that case, I look forward to meeting you in our ancestral homeland in western Kenya.
Seriously, though, it seems to me that you used a scientific article to take a political pot-shot at Hollywood, and shot yourself in the foot instead. Don’t sweat it; people make mistakes. But don’t blame others for your error, either.

StuTheSheep on January 30, 2006 at 6:14 pm

I have always been amused that people think the issue with whites and indians was a racial thing. It was them outcome of a stone age society meeting an iron age society.
Additionally, since the “native Americans” didn’t have a very developed sense of land “ownership”, I don’t know how their land was stolen.

saintknowitall on January 30, 2006 at 6:23 pm

There’s a big boatload of difference between ancient peoples migrating to unpopulated lands 15,000 years ago and the genocide of Native Americans by European settlers as recent as 150 years ago. So where’s the equivalency Hollywood has neglected to depict? I’m sure but for a few random accidents of history it might have well been Native Americans invading Europe and brutally occupying those lands (read Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel” to appreciate how much dumb luck and chance has landed us where we are). Anyone who believes in the unity of mankind and our common ancestry can appreciate that no single people has a monopoly on virtue or sin — we’re all the same beast. The point of depicting the near-genocide of Native Americans is to learn from the mistakes of our actual history. What is so offensive to you about that?

arcticmonkey on January 30, 2006 at 6:35 pm

“Commie Mike”,you’re about to become the next
“dumbass-blonde joke”.”Some of my best friends are Indians”,but the Jews are the only people to
regain control of a land(at least part of it) after losing control of it several times and have dealt with much worse people than Indians..So I guess you gotta delete your post.

jaywilton on January 30, 2006 at 6:57 pm

No, Debbie, you didn’t explicitly *say* the natives stole the land from anyone, or didn’t belong there, you only implied it with a rhetorical question. Well that’s so much better then.
Seriously, what the hell were you thinking when you wrote this? Have you been huffing glue?
For you to morally justify or minimize the genocide of an entire people, because (and this is where I start to have real trouble even understanding the point you’re trying to make) they either didn’t spontaniously appear via biogenesis, or somehow have no claim to North America because their ancestors likely came from Asia, even unintentionally, is pretty disgusting.
I’d also suggest you stop responding to reader comments in shrill looking, all capitalized comebacks if you want people to start taking you seriously. (Already a fat chance at best.)

timmah420 on January 30, 2006 at 7:00 pm

You must type IN ALL CAPS to get your point across. Otherwise, WE CAN’T HEAR YOU.
Well, you know, the first Americans stole the land from all the wittle bunny wabbits and the pwaiwie dawgs and bambies, too.
So New York City can take over the entire state of New York, wiping out cities as they go, because the land didn’t belong to the other cities to start with. Is that what you’re saying? And because the Manhattanites are greedy and just don’t want their land, they’ll wipe out the Buffaloans or Albanians and Long Islanders, too. So they can just, you know, move right in.
So to follow your logic, nobody is native to anywhere we because our ancestors migrated to cover the entire earth. You can call it whatever you want, sweetcheeks, but I’ll call it genocide, ’cause that’s what it was.

Bushtit on January 30, 2006 at 7:10 pm

Actually, it strikes me that your bogus hair-splitting about “Indians” not really ever “owning” the land is simply an indirect way of stating the tacit premise of your argument, which is, it seems to me, that the spoils of conflict go to the victors. It’s not clear to me what would constitute land-ownership if living and working in one place for 15,000 years doesn’t qualify, so what you really mean to say is: we (North Americans of European descent, that is) took the land by dint of superior force, and we shouldn’t feel ashamed about it (after all, as you suggest, they may have taken it from someone else). “Might makes right” would hardly qualify as a conservative “family value” but since this is the gist of your piece, it would at least be honest to state it explicitly and steer clear of what appears to me to be a kind of Clinton-esque moral obfuscation. There’s ultimately no point in either sentimentalizing or demonizing those who came before us, but at least we can try to learn from their mistakes, as articmonkey points out above; playing ethically questionable games with semantics doesn’t do anyone any good.

mike on January 30, 2006 at 7:17 pm

Timmy420;telling Debbie how to write. a IT tech what a joke your 20years and a punk.You love blogs, little guy, don’t you.Feel important? .Now run off to the graveyard shift.

