Open Linux Forums
Like Ubuntu forums, except with beer.
Member
Joined: Oct 06 2017
Posts: 179

I think it's a good thing when people use the word native and not original when referring to Indians. It's one of those immense lies from shitass classic academics about our history. There's a lot of evidence that The Americas were inhabited thousands of years before the mongoloide type set foot. In fact, some small groups are still left in the southern tip, Terra del fuego. And what's more, they were African/Aboriginals.

Member
Joined: Oct 06 2017
Posts: 179

Oh, btw.. What happened to those people right? Well, their rockpaintings suggest that they were quite a peacefull people.No signs of violence, even erotic paintings. But, at some point they started painting scenes of violence, killing. That point in time coincided with the arrival of Mongoloides. They were most likely nearly wiped out by them.

Administrator
avatar
Joined: Oct 04 2017
Posts: 396

Define "Mongoloid"?

Administrator
Joined: Nov 08 2017
Posts: 1027

Leppie wrote:

Define "Mongoloid"?

The expression is legitimite. It has a certain negative connotation in "street language" referring to people with Downs Syndrome, but Cromag is not incorrect using it to refer to indigenous races in the Americas.

Wikipedia

Administrator
avatar
Joined: Jan 06 2018
Posts: 1718

According to Webster's, mongoloid has been in acceptable use for decades.

Sometimes when I talk to Indians they say they prefer "Indian". Other times it's "Native American". I"ve never heard the term "Original" until now. The closest I've heard is Aboriginy but that refers to Australians. Wrong continent by 1/3 world and hemisphere.

Administrator
Joined: Nov 08 2017
Posts: 1027

warfacegod wrote:

...The closest I've heard is Aboriginy but that refers to Australians.

  1. Aborigine or Aboriginal

  2. It's actually more or less a generic term, it is just that it has been particularly associated with the indigenous peoples of Australia. I have heard or read it in association with other countries.

Wikipedia (again...)

Administrator
avatar
Joined: Jan 06 2018
Posts: 1718

audiomick spell check strikes again.

Member
Joined: Oct 06 2017
Posts: 179

Noone knows how they got there. More landmass during iceages maybe. On the other hand, the oldest painting of a quite big boat can actually be found in Australia. Age unknown. A big margin of somewhere between 10 and 50000 years old. What is certain however, they made the trip.

Member
Joined: Oct 06 2017
Posts: 179

What is certain though is that our history has been systematically denied. I'm glad there's a new breed of scientists who start to rise, questioning the classic academicals. In a lot of fields. For example.History. It still is teached the wrong way. Go to a school, enter the historyclass and you'll find that they still teach kids the origin of civilization began somewhere in Mesopotamia, say, 6000 years ago. There is plenty of proof that it started waaaay further back in time. At least 12000 years ago. Not only in Turkey/Syria but pretty much around the world. And there's increasing (well, they did)those people had a very advanced technology. Plenty of things can't even be achieved nowadays. Anyway, the oldest (so far)temple-like complex is the site of Gobekli Tepe. It's still quite "rudimentary"one could say. But there are many many sites indicating that the knowledge is mindblowing. !https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

Administrator
avatar
Joined: Oct 04 2017
Posts: 396

audiomick wrote:

The expression is legitimite.

I know the term is legitimate. Not sure how much the relationship with the "Indians" is though.