Who really discovered America?

Regardless of how advanced/not advanced the Indians were at the time...their culture did not seed the zygote that would eventually develop into the United States. And because I appreciate my country and it's opportunities and I enjoy its freedoms I choose to honor the man who got the ball rolling.

I can appreciate that Indian nations have enhanced our society by adding to our culture but that is a different category of appreciation.

And my point with Edison is that he did what was needed to change the world. Maybe inventing is not the whole story.

 

No one knows who "discovered" the Americas.

Probably the seals.

 

The myth of the noble savage is just as pernicious as cultural arrogance. The "civilization" you speak of hadn't discovered the wheel, metal tools, animal husbandry, or the written word. They DID practice cannibalism, child sacrifice, indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in war (including women and children), and abandonment or killing of the elderly.

Edison invented a practical light bulb, something no one else had done yet. All previous attempts had been short-lived bulbs. As for a nationalist narrative, the English are much more notorious for that than the Americans are. Compare this list: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...Greatest-50-British-inventions-full-list.html with reality. Alexander Graham Bell was a Scotsman living in the US when he invented the telephone. The vacuum cleaner was invented and perfected in the US, but a random Englishman gets credit in the list. https://www.thoughtco.com/invention-and-history-of-vacuum-cleaners-1992594 Television was invented by an American in America, but the list gives credit to an Englishman who made a mechanical contraption that transmitted an image and calls that television. http://49chevy.blogs.com/farnovisio...33#comment-6a00d8341ca8f953ef00e55067602e8833 The electronic computer was invented in the US. "Professor [John] Atanasoff and graduate student Clifford Berry certainly deserve some credit for building the world's first electronic-digital computer at Iowa State University between 1939 and 1942. The Atanasoff-Berry Computer represented several innovations in computing, including a binary system of arithmetic, parallel processing, regenerative memory, and a separation of memory and computing functions." https://www.thoughtco.com/john-atanasoff-and-clifford-berry-inventors-4078350 Almost all the major breakthroughs in photography were made by Frenchmen (Niepce, Daguerre, Becquerel, Lumiere Brothers, etc.), but the list credits Talbot as inventing photography. And while Newton is always given credit for inventing calculus, Leibniz almost never is. (Speaking to a German, he knew Leibniz did but didn't know Newton did.)

 

The above post is a good discrimination of selected but not objective facts to demonize a people.

 

your anthropological ignorance is evident...the wheel, europeans hadn't invented the wheel either the Sumerians did, the rest of the old world just copied the idea...the aztecs did indeed have a wheel they used for toys, not having a beast of burden in the americas suitable for pulling a cart made the wheel superfluous. ...metal tools yup they had them as well, but various stone materials worked as well, the first working of platinum occurred in the americas...animal husbandry yup, llamas, alpacas, turkey, dogs, bee keeping, guinea pigs; the americas didn't have many animals suitable to domestication and buffalo were so plentiful there was no need to domesticate...writing? yup, they did that too 900BC ...advanced mathematics, yup...surgical procedures and dentistry yup they did those too...

cannibalism yeah you can find that on every continent...child sacrifice also found everywhere...indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, lol, oh yeah europeans never did that lol!
abandonment of the eldery lol! , pure racist myth...which is what your ridiculous claims are, an ignorant cover for racism...

 

In the day of Mochtezuma's capitol in Azteca, nothing in Europe rivaled it as a city.

 

Slaughter of innocents?

1. Sack of Magdeburg - Wikipedia
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Magdeburg
   The Sack of Magdeburg was the destruction of the Protestant city of Magdeburg on 20 May 1631 by the Imperial Army and the forces of the Catholic League.Also called Magdeburg Wedding (German: Magdeburger Hochzeit) or Magdeburg's Sacrifice (Magdeburgs Opfergang), the incident is considered the worst massacre of the Thirty Years' War.
   
   
2. History - Destruction of Magdeburg
   filbrun.com/history/magdeburg.htm
   Count Tilly, a Bavarian, commanded the army of the Catholic League during the first half of The ThirtyYears War.On May 20, 1631, he and Count Pappenheim stormed Magdeburg, a prominent city in north central Germany that dated back to at least the 9th century.
   

 

Ancient humans may have reached North America as early as 130,000 years ago, which substantially revises the timing of arrival of H. sapiens into the Americas, according to the Nature study by Hollen et al. (2017). Multiple bone specimens taken from a burial site in California were dated 130.7 ± 9.4 thousand years ago.

 

interesting, not impossible but put me down as skeptical...we'll see how this plays out with further research...