danny on January 30, 2006 at 8:51 pm

One black lady from South Central Los Angeles figured out how to establish and Indian nation consisting of herself and her kids in order to put up a casino in Coachella, California.
Los Angeles is a good test case for the absurd liberal viewpoint, founded by 38 blacks and two Spanierds the city had only 1500 residents in 1850 at the time it was the location of the truce from the Mexican American War. Pico, the Spanish Governor complained about all of the “Gringos”, then. Today there are 1500 mostly Mexican Indians in line EVERY DAY waiting to get into the Federal Building built on the very site of the truce. Source: the 1924 brass plaque from the Daughters of the American Revolution bolted to the INSIDE of the front wall so that it won’t offend the illegal Mexicans.

code7 on January 30, 2006 at 9:32 pm

Ah so…..with the dry ear wax comes the proof of migration. Oh it’s all so clear now. I’m sure there wasn’t any intermarrying among “Native Americans” (oops, I guess they’re now from Native Asians…no, Midwest Asians? Please Debbie, give us a name…please…..) and that the correlation among ear wax and ethnic groups is conclusive. Riiight. Well, I guess next time I use a Q-tip, I’ll see if I can have a lab analyze it to verify my ethnic origin…..oh yeah, and that whole ethnicity thing….care to explain a little more carefully just how we are divided by ethnicity? What type of a category is that anyway? I await your comment with less-than-baited breath. You’re better looking than Adams Apple Coulter btw.

tc on January 30, 2006 at 10:50 pm

The only thing I disagree with here is that they “probably” stole the land from someone else. This would suggest that there is some kind of lost or extinct race. We’re talking about as far back as the Ice Age here, and going that far back opens up a can of worms. I know Debbie almost certainly didn’t mean to get into that kind of territory, but with my background that kind of thing puts a bad taste in my mouth. It reminds me of the Arrow Cross Party and like-minded “historians” who are still rampant today. I’m not trying to give ammunition to these liberals (I think the Indians need to just get over it because they’re filthy rich from those casinos these days), but this blog does unintentionally get into dangerous waters. Still, it’s a rather grotesque exaggeration to compare what happened to the Indians to something like the Holocaust. What happened to the Indians was routine pre-WWII foreign policy toward less sophisticated civilizations. Ruthless conquest and amoral in retrospect, to be sure, but nowhere near as depraved as certain Asiatic empires. Liberals like to point out that the Europeans introduced diseases to the Indians, as if they did that on purpose. I wonder if they would also say that Africans are comparable to the Nazis because they introduced AIDS to the world. Since I’ve already probably gotten those on both sides of this issue riled up, but let me also say it is a complete myth that the Spaniards were particularly vicious in comparison to the British or French any other civilized nation at the time. The Conquistadors were no worse than any other Western adventurers, and had good moral character compared to the Islamic empires. Because America is culturally of English origin, we frequently malign the Spaniards even more cruelly than old movies used to portray the Indians. But it’s all a crock, the Conquistadors were great men who made great contributions to history. And that’s that.

KnightoftheImpaler on January 31, 2006 at 1:46 am

This post is shocking on many levels. helium3 already said most of what I think about the issue.
One thing is hinted in Debbie’s piece: “they must have stolen the land from someone else”.
Actually, the (mongoloid) Indians might have been the first to reach North America. That is the generally accepted theory. However some believe that there was a caucasian people living in North America that was wiped out by the mongoloid migration that originated the present day Native American populations. The Indians also wiped out many species of animals (the north American mammouth is one example), so that “the Indians lived in peace with nature” is not entirely accurate.
This is all Debbie should have said and stuck by, that the (recent) Hollywood version of the peaceful hippy-looking Indian is as untrue as the (ancient) Hollywood version of the evil Indian (played by a white actor died with brick dust).
Now, for someone that reads this piece as it presently is, one might get the impression that Debbie is equating some sort of Native American provoked genocide that might have happened ten or twenty thousand years ago, with something that happened at a particularly accelerated pace right after the American Revolution.
We were supposed to be civilized and we weren’t. Part of being civilized means accepting and dealing with our own rotten eggs.
You don’t see many native americans speaking about cannibalism in the original Native American cultures, or about the chilling sophistication of the Iroquois torture methods. And maybe they should be dealing with their own rotten eggs.
The same thing with Muslims. Just because they live in their dream world where uncle Mo was perfect, that doesn’t mean that we have to go down to their level. We come from a superior civilization, the civilization that gave the world Human Rights, democracy and the end of slavery. Maybe I am being arrogant (I know I am), but I don’t give a shit.
What worries me, is to see the “Law of the Jungle” defended by someone who probably had many of her own relatives butchered when that same law was applied onto her own people. Shame on you, Debbie. I generally agree with what you say, but this time you screwed up big time.

