Prez wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:12:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:10:

Prez wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:01:
Arguing literalism to such a degree could make almost anything "technically" untrue. Technically the universe isn't infinite because it's rate of expansion could be measured, thus it can't be infinite otherwise it wouldn't have any where to expand to. I can appreciate a commitment to being meticulously factual in some cases but in polite society it tends to make you look more like a boorish snob than intelligent. If I was at a social function with a guy who said "Well TECHNICALLY..." after everything I said in a conversation I would be trying desperately to ditch him...

It's not "technically" untrue. It's factually untrue and we recorded the very facts ourselves.

The whole goddamned point of the scientific method is to clear the bullshit out of our heads that we thought was "true" when replicable evidence is presented to the contrary. It doesn't matter how we feel about it or whether it is politically or commercially expedient that we do/don't upend it. For fuck's sake, when I was growing up I was taught in school that photons were the fastest thing in the universe and nothing could escape a black hole. In 2024, I know that to be factually incorrect. It does not serve me well to stand on outdated and factually incorrect information. That's how you get people who think there's a secret cabal controlling hurricanes with a weather machine.

You're definitely missing my point. Sometimes you are too smart for your own good my friend.

That's not being smart right there... that's being a blockhead

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:10:

Prez wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:01:
Arguing literalism to such a degree could make almost anything "technically" untrue. Technically the universe isn't infinite because it's rate of expansion could be measured, thus it can't be infinite otherwise it wouldn't have any where to expand to. I can appreciate a commitment to being meticulously factual in some cases but in polite society it tends to make you look more like a boorish snob than intelligent. If I was at a social function with a guy who said "Well TECHNICALLY..." after everything I said in a conversation I would be trying desperately to ditch him...

It's not "technically" untrue. It's factually untrue and we recorded the very facts ourselves.

The whole goddamned point of the scientific method is to clear the bullshit out of our heads that we thought was "true" when replicable evidence is presented to the contrary. It doesn't matter how we feel about it or whether it is politically or commercially expedient that we do/don't upend it. For fuck's sake, when I was growing up I was taught in school that photons were the fastest thing in the universe and nothing could escape a black hole. In 2024, I know that to be factually incorrect. It does not serve me well to stand on outdated and factually incorrect information. That's how you get people who think there's a secret cabal controlling hurricanes with a weather machine.

You're definitely missing my point. Sometimes you are too smart for your own good my friend.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 19:51:

Prez wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 19:27:
On the topic of "Indigenous" day, while it has never been officially confirmed that I know of, the day is appropriately named when considering that it is the first time in the modern age following the most recent occurrence of colonialism under which modern America and other continents were settled (most historians agree that this started some time in the 15th century). I am not an expert in human history but I don't think that there have been any mass human migrations since then. So as far as modern society is concerned, these people were indigenous. That's how I understand it anyway, and I believe why this is appropriate.

I am going to suggest, in a very polite and affable way, that you look more in to modern human history. There have been several mass migrations since the 15th century. For example, once the Ottoman Empire collapsed, you saw a massive migration of historically eastern Balkan peoples migrating west since the Ottomans no longer held them in the east. Look at how many millions of Irish, Italian, Hispanic, and Asian peoples migrated to the US starting in the 19th century. Look at how many people are migrating from Central and South America to North America in this century.

That's the main thrust of my point. Humans are migrating constantly. Whether it is on the same continent or from one continent to another. That's why the idea of an "indigenous" people in the Common Era is not scientifically accurate. It's a political and emotional belief. Not a factual one.

It usually comes down to how you define things. Most of what you are referencing are not true mass migrations as I was defining it if the original society continues to exist. My grandmother came into America via Ellis Island when she was 4 years old along with thousands of other Italian migrants. Italy continued to exist however. I could be completely wrong in how I have been using "mass migration" but communication is built on understanding what a person is saying more than demanding the exact use of a term. Correct my mistakes by all means but try to understand my larger point as well.

Prez wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:01:
Arguing literalism to such a degree could make almost anything "technically" untrue. Technically the universe isn't infinite because it's rate of expansion could be measured, thus it can't be infinite otherwise it wouldn't have any where to expand to. I can appreciate a commitment to being meticulously factual in some cases but in polite society it tends to make you look more like a boorish snob than intelligent. If I was at a social function with a guy who said "Well TECHNICALLY..." after everything I said in a conversation I would be trying desperately to ditch him...

It's not "technically" untrue. It's factually untrue and we recorded the very facts ourselves.

