CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9845
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2019 7:12 pm
 


The first guy who walked over the land bridge tens of thousands of years ago discovered it. There were no countries then to take credit for it and no writing for us to remember his name.
Or maybe it was a non-binary shaman high on mushrooms and fermented whale blubber. Who gives a shit?


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8541
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:57 pm
 


herbie wrote:
The first guy who walked over the land bridge tens of thousands of years ago discovered it. There were no countries then to take credit for it and no writing for us to remember his name.
Or maybe it was a non-binary shaman high on mushrooms and fermented whale blubber. Who gives a shit?

The Coastal Migration Theory is gaining a lot of traction. People migrating in skin boats along the Kelp Highway, living off marine resources, leaving people along the way, from the Aleutian Islands to Tierra del Fuego. After the mountain glaciers melted, people popped over the highlands and moved east.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9468
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:35 am
 


Quote:
The first guy who walked over the land bridge tens of thousands of years ago discovered it.

Read the title, again. Slowly.
Key word here is "European" no one is refuting that the First Nations discovered the Americas first, but the question asked "When was the European (meaning people from EUROPE) discovery the Americas?"
Quote:
The Coastal Migration Theory is gaining a lot of traction. People migrating in skin boats along the Kelp Highway, living off marine resources, leaving people along the way, from the Aleutian Islands to Tierra del Fuego. After the mountain glaciers melted, people popped over the highlands and moved east.

This is probably the most likely. The land bridge probably would have been choked in ice when the alleged migration would have happened.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26052
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:31 am
 


llama66 wrote:
Read the title, again. Slowly.
Key word here is "European" no one is refuting that the First Nations discovered the Americas first, but the question asked "When was the European (meaning people from EUROPE) discovery the Americas?"


True.

N_Fiddledog wrote:
Colonization, if the CBC wants to push for its inclusion on the question sheet would be a separate question. It does not erase a fact, it only recognizes the existence of another one.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8541
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:11 am
 


llama66 wrote:
It was the 10th Century when Lief Eriksson discovered the Americas. Not the 15th. Columbus was second place.

No chance... it was St. Brendan, in a skin boat. Hail the Irish!!


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9845
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:13 am
 


Quote:
Key word here is "European" no one is refuting that the First Nations discovered the Americas first,

Well you should be because there weren't any nations when the first people got here. :P


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9468
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:18 am
 


fifeboy wrote:
llama66 wrote:
It was the 10th Century when Lief Eriksson discovered the Americas. Not the 15th. Columbus was second place.

No chance... it was St. Brendan, in a skin boat. Hail the Irish!!

He was all peaceful and shit, it was my people, the Vikings, that began the time-honoured tradition of slaughtering the locals.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8541
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:03 pm
 


llama66 wrote:
fifeboy wrote:
llama66 wrote:
It was the 10th Century when Lief Eriksson discovered the Americas. Not the 15th. Columbus was second place.

No chance... it was St. Brendan, in a skin boat. Hail the Irish!!

He was all peaceful and shit, it was my people, the Vikings, that began the time-honoured tradition of slaughtering the locals.

Vikings from the Andes???? Now I’m really confused :P


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9468
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:12 pm
 


St. Brendan chilled off the Grand Banks, The Vikings created Vinland and La Anse aux Medows


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8541
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:47 pm
 


llama66 wrote:
St. Brendan chilled off the Grand Banks, The Vikings created Vinland and La Anse aux Medows

I read a book about 45 years ago titled Northern Mists by Carl Sauer. Very interesting summary of pre Columbian exploration by Europeans. He concludes that La Anse aux Meadows is an Irish clerical station (most likely wrong, given newer info.) still an interesting read. I’m going to try and dig it up out of my stored books for a re-read.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9468
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:56 pm
 


It is interesting, it just goes to show how little modern man actually knows about our history. I wonder what they'll think we did in 1000 years.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8541
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:45 pm
 


]
llama66 wrote:
It is interesting, it just goes to show how little modern man actually knows about our history. I wonder what they'll think we did in 1000 years.


I don't plan on being alive in 1000 years, so I won't be doing anything :P


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1083
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:03 pm
 


I think people are overlooking why the idea of 'discovery' pisses off Native people-because it's associated with the 'doctrine of discovery' used to claim that Indigenous people didn't have any pre-existing rights in lands found by European explorers, and that justified the European powers exerting authority over them.

