Printable View
I once heard about a theory that claims that a caucasian race emigrated from europe to america. they were the first inhabitants of america (so they say). they were later brutally murdered by the indians who emigrated from asia. they claim this was one of the first ethnic cleanings in the world. does anyone ever heard of this theory (or sumthing like it).
maybe someone could tell me the entire story?
Sounds like a complete and utter load of bull to me. Indians migrated from Asia thousands and thousands of years ago. People from Europe could not do the same because of the Atlantic. Not to mention all the holes arising from how two very disorganized and spread out groups would practice genocide on each other. Who's claiming this?
Crazed Rabbit
I did hear once that some of the Algonquin people were pretty much white, but probably related to the Norse, or more controversially, Celtic settlers of the 1st millenium. Sorry I don't have any references, so might even be a fantasy strand from Alan Dean Foster novels....
But pre-Clovis white tribes does sound a bit far-fetched, and a bit like it serves a right-wing supremacist agenda.
well i heard this theory first when i visited a white nationalist forum... but it never convinced me... and now the most eluded me. but i'd like to know it because it will help me with something else... i think it is false but you never know
Why were you doing that ?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
:balloon2:
How did I guess :laugh4:Quote:
a white nationalist forum...
Right-wing supremacist agenda? Wha...? It would certainly serve a white supremacist agenda, but I dare say that is not right wing supremacy ( "Pre-Indian white settlement will help us make more capitalistic markets!" :inquisitive: ).Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
Huh, I guess I'm not surprised at the source.Quote:
well i heard this theory first when i visited a white nationalist forum... but it never convinced me... and now the most eluded me. but i'd like to know it because it will help me with something else... i think it is false but you never know
Crazed Rabbit
Are not white supremacists right wing? They don't look much like commies from here....
It would seem that they are on the very extreme of what could be seen as 'right-wing', but that would not make this a 'right-wing supremacist' tale. It has nothing to do with conservative or right-wing ideaology, but the crazed ideas of some people who happen to associate themselves with the extreme right wing.
Crazed Rabbit
It's a well known convention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
the right gets:
-religious nuts
-white supremacists/facists
-gun nuts
-An Coulter
the left gets
-new age nuts
-environmentalists/vegetarians
-political correctness nuts
-Michael Moore
So don't complain about people calling them right wing, it ruins the whole 1 dimensional political spectrum theory :laugh4:
I've heard theories that the Olmecs were black (one mans theory based on some Olmec images having more african features, big lips, flat broad nose). And that Atlantis was south america. That Egypt traded with south america. Oh and that the Aztecs had met white europeans before Cortez, and had a conical germanic helemt with a naisal and everything. That it was presented to Cortez as a token to see if he reacted the way the legend about a white skined man in armour was supposed to.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
The whole white men in early america comes from the fact that they have found skeletons in the US that are far older than Columbus that have caucasian features. And are genetically unrelated to the Native groups that live in the area. Now I forget where/when this happend mind you.
I Believe the theory of a white tribe being in America is related to a small archealogical find on the Pacific Coast of British Columbia. The skeletons uncovered were dissimilar(sp) from other Natives, and some had facial hair. However, further investigations may have proven that this was a tribe related to the Japanese or Koreans around 20,000 BC, as the First Caucasian movement into the region didn't happen to our knowledge until about 14,000 years later.
Well aside from the obvious Leaf Erikson, who was after the Native Americans anyway, this particular theory dates to the last Ice Age and is based on European-style stone tools being found which pre-date the first Asian immigrants.
Its fairly well documented and understood in Archaeology but, as you can see, it has political ramifications. Which is why it doesn't get out much. These particular Europeans would have come from modern-day France but I don't know who they are related to today, as they were pre-Celtic.
I haven't heard any actual claims of genicide, not in an organised sense. I believe that they were partly forced out and partly bread out.
All that Aside there's plenty of good evidence for Viking activity on the North Eastern coast.