cruzado on January 31, 2006 at 9:19 am

I just thought I’d point out what I thought most people who’d taken a history course already know:
There is a pretty good archeological record of the migration of people from the northwestern portion of North America, through present day Canada and the continental U.S., and on down through Central and into South America. There is no evidence (no credible evidence) of anyone here before that migration. In other words, we can be pretty certain that there was no one here before the migration from Asian, because that’s what all of the evidence says.
Sure, if we want to speculate based on nothing but random ideas for “Dances with Wolves II – 10,000 BC” scripts, we could speculate that immigrants from Atlantis were here first, and the Asian immigrants mercilessly drove them from their land, slaughtering them and wiping out the mastadon herds which were their primary food source. But that’d be nothing more than pulling silly ideas out of our arses.

Chris on January 31, 2006 at 10:09 am

Actually,there was no conspiracy to perpetuate genocide on American Indians;but that jes’ ain’t gon’ matter to a bunch of remedial readin’
deficient pseudo-Ward Churchill’s.Serious scholars(unlike the fools here who keep saying genocide)attribute the decrease in Indian population to
“Not lovin’ yo’ neighbor as yo’seff”-and disease.
You foo’s who are into this genocide crap need to google ‘Were American Indians The victims of genocide'(hnn.uslarticles/7302.html.

jaywilton on January 31, 2006 at 10:20 am

Earwax-Derived Genetics

Junk science? You make the call.

Interested-Participant on January 31, 2006 at 10:24 am

If you are familiar with the 1948 Genocide Convention, and its definition of genocide, then you’re probably aware that the most difficult thing to prove is that actions are committed with “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” That being said, if we’re being objective, we have to admit that, say, the forced removal of Native Americans from the land on which they have lived for hundreds, if not thousands of years, to reservations, killing many of them in the process, is pretty consistent with that kind of intent. It may not be the case that such intent actually existed, at least not in all or even most of the people who developed U.S. policies towards Native Americans in the 19th century, but the Trail of Tears, to use but one example, is hard to explain without attributing such intent to at least some of the people who carried that policy out.

Chris on January 31, 2006 at 10:45 am

Chris,going by the 1948 genocide convention,genocide could literally mean anything…If my gang rubs out your gang and/or
expells you from the ‘hood,is that genocide?I dunno about that ‘actions are difficult to prove
stuff’;despite a history of being victimized by
mass-expulsions and mass murder,I have never heard of any Jew-including the Jew who coined the term-Raphael Lemkin,refer to any catastrophe in Jewish history as genocide-except for The Holocaust.I also believe that Israel’s neighbors
are more guilty of pepetuating genocide on Israeli
civilians and civilians around the world than The Trail of Tears'(google the Trail of Tears and genocide-first entry I think is an answer to a 9th grader).In that case, two votes could’ve stopped it.

jaywilton on January 31, 2006 at 2:15 pm

What happened to mike1’s last post? Nothing he said had any reason to be deleted.

Not Clompo on January 31, 2006 at 3:22 pm

Contrary to politically correct revisionism by Howard Zinn and his kind, at no time since the days of Constantine has any Western nation minus Nazi Germany itself done anything comparable to the Holocaust in magnatude, precision or intent. Not even relative to technology or population sizes of any era.

