🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <L9NG9.34913$fk5.2794168@news0.telusplanet.net>,
	Yousef <me@our.com> writes:
> I have read numerous reports that 9,55 year old Kennewick Man, found
> in Washington state recently, - during a boat race - was caucasion.

from what i have heard he has caucasoid traits, just like the ainu, an
asian people

> I have also heard theories, that before the land bridge in
> the Bering Straight, that North America was caucasion.

more likely empty

hs

-- 

so you are proud to belong to your nation?  congratulation!  you can
share this sentiment with any hoodlum, welfare bum, or smalltime crook
as long as he is too.  how about achieving something to be proud of?

"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? :)

Yousef <me@our.com> wrote in message news:<L9NG9.34913

> So, about those North American land claims, 

The basis of Land Claims is British law that recognized the "tribes
and nations" that were "in possession of the lands" at the time the
land was claimed for the British Crown.  It had nothing to do with
hypotheticl events 9000 years earlier.

British law has remained in place in Canada continiously since that
time unless specicificaly revoked.

You don't have a clue.

Yousef wrote...

> I have read numerous reports that 9,55 year old Kennewick Man, found
> in Washington state recently, - during a boat race - was caucasion.

In the mid 1800's a Japanese fisherman washed ashore on the northern 
British Columbia coast, alive.  There is no reason to believe that this 
could not have happened in the more distant past as well.
 
> I have also heard theories, that before the land bridge in
> the Bering Straight, that North America was caucasion.

The Bering 'land bridge' is no longer generally held to have ever 
existed, at least when humans were present to use it.
 
> 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.

The claims pretty much have been shelved.
_______________________________________________________________________
eschild@email.com (Eric)

Dis-moi o� je suis
Dis-moi qui je suis
Hey! Toi viens ici
Je te pose une question . . .

		- Harmonium

"Eric�" <wntrbkr@canuckistan.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1855eccbe5abb07f9899d9@news.telus.net...
> Yousef wrote...
>
> > I have read numerous reports that 9,55 year old Kennewick Man, found
> > in Washington state recently, - during a boat race - was caucasion.
>
> In the mid 1800's a Japanese fisherman washed ashore on the northern
> British Columbia coast, alive.  There is no reason to believe that this
> could not have happened in the more distant past as well.
>
> > I have also heard theories, that before the land bridge in
> > the Bering Straight, that North America was caucasion.
>
> The Bering 'land bridge' is no longer generally held to have ever
> existed, at least when humans were present to use it.
>

According to who? References please. My understanding is that it closed only
a few thousand years ago, cira 10,000 BPT.

Z

Eric� wrote:
> 
> Yousef wrote...
> 
> > I have read numerous reports that 9,55 year old Kennewick Man, found
> > in Washington state recently, - during a boat race - was caucasion.
> 
> In the mid 1800's a Japanese fisherman washed ashore on the northern
> British Columbia coast, alive.  There is no reason to believe that this
> could not have happened in the more distant past as well.

Any more details on this story? Did you see it on TV? 

Ross Clark

Read James Chatters "Ancient Encounters : Kennewick Man".

Chatters did most of the work on this discovery and the claim that Kennewick
Man was a caucasian was more to do with bad press reporting than the real
facts of the matter.

Phil

"benlizross" <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3DEC8DFC.41FA@ihug.co.nz...
> Eric� wrote:
> >
> > Yousef wrote...
> >
> > > I have read numerous reports that 9,55 year old Kennewick Man, found
> > > in Washington state recently, - during a boat race - was caucasion.
> >
> > In the mid 1800's a Japanese fisherman washed ashore on the northern
> > British Columbia coast, alive.  There is no reason to believe that this
> > could not have happened in the more distant past as well.
>
> Any more details on this story? Did you see it on TV?
>
> Ross Clark

BobKat wrote:
> 
> Read James Chatters "Ancient Encounters : Kennewick Man".

What I'm really asking about is the Japanese-fisherman story you
mentioned. If you have a copy of the book (which I don't), perhaps you
could save me some trouble by looking up where he got this story?
Thanks.

Ross Clark

zolota wrote...

> > The Bering 'land bridge' is no longer generally held to have ever
> > existed, at least when humans were present to use it.

> According to who? References please. My understanding is that it closed only
> a few thousand years ago, cira 10,000 BPT.
 
My bad. Talking off the top of my head. I was referring to the Land 
Bridge theory which suggested that the Americas became populated via the 
land bridge 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.  Which is now discounted due to 
12000 year old archaelogical digs in Southern Chile, among others.  
There is evidence that there was a land-bridge or bridges.

Some people may have come across a land bridge at that time, but it 
looks like plenty were already here, having arrived either on previous 
land-bridges, ice-bridges or by other means.  AFAIK there is no proof 
that a single person crossed from Asia on a land-bridge at the time of 
the last ice-age.

There are tons of documents on-line related to the controversy.
http://www.millersv.edu/~columbus/papers/ricci-h.html  
_______________________________________________________________________
eschild@email.com (Eric)

Dis-moi o� je suis
Dis-moi qui je suis
Hey! Toi viens ici
Je te pose une question . . .

		- Harmonium

benlizross wrote...

> Any more details on this story? Did you see it on TV? 

No, it's related in vol. 1 of "British Columbia Chronicle" - 1778-1846, 
by GPV Akrigg and Helen B. Akrigg, Discovery Press, 1975.

A quotation: 
"One curious event of this year [1834] must not go unchronicled.  Every 
so often over the centuries the Japan Current, or "Kuroshio", would 
bring to the shores of North America some Japanese junk which had been 
caught in a storm and rendered incapable of navigation.  In 1876 C.W. 
Brooks in his 'Japanese Wrecks Stranded and Picked Up Adrift in the 
North Pacific Ocean' listed no fewer than 60 incidents of this kind.  
One of the most interesting came to [HBC Chief Factor] Dr. [John] 
McLoughlin's attention in May of this year when some Indians handed him 
a letter "written in Chinese characters".  It came, in fact, from the 
three survivors of the forty-man crew of a Japanese junk, which, laden 
with crockery, had been carried ashore near Cape Flattery.  To rescue 
the Japanese from the Indians, McLoughlin sent Captain McNeill with the 
[ship] 'Llama', and after taking three Indians as hostages, secured the 
release of the Japanese and brought them to Fort Vancouver."

The Japanese were sent to Britain and then back to Japan.  My 
recollection was a bit off.  Cape Flattery is in Washington State, and 
maybe these were not fishermen in this case. 

HTH
_______________________________________________________________________
eschild@email.com (Eric)

Dis-moi o� je suis
Dis-moi qui je suis
Hey! Toi viens ici
Je te pose une question . . .

		- Harmonium

The rumours I've heard is that bonemarrow dna was pulled 
out of him and that:

a. He is not Indian

b. He is not European

c. He not a member of any current "race" of man 

d. Most of the Indians in the Pacific Northwest 
   are decended from him -- kinda the local 
   equivalent of England's Cheddar man.

Also, for what its worth, most of north america
was under the ice 15000 years ago so we're all 
wetbacks.

Dhu


In article <L9NG9.34913$fk5.2794168@news0.telusplanet.net>,
	Yousef <me@our.com> writes:
> 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.
> 
> -*-
> 

"Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu" <campbell@babayaga.neotext.ca> wrote in
message news:FudH9.157329$ka.3490650@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
: The rumours I've heard is that bonemarrow dna was pulled
: out of him and that:
:
They were unable to get DNA from the samples taken.