The first people in North America were seemingly Europeans (French in fact), pre-dating the 'native' Americans by several thousand years:
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news168.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...columbus.shtml
I saw the programme they did on this. It was very interesting. The tribe could well have crossed the Atlantic by hugging the ice-sheet and hunting as they went along. The archaelogical and genetic evidence is pretty irrefutable too: there being stone tools that predate the Asiatic migration. Also the diffuclty of crossing the Atlantic in those times would've been greatly reduced by the lower sea levels, so the actual sailing distance would have been significantly shorter.
Anyway, I'd imagine there has been a pretty constant stream of Europeans to America though (prior to Columbus), just not many came back. Evidence has been found of Monoliths (European style) and pre-Roman Celtic settlement on the East coast of America, as well as the well-known Viking settlement. It has also been suggested that the Carthagians, Bran (or welsh mythology fame), St. Brendan, and Prince Madog ab Owain Gwynedd all travelled to the Americas.
It was not before the American Indians, but white Vikings I beleive had colonies in North America.
I have heard yes that the aztecs (king atleast) was so fond of Cortez because they though he was some kind of prophet. There is a tale that says that their first godking was a white blond bearded man from the east. he came by big white sheets (sails i think).
I was looking for a discussionQuote:
Dutch Guy
Why were you doing that ?
Trashaholic
so you believe in the theory right? But if so, they only colonized the east of the US and probably most parts are now in the ocean.
But what if change it. that they came from asia and sailed to europe?
and would they count as caucasian (white). those peoplewho are said to have come from spain (later immigrated to france and ireland) as which race do they count. Not anglo-saxon... so why are they counted as white/caucasian...
Well you could theorize that the sub-arctic native groups are a mix of asians and caucasians. They have the straigh hair and dark eyes of Asians, as well as a similar skin tone. But they have cheek bones and noses like europeans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
The Basques are about as close as you can get. They're residence in northern Spain predates indo-european migration into europe. Most theorize they've been there since neolithic times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
I seem to remember something from the Book of Mormon about this. Two tribes, one lighter, one darker, the dark ones won in a nasty war ... can someone fill in the blanks, or correct me if I'm utterly wrong?
Looks like somebody watched the South Park episode about Mormons.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Some nice Mormons who came to my house said that there was a tribe of Israel that came over 400BC or so, I think. After Christ's accension over in Israel, he came to preach among them or something, and they wrote some books and they died out somehow.
So not exactly a Indian precursor, though the evidence of pre-clovis people in the BBC link sounds interesting.
Crazed Rabbit
I must say I do believe it. I find it very hard to believe that no-one sailed west from Europe and made it until the Vikings, and an ice age would have been the perfect time to do it. Not many people would've been needed to start a settlement in a completely uninhabited land, especially with the survival skills stone-age man would've had. Their settlements could well be under the sea now, or just confused with Amerindian sites, or just have been so few in number that they haven't been discovered.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
As to their 'whiteness', well they certainly weren't indo-European, but that wouldn't mean they weren't white. There are plenty of people in Europe who aren't indo-European, but are white, the Basques for example, and as I understand the Finns and Lapps and other Urgic people are too, plus I'd imagine there's plenty of pre-Indo-European descent in Britain too (apparently, most British and Irish people are descended from a few original stone age settlers apart from the odd influx of continental genetic stock).
The only valid theory I have ever come across concerning a non-asian pre-historic actually comes from remains that were found near Kenniwick, Washington. Sciencists were unable to discern if the remains were from another possible migrantion group because of legal actions.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11532671/
Now one can find some different theories about it by typing in Kennewick man - its however a better starting point then going so some white supremist web site.
allright, that makes me want to rethink another statement. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by thrashaholic
Redleg
I never went to that site with the intention to look for such theories. i was debating a certain point when they brought this theory up to counter my argument. i must say it came unexpected and i did not have something to put against it. therefor i now want to know how realistic this theory is.
If the research can be concluded on the Kennewick man many of the aspects of a possible realistic theory can be concluded.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
There was a bit in the Monastery once about a possibly Welsh colony in the Americas (Madoc, was it?). There were a few interesting links there. Dig it up, I say.
