Do you think the first Americans were black but wiped out by "Native Americans"?

[HitandRun Reggie]

There is a theory that the first peoples to settle in the Americas were black aboriginal peoples from Australia but they were completely wiped out by the Mongloid/Caucasoid hybrids that arrived from the north? Since "Native Americans" show no evidence of negroid DNA, they would have had to completely wiped them out when the two peoples encountered rather than interbreed with them like the Neanderthals and humans, when these 2 encountered each other.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm

[Demon Lizard]

First time I have heard of this theory. Not enough evidence for me to believe it because of hearing about it once.

[gigantes]

very interesting.

i wouldn't call them "black" but rather australoid... a people who had already diverged from africans.

one of the ways that all peoples outside of africa diverged from africans today is that those who wandered out crossbred with neanderthals. far as i know that applies to the australoids too, which again makes them not "black" in my mind. not that it really matters, anyway.

the article also says that they still live on in the lineage of fuegeans on s. american's tip.

[Nanners]

i think there would be DNA evidence if this had happened.

[gigantes]

i think there would be DNA evidence if this had happened.
sounds like just a matter of time if the fuegean link is correct.

[Patrick Chewing]

Damn Mongoloids.

[TheMan]

Goddam, so the first Native Americans would rather wipe out Blacks than have sex with them? Now that's racist af

[AirBourne92]

First time I have heard of this theory. Not enough evidence for me to believe it because of hearing about it once.

probably just an excuse to validate colonialism :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[9erempiree]

It's believable if blacks did live in North America.

Indians were warriors. Blacks were not warriors. I believe Indians would slaughter the blacks.

[gts]

That would explain the Ivory afro pick they recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits

[Budadiiii]

Survival of the fittest. Whites happen to be more fit.

[Swaggin916]

i think there would be DNA evidence if this had happened.

There is DNA of Neanderthal in us... they would have evidence of the Australoid DNA if this were true.

[BasedTom]

This is beyond ridiculous. Why is it that the hyper-black nationalists are prone to revise history, mislead, and even blatantly lie about it? Is it because of a doubt in their own ability to create a better future?

No, Mozart and Jesus were not black, and even if they were, they would have absolutely nothing else in common with the idiots that constantly push this bullshit.

The thing that gets me is that there's not much evidence, yet the headline proudly boasts: 'First Americans were Australian'

[TheMan]

This is beyond ridiculous. Why is it that the hyper-black nationalists are prone to revise history, mislead, and even blatantly lie about it? Is it because of a doubt in their own ability to create a better future?

No, Mozart and Jesus were not black, and even if they were, they would have absolutely nothing else in common with the idiots that constantly push this bullshit.

The thing that gets me is that there's not much evidence, yet the headline proudly boasts: 'First Americans were Australian'
While it's true that there are crazy Black dudes trying to convince us that some of the world's notable historic figures were really black, whites do this all the time too, you just don't notice is because you're white. We all know that God isn't an old white dude with long white hair and beard. Jesus was a Jew, they are semetic people and most likely had curly dark hair, thick eyebrows and beard and could look more like an ordinary modern Arab than Brad Pitt with long hair and a beard. Same with the Ancient Egyptians, they're Africans but every time they are potrayed in the media, they look European...

[dunksby]

Educate me on this, how did they reach the Americas more than 50,000 years ago? Because this seems just a lazy explanation to me:

Archaeologists speculate that such an incredible sea voyage, from Australia to Brazil, would not have been undertaken knowingly but by accident.

[Bandito]

Goddam, so the first Native Americans would rather wipe out Blacks than have sex with them? Now that's racist af
Theyre not about that booty brah!

[gigantes]

Educate me on this, how did they reach the Americas more than 50,000 years ago? Because this seems just a lazy explanation to me:

Archaeologists speculate that such an incredible sea voyage, from Australia to Brazil, would not have been undertaken knowingly but by accident.
the article said it was sea-based fishermen who got swept off in a storm, something which we know happens pretty regularly in history and the natural world.


btw modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) arose anywhere from 50k - 200k years ago, so these extinct peoples were not necessarily the same species as us. something to keep in mind.

[dunksby]

the article said it was sea-based fishermen who got swept off in a storm, something which we know happens pretty regularly in history and the natural world.


btw modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) arose anywhere from 50k - 200k years ago, so these extinct peoples were not necessarily the same species as us. something to keep in mind.
So four,best case scenario, fishermen washup ashore and start breeding? Astronomical odds.

[gigantes]

So four,best case scenario, fishermen washup ashore and start breeding? Astronomical odds.
not sure i understand your english, but yeah it happens all the time in nature. it's how tiny remote islands get populated by so many plants and animals for example.

astronomical odds come way down when you have astronomical numbers working on them. that and time.

it's why we can be pretty confident that intelligent life is out there somewhere. not because it's likely but because the number of stars, planets and galaxies is staggering in all directions.

