From the arrival of the first Euro boat people to the present day an effort has been made to pigeon hole the nations into a convenient niche.
A part of that effort has been to promote invalid “theories” related to the presence of indigenous people throughout this hemisphere, as though in subtracting from the reality our claims to this land and our integrity are somehow lessened.
Indigenous occupation has ran the “scientific” merry go round from ten to fifteen thousand years to six million as proposed by an indigenous person.
Six million years, when there isn’t a single shred of evidence to be found anywhere that homo sapiens have existed that long. Nothing.
Fossil records exist that are tens of millions of years old, yet not a single human fossil even in the relatively short span of six million years to substantiate such a claim.
My belief is both estimates are wrong and this battle between linguists and anthropoligists/archeologists attests to that.
How long have the nations inhabited this hemisphere? Hard to say, but there is growing physical evidence discovered at predictably disputed sites in the Yukon and northern reaches that speak to site ages of 45 to 60,000 years.
As this article mentions Louis Leakey it is germane to mention the Calico site in California that Leakey was interested it.
At Calico as elsewhere the dispute rages on from entrenched dogma to new challenges.
Leakey and others asserted artifacts were discovered that dated occupation to around two hundred thousand years ago – the dispute arose when others classified artifacts as geofacts, a naturally occurring phenomena.
It didn’t help matters when fringe elements went so far as to suggest evidence existed at Calico that was five hundred thousand years old and therefore it could only follow it was there that homo sapiens originated – nor did the fact that Leakey following an acrimonious divorce was labelled a crackpot by his former wife.
Is Calico the real deal? I’m not qualified to say whether it is or isn’t – but the better approach by the “experts” should be predicated on being open minded rather than in a defensive posture on either side.
Science doesn’t like to be challenged, to be told they are wrong relative to their theories, especially if accompanied by the audacity of the non scientific community such is their sense of infallibility.
Often enough the scientific community reminds me of the metaphor of three blind men attempting to describe an elephant – it is reduced to a combination of tactile and what appears to be a vested personal emotional perception,something feels a certain way (theory) and so that surely must be the way of it.
The result is that scientists with their sense of infallibility aren’t inclined to disabuse themselves of pet entrenched beliefs. Ultimately that only matters to those who ascribe to the belief that science possesses the all seeing third eye.
Oh, they’ll argue the point claiming their search for the “truth” and “knowledge” is free of any bias – yet as this article so succinctly points outs a demand for “positive proof” is made when by the communities own admission they as a whole offer not proof, but “theory”….what seems to be correct.
Since the arrival of the boat people and the ascension of science every effort has been made to deny, mitigate, revise, and marginalize the longevity of existence by the nations in this continent.
The good/bad news depending on viewpoint is we remain and will until if and when such a point of assimilation into the melting pot exists that the blood of the nations is diluted to nothingness or mere obscure traces.
It is irrelevant whether a person is a Christian and believes the bible, what is relevant is that archeologists have used the information contained within the bible to discover sites – as a people we don’t have a bible, our traditions and history have until recently been that of oral recountings.
“Experts” might be well advised to take the blinders off and listen for a change, in doing so who knows what they might learn/discover.
And a shout out to the “granny” who sent me the link.