Perhaps we do have a right to the Americas. An amateur historical speculation.

a reply to: Solvedit

If the Conquistadors had encountered the descendants of a trafficking victim from almost anywhere in Europe,

Do you think that *one*, or even a couple, "trafficking victims" would have such an noticeable effect on descendants' traits in any given population? Even with dominant traits those traits would be significantly reduced over time (even a generation or two), and the overall gene pool of the aboriginals/natives would return to mostly normal, even among those who had bred.

They could be very wrong.They could be very wrong.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: ArMaPPhoenicians were a white people, like the other Semitic peoples. People from South America are clearly not Semitic.

Clearly, by what standard?

Anthropologists' standards.

Then why do they look like rock carvings of Assyrians?

I think you're just assuming what anthropologists would say, but for the sake of discussion, if you are not just assuming, then your anthropologists assume Old World lineage came from the Conquistadores.

That could be not true at all.

My point isn't that they replaced the indigenous people completely. My point is that the indigenous peoples were clearly in contact with Old World powers who may have been operating against the interests of innocent people in the kingdoms of Europe.

originally posted by: ArMaP
One thing I forgot to ask yesterday: what do you mean by "a right to the Americas"?

Some native people be all like, "get off our land, this land belongs to our people."

Suppose it just doesn't because they came here recently and displaced natives too,

and because if they were involved in trafficking and exporting gold to Old World empires that were a clear and present danger to Europe, then European powers had the right to take charge.

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: Solvedit

If the Conquistadors had encountered the descendants of a trafficking victim from almost anywhere in Europe,

Do you think that *one*, or even a couple, "trafficking victims" would have such an noticeable effect on descendants' traits in any given population? Even with dominant traits those traits would be significantly reduced over time (even a generation or two), and the overall gene pool of the aboriginals/natives would return to mostly normal, even among those who had bred.

No, but there might have been quite a lot.

Opium may also have been one of the things they were trafficking. It would be a lot easier to ship in primitive craft across entire oceans.

originally posted by: Solvedit
Then why do they look like rock carvings of Assyrians?

They do? Could you show an example?
Thanks in advance.

I think you're just assuming what anthropologists would say, but for the sake of discussion, if you are not just assuming, then your anthropologists assume Old World lineage came from the Conquistadores.

Anthropologists do not need to assume things like that, there are ways of distinguishing different people.

My point isn't that they replaced the indigenous people completely. My point is that the indigenous peoples were clearly in contact with Old World powers who may have been operating against the interests of innocent people in the kingdoms of Europe.

I understand your point, I just it's baseless.

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: ArMaP
One thing I forgot to ask yesterday: what do you mean by "a right to the Americas"?

Some native people be all like, "get off our land, this land belongs to our people."

I thought it could something like that.

Suppose it just doesn't because they came here recently and displaced natives too,

and because if they were involved in trafficking and exporting gold to Old World empires that were a clear and present danger to Europe, then European powers had the right to take charge.

You need to make many assumptions with no real evidence of anything to reach that conclusion.

originally posted by: Solvedit
Opium may also have been one of the things they were trafficking.

From where to where?

originally posted by: didntasktobeborned
so messed up, you could be right..Nice title…great trap. My only question..Do You think the Europeans really needed a justification and all of the subterfuge? Considering who they were, and what they were doing? Even though I can't see the McDonalds down the street, does that mean it doesn't exist?

If they were a threat and needed to be handled, why not send an army instead of a bunch of crazies and poor people to handle this threat..Maybe Im not following..

Im pretty sure that its all because the legend of the Apache Warrior had traveled to the Orient even before the Vikings and Columbus etc were even thought of 1000s of years ago..And it terrified them, they sent scouts to try to learn more about the 'silent death' who is one with the wind..and all that came back were the stories of all the Japanese Warriors who disappeared hunting the apparition..The Chinese were the ones actually pulling the strings and funding the centuries long endeveaur..which ended in disaster and the enslavement of tons of Chinese to build railroads..Story is that they actually were able to capture an apache and bring him back to the Orient and breed him with women of royalty and secretly raise the offspring to be a mighty army to be released at the right time..

