Modern native americans are not the “first nations” of the new world. Over the last decad or so anthropologists discovered genetic and archeological evidence of an earlier group, referred to as “Population Y” who is most closely related to melanesian/australoid types and who arrived in the new world at some time between 15 and 45 kya. It seems that later migrations more closely related to modern amerinds wiped them out although some groups in central america and brazil have about 3% or their ancestry from them. This group had the “Denisovan” signal which is only significant in australoids.
The general thinking is that amerinds are mostly related to clovis culture people who arrived around 12kya and that later waves of Na Dene/Athabaskan and Inuit speakers arrived 2 to 6 kya.
But there may have been migrations directly from europe, and its been proven that polynesians settled on the west coast of N and S America and mixed with Amerinds since the middle ages.
Most of these waves were conquering and accomplished demographic replacement in large areas.
The cherished belief that the noble savages of the americas settled there all at once and peacefully spread out across these continents without “genociding” each other is hokum.
[ - ] Sector7 1 point 2.5 yearsOct 28, 2022 19:57:01 ago (+1/-0)
You were too far south and arrived too late for Emperor Norton, but that's exactly what he did in 1859.
Joshua Abraham Norton, known as Emperor Norton, was a resident of San Francisco, California who, in 1859, proclaimed himself "Norton I., Emperor of the United States".
But it didn't stop there.
Norton had no formal political power; nevertheless, he was treated deferentially in San Francisco, and currency issued in his name was honored in the establishments that he frequented. Some considered him insane or eccentric, but citizens of San Francisco celebrated his imperial presence and his proclamations, such as his order that the United States Congress be dissolved by force and his numerous decrees calling for the construction of a bridge and tunnel crossing San Francisco Bay to connect San Francisco with Oakland. Though Norton received many favors from the city, merchants also capitalized on his notoriety by selling souvenirs bearing his name. "San Francisco lived off the Emperor Norton," Norton's biographer William Drury wrote, "not Norton off San Francisco".[7]
Early life: Norton's parents were John Norton (d. 1848) and Sarah Norden (d. 1846), who were English Jews.
Side note: 1859 was a weird year. The first oil well struck oil on the exact day of the largest CME to ever hit earth - The Carrington Event. That oil led to the largest fortune ever created, and was used by the jew owner to purchase all significant institutions in the US.
[ - ] Sector7 1 point 2.5 yearsOct 28, 2022 20:27:20 ago (+1/-0)
More supporting evidence that the jews and their associates (freemason in this case) were heavily involved in making society favorable to their parasitic nature.
More accurately, every nation is the result of successful repulsion of all conquest attempts.
Merely conquering land doesn't make it a nation, yet. You have to aggressively repel every pretender and sustain control over it. That's what makes a nation. And growing too lazy, or too stupid, or too weak to keep doing what is necessary to defend it is what breaks a nation.
So if you come across an uninhabited island, it would be impossible to build a nation there? Because there is nobody there for you to conquer?
No, he is wrong. Every nation is the result of successfully resisting conquest. And when nations fail to resist conquest, they disappear.
We would do well to understand the implications of that distinction, and to remember them well. Stop trying to justify your existence. Existence needs no justification, and anyone who demands it is your enemy. Existence justifies itself, by existing where others have failed. Focus instead on figuring out what it will take to ensure that existence continues, and make sure it gets done. Because, if you fail at that, your existence will end, and your justifications won't matter.
Please, you're stretching definitions beyond their intended meaning in the context. Pilpul, some might call that.
The "every nation is the result of conquest" argument is used as an attempt to defend against leftists claiming "Americans are living on stolen land" in their attempt to push for open borders and general guilt tripping of the White American population. In this context, "conquest" is strictly about taking land from other people and making it your own. It has nothing to do with "conquering" nature.
It is also a very poor defense. Because, as pointed out, it is false, and you shouldn't be defending against such attacks to begin with. As is often the case, the best defense is offense. The better response would be:
Yes, our ancestors conquered this land. They bled and buried brothers to make it theirs, and destroyed all who would take it from them. Now it is ours, to defend and uphold, so their sacrifices won't be in vain. And what of those Indians, who failed to defend what was theirs? Where is their nation now? Is that what you want for our children? At least they got conquered by a far more advanced and largely benevolent civilization, which gave them land to live on and technology they couldn't dream of. Ours will not be so lucky, if we fail.
The story of a people “native” to any particular place is the story of people who got conquered and murdered/enslaved while their women got fucked by the conquerors who make a new hybrid race that gets conquered again by some other dudes who fuck their women and so on. There are so many fucking waves of conquest and miscegenation entire fucking branches of anthropology are devoted to figuring out who has been fucking whom and they can’t do it because its too complex. Everybody gets conquered and fucked sooner or later.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.5 yearsOct 28, 2022 21:42:54 ago (+0/-0)
The general thinking is that amerinds are mostly related to clovis culture people who arrived around 12kya and that later waves of Na Dene/Athabaskan and Inuit speakers arrived 2 to 6 kya.
