Indians weren't the First Nations

Timothy Birdnow

The new politically correct term for Indians is "First Nations". But were they?

No.

In point of fact skeletal remains have been found of people in Baja California that more closely resemble the Aborigines of Australia.

From the National Geographic article:

A study of skulls excavated from the tip of Baja California in Mexico suggests that the first Americans may not have been the ancestors of today's Amerindians, but another people who came from Southeast Asia and the southern Pacific area.

The question of who colonized the Americas, and when, has long been hotly debated. Traditionally, Native Americans are believed to have descended from northeast Asia, arriving over a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska some 12,000 years ago and then migrating across North and South America.

But recent research, including the Baja California study, indicates that the initial settlement of the continent was instead driven by Southeast Asians who occupied Australia 60,000 years ago and then expanded into the Americas about 13,500 years ago, prior to Mongoloid people arriving from northeast Asia.

The skulls from Baja California, which may date back only a few hundred years, have slender-looking faces that are different from the broad-cheeked craniums of modern Amerindians, the descendants of the Mongoloid people.

"Our results change the traditional idea that all modern Amerindians present morphological affinities with East Asians as a result of a single migration," said Rolando González-José of the University of Barcelona, Spain, who led the study. "The settlement of the New World is better explained by considering a continuous influx of people from Asia."

The new study is reported in this week's issue of the science journal Nature,and could further fuel the controversy surrounding the origins of the first Americans, which is a controversial issue for American Indians in particular.

So, what happened to these people? They were probably wiped out by the "gentle" Indians who invaded their land.

And there is evdience too of a caucasian people who lived in the Americas before the "Native Americans".

Also from the article:

Controversy erupted after skeletal remains were found in Kennewick, Washington, in 1996. This skeleton, estimated to be 9,000 years old, had a long cranium and narrow face—features typical of people from Europe, the Near East or India—rather than the wide cheekbones and rounder skull of an American Indian.

A coalition of Indian tribes, however, said that if Kennewick Man was 9,000 years old, he must be their ancestor, no matter what he looked like. Invoking a U.S. federal law that provides for the return of Native American remains to their living descendants, the tribes demanded a halt to all scientific study and the immediate return of the skeleton for burial in a secret location.

The matter is still stuck in the courts.

So the truth is not acceptable to the Indians who claim primacy, eh?

I notice this article is from 2003, and nothing since. Seems the Indians got their way and the research has since been suppressed.

We llive in an era that is dominated by pollitical correctness. You cannot even do research on such a basic thing as human lineage without it coming under the thumb of a government manipulated by the aggreived.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:57 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 539 words, total size 4 kb.