Hopefully someday "they" will take other samples (from teeth) that will
provide the DNA samples.

Jois

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

In article <de74397d.0212022009.42b66bbd@posting.google.com>, 
google@integrate.com says...
>
>
>Yousef <me@our.com> wrote in message news:<L9NG9.34913
>
>> So, about those North American land claims, 
>
>The basis of Land Claims is British law that recognized the "tribes
>and nations" that were "in possession of the lands" at the time the
>land was claimed for the British Crown.  It had nothing to do with
>hypotheticl events 9000 years earlier.
>
>British law has remained in place in Canada continiously since that
>time unless specicificaly revoked.
>
>You don't have a clue.

Whats a matter? Afraid you're gonna lose your handout?

Get a job, be a Canadian, quit feeling sorry for yourself,
like you are a victim of the bad white people who took
your land.

Quit taking breeding stocks in rivers and live by the rules 
of the land.

The native peoples were conquered. It happens.

Humans are bad.

Likely no one from that time period is even alive now.

Born in Canada? You're a Canadian.

The rest is just pure bull, and you know what?

Its not helping the native people get off their knees either.

From a young age, the children are taught that they are victims.
The white man took their stuff.

So what are they?

Poor little indians.

They have no self esteem and they kill themselves and destroy 
their brains sniffing gas, and die on the streets of alchohol
poisoning. Human frickin refuse.

Tell you what, shut the fuck up asshole.

In article <MPG.1855eccbe5abb07f9899d9@news.telus.net>, 
wntrbkr@canuckistan.ca says...
>
>
>Yousef wrote...
>
>> I have read numerous reports that 9,55 year old Kennewick Man, found
>> in Washington state recently, - during a boat race - was caucasion.
>
>In the mid 1800's a Japanese fisherman washed ashore on the northern 
>British Columbia coast, alive.  There is no reason to believe that this 
>could not have happened in the more distant past as well.
> 
>> I have also heard theories, that before the land bridge in
>> the Bering Straight, that North America was caucasion.
>
>The Bering 'land bridge' is no longer generally held to have ever 
>existed, at least when humans were present to use it.
> 
>> 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.
>
>The claims pretty much have been shelved.


And so they should be.

Canada is sovereign nation. We made no deal with the previous
occupants.

If people want to bring up old wounds, then take them to the 
Queen of England.

While you are at it, you could also argue about war crimes,
and small pox infested blankets.

If you whine loud enough, you may even get an apology.

But thats not really what they want is it?

They want cold hard cash.

The only way the native people in this country are ever going 
to solve their social problems, is by joining the rest of 
Canada. 

Have some self respect for God's sake. Look at yourselves.

Have any of these hand outs helped you at all?

All it ever did, was make you feel more dependant,
and pitted you against the rest of society.

Stealing lobster, and stealing salmon, and pit lamping
and "Oh, but we're the poor disadvantaged indians
who used to live in harmony with the land"

Face it. Your ancestors were a bunch of butchers.

Read some history.

On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 05:29:05 GMT, me <us@muhabean.com> wrote:

>In article <MPG.1855eccbe5abb07f9899d9@news.telus.net>, 
>wntrbkr@canuckistan.ca says...
>>
>>
>>Yousef wrote...
>>
>>> I have read numerous reports that 9,55 year old Kennewick Man, found
>>> in Washington state recently, - during a boat race - was caucasion.
>>
>>In the mid 1800's a Japanese fisherman washed ashore on the northern 
>>British Columbia coast, alive.  There is no reason to believe that this 
>>could not have happened in the more distant past as well.
>> 
>>> I have also heard theories, that before the land bridge in
>>> the Bering Straight, that North America was caucasion.
>>
>>The Bering 'land bridge' is no longer generally held to have ever 
>>existed, at least when humans were present to use it.
>> 
>>> 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.
>>
>>The claims pretty much have been shelved.
>
>
>And so they should be.
>
>Canada is sovereign nation. We made no deal with the previous
>occupants.
>
>If people want to bring up old wounds, then take them to the 
>Queen of England.
>
>While you are at it, you could also argue about war crimes,
>and small pox infested blankets.
>
>If you whine loud enough, you may even get an apology.
>
>But thats not really what they want is it?
>
>They want cold hard cash.
>
>The only way the native people in this country are ever going 
>to solve their social problems, is by joining the rest of 
>Canada. 
>
>Have some self respect for God's sake. Look at yourselves.
>
>Have any of these hand outs helped you at all?
>
>All it ever did, was make you feel more dependant,
>and pitted you against the rest of society.
>
>Stealing lobster, and stealing salmon, and pit lamping
>and "Oh, but we're the poor disadvantaged indians
>who used to live in harmony with the land"
>
>Face it. Your ancestors were a bunch of butchers.

As were ours.  Well actually, I can claim both sides . . . sort of.
Does 1/32 count?  Didn't think so.

-Kevin J

hi spambot, my e-mail adress was made especially for YOU!

In article <zW4H9.270$SN5.34207@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>, 
wicker.screen1@virgin.net says...
>
>
>Read James Chatters "Ancient Encounters : Kennewick Man".
>
>Chatters did most of the work on this discovery and the claim that Kennewick
>Man was a caucasian was more to do with bad press reporting than the real
>facts of the matter.
>
>Phil
>


There was a law passed in 1980, that native indians, could
suppress the truth, and prevent investigation of remains.

Cover-up the truth, to protect this falicy of native ownership.

Well I'm sorry people. The proof is there.
A cave with homo sapiens sapiens, 25,000 years old,
and clearly, non asian.

Go ahead play the race card. Play any damn card you want.

The truth is the ancient natives were as barbarian as any 
Colonel Custard.

In all likelihood, the asian settlers in ancient times,
erradicated the occupants of America.

Perhaps some interbreeding took place, but so far, it looks
like they were wiped out entirely.

I think it was the DOD that dug him up and the 
party line is there were no samples taken -- 
much too hot a potatoe.

In article <ga2cnVCrOvZq6HCgXTWc3A@comcast.com>,
	"firstjois" <firstjoisyikes@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
> "Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu" <campbell@babayaga.neotext.ca> wrote in
> message news:FudH9.157329$ka.3490650@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>: The rumours I've heard is that bonemarrow dna was pulled
>: out of him and that:
>:
> They were unable to get DNA from the samples taken.
> 
> Hopefully someday "they" will take other samples (from teeth) that will
> provide the DNA samples.
> 
> Jois
> 
> 

Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu wrote:
> 
> I think it was the DOD that dug him up and the
> party line is there were no samples taken --
> much too hot a potatoe.

Nobody "dug him up". He eroded out of the river bank and was discovered
by a couple of guys who were walking along the river watching the boat
races. He was handed over to the local coroner's office to determine
time and cause of death. That's where the story starts from.