Thats in South America, but it is a relatively modern colony :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
Well if they were French maybe it wasn't genocide, maybe they just ran away. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
I remember that thread featuring an article about North America, but I could wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
As a Mormon I can fill in the blanks for you, Lemur, but you're far from utterly wrong. According to the Book of Mormon a colony of settlers of Jewish descent sailed under God's direction from the levant to somewhere in middle America, around the time of the prophet Jeremiah and the Babylonian conquest. They soon split into two competing groups, one becoming dark-skinned and the other fair. After about a thousand years of intermittent conflict and peace between the two groups, and considerable movement of subgroups between them, both ended up very wicked and after one final war of apocalyptic proportions the fair-skinned group was defeated and massacred by the other, and only the dark-skinned group survived, forming part of the ancestry of later Native Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
While this is doctrine in my church, it's something I've never taken too seriously from a historical perspective. It certainly fits the theory Stranger asked about, but I doubt this white nationalist group had Mormon connections. Personally, I see the theory as a convenient justification for the later ethnic cleansing that went the other way. :shame:
Ajax
that mormon story... i just thought it was made up in that really bad movie... The Time Traveler or sumthing...
Why not? If a white, shipwrecked norseman can become the feathered serpent god than anything is possible.
Isn't there a somewhat mysterious tribe in some mountains in South America who are 'white', rather than whatever it is the rest of the locals are?
Do you mean the Mandan Amerindians who were reported to speak Welsh, have blue eyes and live in stone houses, unlike any of the surrounding tribes?Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
Supposedly Prince Madog ab Owain Gwynedd set up a Welsh colony in north America in the late 12th century and mixed with the Mandan tribe. Unfortunately smallpox wiped the tribe out, so we can't really tell whether it's true. Here's a link giving more detail:
http://freepages.family.rootsweb.com...n/mandans.html
damn smallpox... i really would like to know
Its an interesting theory, because there is a small percentage of pure natives (meaning no known white ancestry) who are blonde, which generally speaking, is not common unless another ethnicity merged with the native populace.
A supportive example would be that a few people of Pure Sicilian Descent (or no known outside relatives) are born with fairer skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes. It of course is very well known that the reason behind this is from a large influx of Normans who invaded in 1060.
yeah, i heard bout that too. i also heard about one trip into china. as mercs or explorers. The normans are very cool ;) but were also pretty much ahead of their times
Completily unrelated, has anyone ever seen a native american with a beard?
I'm unaware of any Native American with a beard. As I understand it, that was one of the things that made the Spaniards so exotic and linked them to the Quetzalcoatl legend: something none of the locals possessed.
Ajax
You remember right.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
I was one of the participants in that thread or a similar one.
My contribution came from what I have learned studying the Norse sagas. I have also brought questions to other forums about this.
The one I think of is found in Eiríks saga rauða (Erik the Red’s saga) where they captured two skrælinger (Native americans). The Natives learn Norse and is talking about the land. They mention a group of people east from the location where the men (I can’t remember exactly but I think one of them is Þorfinnr Karlsefni) put in (somewhere south of Vinland). They speak of a people clad in White, walking with high poles, chanting songs with loud voices. Karlsefni asks the famous question: at þat hafi verit Hvítramannaland eða Írland it mikla. (If this was White-man-land or Greater Ireland.)
As I said I have discussed this on other forums with particular knowledgeable people on the Norse Sagas. The Vikings seldom attributed the lands they accounted based on the skin colour of its inhabitants. It was more often what they wore. i.e Bláland and Serkland.
Many have concluded that Blueland(Bláland) have its name because of the blue-black inhabitants (south of Sahara). Even though this is the common consensus, there is a new view on this and I share this view. The people of Bláland had sharp blue dyed clothing. Serkland is the North of Africa where they wore – a Serk (a long shirt). Hvitramannaland was well known to the Norse and the people there wore probably white clothing as Skælingene suggested. The other thing that is notable is Karlsefni’s suggestion of this land being Greater Ireland, distinct from the Ireland back home.
We know from the sagas that a people dressed in white, holding tall poles and chanting had a monastery on Iceland about the time of the first Norse arrivals there. They were weird and soon driven from the island. They spoke Irish.