But there may have been migrations directly from europe, and its been proven that polynesians settled on the west coast of N and S America and mixed with Amerinds since the middle ages.
Most of these waves were conquering and accomplished demographic replacement in large areas.
The cherished belief that the noble savages of the americas settled there all at once and peacefully spread out across these continents without “genociding” each other is hokum.
Do these map of Y and mtDNA haplogroups look like the story of a single population expansion of a homogenious group? Or waves upon waves of migration conquest and replacement of many different groups? They were doing the exact same thing they were doing over in asia— conquering each other and wiping out australoids.
https://files.catbox.moe/6ko00v.jpeg
https://files.catbox.moe/lju5mc.jpeg
https://files.catbox.moe/sax42n.jpeg
https://files.catbox.moe/20hn23.jpeg
[ + ] lord_nougat
[ - ] lord_nougat 3 points 2.5 yearsOct 28, 2022 14:01:38 ago (+3/-0)
So I simply declared myself emperor and seized the throne without resorting to any actual conquest.
I abdicated after I realised just how shitty my empire actually was in the 90s.
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 1 point 2.5 yearsOct 28, 2022 19:57:01 ago (+1/-0)
But it didn't stop there.
Side note: 1859 was a weird year. The first oil well struck oil on the exact day of the largest CME to ever hit earth - The Carrington Event. That oil led to the largest fortune ever created, and was used by the jew owner to purchase all significant institutions in the US.
[ + ] lord_nougat
[ - ] lord_nougat 1 point 2.5 yearsOct 28, 2022 20:04:36 ago (+1/-0)
There's also good ol' Lord Darrell Duppa
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 1 point 2.5 yearsOct 28, 2022 20:27:20 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons 3 points 2.5 yearsOct 28, 2022 14:52:15 ago (+3/-0)
Merely conquering land doesn't make it a nation, yet. You have to aggressively repel every pretender and sustain control over it. That's what makes a nation. And growing too lazy, or too stupid, or too weak to keep doing what is necessary to defend it is what breaks a nation.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 2 points 2.5 yearsOct 28, 2022 17:37:34 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 1 point 2.5 yearsOct 28, 2022 19:46:01 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons -1 points 2.5 yearsOct 28, 2022 20:17:46 ago (+0/-1)
No, he is wrong. Every nation is the result of successfully resisting conquest. And when nations fail to resist conquest, they disappear.
We would do well to understand the implications of that distinction, and to remember them well. Stop trying to justify your existence. Existence needs no justification, and anyone who demands it is your enemy. Existence justifies itself, by existing where others have failed. Focus instead on figuring out what it will take to ensure that existence continues, and make sure it gets done. Because, if you fail at that, your existence will end, and your justifications won't matter.
[ + ] PotatoWhisperer
[ - ] PotatoWhisperer 1 point 2.5 yearsOct 28, 2022 20:25:14 ago (+1/-0)
No.
There is nature itself to be conquered. Creating something from nothing isn't easy after all.
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons 0 points 2.5 yearsOct 28, 2022 21:06:46 ago (+1/-1)
The "every nation is the result of conquest" argument is used as an attempt to defend against leftists claiming "Americans are living on stolen land" in their attempt to push for open borders and general guilt tripping of the White American population. In this context, "conquest" is strictly about taking land from other people and making it your own. It has nothing to do with "conquering" nature.
It is also a very poor defense. Because, as pointed out, it is false, and you shouldn't be defending against such attacks to begin with. As is often the case, the best defense is offense. The better response would be:
Yes, our ancestors conquered this land. They bled and buried brothers to make it theirs, and destroyed all who would take it from them. Now it is ours, to defend and uphold, so their sacrifices won't be in vain. And what of those Indians, who failed to defend what was theirs? Where is their nation now? Is that what you want for our children? At least they got conquered by a far more advanced and largely benevolent civilization, which gave them land to live on and technology they couldn't dream of. Ours will not be so lucky, if we fail.
[ + ] PotatoWhisperer
[ - ] PotatoWhisperer 1 point 2.5 yearsOct 28, 2022 23:56:50 ago (+1/-0)
Stop being a faggot. Figure yourself out.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.5 yearsOct 28, 2022 20:45:20 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 [op] 0 points 2.5 yearsOct 29, 2022 18:28:15 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Fascinus
[ - ] Fascinus 5 points 2.5 yearsOct 28, 2022 13:45:16 ago (+5/-0)