Ross Clark

"Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu" <campbell@babayaga.neotext.ca> wrote in
message news:FudH9.157329$ka.3490650@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
: The rumours I've heard is that bonemarrow dna was pulled
: out of him and that:
:
: a. He is not Indian
:
: b. He is not European
:
: c. He not a member of any current "race" of man
:
: d. Most of the Indians in the Pacific Northwest
:    are decended from him -- kinda the local
:    equivalent of England's Cheddar man.
:
[snip]

http://www.indiancountry.com/?710

"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.
>
> -*-

Human beings have been nomadic in the past, and if you take things back
almost 10 millennia, its difficult to imagine how all the races could have
remained in their respective "corners" for all that time.  Navaho tribes in
Arizona speak a language similar to tribes in  the Yukon. There is evidence
that Asiatic peoples once inhabited the Scandinavian region.  Caucasians
have been traced back to central Asia, and before that, one could assume
they inhabited somewhere else, such as eastern Asia. The first peoples to
cross the land bridge may well have been Caucasians, but how does that
matter?  Modern land claims that assert that a certain people has inhabited
a particular region since time immemorial are not supported by fact, to say
the least.

"Eric�" <wntrbkr@canuckistan.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1856e0f65bede7b79899da@news.telus.net...
> zolota wrote...
>
> > > The Bering 'land bridge' is no longer generally held to have ever
> > > existed, at least when humans were present to use it.
>
> > According to who? References please. My understanding is that it closed
only
> > a few thousand years ago, cira 10,000 BPT.
>
> My bad. Talking off the top of my head. I was referring to the Land
> Bridge theory which suggested that the Americas became populated via the
> land bridge 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.  Which is now discounted due to
> 12000 year old archaelogical digs in Southern Chile, among others.
> There is evidence that there was a land-bridge or bridges.
>
> Some people may have come across a land bridge at that time, but it
> looks like plenty were already here, having arrived either on previous
> land-bridges, ice-bridges or by other means.  AFAIK there is no proof
> that a single person crossed from Asia on a land-bridge at the time of
> the last ice-age.
>
> There are tons of documents on-line related to the controversy.
> http://www.millersv.edu/~columbus/papers/ricci-h.html

The Bluefish caves of Alaska contain human artefacts that have been dated to
18,000 years ago. At that time the glaciers existed over much of the world,
and sea levels were much lower than now. Even if a landbridge didn't exist,
it would have been much easier to cross the Bering Strait than it would be
now.

Yeah, but it was on DOD land so they got them right off.  Having
concluded that the bones were just too much trouble, (land claims
etc.) they dumped them on the local tribe or something.  Good call.


they handed hiIn article <3DEDC97D.45EB@ihug.co.nz>,
	benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> writes:
> Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu wrote:
>> 
>> I think it was the DOD that dug him up and the
>> party line is there were no samples taken --
>> much too hot a potatoe.
> 
> Nobody "dug him up". He eroded out of the river bank and was discovered
> by a couple of guys who were walking along the river watching the boat
> races. He was handed over to the local coroner's office to determine
> time and cause of death. That's where the story starts from.
> 
> Ross Clark

I've heard stories of Haida boatmen travelling home from
Vladivostok after the Sealing ship they contracted to was impounded
by the Russians.  1860s or 70s, I think.  They just got in their
dugouts and island-hopped home.  

Dhu

In article <3DEC8DFC.41FA@ihug.co.nz>,
	benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> writes:
> Eric� wrote:
>> 
>> Yousef wrote...
>> 
>> > I have read numerous reports that 9,55 year old Kennewick Man, found
>> > in Washington state recently, - during a boat race - was caucasion.
>> 
>> In the mid 1800's a Japanese fisherman washed ashore on the northern
>> British Columbia coast, alive.  There is no reason to believe that this
>> could not have happened in the more distant past as well.
> 
> Any more details on this story? Did you see it on TV? 
> 
> Ross Clark

Mebbe so.  My info is > 1 year old.  

In article <kbvsuu8qoqchket6shkl9hg5gprsahbum3@4ax.com>,
	Never anonymous Bud <thekat@san.rxyzr.com> writes:
> Thinking of the effect on Homeland security,  "firstjois" <firstjoisyikes@hotmail.com>  said 
>  anyway:   
>>
>>"Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu" <campbell@babayaga.neotext.ca> wrote in
>>message news:FudH9.157329$ka.3490650@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>>: The rumours I've heard is that bonemarrow dna was pulled
>>: out of him and that:
>>:
>>: a. He is not Indian
>>:
>>: b. He is not European
>>:
>>: c. He not a member of any current "race" of man
>>:
>>: d. Most of the Indians in the Pacific Northwest
>>:    are decended from him -- kinda the local
>>:    equivalent of England's Cheddar man.
>>:
>>[snip]
>>
>>http://www.indiancountry.com/?710
> 
> 
> A) Your link is over 2 years old. and
> 
> B) previous poster made at least one major mistake in his point d.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To reply by email, remove the XYZ.
> 
> Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
> 
> It's your SIG, say what you want to say....

Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu wrote:
> 
> Yeah, but it was on DOD land so they got them right off.  Having
> concluded that the bones were just too much trouble, (land claims
> etc.) they dumped them on the local tribe or something.  Good call.
> 
> they handed hiIn article <3DEDC97D.45EB@ihug.co.nz>,
>         benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> writes:
> > Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu wrote:
> >>
> >> I think it was the DOD that dug him up and the
> >> party line is there were no samples taken --
> >> much too hot a potatoe.
> >
> > Nobody "dug him up". He eroded out of the river bank and was discovered
> > by a couple of guys who were walking along the river watching the boat
> > races. He was handed over to the local coroner's office to determine
> > time and cause of death. That's where the story starts from.
> >
> > Ross Clark

If "DOD" means Dept of Defense, I believe the only reason they got
involved is that the US Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over
all river beds in the country, something weird like that.

Ross Clark

Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu wrote:
> 
> I've heard stories of Haida boatmen travelling home from
> Vladivostok after the Sealing ship they contracted to was impounded
> by the Russians.  1860s or 70s, I think.  They just got in their
> dugouts and island-hopped home.
> 
> Dhu

You wouldn't be able to give any better leads than that, would you? It
would certainly be an impressive journey if true. However, I had not
heard of Haida working for the Russians. My impression was that most of
their employees were Aleuts and "Kodiaks" (Pacific Eskimo), who went
with them even to their short-lived outpost in California. Maybe also
some Tlingit? Of course even from Vladivostok to the Aleutians is a long
way, but I'd like to get the details straight.

Ross Clark

In article <3DEEF9AB.2BC3@ihug.co.nz>,
	benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> writes:
> Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu wrote:
>> 
>> I've heard stories of Haida boatmen travelling home from
>> Vladivostok after the Sealing ship they contracted to was impounded
>> by the Russians.  1860s or 70s, I think.  They just got in their
>> dugouts and island-hopped home.
>> 
>> Dhu
> 
> You wouldn't be able to give any better leads than that, would you? It
> would certainly be an impressive journey if true. However, I had not
> heard of Haida working for the Russians. My impression was that most of
> their employees were Aleuts and "Kodiaks" (Pacific Eskimo), who went
> with them even to their short-lived outpost in California. Maybe also
> some Tlingit? Of course even from Vladivostok to the Aleutians is a long
> way, but I'd like to get the details straight.
> 
> Ross Clark

No, these guys would have been working for Yankee boats from Seattle 
or Astoria, which is why the Russian impounded them.

The story comes from my Dad, so you'll have to wait till he's back for
more 'cause I can't recall where he read it.  

Dhu

Yeah.  It was something like that.  I recall the ACE being 
unwitting, or unwillingly involved.