The whole goddamned point of the scientific method is to clear the bullshit out of our heads that we thought was "true" when replicable evidence is presented to the contrary. It doesn't matter how we feel about it or whether it is politically or commercially expedient that we do/don't upend it. For fuck's sake, when I was growing up I was taught in school that photons were the fastest thing in the universe and nothing could escape a black hole. In 2024, I know that to be factually incorrect. It does not serve me well to stand on outdated and factually incorrect information. That's how you get people who think there's a secret cabal controlling hurricanes with a weather machine.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:02:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 19:48:
I thought your "point" made more sense when you were arguing that technically no peoples are indigenous... Not an important or useful point by any means when discussing indigenous peoples as the word is used in both academic and common parlance... but still something that's technically right in the most obtuse, semantic argument kind of way.

But now that you've shifted it to some arbitrary year instead...
And saying that you use these semantic arguments to push back against pushes for indigenous rights... it almost seems worse than Cutter's nonsense.

That's still my point. There are no "indigenous" modern humans because of how we behave as a species and have always behaved.

I think "indigenous rights" are counterproductive and utterly pointless. What we, as a species, should be focusing on is universal human rights. We're all part of the same damn species. End of story. That we stupidly divide by phenotype is also counterproductive and utterly pointless. Oh you have dark hair and dark eyes? Great. You get the same rights and protections as Blondey McBlondeface over there.

The 2000BCE was not arbitrary. Far from it. It was the last year that I could remember that evidence of any member of a hominid species other than Homo Sapiens existed as part of the Homo branch. Any newer than that and they disappear, supplanted by modern humans. The very same constantly migrating species that has filled every continent but Antarctica at this point.

The push for "Indigenous rights" exists within the context of the historical indigenous experience in America, not an idealized or technical reality... but actual reality.

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 19:48:
I thought your "point" made more sense when you were arguing that technically no peoples are indigenous... Not an important or useful point by any means when discussing indigenous peoples as the word is used in both academic and common parlance... but still something that's technically right in the most obtuse, semantic argument kind of way.

But now that you've shifted it to some arbitrary year instead...
And saying that you use these semantic arguments to push back against pushes for indigenous rights... it almost seems worse than Cutter's nonsense.

That's still my point. There are no "indigenous" modern humans because of how we behave as a species and have always behaved.

I think "indigenous rights" are counterproductive and utterly pointless. What we, as a species, should be focusing on is universal human rights. We're all part of the same damn species. End of story. That we stupidly divide by phenotype is also counterproductive and utterly pointless. Oh you have dark hair and dark eyes? Great. You get the same rights and protections as Blondey McBlondeface over there.

The 2000BCE was not arbitrary. Far from it. It was the last year that I could remember that evidence of any member of a hominid species other than Homo Sapiens existed as part of the Homo branch. Any newer than that and they disappear, supplanted by modern humans. The very same constantly migrating species that has filled every continent but Antarctica at this point.

From an anthropological point of view, the "indigenous" people of today aren't. Not by a long shot. At best they would be considered third wave immigrants but it is more likely they're fourth or even fifth wave immigrants. Put down your pitchforks and torches. There's facts to back this up.

Great post BoP. It's pretty obvious that while individual humans can be lovely, large groups of humans rarely are, even to others in the same group - and never to other groups.

Just another reason that maybe we just need Columbo Day. https://www.cracked.com/article_43961_columbo-day-should-be-a-national-holiday.html

Arguing literalism to such a degree could make almost anything "technically" untrue. Technically the universe isn't infinite because it's rate of expansion could be measured, thus it can't be infinite otherwise it wouldn't have any where to expand to. I can appreciate a commitment to being meticulously factual in some cases but in polite society it tends to make you look more like a boorish snob than intelligent. If I was at a social function with a guy who said "Well TECHNICALLY..." after everything I said in a conversation I would be trying desperately to ditch him...

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 19:51:

Prez wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 19:27:
On the topic of "Indigenous" day, while it has never been officially confirmed that I know of, the day is appropriately named when considering that it is the first time in the modern age following the most recent occurrence of colonialism under which modern America and other continents were settled (most historians agree that this started some time in the 15th century). I am not an expert in human history but I don't think that there have been any mass human migrations since then. So as far as modern society is concerned, these people were indigenous. That's how I understand it anyway, and I believe why this is appropriate.

I am going to suggest, in a very polite and affable way, that you look more in to modern human history. There have been several mass migrations since the 15th century. For example, once the Ottoman Empire collapsed, you saw a massive migration of historically eastern Balkan peoples migrating west since the Ottomans no longer held them in the east. Look at how many millions of Irish, Italian, Hispanic, and Asian peoples migrated to the US starting in the 19th century. Look at how many people are migrating from Central and South America to North America in this century.

That's the main thrust of my point. Humans are migrating constantly. Whether it is on the same continent or from one continent to another. That's why the idea of an "indigenous" people in the Common Era is not scientifically accurate. It's a political and emotional belief. Not a factual one.

Does it not occur to you that the entire point is the context?

