Reminder that "Native" Americans are not native to the America's at all and killed off two entire continents of the original inhabitants
http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/nature14895_Skoglund_2015.pdf
>head geneticist at Harvard confirms that there is archaic Australoid dna in amazonian natives not found in other 'Native" Americans
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2015/01/first-americans/hodges-text
>By all appearances, the earliest Americans were a rough bunch. If you look at the skeletal remains of Paleo-Americans, more than half the men have injuries caused by violence, and four out of ten have skull fractures. The wounds don’t appear to have been the result of hunting mishaps, and they don’t bear telltale signs of warfare, like blows suffered while fleeing an attacker. Instead it appears that these men fought among themselves—often and violently.
>The women don’t have these kinds of injuries, but they’re much smaller than the men, with signs of malnourishment and domestic abuse.
>these are all indications that the earliest Americans were what he calls “Northern Hemisphere wild-type” populations: bold and aggressive, with hypermasculine males and diminutive, subordinate females. And this, he thinks, is why the earliest Americans’ facial features look so different from those of later Native Americans. These were risk-taking pioneers, and the toughest men were taking the spoils and winning fights over women. As a result, their robust traits and features were being selected over the softer and more domestic ones evident in later, more settled populations.
>Naia has the facial features typical of the earliest Americans as well as the genetic signatures common to modern Native Americans. This signals that the two groups don’t look different because the earliest populations were replaced by later groups migrating from Asia, Instead they look different because the first Americans changed after they got here.
>tldr
Early "native" Americans had hyper masculine features and a violent culture, this lend credence to the theory they genocided the earlier people until only a small group remained in the amazon which is proven by genetic analysis
>>466701
> [they] had hyper masculine features and a violent culture, this lend credence to the theory they genocided the earlier people until only a small group remained
This is the history of the humanity in a nutshell.
>>466698
Are you reading your own article?
>The wounds don’t appear to have been the result of hunting mishaps, and they don’t bear telltale signs of warfare, like blows suffered while fleeing an attacker. Instead it appears that these men fought among themselves—often and violently.
If there was any sustained genocide it wasn't in the form of warfare.
>And this, he thinks, is why the earliest Americans’ facial features look so different from those of later Native Americans.
>This signals that the two groups don’t look different because the earliest populations were replaced by later groups migrating from Asia, Instead they look different because the first Americans changed after they got here.
These "hyper masculine" and "violent" natives interbred with and were replaced by, as noted by the article, immigrants with "softer and more domestic" features.
>this lend credence to the theory they genocided the earlier people
No, there is literally no evidence of that based on your articles. The first only establishes a genetic difference and the second clearly argues that any violence came not from systematic warfare but from internecine violence and infighting.
>>466701
The violent people described there are the ones who probably ended up genocided, from what the article says.
And considering that barely any fossils of these people remain, it seems safe to assume that they didn't apread too far. I don't think it makes much sense to say that some protoamerican living in the amazon river gets to claim Manhattan Island.
>>466731
>These "hyper masculine" and "violent" natives interbred with and were replaced by, as noted by the article, immigrants with "softer and more domestic" features.
Nope, read the article again. The changes happened with in their own group over time
>Naia has the facial features typical of the earliest Americans as well as the genetic signatures common to modern Native Americans. This signals that the two groups don’t look different because the earliest populations were replaced by later groups migrating from Asia, Instead they look different because the first Americans changed after they got here.
>Instead they look different because the first Americans changed after they got here.
Besides, I am using this to show that early supposed 'natives' were highly aggressive and fully capable of eliminating any previous populations.
This is might be why the Australoid dna is only found in isolated regions in the amazon
>>466753
>The changes happened with in their own group over time
Okay, I misread that. But that suggests that the natives STARTED OUT highly aggressive and became "softer and more domestic" over time
>Besides, I am using this to show that early supposed 'natives' were highly aggressive
That's shown, yes.
>and fully capable of eliminating any previous populations.
Sure they were fully capable, but the article makes clear that they didn't do so in any systematic, organized fashion.
>>466763
>Sure they were fully capable, but the article makes clear that they didn't do so in any systematic, organized fashion.