[TheMan]

So four,best case scenario, fishermen washup ashore and start breeding? Astronomical odds.
and unless they took along some fisherwomen, that theory doesn't hold water...no pun intended

[You Cant Ban Me]

This is beyond ridiculous. Why is it that the hyper-black nationalists are prone to revise history, mislead, and even blatantly lie about it? Is it because of a doubt in their own ability to create a better future?

No, Mozart and Jesus were not black, and even if they were, they would have absolutely nothing else in common with the idiots that constantly push this bullshit.

The thing that gets me is that there's not much evidence, yet the headline proudly boasts: 'First Americans were Australian'
It just kills you that we have bigger ***** :lol .SPS (Small ***** Syndrome) is real folks just look as it rears its ugly head:oldlol:

[dunksby]

not sure i understand your english, but yeah it happens all the time in nature. it's how tiny remote islands get populated by so many plants and animals for example.

astronomical odds come way down when you have astronomical numbers working on them. that and time.

it's why we can be pretty confident that intelligent life is out there somewhere. not because it's likely but because the number of stars, planets and galaxies is staggering in all directions.
Not sure I understand your English either, what I meant was I don't see how enough fishermen regardless of their sex wash up ashore after a storm alive and populate that place so much to be then killed out by other natives.
Simple English:
1- How many fishermen can board a fishing boat made 50K years ago? I don't think they could hold more than 4.
2- How many would survive that storm and wash up ashore? I don't think more than one.
3- If more than one survive, what are the odds they got a man and a woman among them?

[gigantes]

Not sure I understand your English either, what I meant was I don't see how enough fishermen regardless of their sex wash up ashore after a storm alive and populate that place so much to be then killed out by other natives.
Simple English:
1- How many fishermen can board a fishing boat made 50K years ago? I don't think they could hold more than 4.
2- How many would survive that storm and wash up ashore? I don't think more than one.
3- If more than one survive, what are the odds they got a man and a woman among them?
oh, what part of my english was unclear?

i already gave you the answer in a general sense, but if you want to get in to specific scenarios then knock yourself out. but single rats clinging to a piece of driftwood can and do populate islands over time.

sure most of them probably never see another rat again, so it must be quite the thrill when every once in a while they see another shipwrecked rat, and an even greater thrill when it's the opposite sex. badda bing, badda bam.

[triangleoffense]

It's entirely possible.. every single time in human history one technologically superior race/group/tribe has encountered another it hasn't really gone well for the group that has not had those technologies, confirmed as far back as 3000 BC as most likely since the invention of fire.

Even in populations of bacteria or other single/multi-celled organisms the organism with the higher level of natural selection (technology) has always won out.

[dunksby]

oh, what part of my english was unclear?

i already gave you the answer in a general sense, but if you want to get in to specific scenarios then knock yourself out. but single rats clinging to a piece of driftwood can and do populate islands over time.

sure most of them probably never see another rat again, so it must be quite the thrill when every once in a while they see another shipwrecked rat, and an even greater thrill when it's the opposite sex. badda bing, badda bam.
Such a sweet story, fitting for Valentine's day.

[HitandRun Reggie]

It's entirely possible.. every single time in human history one technologically superior race/group/tribe has encountered another it hasn't really gone well for the group that has not had those technologies, confirmed as far back as 3000 BC as most likely since the invention of fire.

Even in populations of bacteria or other single/multi-celled organisms the organism with the higher level of natural selection (technology) has always won out.

I believe Neanderthals were more intelligent than homo sapiens, and possibly more technologically advanced, but we still won out.

[triangleoffense]

I believe Neanderthals were more intelligent than homo sapiens, and possibly more technologically advanced, but we still won out.
t3h linkz tho?

[gigantes]

t3h linkz tho?
i read an article last week that reviewed some neanderthal artifacts recently discovered.

they apparently made the same kinds of tools and produced the same level of art as H.S.S. during that time. we already know their brains were the same size as ours (actually a little bigger), so that old idea of them being less intelligent is looking pretty busted these days.

IIRC that very idea came up during the victorian era and was typical and long-time thinking for england and the colonial world powers, even amongst the science classes.

"we're the height of the civilised world... the rest are plainly inferior, so we must take them over and set them right."

[Overdrive]

oh, what part of my english was unclear?

i already gave you the answer in a general sense, but if you want to get in to specific scenarios then knock yourself out. but single rats clinging to a piece of driftwood can and do populate islands over time.

sure most of them probably never see another rat again, so it must be quite the thrill when every once in a while they see another shipwrecked rat, and an even greater thrill when it's the opposite sex. badda bing, badda bam.

Difference is that in 3 years of lifetime rats can have hundreds of offsprings.
Stone age people got to 25 maybe 30 years of age. Could have 1 or two children every year and only a few would survive to become old enough to recreate.