Prez wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 19:27:
On the topic of "Indigenous" day, while it has never been officially confirmed that I know of, the day is appropriately named when considering that it is the first time in the modern age following the most recent occurrence of colonialism under which modern America and other continents were settled (most historians agree that this started some time in the 15th century). I am not an expert in human history but I don't think that there have been any mass human migrations since then. So as far as modern society is concerned, these people were indigenous. That's how I understand it anyway, and I believe why this is appropriate.

I am going to suggest, in a very polite and affable way, that you look more in to modern human history. There have been several mass migrations since the 15th century. For example, once the Ottoman Empire collapsed, you saw a massive migration of historically eastern Balkan peoples migrating west since the Ottomans no longer held them in the east. Look at how many millions of Irish, Italian, Hispanic, and Asian peoples migrated to the US starting in the 19th century. Look at how many people are migrating from Central and South America to North America in this century.

That's the main thrust of my point. Humans are migrating constantly. Whether it is on the same continent or from one continent to another. That's why the idea of an "indigenous" people in the Common Era is not scientifically accurate. It's a political and emotional belief. Not a factual one.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 19:39:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 18:58:
So perhaps, "indigenous peoples of the Americas" refers to "the continent's pre-Columbian inhabitants prior to European settlement in the 15th century."
What do you think?

P.S. here are two excellent channels I subscribe to that cover the stuff BoP wrote up. Lot's of new information in this field lately.
https://www.youtube.com/@StefanMilo
https://www.youtube.com/@AncientAmericas

See, it's harder to pin down than that for me because of what we keep learning and discovering. Like the 2017 discovery at the San Diego site. That predates everything we knew about hominid habitation of North America by almost nine thousand years.

If I had to swag at it, and this is most definitely a swag, I would say that the "indigenous peoples of Americas" refers to any peoples that existed from 2000BCE and earlier. Everything, and everyone, after that falls in to just another human migratory pattern to me.

Those are both excellent channels and I heartily second and endorse your recommendations.

I thought your "point" made more sense when you were arguing that technically no peoples are indigenous... Not an important or useful point by any means when discussing indigenous peoples as the word is used in both academic and common parlance... but still something that's technically right in the most obtuse, semantic argument kind of way.

But now that you've shifted it to some arbitrary year instead...
And saying that you use these semantic arguments to push back against pushes for indigenous rights... it almost seems worse than Cutter's nonsense.

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 18:58:
So perhaps, "indigenous peoples of the Americas" refers to "the continent's pre-Columbian inhabitants prior to European settlement in the 15th century."
What do you think?

P.S. here are two excellent channels I subscribe to that cover the stuff BoP wrote up. Lot's of new information in this field lately.
https://www.youtube.com/@StefanMilo
https://www.youtube.com/@AncientAmericas

See, it's harder to pin down than that for me because of what we keep learning and discovering. Like the 2017 discovery at the San Diego site. That predates everything we knew about hominid habitation of North America by almost nine thousand years.

If I had to swag at it, and this is most definitely a swag, I would say that the "indigenous peoples of Americas" refers to any peoples that existed from 2000BCE and earlier. Everything, and everyone, after that falls in to just another human migratory pattern to me.

Those are both excellent channels and I heartily second and endorse your recommendations.

* REMOVED *

This comment was deleted on Oct 15, 2024, 00:04. Reason: Shitposting.

On the topic of "Indigenous" day, while it has never been officially confirmed that I know of, the day is appropriately named when considering that it is the first time in the modern age following the most recent occurrence of colonialism under which modern America and other continents were settled (most historians agree that this started some time in the 15th century). I am not an expert in human history but I don't think that there have been any mass human migrations since then. So as far as modern society is concerned, these people were indigenous. That's how I understand it anyway, and I believe why this is appropriate.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 18:56:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 18:52:
BoP, do you think you would find yourself posting that indigenous peoples of the Americas aren't indigenous? And that it's something the liberals made up?

No, I would not say that it was something liberals made up. Because that's just...fucking stupid ill-informed and a modern fabrication of political tribalism.

Like I said in my original post about this topic, I'm not addressing the political or cultural aspects. Just the scientific aspect and how, from that viewpoint, no "indigenous" people exist based upon humanity as a collective.

So perhaps, "indigenous peoples of the Americas" refers to "the continent's pre-Columbian inhabitants prior to European settlement in the 15th century."
What do you think?

P.S. here are two excellent channels I subscribe to that cover the stuff BoP wrote up. Lot's of new information in this field lately.
https://www.youtube.com/@StefanMilo
https://www.youtube.com/@AncientAmericas

This comment was edited on Oct 14, 2024, 19:09.

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 18:52:
BoP, do you think you would find yourself posting that indigenous peoples of the Americas aren't indigenous? And that it's something the liberals made up?

No, I would not say that it was something liberals made up. Because that's just...fucking stupid ill-informed and a modern fabrication of political tribalism.