When this article was written there was no knowledge of the the foreign Australoid dna in the amazons.
I am making an assumption that it is only found in this isolated group because these hyper masculine populations eliminated them for the most part
>>466698
why are you looking at some prehistoric shit when the ones we found were also doing a fuckton of imperialism and human sacrifice
>>466786
Because its interesting and allows for eye opening discussions from both sides
>>466701
>hyper masculine
What is this feminist bullshit?
>>466798
>femenist bullshit
Step outside the world of social media into the academic world for a second.
It simply means that they were much more masculine compared to their modern day descendants.
>stone age peoples were able to organize a continent-wide genocide that was more thorough than any Nazi or Soviet program that only Amazonians survived
That's not how any of this works
>>466821
That also apparently involved no warfare. They just beat each other up every day until one day they noticed that half of them weren't there anymore.
Apparently native americans were two steps away from organizing their own WAAAAGH.
>>466821
Genocide=population replacement
For example,Taiwan and much of south east asia used to be inhabited by negrito populations similar to that of the Andaman islands. They were gradually marginalized overtime in prehistoric times until they were completely replaced by a foreign population
Why are people so butthurt over European colonization of the Americas?It's not like the natives actually owned anything that we laid claim to. Just because your family has been hunting in a particular forest for generations doesn't mean you own it or have any special claim. The diseases we brought were not intentional. People didn't understand micro biology back then, and the Europeans got sick too.
>>466698
>Reminder that "Native" Americans are not native to the America's at all and killed off two entire continents of the original inhabitants
This is from the abstract:
"Here we analyse genome-wide data to show that some Amazonian Native Americans descend partly from a Native American founding population that carried ancestry more closely related to indigenous Australians, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders than to any present-day Eurasians or Native Americans."
It shows they're still there.
Those migrations from the Negrito's happened recently, which would suggest that they entered into the Americas about 4000 years ago whereas the majority of Native Americans migrated over 10,000 years ago.
In this article, the groups Reich is talking about are shown to have migrated 4000 years ago into Australia from India.
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genomes-show-indians-influx-to-australia-4000-years-ago/
>>466841
>Genocide=population replacement
No, I don't think you know what that word means.
>>466841
Get a map.
A real map too not some Mercator garbage.
Now look for Taiwan, it'll probably take you a few minutes to find it, but I have faith in you.
Once you do find it, compare the size of Taiwan to the size of the entire Americas. Keep looking between them for a few more minutes to let it sink in.
Even with the massive size difference, there are still native Taiwanese people today.
>>466847
>taking everything literally
Lurk more, I used it for dramatic effect
>>466844
The natives absolutely had concepts of property and national borders and claims, saying otherwise is just an old meme to try and justify landgrab wars against them.
>>466851
>taiwan
That was just an example, population replacement happens all over the world all through out history.
If this is news for you, perhaps you shouldn't be posting here
>>466852
Using a word incorrectly in order to imply something completely different from what the original article states isn't using it for dramatic effect, it's called pretending to be retarded.
>>466821
>forgetting that stone age homo sapiens wiped out all the other homo species and sub species
neolithic humans were brutal as fuck
>>466863
tbf we interbred with them too, so it was more of a "whoops" kind of thing.
>>466857
>That was just an example
And a bad one, odd you can't make a better one. Population displacements happened gradually over time and even then had more to do with a larger population slowly assimilating and absorbing the smaller one, not organized genocide. Stone age people didn't have the social organization to even fulfill a genocide in the modern sense of the word.
>>466863
Even pushing out other species had more to do with larger populations swamping out and assimilating with smaller ones. Neanderthals for example already had a tiny population that was rapidly shrinking due to climate change and the incoming humans interbred with them until there wasn't a pure Neanderthal left.
>>466859
Im sure some left wing intellectuals would describe such a population replacement as genocide, but the use of the word genocide surely wouldnt be too strong if we asked the populations that have come and gone due to population replacement what their thoughts were
No one is actually native at all.