No..'We' weren't threatened..The Chinese paid 'US' to exterminate the Apache..Simple as that.Luckily some of 'US' saw the plight and realized the value of the Natives so the Apache bloodline still exists…even though they didn't want 'our' help either..

Thank You for posting this as it is something that I had considered before and now you know my theory on it..probly seven or so years ago, Yours is probably easier to believe. Pretty insidious. Bravo

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Solvedit
Opium may also have been one of the things they were trafficking.

From where to where?

West Asia to the Americas where there were people who didn't know what gold was worth and would scour riverbeds all day picking it up.

Say, may I ask where you are from?

originally posted by: ArMaPAnthropologists do not need to assume things like that, there are ways of distinguishing different people.

I think you are leaping to conclusions about what they would say.

Maybe Genghis Khan grew wealthy enough to occupy large parts of Asia by trafficking people across the Aleutians into the Americas.

originally posted by: Solvedit
Say, may I ask where you are from?

Look below my avatar, I'm Portuguese and live in Portugal.

originally posted by: didntasktobebornedIf they were a threat and needed to be handled, why not send an army instead of a bunch of crazies and poor people to handle this threat..Maybe Im not following..

Spain sent an army. France and England tried to send orderly settlers who could protect themselves.

Suppose when Columbus discovered America, the nations of Europe realized where the Ottomans' and Genghis Khan's gold had come from.

Suppose they decided they had to take custody of it so that it was under orderly control.

No nation could have afforded to police the entire continent from Europe while leaving it untouched.

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: didntasktobebornedIf they were a threat and needed to be handled, why not send an army instead of a bunch of crazies and poor people to handle this threat..Maybe Im not following..

Spain sent an army. France and England tried to send orderly settlers who could protect themselves.

You are forgetting Portugal, we started settling in what is today's Brazil after we reached it, in 1500. France and England came much later to the Americas.

Suppose when Columbus discovered America, the nations of Europe realized where the Ottomans' and Genghis Khan's gold had come from.

The countries that discovered America were not being threatened by the Ottomans. In fact, the Ottoman Empire was doing them a favour by keeping the Eastern Europe in a state that gave Western Europe a better position regarding commerce (history does repeat itself).

originally posted by: ArMaPThe countries that discovered America were not being threatened by the Ottomans. In fact, the Ottoman Empire was doing them a favour by keeping the Eastern Europe in a state that gave Western Europe a better position regarding commerce (history does repeat itself).

That is like saying Paris was not being threatened when the Germans attacked the Ardennes in 1940. It wasn't safe, it was merely further West.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Solvedit
Say, may I ask where you are from?

Look below my avatar, I'm Portuguese and live in Portugal.

Have you ever spent any time in the US or Latin America? I think you may be assuming what you would see.

No matter. Clearly many of their people are descended from Old World people. The question is, how can you reliably determine their ancestors must have gotten here with the Spanish?

originally posted by: Solvedit
That is like saying Paris was not being threatened when the Germans attacked the Ardennes in 1940. It wasn't safe, it was merely further West.

No, the situation was completely different.

originally posted by: Solvedit
Have you ever spent any time in the US or Latin America?

No.

I think you may be assuming what you would see.

For how things were in the 16th century I have to assume, like everyone else.
For how things look today I just have to look at photos, videos and all the people from Latin America that live here (and they are many, mostly from Brazil, for obvious reasons, but also many from Venezuela).

Clearly many of their people are descended from Old World people.

Clearly for you. I asked you for examples of the similarities, but you didn't provide any, unless I missed them, the last days have been a little stressful for me.

The question is, how can you reliably determine their ancestors must have gotten here with the Spanish?

As it looks like you don't believe in anthropologists, I don't know how can you reach any conclusion, if you are really interested in knowing instead of looking just for confirmation of you "theory".

ArMaP,

You are trying to impeach my argument on details.

Do you think the New World was truly unknown before Columbus? Not one guild of fishermen, not one band of pirates ever realized there were two continents there?

And, if so, could it not have been a crime problem? Especially if they did not know what their gold and copper ore was worth in the Old World?

Are there not signs of Pre-Columbian contact? Ancient Chinese stone anchors off California. Viking settlements in Newfoundland. The Portuguese were known to have fished the grand banks off Newfoundland before Columbus. The Bimini Road. Viking Runes on stones in Minnesota. And so on.