Dhu

In article <3DEEF683.5265@ihug.co.nz>,
	benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> writes:
> Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu wrote:
>> 
>> Yeah, but it was on DOD land so they got them right off.  Having
>> concluded that the bones were just too much trouble, (land claims
>> etc.) they dumped them on the local tribe or something.  Good call.
>> 
>> they handed hiIn article <3DEDC97D.45EB@ihug.co.nz>,
>>         benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> writes:
>> > Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think it was the DOD that dug him up and the
>> >> party line is there were no samples taken --
>> >> much too hot a potatoe.
>> >
>> > Nobody "dug him up". He eroded out of the river bank and was discovered
>> > by a couple of guys who were walking along the river watching the boat
>> > races. He was handed over to the local coroner's office to determine
>> > time and cause of death. That's where the story starts from.
>> >
>> > Ross Clark
> 
> If "DOD" means Dept of Defense, I believe the only reason they got
> involved is that the US Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over
> all river beds in the country, something weird like that.
> 
> Ross Clark

Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu wrote:
> 
> In article <3DEEF9AB.2BC3@ihug.co.nz>,
>         benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> writes:
> > Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu wrote:
> >>
> >> I've heard stories of Haida boatmen travelling home from
> >> Vladivostok after the Sealing ship they contracted to was impounded
> >> by the Russians.  1860s or 70s, I think.  They just got in their
> >> dugouts and island-hopped home.
> >>
> >> Dhu
> >
> > You wouldn't be able to give any better leads than that, would you? It
> > would certainly be an impressive journey if true. However, I had not
> > heard of Haida working for the Russians. My impression was that most of
> > their employees were Aleuts and "Kodiaks" (Pacific Eskimo), who went
> > with them even to their short-lived outpost in California. Maybe also
> > some Tlingit? Of course even from Vladivostok to the Aleutians is a long
> > way, but I'd like to get the details straight.
> >
> > Ross Clark
> 
> No, these guys would have been working for Yankee boats from Seattle
> or Astoria, which is why the Russian impounded them.
> 
> The story comes from my Dad, so you'll have to wait till he's back for
> more 'cause I can't recall where he read it.
> 
> Dhu

More & more intriguing. OK, let me know when you get more from your Dad.

Ross Clark

benlizross wrote:
> Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu wrote:
> 
>>Yeah, but it was on DOD land so they got them right off.  Having
>>concluded that the bones were just too much trouble, (land claims
>>etc.) they dumped them on the local tribe or something.  Good call.
>>
>>they handed hiIn article <3DEDC97D.45EB@ihug.co.nz>,
>>        benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> writes:
>>
>>>Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think it was the DOD that dug him up and the
>>>>party line is there were no samples taken --
>>>>much too hot a potatoe.
>>>
>>>Nobody "dug him up". He eroded out of the river bank and was discovered
>>>by a couple of guys who were walking along the river watching the boat
>>>races. He was handed over to the local coroner's office to determine
>>>time and cause of death. That's where the story starts from.
>>>
>>>Ross Clark
>>
> 
> If "DOD" means Dept of Defense, I believe the only reason they got
> involved is that the US Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over
> all river beds in the country, something weird like that.
> 
> Ross Clark

Only navigatable waterways.

Erik

"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:

> benlizross wrote:
> > Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu wrote:
> >
> >>Yeah, but it was on DOD land so they got them right off.  Having
> >>concluded that the bones were just too much trouble, (land claims
> >>etc.) they dumped them on the local tribe or something.  Good call.
> >>
> >>they handed hiIn article <3DEDC97D.45EB@ihug.co.nz>,
> >>        benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> writes:
> >>
> >>>Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>I think it was the DOD that dug him up and the
> >>>>party line is there were no samples taken --
> >>>>much too hot a potatoe.
> >>>
> >>>Nobody "dug him up". He eroded out of the river bank and was discovered
> >>>by a couple of guys who were walking along the river watching the boat
> >>>races. He was handed over to the local coroner's office to determine
> >>>time and cause of death. That's where the story starts from.
> >>>
> >>>Ross Clark
> >>
> >
> > If "DOD" means Dept of Defense, I believe the only reason they got
> > involved is that the US Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over
> > all river beds in the country, something weird like that.
> >
> > Ross Clark
>
> Only navigatable waterways.

But the Corps has been known to be very expansive on what a "navigable"
waterway  is.

tk

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.

No offense, but it sounds like you've been reading pseudo-scientific
tripe.

Why not read the official report on him (unofficial studies, by folks
who had less of a chance to handle the bones, agreed in most
particulars) instead, it's found at
www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/powell_rose.htm

Be sure to read the whole thing (& look at the tables) rather than
just skimming.

(Here's a hint, Caucasians were the 2nd LEAST similar group to him,
behind only Africans).

> I have also heard theories, that before the land bridge in
> the Bering Straight, that North America was caucasion.

Yep, you've been listening to pseudo-scientific tripe.

> 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.

Who says?
 
> Kennewick man, died from an arrow into the pelvis. Forensic
> reports show a stone arrowhead lodged there.

Actually, most likely a spearpoint.
 
> 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.

Why?  Atlatls were used here before bows came into use (& retained
afterwards, in some places), and they are VICIOUS long distance
weapons.  Read the old Spanish accounts, the Conquistadores who took
over Mexico feared atlatls MORE than they did Indians with bows.

Besides, what would stop any hypothetical prior occupants from
adopting the bow themselves, after seeing it in action & perhaps
obtaining a few samples?

> 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.

The facts ARE in.  Ancestral land claims cases derive primarily from
treaty rights, which are NOT dependant on anything other than the fact
that the treaty was ratified by both parties.  But in any case, the
facts DO show that modern Native Americans ARE descended from the
PaleoIndian first settlers of the Americas.

Read the genetics studies.  Read the PaleoIndian genetics studies!
Read the Powell & Neves study ("Craniofacial Morphology of the First
Americans", in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology). READ
ANYTHING other than the nonsense you have been relying on....

Sincerely (amused),

Wade Wofford.

tkavanagh wrote:
> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> 
> 
>>benlizross wrote:
>>
>>>Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yeah, but it was on DOD land so they got them right off.  Having
>>>>concluded that the bones were just too much trouble, (land claims
>>>>etc.) they dumped them on the local tribe or something.  Good call.
>>>>
>>>>they handed hiIn article <3DEDC97D.45EB@ihug.co.nz>,
>>>>       benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I think it was the DOD that dug him up and the
>>>>>>party line is there were no samples taken --
>>>>>>much too hot a potatoe.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nobody "dug him up". He eroded out of the river bank and was discovered
>>>>>by a couple of guys who were walking along the river watching the boat
>>>>>races. He was handed over to the local coroner's office to determine
>>>>>time and cause of death. That's where the story starts from.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ross Clark
>>>>
>>>If "DOD" means Dept of Defense, I believe the only reason they got
>>>involved is that the US Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over
>>>all river beds in the country, something weird like that.
>>>
>>>Ross Clark
>>
>>Only navigatable waterways.
> 
> 
> But the Corps has been known to be very expansive on what a "navigable"
> waterway  is.
> 
> tk
> 
Sheesh - I massacred that word, I fear.  Thanks for the correction.

Erik

Wade Wofford (kenuchelover@yahoo.com) wrote:

: > 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.