KnightoftheImpaler on January 31, 2006 at 3:38 pm

Funny thing though, about 30,000 years ago, China discovered the west coast and buried statutes. Hmmm, Chinese Indians

KOAJaps on January 31, 2006 at 6:00 pm

jaywilton, I can’t decide whether you’re just dishonest or stupid. The link you mention (the explanation to the 9th grader) a.) is not authoratative, and b.) says nothing about what I said. Recall I pointed out that genocide was probably not the American policy-makers’ goal, and that it might even be that most people involved the removal process (not just the trail of tears) didn’t have genocidal intentions, but the brutality of the Trail of Tears is best explained by at least some genocidal intentions on the part of the people who carried the policies out. Now, if you can actually provide something relevant to what I said, I’d be happy to read it.

Chris on January 31, 2006 at 6:42 pm

Chris,I don’t know if you’re stupid,dishonest,disengenuous or looking for a way to punk out. You brought up the issue of genocide(or is it just “genocidal intentions”).I
guess,I wrongly figured you for a 9th grader;for something “authorative” for your remedial nursery
level,google-American Indians and genocide.

jaywilton on February 1, 2006 at 10:27 am

Were the Native Americans here first? If they were then what? North American is over 20 million square miles in size. Are those saying that meaning that the rest of the human race couldn’t come to the North American continent? Or are they saying that only whites couldn’t come to the North American Continent. Both statements are racist.
Secondly,coming to the North American Continent was a matter of migration, much like the Greeks migrated around the Mediteranean, the Romans migrated into Europe up through the Italian peninsula, the Inca’s through the Peruvian plateau, the Mongols across China, the Huns across central Asia. Migration has happened throughout time and all over the world involving many different people. Migrating to North America was just another migration.

grxray on February 1, 2006 at 11:14 am

So, Debbie, what exactly IS your point? Perhaps the Asians who migrated over the Bering Strait weren’t the first humans here. So what? We white folk didn’t see anyone else here when we came over, except perhaps Bigfoot. Should we have sought out the original inhabitants to “buy” their land, then ignore our contracts with them instead?
The original inhabitants of the British Isles were invaded not once, but several times by different ethnic groups. By your argument, any Brit descended from the Angles or the Normans doesn’t “own” his land either, which would put a good bit of the House of Lords packing.
You have touched off a maelstrom of invective here. Could you perhaps tell us what relevance there is to your comment,”This is yet more evidence that we did NOT steal THEIR land. It means it was not THEIRS to begin with.”? Are you in some way apologizing for, justifying or rationalizing the white colonists’ land grabs? (Those white colonists included some of my ancesors, by the way.) It sure seems like it.

wheatdogg on February 1, 2006 at 7:34 pm

All you can cry all you want about us supposedly stealing the land from the “peaceful” Injuns. I don’t endorse killing people for nothing. Nobody can say for sure if the Indians were here first, anyway.
But, I have no problem with living in my house on my land in America. All you hand wringing hippies can find you a “Native American” and give it back, OK? Go ahead, if you are so worried about what Debbie wrote, find an Indian and hand your house and land over.
If you are too stupid and savage there is always going to be someone come in and take your stuff. Believe me, if the Indians would have been smart enough they would have invaded our ancestor’s land and taken it.
Someone would have eventually come to America and taken over. It doesn’t bother me to say I am glad it was MY ancestors because I sort of like living here. OK, maybe our ancestors weren’t always saints in their dealings. Anyone who looks at history know the Indians weren’t always the sweet, innocent, peaceful nature lovers of Hollywood fantasy, either. They weren’t doing anything great and it’s doubtful they would have made this country as great as it is even with the problems. They probably wouldn’t have built great cities, universities, hospitals, etc.
Oh, I know this isn’t an “intellectual treatise.” At least I am not being a hypocrite and pretend to be boo hooing about people I don’t care about. I am going to sit in front of my TV this Sunday and watch the Super Bowl in MY HOUSE in the good ole U.S. of A. having fun. And you whiny hypocrites are going to do ABSOLUTELY NADA about Indians except talk, talk, talk to attempt to convince yourselves you care.

The_Man on February 1, 2006 at 10:59 pm

I love how people come on here and try to tell Debbie how to run her own site. Typical libs.

Jeff_W on February 2, 2006 at 9:24 am

Thank goodness Debbie is attending the intelligence summit, they may be handing out free samples.

