🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2%PG9.1217$rv5.378032@news20.bellglobal.com>, 
stewacide@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>"Yousef" <me@our.com> wrote in message
>news:L9NG9.34913$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? :)
>

No they didn't. In fact they raided aech other and killed each
other just like any other group.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/03/oldest.skull/index.html