: The facts ARE in.  Ancestral land claims cases derive primarily from
: treaty rights, which are NOT dependant on anything other than the fact
: that the treaty was ratified by both parties.  But in any case, the
: facts DO show that modern Native Americans ARE descended from the
: PaleoIndian first settlers of the Americas.

Right on Wade. It only matters WHO was here at the time of contact: when
Indian nations ratified land agreements with the British and French
Governments! It is irrelevant as to WHO was here prior to these contracts.

Regards,

James B. Bandow
___PINE 4.05

____________________________________________________________________
London Museum of Archaeology, University of Western Ontario
Lawson-Jury Building, 1600 Attawandaron Road, London, Ontario, Canada
Phone:(519)473-1360; Fax:(519)473-1363; Web: www.uwo.ca/museum/
___________________________________________________________________

"James Bandow" <ae722@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
news:at05v3$6lk$1@mohawk.hwcn.org...
> Wade Wofford (kenuchelover@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
> : > 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.
>
> : The facts ARE in.  Ancestral land claims cases derive primarily from
> : treaty rights, which are NOT dependant on anything other than the fact
> : that the treaty was ratified by both parties.  But in any case, the
> : facts DO show that modern Native Americans ARE descended from the
> : PaleoIndian first settlers of the Americas.
>
> Right on Wade. It only matters WHO was here at the time of contact: when
> Indian nations ratified land agreements with the British and French
> Governments! It is irrelevant as to WHO was here prior to these contracts.
>
{SE} Unfortunately, you guys, the real problems involving land claims in
Canada are not in those parts of Canada where treaties were signed (all
sorts of other problems exist with regards to what Aboriginal rights involve
and rights to self government, however).  The problem with land claims is
largely in British Columbia, where almost no treaties were signed.  In this
case, the Aboriginals never signed anything away.  Therefore, as they were
the only ones there before contact, and never surrendered their rights, they
retain the right to their land (or so goes the claim -- I would be most
interested in any facts/legal argument that could seriously reach a contrary
conclusion).

Cheers!

"Stephen Eggleston" <seggleston@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:XGOI9.123065$ea.2291603@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> "James Bandow" <ae722@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:at05v3$6lk$1@mohawk.hwcn.org...
> > Wade Wofford (kenuchelover@yahoo.com) wrote:
> >
> > :> {SE} Unfortunately, you guys, the real problems involving land claims
in
> Canada are not in those parts of Canada where treaties were signed (all
> sorts of other problems exist with regards to what Aboriginal rights
involve
> and rights to self government, however).  The problem with land claims is
> largely in British Columbia, where almost no treaties were signed.  In
this
> case, the Aboriginals never signed anything away.  Therefore, as they were
> the only ones there before contact, and never surrendered their rights,
they
> retain the right to their land (or so goes the claim -- I would be most
> interested in any facts/legal argument that could seriously reach a
contrary
> conclusion).
>
> Cheers!


Might is right still holds.

Z

me <us@muhabean.com> wrote in message news

> In article <de74397d.0212022009.42b66bbd@posting.google.com>, 
> google@integrate.com says...
> >
> >
> >Yousef <me@our.com> wrote in message news:<L9NG9.34913
> >
> >> So, about those North American land claims, 
> >
> >The basis of Land Claims is British law that recognized the "tribes
> >and nations" that were "in possession of the lands" at the time the
> >land was claimed for the British Crown.  It had nothing to do with
> >hypotheticl events 9000 years earlier.
> >
> >British law has remained in place in Canada continiously since that
> >time unless specicificaly revoked.
> >
> >You don't have a clue.
> 
> Whats a matter? Afraid you're gonna lose your handout?

What the f...???

> Get a job, be a Canadian, quit feeling sorry for yourself,
> like you are a victim of the bad white people who took
> your land.

I am a canadian, I have a job, I own a business and I am white.  And I
don't have a handout.  So far you have said five things that aren't
true, and I'm only at your second paragraph.  Excuse my while I call
you an ignorant loudmouth.

 
> Quit taking breeding stocks in rivers and live by the rules 
> of the land.
> 
> The native peoples were conquered. It happens.

Name the battles where they were conquered in Canada.

 
> Humans are bad.

Are you mentally ill?


> Likely no one from that time period is even alive now.

The law lives on even when people die.
You don't believe in the rule of law?
 

> Born in Canada? You're a Canadian.
> The rest is just pure bull, and you know what?

Not according to Canadian courts and canadian law.  Do you think the
law should be set aside just because it annoys YOU?

> 
> Its not helping the native people get off their knees either.
> From a young age, the children are taught that they are victims.
> The white man took their stuff.

In many cases this is true.
Took their land, did not allow them to participate in the economy (no
homestead lands for indfians, no fishing licences), made it illegal to
get a mortgate on the bit of land they were left with so no way of
financing business -- and all of this in violation of laws that
existed then, and have existed continuiosly since then.

 
> So what are they?
> Poor little indians.
> 
> They have no self esteem and they kill themselves and destroy 
> their brains sniffing gas, and die on the streets of alchohol
> poisoning. Human frickin refuse.
> 
> Tell you what, shut the fuck up asshole.

Tell you what - why don't you go back outside and shoot some more
holes in roadsigns and bang your step-sister, asshole.

"David Deilley" <google@integrate.com> wrote in message
news:de74397d.0212081523.6b1c7fa7@posting.google.com...
> me <us@muhabean.com> wrote in message news
>
> > In article <de74397d.0212022009.42b66bbd@posting.google.com>,
> > google@integrate.com says...
> > >
> > >Yousef <me@our.com> wrote in message news:<L9NG9.34913
> > >
> > >> So, about those North American land claims,
> > >
> > >The basis of Land Claims is British law that recognized the "tribes
> > >and nations" that were "in possession of the lands" at the time the
> > >land was claimed for the British Crown.  It had nothing to do with
> > >hypotheticl events 9000 years earlier.
> > >
> > >British law has remained in place in Canada continiously since that
> > >time unless specicificaly revoked.
> > >
> > >You don't have a clue.
> >
> > Whats a matter? Afraid you're gonna lose your handout?
>
> [Deilly]What the f...???
>
> > Get a job, be a Canadian, quit feeling sorry for yourself,
> > like you are a victim of the bad white people who took
> > your land.
>
>[Deilly] I am a canadian, I have a job, I own a business and I am white.
And I
> don't have a handout.  So far you have said five things that aren't
> true, and I'm only at your second paragraph.  Excuse my while I call
> you an ignorant loudmouth.
>
> > Quit taking breeding stocks in rivers and live by the rules
> > of the land.
> >
> > The native peoples were conquered. It happens.
>
> [Deiilly]Name the battles where they were conquered in Canada.
>
> > Humans are bad.
>
> Are you mentally ill?
>
{SE} Neither of you are apparently the sharpest knives in the drawer.

> > Likely no one from that time period is even alive now.

{SE} Like Duh -- 9000 years ago (or even 120)??!!

