It may be poor taste (as in lazy), but I'm going to copy/paste from the other thread to get my part rolling. I'm including the full conversation with Oxy so far.
linkyOxymoron wrote:
1, you are not native simply older immigrant...the "indians" mongoliod tribes moving from Siberia and all that jazz.
An oft referred to, widely accepted, but notoriously evidence poor theory. I suggest reading Vine Deloria Jr.'s chapter "
Low Bridge" (it's short) on this.
Oxymoron wrote:
2.Not Aboriginal for the same reason
3. Not Indegenous for the same reason
Of course, #2 and #3 rely completely on #1, which explains why it is so important for certain people to cling to unproven and highly problematic theories.
Of course, we were here (at latest estimates)
at least 50,000 years ago. The Bering Strait theory has us crossing over 12,000 years ago...20,000 years ago...even at the outmost limits it's suggested maybe it was actually 30,000 ago...lol...I'm sure in a few years there will be people claiming 'oh no we actually meant 50,000 years ago...'
Though at that point, does it really matter? No matter how this impecunious theory is stretched backwards to fit the actual evidence, we have been here for
at least 50,000 years. Long indeed enough to effectively defeat any claim to 'newness' or 'lack of aboriginality'.
Oxymoron wrote:4. Cree ok Cree it is.
Appreciated, as it's the most accurate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
linkyOxymoron wrote:The point is that we can argue about the actual period of the migration, but you admit it was a migration...thus you cannot be called indegenous anymore then people who came here 700 years ago.
Nope. I never agreed there was a migration. What I did was provide you with facts, based on your own scientific tradition (so you would not be made to feel uncomfortable), that specifically contradict the migration theory which arose from that same scientific tradition.
As well, 'indigenous' as it refers to people, references the FIRST people, the original people of a region. Which we are, under your tradition, and mine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
linkyOxymoron wrote:According to archeological data the original migrants were eradicated, by new waves some time around 10000 BCE.
According to some marginalised
theories. I will gladly refute your evidence, once you present it.
Oxymoron wrote: Also you dont believe in the migration theory? So you have evidence to back up your claim?
I believe the migration theory
exists. However, I have already provided you with evidence of why the migration theory is not compelling, and in fact highly problematic as it is directly contradicted by hard evidence. The migration theory itself is not backed up with hard evidence, but rather suppositions, weakly supported. The short chapter I provided you with explains this, and cites specific problems.
Since you apparently are a proponent of the theory, feel free to present evidence supporting it. I have backed up my claim already, but will gladly expand once you do some work on your side.