Just as I thought: it's complicated. https://news.nationalgeographic.com...the-first-americans-arrive--its-complicated-/ Edited to add key quote: "What I took away was that people came from everywhere. We think of the arrival of the first people as one group braving their way across a land bridge, when in fact it was many groups, many different languages, and technologies arriving at different times from different directions. This makes sense because that’s how we do things as humans. It’s not just one group. It is this complex story of many people, with many different stories." I think the idea that "this is the Indians land and we stole it from them" is simplistic at best.
Lulz. Literally nobody thinks that. The bering land bridge was crossed 25,000 years ago from Asia. Lief Erikson lived 1000 years ago. There are people who believe he made it to the continent prior to Christopher Columbus. There are some old crazy Nazi theories that the natives all came from Europe, but non-white supremacist scientists rejected it at the time and genetic analysis totally disproved it.
Check out my other reply. I'm not creating a timeline. I suspect you won't be disabused of your narrative by any evidence I might present.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas If you'd ever like to revisit your "Lief Erikson colonized the New World first" theory, I'd be glad to discuss it with you.
There's no way of really knowing for sure too much about the pre-Columbian era in North America given that there is no written history because advanced technology like written language was beyond where the native population in the north ever managed. We know that there was a lot of infighting between the tribes and tribes that were eliminated completely along the way would have just vanished forever with very little evidence to be found. If the group that wiped them out then went on to say that they had been there for a million years, there would be little to no way to know about how they really came to the area. I mean, we might as well be asking questions about what the "sea peoples" did before the started attacking the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. Hell we don't even know who they were and in many ways they were more advanced than the population of "natives" in North America. The only reason we know about them at all is because they interacted with civilizations that had developed written language and used it to write down their history.
I can't help it if the theorists who came up with the theory were all Ahnenerbe guys. I think there may have been a 19th century British guy or two before that but I dont remember clearly. Last gasp of that theory was the Ahnenerbe. Let me know if you would like to discuss it, in which case I'll look up the names for you. If you decide you wish to talk about, say, practical experiments in eugenics or early jet fighter airplanes or any number of other things the Nazis did first or biggest necessarily we are going to have to talk about Nazis.
Ok this was a reasonable post. Unlike the other one that referenced Nazis (and I believe accused me of some sympathies toward that philosophy).
Holy ****. I’m starting to think you must be playing a character. Did you just seriously propose that Leif Erikson and the Vikings were the first people to get to the North American continent? Are you sure you didn’t mean Leif Garret?
There's a lot of people that would say Castro's Cuba has been a success. In fact, I know plenty of people do. They ignore the human rights issues like you seem to do, I personally don't. This is why historians don't use terms like failure and success. One could argue that Stalin's Russia was a success, it was a massive world power for a good time under his control after all. One could argue that capitalism is a failure, especially with how many it makes wage slaves or just flat out slaves. Like anyone could make the argument that ______ was a success. Nazi's make the argument that under Hitler Germany was conquering the world and had a booming economy...so what he gassed people? For you to start arguing whether a country failed or succeed you have to establish what you actually mean by a success. When the government is at war with its citizens then I personally consider that a massive failure. I guess you don't though and that's fine. As for socialism failing, it simply isn't true. No matter how many times you say it has failed doesn't make it any truer. Nor is "IT BAD! IT VERY BAD" a very convincing argument no matter how many times you throw it at me.
Our favorite socialist simpleton on Monday claimed that "the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change" Brilliant.
Democratic Socialism is the system Bernie Sanders mistakenly applies to the social democratic nations of Scandinavia. Because of this mistake we have a literal democratic socialist within the Democratic Party in Congress.
Those would be incredibly stupid people that you really shouldn't associate with. Only an incredibly stupid person would even attempt to argue that. Only an incredibly stupid person would even attempt to argue that. Nazis, much like socialists, are incredibly stupid people. It simply is true, the only way you can try and claim that socialism has ever worked is if you claim that capitalism is socialism.....which let's face it, you've attempted to do in the past. Literally every time socialism has been tried, it has led to mass murder and starvation. I know you are a fan of the kind of people's history they might teach at state run universities in North Korea, but your claims run counter to actual history.
Yes, an actual example of Democratic Socialism is Venezuela where the socialist dictator failed to take over the country via a coup only to later be voted into office so that he could turn the richest country in South America into the poorest country in South America and have his people begin to starve to death.
It's an attack on the 1st amendment, the free press and the foundations of the Republic... or something.
