Him quoting a source: We have uncovered that Amerindians do not relate with any other worldwide population, according to their HLA genetic profile. The study of chromosome Y haplogroups also supports the uniqueness of Amerindians.
Him: The Calico Dig Site in California seems to place us here 100,000 years ago as our pre-evolved form: Homo-erectus. This flies in the face of the Africa based evolution and supposes we were always here and in fact evolved here. Also, the distribution of haplogroups in Asia are not consistent with the Bering Straight hypothesis. The lack of language and cultural similarities also presents a problem with the "out of Asia" notion. Alright, now find out the mitochondrial past of native Americans. Keeping in mind the fossilized human footprints found that date back 50,000 years and the Calico Dig Site which shows artifacts dating back 100,000 years.
Me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosome_haplogroups_by_populations
Also: Haplogroup Y is a descendant of haplogroup N9.
Distribution
Haplogroup Y has been found in approximately 66% of Nivkhs and approximately 20% of Ainus.[2][3][4][5] However, this haplogroup also has been found in approximately 2% of Koreans,[3] and in South Siberian and Central Asian populations with an average frequency of 1%.[6][7] It is also fairly common among indigenous peoples of Kamchatka and the Malay Archipelago.
Its subclade Y2 has been observed in 40% of a large pool of samples from Nias in western Indonesia.[8]
Subclades
Tree
This phylogenetic tree of haplogroup Y subclades is based on the paper by Mannis van Oven and Manfred Kayser Updated comprehensive phylogenetic tree of global human mitochondrial DNA variation[1] and subsequent published research.
Y
Y1
Y1a
Y1b
Y2
Him: With the thin blanketing of that particular haplogroup in Asia you must assume that the haploid came from here and spread to there. It really seems the only logical answer. Also, if the peoples from those regions came here then the language and culture should at least be similar. However, there are no similarities. Especially when it comes to the evidence that predates the Asian Migration theory. It basically says "You have no right to be here or anywhere else for that matter. This land is the property of Europeans now. Assimilate or die."
Me: Does it matter where it came from? We are one with each other as well all bleed red. If you would like, I can research this further.
Him: It matters because the invaders would like nothing more than to justify their actions.
Me: I don't see anyone pointing a gun and telling anyone what to do. Where you would like to see division, I would like to see union based on the principle that we are all human first and foremost. Just be...
Him: You don’t need an actual gun, you just need indoctrination on the scale that has been produced by America. Little by little, through blood quantum and other stipulations of the Indian Act we are being taken out of the equation. So, if this is your "unity" then you can keep it.
Me: Despite what is written by someone else, does it take away from who you are? It only does IF you allow it. Just BE!
Him: How does one just BE in a society that demands conformity without ultimately leading to a huge revolution in which you are sure to fail due to the overwhelming odds stacked against you by the established order? Remember, we live in a world ruled by religious thought. As such, our own spirituality is drowned out and in some cases killed off. Think residential schools, etc. There can be no just being, not under these circumstances. In order to be as you wish to be you need to be free from this oppression. That takes a serious conflict, not by assimilation.
Me: What is it to be? Do you conform? Odds? Yes. Religion? Yes. Our own spirituality, if we have any, is our own even if morphed by such devises as indoctrination. Are you BEING right now? The world is full of oppression because the masses have allowed the few to control them. It is a matter of allowance at this point.
Him: Even if you have chosen to walk against the current, you still do so with like-minded people. That is conformity in and of itself. The odds stacked against you are the sheer number of people pulling you back into the perceived "norm", whether they do so by force or by the indoctrination of your base support (family). The world is full of oppression that people often don't feel, because they feel it was always as it is. That is their "being". The very thing you wish to break from. So again I ask you, how does one just be in a society that is itself just being (in the sense they are unaware of their oppression or simply don't care)?
Me: Walking against the current would mean walking away from the status quo. If you are with like minded individuals walking upstream, you do so freely and knowingly because you are aware. The odds are always stacked against those who stray from the norm, however, how does one change the norm if one does not go against it? The perceived norm is based on whose perception? It is yours or someone else’s? Can you be forced to perceive or do you just perceive? Are you SELF or are you your family? Is your family made up of individuals who are SELVES perceiving as well? The world is full of oppression and people are aware of it as they experience it. Perhaps those that do not feel oppressed are not oppressed or they have become so used to their condition, they choose to be comfortable in their discomfort. The only way for a person who is comfortable in their discomfort is to become more discomforted to the point it is not comfortable and awareness is then had. The society, in its being, is comprised of individuals. Those individuals ARE. They are beings BEING, however, they are either Joe Norm Conform or Pierre Aware.
Him: Your perceptions are dictated by the input you have received. That is instrumentality.
Me: To perceive is to attain awareness or understanding of <whatever>. One may become aware through senses. What sense will be made of senses is a matter of perception and subjectivity. ~ Arachne ~ 9/6/12 @ 9:14 p.m.
Definition of PERCEPTION 1 a : a result of perceiving : observation (see perceive) b : a mental image : concept 2 obsolete : consciousness 3 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation <color perception> b : physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience 4 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : appreciation b : a capacity for comprehension
No comments:
Post a Comment