> [Deilly]The law lives on even when people die.
> You don't believe in the rule of law?
>
> > Born in Canada? You're a Canadian.
> > The rest is just pure bull, and you know what?
>
> [Deilly]Not according to Canadian courts and canadian law.  Do you think
the
> law should be set aside just because it annoys YOU?
>
> > Its not helping the native people get off their knees either.
> > From a young age, the children are taught that they are victims.
> > The white man took their stuff.
>
> [Deilly]In many cases this is true.
> Took their land, did not allow them to participate in the economy (no
> homestead lands for indfians, no fishing licences), made it illegal to
> get a mortgate on the bit of land they were left with so no way of
> financing business -- and all of this in violation of laws that
> existed then, and have existed continuiosly since then.
>
> > So what are they?
> > Poor little indians.
> >
> > They have no self esteem and they kill themselves and destroy
> > their brains sniffing gas, and die on the streets of alchohol
> > poisoning. Human frickin refuse.
> >
> > Tell you what, shut the fuck up asshole.
>
> [Deilly]Tell you what - why don't you go back outside and shoot some more
> holes in roadsigns and bang your step-sister, asshole.

{SE} Another wonderful example of Deilly's brilliant dialogue.  I am sure he
refers to a redneck Albertan there, but his dialogue and choice of words is
generally poor (clean it up David -- mostly you rant and say nothing
intelligent in response when Mr. Trammel yanks your chain by spouting
nonsense -- apart from the "did so, did not" stuff that even my little kids
are past.  Try being substantive.  That will really make Mr. Trammel look as
stupid as he is).

{SE} More substantively, 9000 years is the basis of Aboriginal claims to
inherent rights.  The British clown (or is that crown?) failed to negotiate
settlements in some parts of the country and that is why we are where we are
at here in BC.  Land claims generally aren't an issue in other parts of the
country, because treaties were signed (irregardless of whether the First
Nations knew what they were doing) and the British law stands in this
country.

{SE} That our First Nations are destroying what is left of them through
alcoholism, drugs, glue, whatever, is something we should all care about.
They are people too, eh?  Try showing some humanity -- even the lower beasts
show compassion for those who suffer ("human refuse" -- a wonderful way to
characterize a million people in our country -- bloody redneck! -- do you
actually know what that refers to you poor example of humankind?!).  Are
they to blame for their situation?  Hmmm... Partly, maybe.  Is the
government to blame.  Definitely.  Are we (all of us, collectively) to
blame? Definitely (we are all accomplices, no less than the guy who drives
the get-away car).  Are we going to find a solution that doesn't involve
some sort of really significant compensation, long term support, etc...?
Not likely.

{SE} Get real. It is an issue.  What do you suggest to address it?

Cheers!

"Stephen Eggleston" <seggleston@shaw.ca> wrote 

> {SE} Another wonderful example of Deilly's brilliant dialogue.  I am sure he
> refers to a redneck Albertan there, 

No - just an inbred hillbilly of undetermined location

> {SE} More substantively, 9000 years is the basis of Aboriginal claims to
> inherent rights.  

9000 years had nothing to do with it.
British law recognized whichever "tribes" occupied the land at trhe
time of contact as "possessing" that land, and said that this
"possession" remained intact until it was relinquished in a treaty
with the British Crown.  (As an aside, most historians agree that the
motive here was not based on respect for the "tribes," but to prevent
anyone else (e.g. the Hudson's Bay Company) from doing side deals.)


> The British clown (or is that crown?) failed to negotiate
> settlements in some parts of the country and that is why we are where we are
> at here in BC.  Land claims generally aren't an issue in other parts of the
> country, because treaties were signed (irregardless of whether the First
> Nations knew what they were doing) and the British law stands in this
> country.
> 
> {SE} That our First Nations are destroying what is left of them through
> alcoholism, drugs, glue, whatever, is something we should all care about.
> They are people too, eh?  Try showing some humanity -- even the lower beasts
> show compassion for those who suffer ("human refuse" -- a wonderful way to
> characterize a million people in our country -- bloody redneck! -- do you
> actually know what that refers to you poor example of humankind?!).  

Exactly - and then you take ME to task for stereotyping him as an
inbred ignoramus.

> Are
> they to blame for their situation?  Hmmm... Partly, maybe.  Is the
> government to blame.  Definitely.  Are we (all of us, collectively) to
> blame? Definitely (we are all accomplices, no less than the guy who drives
> the get-away car).  Are we going to find a solution that doesn't involve
> some sort of really significant compensation, long term support, etc...?
> Not likely.
> 
> {SE} Get real. It is an issue.  What do you suggest to address it?

Negotiate treaties that bootstrap them into the mainstream economy,
while recognizing that they need to overcome a toxic spiritual legacy
as a result of eight generations of having the shit kicked out of
them.

"Stephen Eggleston" <seggleston@shaw.ca> wrote 
> >
> {SE} Unfortunately, you guys, the real problems involving land claims in
> Canada are not in those parts of Canada where treaties were signed (all
> sorts of other problems exist with regards to what Aboriginal rights involve
> and rights to self government, however).  The problem with land claims is
> largely in British Columbia, where almost no treaties were signed.  In this
> case, the Aboriginals never signed anything away.  Therefore, as they were
> the only ones there before contact, and never surrendered their rights, they
> retain the right to their land (or so goes the claim -- I would be most
> interested in any facts/legal argument that could seriously reach a contrary
> conclusion).

Lawyer Mel Smith wrote a book arguing otherwise about 10 years ago,
and not one of his assertions has been supported in the case law that
has developed since then.

If my personal lawyer was that wrong that often, I would assume he did
not understand the law very well, and replace him with someone who had
a better track record.  I sure wouldn't want Mr. Smith handluing a
divorce or probate.

A UBC history (or poli-sci) prof (can't remembr his name) wrote
another book around the same time which set out his understanding of
the rights -- which have stood trhe test of time much better than
Smith's views.  If I recall correctly the book is called something
like "Aboriginal People and Politics - the Land Question in British
Columbia," and was published by UBC press.

"David Deilley" <google@integrate.com> wrote in message
news:de74397d.0212082308.66e60f59@posting.google.com...
> "Stephen Eggleston" <seggleston@shaw.ca> wrote
>
> > {SE} Another wonderful example of Deilly's brilliant dialogue.  I am
sure he
> > refers to a redneck Albertan there,
>
> [Deilly]No - just an inbred hillbilly of undetermined location
>
> > {SE} More substantively, 9000 years is the basis of Aboriginal claims to
> > inherent rights.
>
> [Deilly]9000 years had nothing to do with it.
> British law recognized whichever "tribes" occupied the land at trhe
> time of contact as "possessing" that land, and said that this
> "possession" remained intact until it was relinquished in a treaty
> with the British Crown.  (As an aside, most historians agree that the
> motive here was not based on respect for the "tribes," but to prevent
> anyone else (e.g. the Hudson's Bay Company) from doing side deals.)
>
>
> >{SE} The British clown (or is that crown?) failed to negotiate
> > settlements in some parts of the country and that is why we are where we
are
> > at here in BC.  Land claims generally aren't an issue in other parts of
the
> > country, because treaties were signed (irregardless of whether the First
> > Nations knew what they were doing) and the British law stands in this
> > country.
> >
> > {SE} That our First Nations are destroying what is left of them through
> > alcoholism, drugs, glue, whatever, is something we should all care
about.
> > They are people too, eh?  Try showing some humanity -- even the lower
beasts
> > show compassion for those who suffer ("human refuse" -- a wonderful way
to
> > characterize a million people in our country -- bloody redneck! -- do
you
> > actually know what that refers to you poor example of humankind?!).
>
>[Deilly] Exactly - and then you take ME to task for stereotyping him as an
> inbred ignoramus.