 

Your anthropological claims are so much bullshit. Platinum, gold, silver, and copper were all in use in the Americas, but none of those are suitable for tools. As I said, there were no metal tools in the Americas before the Europeans arrived. "New trade goods represented another big change that European explorers and colonists brought to American Indians. Soon after meeting their European visitors, Indians became very interested in things that the colonists could provide. In a short time, the Indians began using these new materials and products in their everyday lives. Native hunters were eager to trade prepared deer hides and other pelts for lengths of colored cloth. Metal tools such as axes, hoes, and knives became valuable new resources. Soon American Indian men put aside their bows and arrows for European firearms, powder, and lead shot. Trade items like metal pots often were cut up and remade into new tools or weapons. The desire to get European goods changed ancient trading patterns. The tradition of simple hunting for food began to become less important than getting animal hides to trade." https://www.ncpedia.org/history/early/contact

From Jared Diamond: "Traditional nomadic tribes often end up abandoning their elderly during their unrelenting travels. The choice for the healthy and young is to do this or carry the old and infirm on their backs — along with children, weapons and necessities — through perilous territory. Also prone to sacrificing their elderly are societies that suffer periodic famines. Citing a dramatic example, Diamond said Paraguay’s Aché Indians assign certain young men the task of killing old people with an ax or spear, or burying them alive." http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/jared-diamond-on-aging-150571

Cannibalism was extremely rare and considered a horrific practice already in ancient Rome, 1500 years before Cortez discovered the Aztecs eating their enemies. When Caesar discovered the Celts practicing cannibalism in 55 B.C., he moved to stamp it out. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/091/03/druids-sacrifice-cannibalism/

Note that there's no similar article on child sacrifice in Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice_in_pre-Columbian_cultures Moses banned child sacrifice around 1300 B.C. while noting the practice in surrounding tribes. Carthage and Phoenicia were the last places in the old world still practicing it in Roman times, and that was in Africa and the middle east, not Europe.

 

there is zero genetic evidence for any colonization other than out of asia...all genetics to point to one origin and 15 mitochondrial groups all related.

 

From everything I've read, Sulatreans crossed the Bering Sea land bridge about 17k years ago. They are considered by science to be Native Americans.

 

try read something based in the actual science instead of wild speculation from the tabloids or random internet bloggers...the genetic science solidly supports the known anthropology all indigenous peoples of the americas are all related and they're not Solutreans, Phoenicians, Polynesians, Melanesian or any number of weird ideas from left field, DNA has put to rest any idea of any other founders...

pseudoscience speculators must hate DNA, it's destroyed their ability to make cash writing unsupported speculative books and documentaries...

 

I don't read tabloids, one and two, provide your source for DNA proof as you claim. BTW in case you can't read between the lines, I am Native American.

 

I could ask you to provide proof but I know you don't have any because it doesn't exist in any modern scientific text

what does your being native american have to do with anything?

the DNA evidence doesn't support anything other than all native americans being descended from one people that inhabited Beringia, genetically linked to every other people on the planet but also distinct due to their extended isolation in Beringia and the americas...

 

I actually do have a scientific source, because tribes are now required to perform DNA test to prove ancestry. Also, it is why the separate tribes are recognized as individual nation's. The Sioux nation is as related to the Cherokee nation as much as any human is related to other humans. We all share a certain percentage of DNA that is the same, it is the differences, or mutations, that differentiate individual groups. I as a member of the Pine Ridge Reservation, could not apply for entry in the Apache nation as they are distinctly different. Just as I will not be able to apply to be recognized as a native Alaskan when I retire there.

http://genetics.ncai.org/tribal-enrollment-and-genetic-testing.cfm

 

your source (usually commercial genetics company's) is lying to you...DNA cannot differentiate tribal groups, they can confirm native ancestry and maybe the region you originated from but that is all...

 

I gave you a scientific source, and typical you reject because it doesn't fit what you believe. And please don't even try to say that you went to that site and read the article in less than 5 minutes. You have your opinions and you're welcome to them, but don't tell me I'm wrong when you are biased. You apparently cannot differentiate a scientific organization, from one of those companies you see on TV.

And my being Native American means I have to have my children DNA tested so that they can receive their Federal benefits and apply for certain scholarships.

 

yes we are all related but native populations were isolated from others for around 30,000 years...in that time they developed unique matrilineal dna...I'm 98% northern european I guarantee you that you're much closer genetically to cherokee DNA than I am... whereas Solutreans being european undoubtedly form part of my DNA, although I'm unaware of any solutrean dna testing...

 

from your website...

"Genetic testing can provide evidence for the biological relationship between two individuals (e.g., paternity testing), but there are no unique genes for individual tribes or American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) ancestry in general"

which confirms exactly what I'm telling you...

I'm not trying to be a butthole picking a fight with you, I'm telling you the truth...

 

I didn't even notice you provided a link and had I I would've assumed it was another commercial company cashing in telling people what they wanted to hear...but you didn't read your own link, so...

 

I did read the article and many others, since it mainly confirms parentage and most tribal elders only go back 3 generations, the genetic map is still young.
As a Native American, I can generally tell you when someone is from the Sioux nation vs another tribe. I have lived in Alaska and will retire there, I will gaurentee you that I cannot pass as an Aleution native.
As time goes by, DNA testing will become more evolved, and more tribes will be documented...current estimates is that less than 10% of Native Americans have been tested. And yes this includes all the Americas.
So yes I missed that part in the article and you were right.

 

you won't pass for an Aleutian because you're literally not family...tribal groups look alike because they're closely related, they're a big extended family, they're all cousins who marry back into the group so they look alike...you look like your tribal group for the same reason, all ethnic groups everywhere are inbred family groups...if you were to marry an Aleut within two or three generations your descendants would blend in perfectly, in six or seven generations all trace of you would be gone...

 

Agreed. Genetic research has done a lot to undercut racially divisive ideas.

 

Prester John discovered America.
The guy was everywhere from the 12th to the 17th century.