[gigantes]

Difference is that in 3 years of lifetime rats can have hundreds of offsprings.
Stone age people got to 25 maybe 30 years of age. Could have 1 or two children every year and only a few would survive to become old enough to recreate.
it's just an example. obviously there are a lot of factors involved.

you do understand that remote islands get populated by all kinds of non-native species all the time, right? i see no reason why the most clever creature in earth's history couldn't do the same.

[Overdrive]

it's just an example. obviously there are a lot of factors involved.

you do understand that remote islands get populated by all kinds of non-native species all the time, right? i see no reason why the most clever creature in earth's history couldn't do the same.

Yeah most of these species have short doubling times, though. Very unlikely that men inhabitated a whole double continent from two stranded prehistoric fishermen.

[gigantes]

Yeah most of these species have short doubling times, though. Very unlikely that men inhabitated a whole double continent from two stranded prehistoric fishermen.
what, you're thinking it would be an adam and eve thing... with one of them miraculously sprouting a v-gina?

i think it more likely that a bunch of boats from a coastal fishing village got blown over by the same storm. i'm sure everyone would get wiped out usually, but across thousands of years apparently one or more groups managed to survive.

it also suggests to me that whole families may have fished together, or at least husbands and wives. i mean if there's nothing to do back in the village, why not go help out and even learn the trade as tweener or teen? there would no doubt be increased loyalty and effort from that, too. just some thoughts of course.

in any case the evidence is there according to the article. in multiple places.

[Overdrive]

what, you're thinking it would be an adam and eve thing... with one of them miraculously sprouting a v-gina?

i think it more likely that a bunch of boats from a coastal fishing village got blown over by the same storm. i'm sure everyone would get wiped out usually, but across thousands of years apparently one or more groups managed to survive.

it also suggests to me that whole families may have fished together, or at least husbands and wives. i mean if there's nothing to do back in the village, why not go help out and even learn the trade as tweener or teen? there would no doubt be increased loyalty and effort from that, too. just some thoughts of course.

in any case the evidence is there according to the article. in multiple places.

No, no adam and eve thing. Usually when men explore new places they do it, because supply of food gets short or hostile clans drive them away. I think if it happened it would've been (semi)planned, not by accident.

[Overdrive]

your theory is that a stone age people planned a 10,000+ mile water voyage to a continent they almost certainly didn't know existed?

Hence semi.

It's more likely they tried to reach a closer island, because they got ousted by some stronger clan and by accident got further than they thought. It's more reasonable than the other theory, but both imo aren't maintainable in any way.

[gigantes]

i guess it's possible if they thought the next land mass would be a lot closer than 10,000+ miles away.

they would essentially have become castaways early in the process and it would definitely be some enormous luck to get them all the way to s.america.


the thing about accidents is that they're prolly more effective in the long run. like a storm is a disaster on one hand, but an incredible boost on the other. a group trying to intentionally flee across an endless ocean to the east is probably a lot rarer than a group simply caught by bad luck.

[bdreason]

I think Native Americans came from Asia. This is proven, is it not?

[MadeFromDust]

Yes.

[RoseCity07]

I remember reading about a statue they found in South America or Mexico that had facial features of black people. A lot of people say it's strong evidence that Africans got here way before white people.

EDIT:

Actually here it is I think this is it.

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/mexicostoneheads.htm

[HitandRun Reggie]

I remember reading about a statue they found in South America or Mexico that had facial features of black people. A lot of people say it's strong evidence that Africans got here way before white people.

EDIT:

Actually here it is I think this is it.

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/mexicostoneheads.htm

The reference in the article was sourced in 1986 and has long been dismissed by DNA evidence. I found this part, pertaining to basketball's origins, interesting though.

"It has long been suggested that the stone heads represent warriors or chieftain leaders, or perhaps a ruling dynasty. The clear prevalence of Negroid (and oriental) facial features on the stone heads has been said to be evidence of a 'fusion' of African and Pre-Columbian American races. Other evidence ranges from Linguistics, Plant Geography, Skeletons, Terracotta figures and even North African 'Tifinag' inscriptions on the Virgin Islands.

Another interesting theory has emerged recently which suggests that the helmeted figures represent famous Ball-court players. While we are more familiar with the ancient ball courts of the Aztec and Mayans, the history behind those games starts in the older culture of the Olmecs, as seen in their ceremonial ball courts. (4) It is reasonably proposed, on the back of this theory that the giant stone heads look the way they do (with flattened/broken noses and fearsome grimaces) because they reflect an aggressive, full contact sport. (2)"

[gigantes]

I think Native Americans came from Asia. This is proven, is it not?
what does "native american" mean... the first ones to settle the americas?

the evidence seems to be that it was australoid aboriginals and that their descendents still exist. they didn't come from asia, they didn't cross the bering strait.


like how we think of the japanese as being the original and famous culture of those islands. but IIRC the original ppls are called "ainu". pic:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/AinuGroup.JPG/800px-AinuGroup.JPG