Findthetone1
Well-known member
Are you drunk already?
TBC.....
TBC.....
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
You're a retard - even AI set it out for you but you can't refute anything - you just say it's stupid with nothing backing it up and even confuse the most rightwing politics with leftwing. You are an imbecile.
Last edited:
Floyd Eye
Well-known member
Well you "Earthlings" sure fucked this thread up "Royally"
Let's go back to the evil joos.
Let's go back to the evil joos.
R
Robostyle
Well-known member
WTF?
"Peopling" is not a word my dude.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
Apparently no one here has studied law to know what a legal fiction really means.
R
Robostyle
Well-known member
USA was an ex-British colony, until we fought and won our independence from Britain.
100+ years before Australia became independent?
R
Robostyle
Well-known member
Using these hyphenated descriptive terms is a relatively new phenomenon.
E Pluribus Unum = from many, one.
Americans used to all be considered Americans of varying descents.
It started with the term "African American" to describe Black Americans in an act of political correctness.
Then other groups started to follow suit.
Personally i think these terms are shitty, and are divisive and undermine the entire point of becoming an American.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
Yes but the irony is diversity is division by definition. Both diversity and division ultimately hark back to the same Latin root, divertere. It's in the the very word and is there anything more woke or leftwing than DEI? How can the clown I was just having an argument with say he's rightwing - what a joke that is.
These minorities are the ones that call themselves those terms because they don't think American captures who they are properly. it's getting to be that British Australians are becoming a minority. In London they are minority British ethnically or very close to it. At that point does it mean anything to call yourself by your nationality? Nope. It's no longer representative of who you are. If modern Australia means melting pot of third world countries then I'm not going to call myself Australian.
Last edited:
NoHassle
Well-known member
I have NO IDEA what you're saying as I didn't post to you OR mention you.
It was to @Thumbpicker and that sentence wasn't in the post.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
USA in its current incarnation is 1776 from memory. Britain then had a problem because it couldn't send people to the US so they came here in 1788.
Our histories are directly linked. It's all as a consequence of British empire. Australia is a new world country in exactly the same way the US. The parallels are huge. Spitting the dummy at the British and having a revolution doesn't change your genetics or where your language or culture comes from ultimately. Things may have morphed a bit in both countries but it's not light years away from where it came from.
R
Robostyle
Well-known member
There are some similarities i'll give you that.
R
Robostyle
Well-known member
Read your post again, it's in there friend. Never said your post was mentioning me or directed towards me?
R
Robostyle
Well-known member
Here is where we disagree. It's a virtue signal, political correctness, a way to divide what was once unity.
If they are legal citizens, they are Americans. No prefix is needed.
MadAsAHatter
Well-known member
Dude says he's right wing, but calling himself British-Australian and whining about identity is about the most leftist thing one can do. 
NoHassle
Well-known member
Clovis People Not First Americans, Study Shows
The Clovis people, known for their distinctive spearheads, were not the first humans to set foot in the Americas after all.The so-called Clovis people, known for their distinctive spearheads, were not the first humans to set foot in the Americas after all, a new study says.
The find supports growing archaeological evidence found in recent years that disputes the notion that the Americas were originally populated by a single migration of people from Asia about 13,000 years ago. [See new DNA evidence linking Clovis to modern Native peoples].
New radiocarbon dating of Clovis-culture materials shows that this group inhabited the Americas a little later and for a shorter period of time than previously believed. [Learn how radiocarbon is saving elephants].
Archaeological evidence of human occupation in South America also dates to the same time as the Clovis-culture materials. This suggests that people were living in the Americas before the Clovis people arrived.
"I look at it as the final nail in the 'Clovis first' coffin," said Michael Waters, director of the Center for the Study of the First Americans at Texas A&M University.
Waters is a co-author of the new study, which appears in today's issue of the journal Science.
South America
The Clovis culture was named after flint spearheads found in the 1930s at a site in Clovis, New Mexico.Clovis sites have been identified throughout the contiguous United States, as well as in Mexico and Central America.
The Clovis, widely believed to have been mammoth hunters, likely arrived via the Bering land bridge that once linked Asia and Alaska. They then spread rapidly southward.
Radiocarbon dating had previously shown the Clovis period to range from 11,500 to 10,900 radiocarbon years ago (about 13,300 to 12,800 calendar years ago), giving the culture several hundred years to reach South America.
Radiocarbon years and calendar years don't always match, because the atmospheric abundance of carbon 14—which is absorbed by all living things and on which radiocarbon dating is based—has varied over time.
For their study, the researchers reevaluated materials from all known Clovis sites.
The data the researchers collected narrowed the Clovis time frame to between 11,050 and 10,800 radiocarbon years ago. This translates to roughly 13,100 to 12,900 calendar years ago—a duration of 200 years.
A number of archaeological sites in South America have yielded the same dates.
"The Clovis-first model says it would have taken anywhere from 700 to 1,000 years for people to reach the southern tip of South America," Waters said. "It seems highly unlikely that the Clovis people could have flown down there in 200 years.
"This indicates pretty strongly that there were people living in both hemispheres at the same time."
Pre-Clovis People
But if humans lived in the Americas before the Clovis arrived, who were these other people and where did they come from?"I think we're moving toward understanding that the peopling of the Americas was not a singular event like the Clovis-first model would have us believe," Waters said.
Instead it "was a process with people probably arriving at different times and taking different routes and potentially coming from different places."
(Related photos: the search for the first Americans.)
John Johnson is an archaeologist and ethnohistorian at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History in California.
He said the new study and other archaeological research suggest that there were people in place from coast to coast prior to what is known as the Clovis horizon.
"It implies that people here adapted the Clovis technology [of spearpoints], that people didn't arrive full-blown with this technology," he said.
Tom Dillehay, the chair of the anthropology department at Tennessee's Vanderbilt University, suggested that it's time to lay the Clovis-first model to rest.
"Now we can perhaps begin to ask new kinds of research questions," Dillehay said, "about the timing of this existing population, about migrations and movements, and what's going on in North versus South America."
Findthetone1
Well-known member
Find where I said I was "rightwing". You are so caught up on labels that you sound like a CNN reporter
I think (longshot here) that you are, in some argumentative way trying to imply that I don't understand the difference between origin and nationalism or that America's original setters were British which is ridiculous.
My point is, if YOU want to get caught up in origin labels, then we should all refer to ourselves as African since that is ground zero for human existence.
But if it makes you feel better, you go ahead on. If anyone has proven themselves to be a clown around here the last few years, it's you, Mr. scream at the sky.
Findthetone1
Well-known member
Right? Maybe shit's all backwards Down UnderDude says he's right wing, but calling himself British-Australian and whining about identity is about the most leftist thing one can do.
R
Robostyle
Well-known member
Is it possible that the right wing and left wing terms don't mean exactly the same thing on different continents?
Floyd Eye
Well-known member
European leftists claim that our leftists are conservatives.
I can tell you with certainty that right wing in Australia doesn’t mean the same thing it does here. Or at least core tenets of conservative ideology here don’t mean shit there. Slingshots being illegal for example is not something that would be tolerated here.
