Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> says in
news:7s0j91tllvkam2jcb2do5ah5hm8itfi183@xxxxxxx:

>>My name sake is Swiss, the last swiss ancestor was jewish/swiss,
>>I have germans on one side 3 generations back, and on the other
>>side 4 generations back, I have also ancestors from Ireland,
>>Scotland, Britain, France, and a couple of unknowns.
>
> No native americans? What happened to them?

They are the unknowns. During the period of slavery and the follow
up period in the south, whites, particularly west of the mississippi
did intermix with natives. My greatgrandmother comes from
mississippi, generically cherokee but she contests this and claims
that they came from a smaller subset, we are looking into this
history now, by the pictural records her ancestry is clear.
My great grandmother on the other side was picked up in west Texas,
her specific origins are unknown because the court house in Laredo
Texas in which my grandfather was born burnt down.
Louisiana and Most of Eastern Texas is part of the old south. The
south discriminated against people based on non european ancestry,
they discriminated against people based solely on the color of thier
skin but also other factors. The brown bag rule was used amoung
blacks to determine who could marry who, and who could work at
certain jobs, or be permitted to certain clubs, cajun and creoles
were a mixture of white, native, and/or black that existed in these
areas and were discriminated against in white culture, despite a
rather marked record of acheivement in the region. In that context
people who were mixed native who could get away based on skin color
would not disclose their ancestry, my greatgrandmother was an
exception to this, although she did not leave clear records from
which group she came. There is almost no information on my other
greatgrandmother, only rumors. One of the rumors is that she was part
mexican, the other comanche, the other picked up by comanche, the
other is that she was from a displaced tribe in oklahoma or a admixed
person who was from a christianized family. Some of this is being
sorted out. In west Texas things differed from the south, once one
crossed the plantation line, the area were most large farms had
slaves, the rules about intermixing were considerably more relaxed,
don't ask don't tell policy so to speak. This pattern is particularly
so in south Texas because of the hostility of the climate to northern
europeans.

> You don't know that. More to the point, you don't want to find
> out if they did.

The thing about history is that it is recorded, if Sweden had a grand
historical contribution to the prosperity of the early pre-columbian
world it would be in the historic record, and if that is not the case
then we are talking about prehistory, and there is no means that you
can state that Sweden had a substantive role based on culture or
genetics. So from history we can see that Swedens contribution to the
New World discovery was negligible, except Greenland, in which it
failed. From prehistory we can deduce that its impact was negligible.
On both accounts I would say it is a sound deduction.
The issue, Eric, that you keep trying to distort, is that many
here, including myself expect that the Norse did make settlements,
even more than the already know along the eastern coast. Thier saga
makes that known, but, their saga also makes it known that these were
abandoned. There is no particularly good evidence from either side of
the atlantic the greenlanders settled in the continental north
america. And so I am not denying scandinavian contribution, what I am
saying is that at the level of significance which Inger repeated
hails as being a fact, I don't see it, many here don't either.


>>There are Swedish immigrants that did. That is the subtlety of
>>her flawed argument, she wants the rest of the world to give
>>credit to sweden from what she has not proof.
>
> If she hasn't got proof, then her arguments fail.

her argument already failed because its a house of cards, and it is a
lead argument.

> I have not noticed that Inger has ever claimed that the Norse
> ever 'discovered' the new world except in terms of their own
> limited knowledge. Don't you remember me citing possible
> evidence that pre-germanic/norse knew of the new world 1300 BC?

I remember. There are researchers who believe that europeans settled
here 20,000 years ago. The amazing thing is however, although I see
evidence of europeans in eastern asia, I don't see great evidence of
the same in the new world indigeonous populations. In fact, of the
haplotypes that predominate in the transbaikal/korean corridor the
only ones also found in the new world predominate in the middle east
and NE africa. At every instance european and their derivatives seem
to be jumping on opportunity to show some earlier migration from
europe, the excitement ussually clouds the hypothesizing. The recent
program on PBS demostrated this quite clearly, suggesting no clovis
like tools in eastern asia. But as a matter of fact I went to 4
museums on a small japanese island, 1 of them an archaeological
museum and I saw clovis like spear points in everyone, excepting the
fluted tip. These same tools were show to be as evidence that clovis
came from france and spain.
It is very clear to me that people are speculating on the european
contribution to native american culture because, frankly, they are
ignorant of the asian contributions, and worse they don't see the
underdeveloped siberian archaeology as problematic. This is a form of
ethnocentrism, also.

> I don't know who really discovered the new world except that his
> name, perhaps, might have been 'ugh'.

I can a japanese fellow having missed the right wind back to his port
going 'ahhhh, shit!'

> She is quite right that if she could come up with her special
> data that Spain and England could (not should) be pushed aside.
> Of course that is in terms of the rights of 'discoverers'
> in14th~15th century europe. This is probably utterly meaningless
> in todays terms.

My point.

> Well, this is an interesting logical point. We know what the
> culture of NA was when it was found by the early post-Columbian
> explorers. We also know from archaeology some aspects of what
> the culture was before Columbus. However, we know very little of
> the factors which went into making the culture what is was then.
> It can be argued that if x000 norse moved into NA in the 15th
> century we would expect to see the following changes... .
> However most such arguments use the current status quo as a base
> line. What we don't know is whether or not the position of the
> current baseline has been influenced by an unrecognised influx
> of 15th century norse. Nor do we know, if such an influx
> actually occurred, what the baseline would have been in the
> absence of the influx. We could very well be looking now at the
> result of a norse influx some 500~600 years ago.

You need to study the culture of meso america, it is clear there were
technological pushes from the south.

>>I am not putting out misinformation and then using that as
>>leverage to alter history in my favor, or to make the point that
>>if my facts were accepted I could then look down on other
>>people.
>
> You are putting out misinformation

it is an assessment based on a collection of facts, see other post.

> in that you attribute the
> motivation of people whose ideas or questions you don't like to
> racism. It would be better for all of us if we dealt with
> arguments on their merits rather than their possible motivation.

Racism - The notion that ones own ethnic stock is superior.
Source: New College Editiom American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language: ISBN 0-395-20360-0

Do you really want to debate issue further. The point about racism is
that it is a real time assessment, if a person ceases doing in accord
with thier notion, the the assessment becomes fault. It is only when
I see her doing in that assessment do I make the charge. I would
rather not, but it is only in pointing out the attitude the people
change, maybe not her or you, but possibly the offspring.;^).

--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
____Groups_____
Mol Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Pal Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
Gliadin Sci http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/

____Sites_____
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Classical antiquity to the Middle Ages: Continuity or Discontinuity?
    ... ancient history, as the threads in this NG recently seem to have been ... recreation of classical culture -- a kind of preface to modernity. ... In the least friendly assessments of the European ... Under the influence of the Church the barbarian ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: east europeans...
    ... with their history and culture, ... European - they are European. ... But surely once ensconced within our wondrously diverse nation they ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • RIP Gary Gygax, D&D Founder
    ... European legend, and games involve various adventures. ... "hip hop" culture aimed at our youth today). ... result of the cultural milieu spearheaded by the likes of Gary Gygax. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: Good evening Europe!
    ... close neighbor here in the Middle East who loves ... births at this time already are Muslim. ... this to the low birthrates of non-Muslim European ... culture brought along by radical Islam. ...
    (soc.culture.polish)