JMN on February 2, 2006 at 12:05 pm

From your post:
ìSo whom did THEY steal the land from? Somebody else, obviously. Yet, no “Dances With Wolves” and “Into the West” from Hollywood about that.î
Your original point seems to have been that you can derive the conclusion that ìthey,î being Native Americans, stole their land from someone else because they came from Asia. There is no evidence to support this conclusion what-so-ever. Nothing. Therefore this conclusion is far from obvious. Your point is flawed because it relies on the connection that; if someone came from somewhere else they had to have displaced someone living there already. You are assuming that there were prior inhabitants without establishing this to be so.
In a further addition to your post you added:
ìYet, there is no proof they were the first here. And even if they were, this is yet more proof that they originated in ASIA. Hello? . . . This is yet more evidence that we did NOT steal THEIR land. It means it was not THEIRS to begin with.î
There is no evidence that the Native Americans displaced prior inhabitants when they crossed the Bering Strait. Nothing at all that anyone can point to. I submit that makes compelling evidence that they were indeed the first to inhabit this land (certainly not that alone, but when taken with all other evidence it strongly points in that direction). This is not more ìproofî that they originated in Asia. That point is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not the actions of Europeans, displacing the Native Americans, can be classified as ìstealingî of land. With the Native Americans being the first to inhabit the land, and having done so for a further 8000 + years, I find it hard to see how they cannot have met the requirement for ownership of the land.
On the other hand, what is the history of Europeans? There is compelling evidence to suggest that Europe did have prior inhabitants before the advent of modern man. The Neanderthals inhabited lower Europe for thousands of years prior to the arrival of modern man out of Africa. There is no direct evidence of conflict between the two species. All that can be said is that modern man, the ancestors of modern Europeans, moved into land already inhabited by Neanderthals and these original inhabitants became extinct some time after that event. By your logic, the prior existence of Neanderthal inhabitants leads to the conclusion that the ancestors of Europeans stole the land. Or that for Europeans, Europe is not “their” land. (Note to the rest of the world, feel free to move on in to Europe)
When looking at the track record of Europeans across the globe you find many examples of them displacing (usually violently) the indigenous people of the land in question (This is not to suggest that Europeans are alone in this activity – See Jared Diamond). Based on this track record you would have to say that it is at least possible that the earliest Europeans violently displaced the Neanderthals leading to or at least contributing to their extinction. Either way it speaks of the start of a long history of taking (stealing) land from indigenous people.
Considering the above I would say the Native Americans have a much better claim to the Americas as being ìtheir landî at the time of European conquest. A much better claim than even the Europeans can make concerning Europe if we use your constraints.

Cat on February 2, 2006 at 7:11 pm

Hello, again, The_Man. You actually tried to manage an argument. But, where did anyone say here we should give the land back to the natives? You’re trying to argue something that wasn’t even on the table. We “libs”, as Jeff W calls us, are just trying to find out what Debbie’s point was in the first place. Since she’s elsewhere, I guess we’ll just have to wait to get the definitive answer. And frankly, I don’t really care at this point.
And, Jeff W, this is a public forum. We’re not telling Debbie how to run her site. We’re trying to engage her in debate/discussion. There’s a not-too-subtle difference.

wheatdogg on February 2, 2006 at 8:20 pm

My dear wheaty. I am just trying to seek justice for the poor Native Americans. And, I am concerned for you and your fellow liberals. You guys care so-o-o-o much and this atrocity has to be causing you guys a LOT of stress.
I am trying to help. If you will just do the right thing and give back your land to a Native American you and your liberal friends will have that guilt removed and you will live a happier life.
So, GIVE, give till it hurts.