>>466899
Considering everyone were Hunter Gatherers and then Pastoralists
>>466873
>And a bad one, odd you can't make a better one
No it was a perfect one but for some reason you claimed that it couldn't happen on a continent wide scale which of course we know occurred with ancient homo sapien sub species
>Stone age people didn't have the social organization to even fulfill a genocide in the modern sense of the word.
Again, dramatic effect
>Even pushing out other species had more to do with larger populations swamping out and assimilating with smaller ones. Neanderthals for example already had a tiny population that was rapidly shrinking due to climate change and the incoming humans interbred with them until there wasn't a pure Neanderthal left.
And I'm hypothesizing this exact concept occurring. Its no different from Dravidians and Indo aryans slowly eliminating austronesians in india or european colonizers in America replacing the Mississippian cultures.
>>466879
>but the use of the word genocide surely wouldnt be too strong if we asked the populations that have come and gone due to population replacement what their thoughts were
It almost certainly would be too strong, since many of these ancient populations would be unlikely to even see the connection between them and member of their ethnic group hundreds of miles away. It's questionable whether some would understand the concept of the genocide of a genetic population to begin with.
>>466904
>No it was a perfect one
Look at the map between Taiwan and the entire Americas again, apparently you didn't do it long enough the first time. And even with your "perfect example" on this small island, the natives are still alive and around.
>Again, dramatic effect
Then stop backpedaling and use a better term
>And I'm hypothesizing this exact concept occurring.
Which isn't genocide.
> european colonizers in America replacing the Mississippian cultures.
This was a very sudden change that took place over only a couple centuries and was the result of massive disease outbreaks and actual genocidal practices by European and later on American nations that had the political organization to pull them off. This is absolutely nothing like pre-historical population shifts.
>>466844
>The diseases we brought were not intentional. People didn't understand micro biology back then, and the Europeans got sick too.
once we understood it, we sure as hell used it
>An additional source of information on the matter is the Journal of William Trent, commander of the local militia of the townspeople of Pittsburgh during Pontiac's seige of the fort. This Journal has been described as "... the most detailed contemporary account of the anxious days and nights in the beleaguered stronghold." [Pen Pictures of Early Western Pennsylvania, John W. Harpster, ed. (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1938).]
>Trent's entry for May 24, 1763, includes the following statement:
>... we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.
>Trent's Journal confirms that smallpox had broken out in Fort Pitt prior to the correspondence between Bouquet and Amherst, thus making their plans feasible. It also indicates that intentional infection of the Indians with smallpox had been already approved by at least Captain Ecuyer at the fort, who some commentators have suggested was in direct correspondence with General Amherst on this tactic
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html
>>466918
>This was a very sudden change that took place over only a couple centuries and was the result of massive disease outbreaks
Yet this could have also happened in ancient times. We already know that the predecessors of indo europeans carried an early form of the plague. There is also evidence that the early 'natives' were highly aggressive, if they found other populations I'm sure the ancient tactics they would have used could be compared to modern equivalents.
>And even with your "perfect example" on this small island, the natives are still alive and around.
And so are those with Australoid ancestry in the Americas, even morphological.
>Which isn't genocide.
The ancient equivalent
>>466941
>The ancient equivalent
For fuck's sakes, there is an intentional aspect to the term "genocide." If it's an ancient equivalent it must also bear that same deliberate intent, which we have no evidence of. You can't just call it an "equivalent" while writing off the parts you do not find equivalent.
>>466941
>Yet this could have also happened in ancient times.
Ancient hunter-gatherers that didn't have societies built around domesticated animals, especially horses and cattle, would have never made for the same disease conditions that later Europeans had. The fact you even think it could shows you don't understand either of them.
>There is also evidence that the early 'natives' were highly aggressive
Ancient humans were highly aggressive. One of the largest Neanderthal digsites is from a cave where an entire extended family was slaughtered and butchered in Spain.
>>466948
>For fuck's sakes, there is an intentional aspect to the term "genocide." If it's an ancient equivalent it must also bear that same deliberate intent, which we have no evidence of. You can't just call it an "equivalent" while writing off the parts you do not find equivalent.