=======================================
{SE} Great job of snipping everthing, Mr. Deilly. Thanks so much for moving
this all forward.  I wasn't responding to you at all, but trying to inform a
couple of Brits or Aussies or something (from what I reckoned) who had not
the faintest idea of what they were talking about in the Canadian context.

{SE} If you could control that reflex reaction of yours once in a while (you
are becoming seriously irritating, even to lefties), you might find that
some people are actually fundamentally in agreement with you from time to
time.

Cheers!
====================================
>
> > {SE}Are
> > they to blame for their situation?  Hmmm... Partly, maybe.  Is the
> > government to blame.  Definitely.  Are we (all of us, collectively) to
> > blame? Definitely (we are all accomplices, no less than the guy who
drives
> > the get-away car).  Are we going to find a solution that doesn't involve
> > some sort of really significant compensation, long term support, etc...?
> > Not likely.
> >
> > {SE} Get real. It is an issue.  What do you suggest to address it?
>
> [Deilly]Negotiate treaties that bootstrap them into the mainstream
economy,
> while recognizing that they need to overcome a toxic spiritual legacy
> as a result of eight generations of having the shit kicked out of
> them.
======================================
{SE} I believe my posts have fundamentally agreed with what you said
immediately above, although I try hard not to use language as silly as yours
and respond with something substantive.  From what I have seen from you
Deilly, I would ask you to STFU, even when I agree with you because you are
an embarrassment to intelligent discourse.

Cheers!

"David Deilley" <google@integrate.com> wrote in message
news:de74397d.0212082332.da1e586@posting.google.com...
> "Stephen Eggleston" <seggleston@shaw.ca> wrote
> > >
> > {SE} Unfortunately, you guys, the real problems involving land claims in
> > Canada are not in those parts of Canada where treaties were signed (all
> > sorts of other problems exist with regards to what Aboriginal rights
involve
> > and rights to self government, however).  The problem with land claims
is
> > largely in British Columbia, where almost no treaties were signed.  In
this
> > case, the Aboriginals never signed anything away.  Therefore, as they
were
> > the only ones there before contact, and never surrendered their rights,
they
> > retain the right to their land (or so goes the claim -- I would be most
> > interested in any facts/legal argument that could seriously reach a
contrary
> > conclusion).
>
> [Deilly]Lawyer Mel Smith wrote a book arguing otherwise about 10 years
ago,
> and not one of his assertions has been supported in the case law that
> has developed since then.
>
> [Deilly]If my personal lawyer was that wrong that often, I would assume he
did
> not understand the law very well, and replace him with someone who had
> a better track record.  I sure wouldn't want Mr. Smith handluing a
> divorce or probate.
>
> [Deilly]A UBC history (or poli-sci) prof (can't remembr his name) wrote
> another book around the same time which set out his understanding of
> the rights -- which have stood trhe test of time much better than
> Smith's views.  If I recall correctly the book is called something
> like "Aboriginal People and Politics - the Land Question in British
> Columbia," and was published by UBC press.

{SE} I believe the professor you refer to is Paul Tennant (long time faculty
in Poli-Sci at UBC -- took classes with him as an undergrad and worked with
him later as faculty).  There was also a book on a similar theme (based on
his Ph. D dissertation) published by Chris McKee (went through grad school
with him) who taught some courses at UBC as well.  It may have been
published by UBC Press too, so I am not sure which one you have in mind.

"Stephen Eggleston" <seggleston@shaw.ca> wrote 

> > [Deilly]Lawyer Mel Smith wrote a book arguing otherwise about 10 years
>  ago,
> > and not one of his assertions has been supported in the case law that
> > has developed since then.
> >
> > [Deilly]If my personal lawyer was that wrong that often, I would assume he
>  did
> > not understand the law very well, and replace him with someone who had
> > a better track record.  I sure wouldn't want Mr. Smith handluing a
> > divorce or probate.
> >
> > [Deilly]A UBC history (or poli-sci) prof (can't remembr his name) wrote
> > another book around the same time which set out his understanding of
> > the rights -- which have stood trhe test of time much better than
> > Smith's views.  If I recall correctly the book is called something
> > like "Aboriginal People and Politics - the Land Question in British
> > Columbia," and was published by UBC press.
> 
> {SE} I believe the professor you refer to is Paul Tennant 

That's the one

Stephen Eggleston wrote:
> "James Bandow" <ae722@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:at05v3$6lk$1@mohawk.hwcn.org...
> 
>>Wade Wofford (kenuchelover@yahoo.com) wrote:
>>
>>: > 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.
>>
>>: The facts ARE in.  Ancestral land claims cases derive primarily from
>>: treaty rights, which are NOT dependant on anything other than the fact
>>: that the treaty was ratified by both parties.  But in any case, the
>>: facts DO show that modern Native Americans ARE descended from the
>>: PaleoIndian first settlers of the Americas.
>>
>>Right on Wade. It only matters WHO was here at the time of contact: when
>>Indian nations ratified land agreements with the British and French
>>Governments! It is irrelevant as to WHO was here prior to these contracts.
>>
> 
> {SE} Unfortunately, you guys, the real problems involving land claims in
> Canada are not in those parts of Canada where treaties were signed (all
> sorts of other problems exist with regards to what Aboriginal rights involve
> and rights to self government, however).  The problem with land claims is
> largely in British Columbia, where almost no treaties were signed.  In this
> case, the Aboriginals never signed anything away.  Therefore, as they were
> the only ones there before contact, and never surrendered their rights, they
> retain the right to their land (or so goes the claim -- I would be most
> interested in any facts/legal argument that could seriously reach a contrary
> conclusion).

You are partially correct. However Native Title to land has been 
extinguished in many cases. Just because they never "signed it away" 
doesn't mean they haven't lost it.

On the other hand, they may well have good claims on land where they 
have retained a continuous contact with the land they claim. This is 
based on old British Law dating back to 1608. But this is only just 
and fair. Why shouldn't the Native people have a right to inheritance 
exactly the same as anybody else?
-- 

SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
------------------------------------------------------------------
  " Don't resent getting old. A great many are denied that privilege "
  ---------------------------------------------------------------

"Stephen Eggleston" <seggleston@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<XGOI9.123065$ea.2291603@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> "James Bandow" <ae722@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:at05v3$6lk$1@mohawk.hwcn.org...
> > Wade Wofford (kenuchelover@yahoo.com) wrote:
> >
> > : > 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.
>  
> > : The facts ARE in.  Ancestral land claims cases derive primarily from
> > : treaty rights, which are NOT dependant on anything other than the fact
> > : that the treaty was ratified by both parties.  But in any case, the
> > : facts DO show that modern Native Americans ARE descended from the
> > : PaleoIndian first settlers of the Americas.
> >
> > Right on Wade. It only matters WHO was here at the time of contact: when
> > Indian nations ratified land agreements with the British and French
> > Governments! It is irrelevant as to WHO was here prior to these contracts.
> >
> {SE} Unfortunately, you guys, the real problems involving land claims in
> Canada 

Dear Stephen Eggleston,

The thread was focusing on the United States, simply because Kennewick
Man had been found in the U.S., and because racist fools in the U.S.
started spinning fantasies as a consequence.

> are not in those parts of Canada where treaties were signed (all
> sorts of other problems exist with regards to what Aboriginal rights involve
> and rights to self government, however).  The problem with land claims is
> largely in British Columbia, where almost no treaties were signed.  