Here's a brief summary:

Quote:

2. Within the framework of the Doctrine, Indigenous Peoples in the Americas were considered non-human
The presiding theory of the time was that Indigenous Peoples, because they were non-Christians, were not human and therefore the land was empty or terra nullius. When Christopher Columbus arrived in 1492, it is estimated that the Americas were actually occupied by 100 million Indigenous Peoples - which is about one fifth of the human race at that time - who had been living their traditional lives on the land since time immemorial. But, because they were not Christians the land was deemed terra nullius.

...

3. The UN’s perspective on the Impact of the Doctrine of Discovery (May, 2012)
“The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues concluded its eleventh session with the approval of a set of nine draft recommendations, highlighted by a text approved on the special theme, the ongoing impact of the Discovery Doctrine on indigenous peoples and the right redress. That fifteenth century Christian principle was denounced throughout the session as the “shameful” root of all the discrimination and marginalization indigenous peoples faced today.

The Permanent Forum noted that, while such doctrines of domination and “conquest”, including terra nullis and the Regalian doctrine, were promoted as authority for land acquisition, they also encouraged despicable assumptions: that indigenous peoples were “savages”, “barbarians”, “inferior and uncivilized,” among other constructs the colonizers used to subjugate, dominate and exploit the lands, territories and resources of native peoples.” [1]



And from the TRC...

Quote:

Other European rulers rejected the Pope’s ability to give away sovereignty over half
the world. But they did not necessarily reject the Doctrine of Discovery—they simply modi fied it. The English argued that a claim to ‘discovered lands’ was valid if the
‘discoverer’ was able to take possession of them. Harman Verelst, who promoted the
colonization in the eighteenth century of what is now the southern coast of the United
States, wrote that “this Right arising from the fi rst discovery is the firrst and fundamental Right of all European Nations, as to their Claim of Lands in America.” This
Doctrine of Discovery was linked to a second idea: the lands being claimed were terra
nullius—no man’s land—and therefore open to claim. On the basis of this concept,
the British government claimed ownership of the entire Australian continent. (There,
the doctrine of terra nullius remained the law until it was successfully challenged in
court in 1992.) Under this doctrine, imperialists could argue that the presence of
Indigenous people did not void a claim of terra nullius, since the Indigenous people
simply occupied, rather than owned, the land. True ownership, they claimed, could
come only with European-style agriculture.



There's a reason why the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has called on us to abandon the idea of 'terra nullius'. And if you don't trust the UN's position on it, here's the position of the Church itself...

Quote:

Regarding the question of the doctrine of discovery and the role of the Papal Bull
Inter Coetera, the Holy See notes that Inter Coetera, as a source of international
law … was fi rst of all abrogated by the Treaty of Tordesilles in 1494, and that
Circumstances have changed so much that to attribute any juridical value
to such a document seems completely out of place.… In addition, it was also
abrogated by other Papal Bulls, for example, Sublimis Deus in 1537, which
states, “Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians,
are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property
… should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.”
This view was expanded upon and reinforced in Immensa Pastorum of [Pope] Benedict XIV
of 20 December 1741 and a number of other Papal Encyclicals, statements and
decrees. If any doubt remains, it is abrogated by Canon 6 of the Code of Canon
Law of 1983 which abrogates in general all preceding penal and disciplinary
laws.… Therefore, for International Law and for the Catholic Church Law, the
Bull Inter Coetera is a historic remnant with no juridical, moral or doctrinal
value.… The fact that juridical systems may employ the “Doctrine of Discovery”
as a juridical precedent is now therefore a characteristic of the laws of those states and is independent of the fact that for the Church the document has had
no value for centuries. The refutation of this doctrine is therefore now under the
competence of national authorities, legislators, lawyers and legal historians.



TL/DR: The basis for European colonization of Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere was the Catholic Church's 'doctrine of discovery', based on the belief that non-Christian peoples were subhuman and had no actual rights to whatever lands they were living on. That doctrine was itself repealed by the Catholic Church centuries ago. Unfortunately, from the Indigenous point of view that same mentality still remains in ignoring their constitutional Treaty rights, and the assumption that they should shut up and assimilate. They never consented to that in the first place-from everything I've seen, historically and today, the vast majority of Native people have never objected to having the rest of us as neighbours, or even seeing themselves as our fellow citizens in many cases...but they're still seen as backward savages and their land rights not seen as worthy of considering.

That's the problem here-the attempt to forcibly erase their identities and ignore their land rights.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Previous  1  2



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rickc, Strutz and 15 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.