You dont think separate groups fought to eliminate each other over scarce resources? You dont think they sought to eliminate foreign groups so they could keep resources all for themselves?
How would completely eliminating a separate out group not be a genocide?
>>466960
One tribe fought to eliminate a single other tribe in competition for land, resources, etc. There was no systemic wiping out of an entire race or ethnic group.
>>466950
>Ancient hunter-gatherers that didn't have societies built around domesticated animals, especially horses and cattle, would have never made for the same disease conditions that later Europeans had. The fact you even think it could shows you don't understand either of them.
This is a misconception. We have found evidence of hunter gatherers having thing we thought modern people only had like cancers and plague
They shared many ailments we had, live stock only accelerated their propagation
>>466960
>You dont think separate groups fought to eliminate each other over scarce resources?
Not according to OP's article, since systematic warfare was apparently not the cause of the traces of violence found on the first native Americans.
>You dont think they sought to eliminate foreign groups so they could keep resources all for themselves?
Fighting for resources isn't genocide. That is neither a systematic or deliberate intent to remove a race or ethnic group
>How would completely eliminating a separate out group not be a genocide?
For the last fucking time, Deliberate Intent to wipe out an ethnic group as a goal, not as a method.
>>466966
Cancer is not an infectious disease you idiot, and of course H-G still had diseases, but they didn't have the population densities to sustain massive pandemics, nor the domesticated animals to act as carriers.
>>466964
>There was no systemic wiping out of an entire race or ethnic group.
To them a foreign tribe might as well have been a separate ethnic group. A systematic wiping of a tribe in ancient times, I dont see how thats different from Nazi's murdering slavs for lebensruam.
They probably both used the in group/out group mentality to justify murdering other for resources
>>466975
When did I claim cancer is an infectious disease?! I was saying that ancient people shared many ailments we do.
The main point is ancient population replacement is no different from modern genocide in many respects. At a basic level it stems from the same reasons. Ancient people just used what they had available.
Disease was also most likely transmitted between tribes of people. A festering mammoth carcass is surely to be as disease ridden as any modern farm
>>466998
>A festering mammoth carcass is surely to be as disease ridden as any modern farm
Did you get that one from your degree from 4chan University?
>>467009
Holy shit you are autistic
>>467017
And from Brazil nonetheless
>>466711
I fucking hate this board
>>466929
That's dope as hell imo
>>467266
Australians and Negritos aren't black Africans.
>>466698
>Lol not so ""native"" now
Nobody is native anywhere but Africa, children know this and you're just catching up
>>466698
Pretty interesting.
So abos reached america and native americans are gooks who fucked abos. Explains their stupidity I guess.
>>467266
>>467288
>>467292
>>467299
>>467302
>>467303
Why is this nigger not banned yet?
>>466698
Get the hell out of here, mormons
Please link to the document instead of posting the entire thing
None of us actually believe that you wrote all of this
>>467384
Looks mean nothing, what matters are genes and phenotype. Negritos and Australoids are not remotely African.
>>467368
don't copy/paste it all out. lurk more to find out what the 4chan posting style is. Also posting with a name is HIGHLY discouraged if you didn't already know.
>>467366
>>>/x/
>le OLMECS WERE AFRICANS maymay
out of here with that trash.
>>466698
>... and killed off two entire continents of the original inhabitants
Such bad boys.
>>467400
Olmecs were aboriginals
>>466807
>step outside the world of leftism into the world of leftism
what is this feminist bullshit?
>>467537
You know how your a skinny 5'4 twink with a tiny cock?
They were hyper masculine in the sense that they had 100 pounds more muscle than you and could throw you 20 feet with one arm
>>467564
I'd guess it also refers to larger brow ridges and more robust jaws
>>467409
>... and killed off two entire continents of the original inhabitants
Why does that sound so familiar?
>>466698
>Trying to claim native americans were black.
No. It's firmly established they're Asiatic. Get over it.
No idiot. You people also claim Paraca skulls belonging to something other than Native American. You claim them as Xenoscum.
>>466966
>and plague
we don't. earliest signs of plague are from ~3000BC
>>467814
No they are black tbqfwy