This applies to most of Mexico, Central & South America, and even to
parts of the U.S. as well.  Canada is not unique in this respect.

> In this
> case, the Aboriginals never signed anything away.  Therefore, as they were
> the only ones there before contact, and never surrendered their rights, they
> retain the right to their land (or so goes the claim -- I would be most
> interested in any facts/legal argument that could seriously reach a contrary
> conclusion).
> 
> Cheers!

So far as I know, there aren't any.

If rights were not specifically ceded, they were retained.

Sincerely,

Wade Wofford.

Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.ollis.com.au> wrote in message news:<3DF489FF.9020905@not.ollis.com.au>...
> Stephen Eggleston wrote:
> > "James Bandow" <ae722@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
> > news:at05v3$6lk$1@mohawk.hwcn.org...
> > 
> >>Wade Wofford (kenuchelover@yahoo.com) wrote:
> >>
> >>: > 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.
>  
> >>: The facts ARE in.  Ancestral land claims cases derive primarily from
> >>: treaty rights, which are NOT dependant on anything other than the fact
> >>: that the treaty was ratified by both parties.  But in any case, the
> >>: facts DO show that modern Native Americans ARE descended from the
> >>: PaleoIndian first settlers of the Americas.
> >>
> >>Right on Wade. It only matters WHO was here at the time of contact: when
> >>Indian nations ratified land agreements with the British and French
> >>Governments! It is irrelevant as to WHO was here prior to these contracts.
> >>
> > 
> > {SE} Unfortunately, you guys, the real problems involving land claims in
> > Canada are not in those parts of Canada where treaties were signed (all
> > sorts of other problems exist with regards to what Aboriginal rights involve
> > and rights to self government, however).  The problem with land claims is
> > largely in British Columbia, where almost no treaties were signed.  In this
> > case, the Aboriginals never signed anything away.  Therefore, as they were
> > the only ones there before contact, and never surrendered their rights, they
> > retain the right to their land (or so goes the claim -- I would be most
> > interested in any facts/legal argument that could seriously reach a contrary
> > conclusion).
> 
> You are partially correct. However Native Title to land has been 
> extinguished in many cases. Just because they never "signed it away" 
> doesn't mean they haven't lost it.

Dear Seppo Renfors,

Eh, I suspect that is open to argument.  At the very least, you'd have
to prove that an entire generation of heirs willingly "abandoned it"
in their minds, or some such. (see below).

Even in cases of "extinguished tribes", the title itself wouldn't
neccessarily be extinguished as well.... and would logically go to the
closest related tribe (in the case that no lineal descendants of the
tribe in question
 
> On the other hand, they may well have good claims on land where they 
> have retained a continuous contact with the land they claim.

But even where they HADN'T retained continuous contact, a claim would
still exist if "reasonable cause" existed preventing such contact.....
such as current white "landowners" with shotguns and "no tresspassing"
signs.  Or reservations were Indians were literally penned up,
forbidden to leave under threat of death (as DID happen in the U.S.). 
Or cases were the Indians were relocated to reservations halfway
across the continent, and placed in conditions that almost mandated
extreme poverty....

> This is 
> based on old British Law dating back to 1608. But this is only just 
> and fair. Why shouldn't the Native people have a right to inheritance 
> exactly the same as anybody else?

No reason, save perhaps in cases (among Natives) where Native
inheritance laws take precedence?

Sincerely,

Wade Wofford.

David Deilley wrote:
> "Stephen Eggleston" <seggleston@shaw.ca> wrote 
> 
> 
>>{SE} Another wonderful example of Deilly's brilliant dialogue.  I am sure he
>>refers to a redneck Albertan there, 
> 
> 
> No - just an inbred hillbilly of undetermined location
> 
> 
>>{SE} More substantively, 9000 years is the basis of Aboriginal claims to
>>inherent rights.  
> 
> 
> 9000 years had nothing to do with it.
> British law recognized whichever "tribes" occupied the land at trhe
> time of contact as "possessing" that land, and said that this
> "possession" remained intact until it was relinquished in a treaty
> with the British Crown.  (As an aside, most historians agree that the
> motive here was not based on respect for the "tribes," but to prevent
> anyone else (e.g. the Hudson's Bay Company) from doing side deals.)

David, you need to look deeper than Canadian or British law, 
specifically at Francisco de Vitoria [c. 1483-1546].  Here's some info @ 
http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/newlawbooks-l/msg01304.html
----------------------begin-------------------------
Scott, James Brown. The Spanish Origin of International Law. Francisco
De Vitoria and His Law of Nations. London: Humphrey Milford, 1934.
19a, 288, clviii pp. Frontispiece and portrait. Reprinted 2000 by The
Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. LCCN 00-036835. ISBN 1-58477-110-0. Cloth. $90.
*  Francisco de Vitoria [c. 1483-1546] is widely considered to be a
founder of international law. Scott holds that Vitoria's 16th century
school of international law and his important Reflectiones, De Indis
Noviter Inventis and De Jure Belli (the text of these are included in
the appendix) are in fact the origin of the law of nations, which was
to become the international law of Christendom and the world at large.
In Vitoria's writings described herein he held that pagans had the
right to freedom and property, declared slavery to be unsound, upheld
the rights of Indians, questioned the Spanish conquest of the New
World in the time immediately following Columbus' discovery of America
which gave rise to his thesis that the community of nations transcends
Christendom. Walker, Oxford Companion to Law 1279-1280.
----------------------end----------------------------

The issue during Vitoria's time was whether the Indian's soul could be 
saved.  If it couldn't, land title would be held by the Pope, as a 
steward of aboriginal rights. Early Conquistadors such as Hernan Cortes 
and it couldn't, but two figures (perhaps more) argued otherwise: Fray 
Bartolom� de las Casas and Alvar Nu�ez Cabeza de Vaca.  The case was 
made in the Council of the Indies and accepted, and what followed was 
international law.  +ALL+ aboriginal title in the Americas flows through 
this legal instrument.

And of course it has nothing to do with paleoindians or paleoirishmen 
who may have inhabited the Americas 9,000 years ago, as you say.

Erik

Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.ollis.com.au> wrote 
> 
> You are partially correct. However Native Title to land has been 
> extinguished in many cases. Just because they never "signed it away" 
> doesn't mean they haven't lost it.

Does this apply to Canada. or just Australia? Can you give modern
(after 1990) Canadian examples where the courts have supported this
view?

> 
> On the other hand, they may well have good claims on land where they 
> have retained a continuous contact with the land they claim. This is 
> based on old British Law dating back to 1608. But this is only just 
> and fair. Why shouldn't the Native people have a right to inheritance 
> exactly the same as anybody else?

"Stephen Eggleston" <seggleston@shaw.ca> wrote 

> ======================================
> {SE} I believe my posts have fundamentally agreed with what you said
> immediately above, although I try hard not to use language as silly as yours
> and respond with something substantive.  From what I have seen from you
> Deilly, I would ask you to STFU, even when I agree with you because you are
> an embarrassment to intelligent discourse.

You want me to STFU?

I will "retire" from this newsgroup immediately if you tell me you
plan to continue to participate -- challenging the continiuous stream
of lies and ignorance from Lambourn and Pearson with your articulate,
well-researched, well-informed logical responses.

You are a welcome and refreshing voice in this newsgroup, and if you
plan to stay, I would be happy to STFU.