"WASHINGTON - New evidence shows humans lived in North America more than 14,000 years ago, 1,000 years earlier than had previously been known.

Discovered in a cave in Oregon, fossil feces yielded DNA indicating these early residents were related to people living in Siberia and East Asia, according to a report in Thursday's online edition of the journal Science....

To make sure the Oregon cave material hadn't been contaminated with modern DNA, the researchers tested more than 50 people who worked at the site. The DNA testing indicated that the feces belonged to Native Americans in two groups that can be traced to Siberia and East Asia."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_on_sc/fossil_feces

Questions for Debate:

1) If the earliest Americans are traced to Siberia or East Asia, are they correctly called "Native" Americans?

2) Since all Americans, including these traced to Siberia or East Asia, came from another continent, who should be correctly called "Native" Americans?

Well, if you trace the patterns of man's movement from his earliest beginnings, I guess we're all Africans. Europeans aren't even European. Asians aren't Asian. The only truly native people on this planet are African, I guess.

Perhaps it's best to do what the Canadians do and call them Aboriginal.

If the earliest Americans are traced to Siberia or East Asia, are they correctly called "Native" Americans?

Absolutely. Every definition of "native" that I could find either uses the word "indigenous" in defining the term or lists "indigenous" as a synonym - or both. Every encyclopedic reference to "indigenous peoples" that I could find linked to articles on "Native Americans" specifically or to "Natives of North, Central, and South America, Aboriginal Australians, etc." The only separate entry just on "indigenous peoples" that I could find was at Wikipedia:
Unless you know of any ethnic group whose ancestors inhabited this continent prior to Native Americans, they are, indeed, indigenous - hence "native".

Since all Americans, including these traced to Siberia or East Asia, came from another continent, who should be correctly called "Native" Americans?

The ethnic group which both inhabits this continent and which has the earliest historical connection. That would be the American Indian or Native American or North American Aboriginal or Person of the First Nation or whatever you want to call them (or us, as I'm about 1/8th Mohawk).

This whole thing strikes me as a purely semantic (and vaguely racist) suggestion. Did you come up with it on your own, quick - or is there some web site that specializes in this sort of crude inanity?

As far as I'm concerned a "Native American" is a person who was born in America. I'm half Comanche by heritage, born in Denver, Colorado. It is my birthplace that makes me a "Native American", not my heritage.


Aquilla

Here ya go Aquilla- I totally agree-

Look at it this way- so many of today's problems are because of who lived on the land a gazzillion years ago.

My family has been in this country for about 200 years, about 50 of those in Alaska.

Okay- some "native Americans" have family that go back farther, but at that point, about 2500 years IIRC, we are all related now- correct?

I believe, that if happened, as far as land ownership, before your great grandparents were born- then we need to cover new ground, and get rid of the past at that point.

Look at Israel, it had not been a country for 2000 years- but we gave them that country back- and now, we have this happening all over the world as well.

I don't want to get into a debate about Israel- but I am making the point- if we keep going back 1000 years to address wrongs, we have a problem that will NEVER go away.

I don't favor reperations for slavery- because it happened before every black person in America's great grandparents were born.

Still dealing with the civil rights era, that happened in my lifetime.

Nope, we need to drop this stuff, it is not helpful for anyone- now, as far as science, and tracking human developement and all that- very important- but using it as something to claim land or something from 14,000 years ago? Puh leaze.

If a baby was born in, say France, and moved to the U.S. when he is five years old, serves in the military and becomes a naturalized citizen, is he still French? Or vice-versa, if a "Native American" moved to France at five?

By the strict definition of the word "native", Websters gives us this.....



So, by the strictest definition of the word "native", no your French baby would not be considered a "native American". However, if he were born in France, or say, Panama (which is where I know you are going with this), of parents who are American citizens, he would also be an American citizen by birth and thus eligible under the US Constitution to hold the office of President of the United States.


Aquilla

That's not the strictest, Aquilla. That's the simplest.


Actually, where was I going with this is can foreigners really be Americans if they're raised here. If you don't think so that explains a lot about status quo suspicion towards immigrants.

BTW, is the French baby just French? Can he also be a French American? Can I have the status quo's leave on this?

If the earliest Americans are traced to Siberia or East Asia, are they correctly called "Native" Americans?
I don't have more to add after Wertz's post. I think he says it all.

The operative term here is "native", not American. Of course "foreigners" can be Americans, they do it all the time. If you actually researched my posts here on immigration, you'd probably be surprised at my stance on it. You might also be interested in reading a thread I started quite some time ago about modifying the US Constitution to allow naturalized citizens the right to become President of the United States. So, quite frankly, if you're asking me to define the "status quo", you aren't going to get it. I didn't make up the term "Native American" to describe American Indians. I don't use the term, never have. If someone asks me about my birth heritage, I tell them I'm half Comanche and about half Norwegian. Not really sure on the second half.


Aquilla

Well, the problem here, obviously, is the damned English language again. "Native" has more than one definition. So it is correct to say that anyone born in the USA is a "native" ("belonging to a person by birth") - just as we have native New Yorkers, native Hoosiers, native Cajuns, etc. - this is our "native land". But it is also correct that our aboriginal people can properly be described as "Native Americans" with the definition of "native" as "belonging by birth to a people regarded as indigenous to a certain place".

We're addressing two different meanings of one word, both of which are technically correct. Beyond that, it's just semantic quibbling.

This entire thread reminds me of those hucksters and b.s. artists who assert Jesus was Black and Africans were building great civilizations and making incredible advances in science, art, medicine and culture while Caucasians were slipping around on ice and bashing each other on the noggin with rocks.

The only Native Americans are the original indigenous people known as Indians who made the fatal mistake of showing goodness and mercy upon those dumb Pilgrims and instead of letting them freeze and starve, saved them and in return were slaughtered and massacred almost into extinction.

There is an endless pursuit by fanatics to rewrite history to fit their own racialist fantasies. Here we have just the latest version of this nonsense.

It is somewhat fitting that these so-called discoveries are based upon centuries-old feces.

Gives a whole new meaning to being "full of it."

I have no problem with using the term Native Americans to refer to people with indigenous heritage. It's less stupid than Indians, being as those are the indigenous people of India.

I also think you have a right to claim a place as your own if nobody else lives there, in 1200 BC. Sure beats jumping off a ship, sticking a flag in the ground and claiming the place. That's arrogant and sure enough, war follows. Or like in the suburbs near or in the mountains, the puma comes along and eats your poodle.

Guess they don't know about zoning laws.

Until someone comes up with a better way of indicating that people actually lived on this continent before Europeans showed up, I'm sticking with Native American. As for being born in this country, the term is native American, and for being naturalized, it's naturalized American or citizen.

This doesn't seem to be catching on, but I kinda like Mutt American too.

American itself is arrogant. However, USian doesn't have flow, and United Statsian is really clumsy. Columbian is better, but that's been taken. Washingtonian is overused and confusing. Earthling is a bit generalized.

So what happens when we go really abroad? "Hi, I'm a Milkywayian."

Then there are the rules about whether its Coloradian or Coloradan. Really, there are rules for this. And oddly enough, we have Native bumper stickers. Birthplace pride is quite the thing in this square state.

Must be the transcient population. Hey, lookit me! I GOT BORN RIGHT HERE! Not like you, who got born somewhere else and probably don't remember the event.

Slightly related, here's a funny song about the use of the word American:
I am not an American