Happy Indigenous peoples day

[ICU 812]

So far, no one has addressed my question as to who actually the indigenous peoples of Europe.

Just reading around on Wikipedia, I found that the "indigenous Peoples" of America's northern plains were not the "Sioux" (Lakota . . whatever). In pre-contact times, the Sioux were a woodland people from the area north of Lake Superior. They were pushed west through violent confrontations with the Chippawa/Ojibway.

I couldn't find who were actually the "indigenous peoples" of the Southern Canadien and Northern American Planes.

DNA research shows that the Navaho peoples of the American Southwest actually migrated there from Athabaskan populations in Canada. They seem to have largely displaced the ancient Puebloan people in what is now Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado.

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by texassapper

That is correct. Before that they called them "Hey You!"

"Hay You" is one of my pronouns!

[Jacuzzme]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

So far, no one has addressed my question as to who actually the indigenous peoples of Europe.

Just reading around on Wikipedia, I found that the "indigenous Peoples" of America's northern plains were not the "Sioux" (Lakota . . whatever). In pre-contact times, the Sioux were a woodland people from the area north of Lake Superior. They were pushed west through violent confrontations with the Chippawa/Ojibway.

I couldn't find who were actually the "indigenous peoples" of the Southern Canadien and Northern American Planes.

DNA research shows that the Navaho peoples of the American Southwest actually migrated there from Athabaskan populations in Canada. They seem to have largely displaced the ancient Puebloan people in what is now Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado.

You’re making it way to complicated. Indigenous people are anyone who’s not white. Doesn’t matter how far their lineage goes back, great great great great great grandpa could’ve been the caption of The Mayflower, they’re less ‘indigenous’ than some kid who floated across the Rio Grand last week.

[biomed1]

Of The Following . . .

#2 - Derogatory racial remarks are simply unacceptable, period. Disrespect another's ethnic background and you will most certainly regret it.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

So far, no one has addressed my question as to who actually the indigenous peoples of Europe.

Just reading around on Wikipedia, I found that the "indigenous Peoples" of America's northern plains were not the "Sioux" (Lakota . . whatever). In pre-contact times, the Sioux were a woodland people from the area north of Lake Superior. They were pushed west through violent confrontations with the Chippawa/Ojibway.

I couldn't find who were actually the "indigenous peoples" of the Southern Canadien and Northern American Planes.

DNA research shows that the Navaho peoples of the American Southwest actually migrated there from Athabaskan populations in Canada. They seem to have largely displaced the ancient Puebloan people in what is now Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado.

the indigenous peoples were the neanderthals who later interbred with homo sapiens who migrated into europe.

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

the indigenous peoples were the neanderthals who later interbred with homo sapiens who migrated into europe.

If that is the csse, then either way, the indigenous peoples of Europe were and are white folks.

What does mean in the context of the current, nearly in controlled, influx of people of color from other parts of the world?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

If that is the csse, then either way, the indigenous peoples of Europe were and are white folks.

What does mean in the context of the current, nearly in controlled, influx of people of color from other parts of the world?

not necessarily... its conjecture. we really don't know for sure. even tho we have such samples, dna samples doesn't hold up too well age wise.

homo sapiens to start with were probably black or dark skinned as they were from africa. neanderthals were probably white as they lost their black/darkness melanin gene over a long period of time, I think about 200,000-300,000 years during the ice age period. its the gene that allows humans to produce vitamin d. blue eyes was probably a neanderthal trait.

you don't see blue eyes in dark/black skinned africans (not sure about red hair tho)

it would look strange to see a black skinned homo sapien with blue eyes and red hair in late ice age europe.

there are alot of assumptions on what the original homo sapiens and neanderthals looked like.

[ICU 812]

And now we are off into tyhe weeds and out of concrete or provable examples.

Let me just say here that I have been to the Cairo Museum and I have seen many pictures on papyrus done by artists of the Pharaonic Age. They did not portray the contemporary Egyptians, of 4,500 years ago as "black"; not in color or physical appearance.

In the time of Alexnder the Gret and after, under the Ptolemies, Egypt became a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society.

[ICU 812]

Archeologists have found both Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens remains in the same areas and dated to the same time period, . .in places that are not in Africa. It seems that they were contemporary species that co-existed for ~50,00to 100,000 years or so.

[ICU 812]

And again: We are way off into the speculative high grass on this.

I would ask the Mods/Admins to close this thread.

[biomed1]

• #6 - Respect the topics presented by those who start a thread. Attempts to derail a thread or change it's direction is referred to as thread hijack and will be discouraged. Attempts to guide a thread in the right direction are appreciated, while responses to posts which hijack a thread are not.
• #21 - ECCIE Staff will go to great lengths to avoid editing, deleting, or censoring our members posts or threads...unless absolutely necessary. Forbidden topics such as underage sex, illicit drugs, bestiality, revealing personal info, medical speculation, or images not in compliance will be removed from public view. Controversial, troublesome, or objectionable posts may draw staff attention or in some cases disciplinary action, but the offending post will not be removed from the view of our membership in any but the most extreme cases. Often times you will find directions, footnotes, or other guidance from staff edited INTO posts which draw our attention. These are for the purpose of educating the readers of what is and what is not acceptable as well as informing others about how these issues have been dealt with. Members are encouraged to RTM posts which include rule infractions or objectionable material if it appears that staff has not already become involved with the thread or post in particular. Note: Staff will consider a request from the original poster to remove a thread/post they have made provided it was recently posted and not replied to. As a general rule, staff will not consider such requests once a thread or post has been visible for at least 4 hours or received 2 or more replies. In these cases, a request from the OP to lock the thread is more appropriate and will receive consideration.

[winn dixie]

Liked everyone's participation in thread. I yield to biomed whatever he decides for thread.