[ShepherdsDog]

Our ancestors all migrated into different parts of the world in waves beginning almost a million years ago(Homo sapien neanderthalensis began to move into Western Asia and Europe). Some waves swept over earlier ones and absorbed them. North America had waves hit from both shores, Europe and Asia. The Asiatic migrations happened to be the larger ones, and ended up absorbing the smaller European migrations almost 20 thousand years ago. Any as of yet unproven migrations, yet suspected, from the east, were absorbed into the local population, or died out altogether.

What is really annoying is some of the same people who label people(who have been here almost 500 years) immigrants insist that second generation wogs be referred to as British, Swedish, German or Danish. We have to be inclusive unless it's politically correct to be exclusive

[Jabberwalker]

I was talking to a Mohawk associate a few years ago on that subject. My own family started coming to North America more than 300 years ago and they have been in what is now Canada for 230 years. So, my comment was that "I consider this to be my homeland. I'm not a hyphenated Canadian. I'm from right here and nowhere else." Anyway, he agreed that it isn't about genes. It's about how you feel about the land. That should also apply to someone who has been here a matter of months. Are you Canadian or are you just passing through?

[Curtman]

I think everyone has lost track of this topic being about Manitoba Muslim Month. I brought up the First Nations only as an analogy to this type of conversation:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

desertdude desertdude:

and thar she blows.....

You make your point that you represent a victim class and suggest people may not notice your particular class of victims are responsible for another bit of social idiocy, because if we do notice the suggestion is we are victimizers and the poor victim race that is Muslim is being attacked once more. Bad evil us for noticing the stupid thing they did.

The reason some bring up the Muslim equation in this particular case is because that is what caused the problem.

The cause was not exclusively a North African thing. It was not a general immigrant thing. It was not even a race thing. It was a strategic move used by a specific ideology. It has been used by the Islamic ideology since the Pirate Prophet created stealth Jihad in Medina 1400 years ago. To ignore it is to ignore history.

When an Islamic flavored population is perpetrating Hijrah (jihad by immigration) upon a land it will be quiet and easy to get along with until it reaches about 2.5% of the population. At that point they will begin to cry out as victims, and demand special status just as Muhammad did in Medina 1400 years ago. That is the way it begins. This allows them to avoid resistance from the existing population as they begin stage two. Look to Europe to see the next stage as they reach about 5%.

( From Winnipeg school drops Christmas concert for African drumming )

[Curtman]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Our ancestors all migrated into different parts of the world in waves beginning almost a million years ago(Homo sapien neanderthalensis began to move into Western Asia and Europe). Some waves swept over earlier ones and absorbed them. North America had waves hit from both shores, Europe and Asia. The Asiatic migrations happened to be the larger ones, and ended up absorbing the smaller European migrations almost 20 thousand years ago. Any as of yet unproven migrations, yet suspected, from the east, were absorbed into the local population, or died out altogether.

On this topic...

I saw this today: (Evidence seems shaky, but I thought it was interesting)
Skull suggests three early human species were one

$1:

Controversial analysis of long-faced fossil proposes that Homo erectus should subsume two other hominin species.

One of the most complete early human skulls yet found suggests that what scientists thought were three hominin species may in fact be one.

This controversial claim comes from a comparison between the anatomical features of a 1.8-million-year-old fossil skull with those of four other skulls from the same excavation site at Dmanisi, Georgia. The wide variability in their features suggests that Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, the species so far identified as existing worldwide in that era, might represent a single species. The research is published in Science today1.

The newly described skull — informally known as 'skull 5' — was unearthed in 2005. When combined with a jawbone found five years before and less than 2 metres away, it “is the most complete skull of an adult from this date”, says Marcia Ponce de León, a palaeoanthropologist at the Anthropological Institute and Museum in Zurich, Switzerland, and one of the authors of the study.

The volume of skull 5’s braincase is only 546 cubic centimetres, about one-third that of modern humans, she notes. Despite that low volume, the hominin’s face was relatively large and protruded more than the faces of the other four skulls found at the site, which have been attributed to H. erectus.

Having five skulls from one site provides an unprecedented opportunity to study variation in what presumably was a single population, says co-author Christoph Zollikofer, a neurobiologist at the same institute as Ponce de León. All of the skulls excavated so far were probably deposited within a 20,000-year time period, he notes.

The Dmanisi skulls look quite different from one another, Zollikofer says, “so it’s tempting to publish them as different species. Yet we know that these individuals came from the same location and the same geological time, so they could, in principle, represent a single population of a single species.”

Humans and chimps

The researchers' statistical data seem to back that notion. For example, the volume of skull 5 is only about 75% that of the largest skull unearthed at the Dmanisi site — a disparity that may seem large but that falls within the variation seen among modern humans and within chimpanzees. The variation also falls within the range seen in all hominins worldwide from the era, says Zollikofer.

“Like so many finds, [the skull] adds to what we know, but does not necessarily clarify or simplify things,” says Robert Foley, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Cambridge, UK. Nevertheless, he notes, the results of the new analysis must change the way scientists think about the nature and magnitude of anatomical variation in early Homo.

If the three hominin species inhabiting Earth about 1.8 million years ago were collapsed into one, H. habilis and H. ruldofensis would be subsumed into H. erectus — largely owing to the similarities of the Dmanisi skulls to those known for the latter species, says Zollikofer.

Anatomical traits
But cramming the three species, which overall inhabited areas from Africa to Indonesia, under the H. erectus umbrella might not be scientifically justified, says Fred Spoor, a palaeontologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

The new study, he says, used statistical analyses of general cranial shape that are not necessarily good at discriminating between species. Rather than those general assessments, he explains, the researchers should have analysed specific anatomical traits, such as the height of the braincase or the diameter of the eye socket. Such easily quantifiable characteristics are typically used to identify species and construct evolutionary family trees.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Curtman Curtman:

They aren't immigrants. We are.

