🚀 go-pugleaf

"Yousef" <me@our.com> wrote in message
news:L9NG9.34913$fk5.2794168@news0.telusplanet.net...
> I have read numerous reports that 9,55 year old Kennewick Man, found
> in Washington state recently, - during a boat race - was caucasion.
>
> I have also heard theories, that before the land bridge in
> the Bering Straight, that North America was caucasion.
>
> That makes sense that if there were humans on North America,
> prior to the land bridge, then they would not be of asian
> decent. As the asian immigration took place somewhere between
> 25,000 and 10,000 years ago.
>
> Kennewick man, died from an arrow into the pelvis. Forensic
> reports show a stone arrowhead lodged there.
>
> If the people of North America did not have bows and arrows, it
> would not have taken long, for tribes, to spread out,
> and essentially wipe out the occupants that being the caucasians
> who lived here at the time.
>
> So, about those North American land claims, and that apartheid
> document that Canadians have enshrined in the constitution.
> (The Indian Act)
>
> I find it null and void, and move that all anscestral land claims
> be shelved, until all the facts are in, in the case.

So what if there were - I would be kinda' surprised if there weren't people
with what we think of as 'Caucasian' features (Caucasians having originated
in central east Asia, and only later migrating to Europe, the Mid East, and
North Africa). Remember also that the 'divergence' between what we today
think of as Caucasians and Asians (and every other non-African grouping -
including Australian aborigines) is quite recent (since they all decent
largely from a single relatively-recent migration out of Africa - or so the
latest theories suppose).

Besides, native treaties in Canada are contracts (the natives gave up most
of their land for guarantees on a small part of it). Racist they may be
there's nothing we can do about them short of re-negotiating them. It's
irrelevant whether the band that signed the treaty were the original
inhabitants of the area (since none of them were - same maybe the Inuit). As
for negotiating new treaties where none exist, I think that's just silly
(when one native group pushed another out of a region did they give the
'losing' group special treaty rights because they felt sorry for them? :)