Like I said in my original post about this topic, I'm not addressing the political or cultural aspects. Just the scientific aspect and how, from that viewpoint, no modern "indigenous" people exist based upon humanity as a collective.

Edited to add "modern" as a delimiting clarification.

This comment was edited on Oct 14, 2024, 19:42.

MeanJim wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 18:49:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 12:35:
I support getting rid of Columbus day altogether and making Election Day a Federal Holiday that is a required observation.The only exceptions would be gas stations and emergency services.

I think forcing everyone to vote on one single day is stupid. Every election, you see on the news of large cities of people having to wait in line for hours to vote no matter the weather. Spreading the voting period out over say 5 days would ease up on that congestion if not eliminate it. Fortunately I live in a small town, so I have never had to wait in line to vote.

You know you fix that?

More polling locations and you pay people like jury duty (but better) to staff them. Randomly selected lottery style like jury duty is.

More polling locations = shorter lines = better turnout.

BoP, do you think you would find yourself posting that indigenous peoples of the Americas aren't indigenous? And that it's something the liberals made up?

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 12:35:
I support getting rid of Columbus day altogether and making Election Day a Federal Holiday that is a required observation.The only exceptions would be gas stations and emergency services.

I think forcing everyone to vote on one single day is stupid. Every election, you see on the news of large cities of people having to wait in line for hours to vote no matter the weather. Spreading the voting period out over say 5 days would ease up on that congestion if not eliminate it. Fortunately I live in a small town, so I have never had to wait in line to vote.

So I read Cutter's post before it got sent to the oubliette of the ether. Although he worded it very poorly (because, you know, Cutter), he's not entirely wrong.

Let me start out by saying that I am not addressing the political or cultural aspects, merely the scientific one.

From an anthropological point of view, the "indigenous" people of today aren't. Not by a long shot. At best they would be considered third wave immigrants but it is more likely they're fourth or even fifth wave immigrants. Put down your pitchforks and torches. There's facts to back this up.

First and foremost, back in 2017, a discovery was made in San Diego that showed human activity that dates back 24,000 years ago. That puts it well before the evidence we have of current "natives" settling in North America. Now, it could be argued that the settlers then were hominids and part of the Homo branch but not Homo Sapiens so they may not have been directly related to us. OK, that's fair.

But then we get to a very well known group of direct Paleolithic ancestors discovered in Monte Verde in Chile which has been dated back to ~14,500 years ago. In fact, there's enough evidence that it spawned four different sites. Two at Monte Verde and two at Chinchihuapi. You can read more about them here if you are so inclined. Of note is that these people were in South America and they didn't get there by boat, train, plane, or alien spaceship so it is highly likely they migrated via the Bering land bridge. Which means they migrated through North and Central America first. That's going to take a couple of thousand years on the shortest timeline because people tend to settle down where there's good water, plentiful game, and a tolerable climate. It's usually population pressure that causes people to migrate from settled places, pushing the boundaries of their culture every further outward.

Next we get to the Western Stemmed people who were definitely in North America, particularly the western parts, ~13,000 years ago. This is, relatively speaking in anthropological and archaeological terms, new data. You can find out more about them here.

Contemporaneously to the Western Stemmed people, we get to one of the most well known groups in North America. The Clovis People. They are definitively known to have also existed in North America ~13,000 years ago and their territory ranges from the Plains to the southeast of the current United States.

So that right there is four waves of human immigration in to North, Central, and South Americas many thousands of years before the allegedly "native" people of today claim being "first". Data and evidence proves they weren't. Not by many thousands of years.

The Paleolithic era of humanity is something that really interests me so I've read a ton about it. It's why Far Cry Primal is my favorite in the series. It's also why I am not popular with people who want to push for the rights of "indigenous" people because the data I can bring to the table shows that they are not, and never have been, indigenous. Were they in the Americas and settled before Europeans and Vikings showed up? Absolutely. But they're just migrants, like the Europeans after them. Were they conquered and dominated by the technologically superior Europeans? Absolutely. But, and here's where people need to put their emotions away, that's true of all of human history. We've always killed, displaced, and conquered one another for land, resources, or simply because we can. We're a predatory species and the thing we love doing more than anything else is predation. We still do it to this day. We just turned it in to sports, commerce, and politics.

If you can find some living specimen of Homo heidelbergensis or a similar species still living in Africa, you could rightfully call them indigenous.

But outside of that? We're all migrants. We migrate constantly. We move from place to place in search of better resources (jobs), land (bigger homes), or because we want to subsume ourselves in a different culture (relocating to a country other than that of your birth). There's no shame or difficulty in that concept and it's high time we accepted that we're all in the same pot instead of stupidly and pointlessly dividing ourselves due to something as ridiculous as a phenotype.