Really? So how long must someone live in a country before they're not considered to be immigrants? 100 years? 1000 years? 20,000 years?

[Curtman]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Curtman Curtman:

They aren't immigrants. We are.

Really? So how long must someone live in a country before they're not considered to be immigrants? 100 years? 1000 years? 20,000 years?

It's times like these that I wonder if these are even conversations we have on this forum.

Nobody even reads the posts, they just pick one line from a post, ignore the context and go for the attack.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Curtman Curtman:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Curtman Curtman:

They aren't immigrants. We are.

Really? So how long must someone live in a country before they're not considered to be immigrants? 100 years? 1000 years? 20,000 years?

It's times like these that I wonder if these are even conversations we have on this forum.

Nobody even reads the posts, they just pick one line from a post, ignore the context and go for the attack.

That was your entire post that I quoted, dumbass.
And it wasn't an attack, it was a genuine question and one which you seem quite unwilling or unable to answer.

[ShepherdsDog]

Curt qualified his own complaint ... sanctimoanious[sic] or what?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Curt qualified his own complaint ... sanctimoanious[sic] or what?

I swear, sometimes it's like trying to nail snot to the wall.

[Curtman]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

That was your entire post that I quoted, dumbass.

Let me help you understand why it is you who is being a dumbass.

Curtman Curtman:

I thought it would be fun to contrast Bart's fear of being assimilated into Islam, and his view that we should assimilate First Nations..

Curtman Curtman:

Unsound Unsound:

The type of assimilation that Bart, and many others, fear is a more total kind of ting. It demands adherence to stric moral and religious ideals.

We did that.

Curtman Curtman:

Unsound Unsound:

The idea now is for them to hold onto their roots and thir history while joining into a larger thing. It's what every immigrant group has done.

They aren't immigrants. We are. And it's the same thing.

What your looking at here, are excerpts from a conversation. Not a whole conversation, but should be enough to get some context. It's more than a single post.

When you read the context, if you still think I was referring to multi-generational Canadians as immigrants, then you may be a dumbass.


It's an analogy to illustrate that this "Hijrah" thing we're supposed to live in fear of because of it's sinister nature is precisely how we got where we are today.

The idea that it's only ok if it's successful is a strange one, but that seems to be the only response that appears here.

Your post was about some other topic that didn't exist.

[N_Fiddledog]

I didn't want to be drawn into this one, but seeing as you're going to insist on quoting me from other threads, and won't shut up about it as you use it to do what you're accusing others of (unjustly, I might add) - that is, pulling things in out of context I guess I'm called upon to help you find a clue.

Hijrah refers to Mohammed's migration from Mecca to Medina. In Medina Mohammed used specific techniques to instigate himself on the Medinites while he developed the concept of Jihad to eventually overwhelm them and the surrounding territory. The passages in the Koran dealing with this can be seen as a kind of guide book or manual for societal takeover. It's a specific and well documented method laid out in the Koran as strategy, and utilized both today and throughout history by leaders of the ideology to incrementally but specifically take over the host society, and eventually place a Sharia governed society in its place.

Now what that has to do with the native problem, I don't know.

You seem to be suggesting that because the host society would be smart to observe the lessons of history when being attacked by stealth Jihad if it wishes to avoid the fates of so many societies before it that didn't, that means we're all being a bunch of dicks for stuff like noticing Chief Theressa Spence didn't actually lose any weight in her hunger strike.

As to whether or not you said "non-Indians are immigrants", yeah you did. Spin it any way you want, you said it. PA 9 is correct in observing that's what you said, and if he wants to isolate it from the stream to spin off in that direction, he's not doing anything you didn't do on page 2 to take the conversation down the path of what you called the "first nations". As far as that one goes by your own rules it's you who's the original dumbass Curt.

[QBall]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

QBall QBall:

They should blow up a shopping mall in Winnipeg, leave a bunch of headless mannequins with their hands tied behind their backs in front of it and call it the Islamic history museum.

I almost hate myself for liking what you wrote.

If you only knew the power of the Dark Side. Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy.

[Public_Domain]

[N_Fiddledog]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

That said, just like African history month, no one is going to learn anything except how much white people can complain about something like this.

Maybe, but let's be specific so there's no confusion. The race thing only refers to Black history month. There are all kinds of white Muslims. Muslim is not a race. It's a religion and an ideology. Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, gays and other groups have historical bitches against Muslims. They might also groan about this one.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Curtman Curtman:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

That was your entire post that I quoted, dumbass.

Let me help you understand why it is you who is being a dumbass.

Curtman Curtman:

I thought it would be fun to contrast Bart's fear of being assimilated into Islam, and his view that we should assimilate First Nations..

Curtman Curtman:

Unsound Unsound:

The type of assimilation that Bart, and many others, fear is a more total kind of ting. It demands adherence to stric moral and religious ideals.

We did that.

Curtman Curtman:

Unsound Unsound:

The idea now is for them to hold onto their roots and thir history while joining into a larger thing. It's what every immigrant group has done.

They aren't immigrants. We are. And it's the same thing.

What your looking at here, are excerpts from a conversation. Not a whole conversation, but should be enough to get some context. It's more than a single post.

When you read the context, if you still think I was referring to multi-generational Canadians as immigrants, then you may be a dumbass.

No, a dumbass doesn't understand the difference between present and past tense. I'm not here to give you a basic grammar lesson that should have been taught to you in grade school, but when you say "we are", you are talking about the present.
Attempting to contextualize your post doesn't cover up that fact.