The_Man on February 2, 2006 at 11:14 pm

Ya ta he, Manny,
First of all, I didn’t even raise the issue of our giving back the land to the native Americans. I am not crying in my beer about it. S**t happens. The whites won, the reds lost. Same as with the Normans and Anglo-Saxons — my people were on the losing side in that invasion. It’s a little late to tell the Normans to give back the land they swiped.
Secondly, I am trying to get an answer to a legitimate question, not opening some pointless debate about who should give what land back to who. You’re assuming a lot, lumping me into some amorphous group you call “liberals,” because some visitors here dare question your beloved Debbie S.
Debbie herself opened this can of worms, with the question of who was here first, the present native Americans or some earlier group. I just don’t get her point. My ancestors bought land from the Delaware, but if the Delaware really weren’t the owners, is she suggesting the contract was null and void? Or she is suggesting that “liberals,” as you call them, are misguided in worrying about the whites stealing land from the reds, since the reds were not the original occupants?
Frankly, I don’t see how her remarks add anything to the debate of whether the native Americans were ill-used. If you would study a little U.S. history, Manny, you would not have to look too hard to see how brutally whites treated the Indians. The Trail of Tears is one notable example. And at the same time, the Indians (not all, btw) brutally murdered whites whom they saw as invading their land. It’s what happens when two decentralized population groups try to occupy the same territory.
Instead of being a kneejerk conservative, Manny, why don’t you actually read people’s posts and consider what they are saying, instead of assuming you know what they think. I came here hoping for some intelligent debate, and an answer from Debbie, not you. If you have nothing worthwhile to say to me, then kindly butt out.
And if you will stop calling me wheaty, I’ll call you by your real handle, too.

wheatdogg on February 3, 2006 at 12:42 am

Most anthropologists acknowledge that there weren’t any humans in North or South America before the indians travelled across the Bering Strait. They moved into this area, settled their homes and claimed this land for theirs.
The same thing happened when the first people moved into the British Isles, for example. If another group of people moved into England and killed or shoved the previous inhabitants onto reservations, you’d be outraged. And rightly so.
Your argument doesn’t make sense. Native Americans were here first, they claimed this land, and we took it from them. I’m just stating that this is a fact. Your comments lead me to believe that you have no empathy for a people who forcefully had their land taken from them. As a liberal, I don’t feel that there needs to be reparations. The damage is done. But there needs to at least be an acknowledgement of respect to a people and culture that was destroyed by our colonialism.

Brian Spence on February 3, 2006 at 4:10 pm

hahahhaha!! omfg….what i read made me laugh!…(being native american) what i think your saying just makes me think, your just trying to make your culture sound less guilty by saying us (the native americans) stole this land before it was stolen from my ancestors…and what do you get from making this forum? the thought that “hmmmm i like this theory! and i belive it! damn, my culture rules!” i didnt intent on reading this forum…so you can say “you dont have to read it!” but i did. only thinking this was a website that let native americans voice there opinion about our culture slipping away….
so say what you want-i just did.
(spelling isnt to good. then again reservation schools are shit.)

ot!s on March 27, 2007 at 10:25 pm

“To all the liberal idiots who’ve left dumb, insulting comments on this entry (and if you insult me, your comments will be deleted), as directed by similarly intellectually-challenged lefty websites, I’m well aware Indians came here over the Bering Strait, which you’d realize if you actually bothered to read what I wrote below in this entry.”

Do you not realize the hypocrisy in that statement? In the same sentence, you insulted other people (more than once) and then told them that they shouldn’t be rude to you.

You’ve heard the phrase, “treat others as you would be treated,” right?

Ac#e on December 4, 2009 at 9:33 am

you cant compare earwax or anything from people of today to people of the past because there many variables that would make this data bunk. such as whats in our food, chemtrails (military does not deny this), and all the other pollutants from just about everything like fire retardants in carpet, fluoride in water and food, even poisons in the clothing we wear.

i am Cherokee and can tell you that some days my earwax is of a different consistency than other days, i do not have bad BO though. if you eat right you will not have bad BO so this is not a good scientific study. if you eat organic foods you will smell less no matter where you are from.

meme on March 10, 2010 at 11:52 am

Debbie, here’s a little history recap for you

abt 15,000 years ago a few thousand ancestors of Native Americans migrate to unoccupied land

abt 100-400 yrs ago – tens of millions of Europeans force settled NA off their land at gunpoint, killing most of them & forcing the rest into poverty and ‘ghettos’

present – Conservatives in uproar over small-scale immigration by non-white europeans and want to ‘shut the door’

Whatever happened to ‘All men are created equal’ and ‘made in gods image’ ???

Tie on July 31, 2010 at 8:58 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field