Native Americans

[Laudanum]

Hello,

I have been having a discussion with a friend of mine about Native Americans.
I know some people would not call them Native Americans because they are convinced that there were vikings living there before them, but i'll just call them Native Americans instead of Indians to avoid confusion with people from India.

Could someone tell me where Native Americans really come from? I have been searching on the net and every website told another story.

Another thing, what are the biggest racial differences between them and white people? I'm just wondering, that's all. I know they can look different, but when, for example, a white person mixes with a Native American person many white characteristics stay dominant, instead of a negro mixing with a white.

Maybe it's a dumb question and maybe not, but I am only wondering about those things, so I hope someone can explain it to me.:thumbs up

[Sol Invictus]

They taught us in school that the Natives crossed the land bridge between Alaska and Russia. Don't tell the Natives that. They seem convinced they sprouted out of the ground.

[Jägerstaffel]

http://othersidedmusic.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/mongolia1.jpg


Read the file name for clarification.

[Laudanum]

So in the end they would have asian roots?

[SilverFish]

Would you like to see my dad? He has native american ancestry, and you would probably not believe your eyes if you saw him. Would you like me to pm the pictures to you?

As far as I know, Native Americans are their own race. They came from Siberia and traveled as far from Alaska to the Eastern united States.

They are very diverse in body types as the one in the SouthWestern United States are round headed and very short as the ones in the Eastern United States are the tallest in the world, ranging from 6'0 to 6'2 and have a very dilocelphalic head with a heavy supraorbital bulge.

We may never know how they got their robustity from so some people are guessing they got it from the Cromagnids from NW Europe.

[Laudanum]

Hmm... Looks like everyone still has his own version of the story.:D

[Lars]

So in the end they would have asian roots?

Yes.

http://gmed.bu.edu/about/images/human_migration.jpg
http://rosalieee.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/human-migration.jpg
Journey of mankind (http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/)

[Laudanum]

Yes.

http://gmed.bu.edu/about/images/human_migration.jpg
http://rosalieee.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/human-migration.jpg
Journey of mankind (http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/)

Thank you for clearing that up, Lars. But when looking to a picture of Native Americans they do not look pure asian. Yes ok, a bit, but is it possible they mixed with something else?

[LoneWolf]

They are ethnically Mongoloid. So yes "asian" even tho they are not in asia.

[SilverFish]

They probably not have mixed with any other race. They simply evolved due to walking many miles.

[Laudanum]

They are ethnically Mongoloid. So yes "asian" even tho they are not in asia.

But they look different from pure Mongoloids..

[Lars]

But they look different from pure Mongoloids..

Living thousands of years in a very different environment will do that do you. Every heard of evolution?`You will adapt to the environment or die.

[Kadu]

They are ethnically Mongoloid. So yes "asian" even tho they are not in asia.

They are ethnically Cherokee, Iroquois, Navajo, etc... but the term Mongoloid doesn't designate any ethnicity but a phenotypical spectrum.
BTW, Native Americans diverge, at least, thirty thousand years from East Asians, so during that time those populations evolved differently.

[Stefan]

I have always thought, irregardless of what is taught in school, that Native American groups came in waves. The first being a very distant Australoid group that probably went extinct long before the others, though there isn't very much proof for this. Then I think Proto-Eurasian groups, meaning before "Mongoloid" and "Caucasoid" came over and present the majority in the Eastern part of the U.S and Canada, though not so much in the North. Then finally, and the most impacting group being the ones taught in school, the mongoloid groups. They probably displaced the Proto-Mongoloids as well as mixed with them and that is why Amerindians differ so much. South Americans and Western Natives look more Mongoloid than eastern ones, yet the Eastern ones aren't full Proto-Eurasian themeselves. I don't know how valid or relative my "theory" with very little basis other than some "caucasoid looking" skulls is, but that is something that just sprouted in my mind ever since I read about "caucasoids" and "mongoloids" and the other macrogroups.

Edit: See I know my people. ;)

[Frigga]

Maybe a reason for the Eastern Native Americans looking more Caucasoid is that there may be more to the old tale of the Vikings actually making it over to North America 500 years before Columbus, and there being some form of interbreeding. I imagine that even just a little bit of European admixture over several hundred years could contribute to the evolution of their phenotype. We have no way of knowing though, but it's an interesting thing to speculate on.

[Stefan]

Maybe a reason for the Eastern Native Americans looking more Caucasoid is that there may be more to the old tale of the Vikings actually making it over to North America 500 years before Columbus, and there being some form of interbreeding. I imagine that even just a little bit of European admixture over several hundred years could contribute to the evolution of their phenotype. We have no way of knowing though, but it's an interesting thing to speculate on.

Well the Vikings did make some settlement in North America from what I've read, and what they teach us in school now - We actually watched a documentary about it. I don't think the few hundred people that were here though would have a big impact on the racial level of the Natives even if all of them stayed/mixed. Still, we could consider some other European travel through the same method of transversing islands in the Atlantic and then settling on the main continent. They would have to have ships like the vikings though that were meant to travel in that dangerous region.

Edit: Btw when I say proto-eurasian, I'm talking about groups like the Ainu of Japan. They retain many features from before the differentiation between Caucasoids and Mongoloids. Another word for it is Proto-Mongoloid(in Asia/North America) or Proto-Caucasoid(in Europe).

[Eldritch]

Well, the Vikings never had any permanent settlements in North America -- the skraelings were very immigration-critical, you see. ;)

So I'd guess that whatever admixture there may be it's quite insignificant.

[Allenson]

Big topic, lots of questions!

Very briefly, I suspect a three-fold settlement of the Americas--one, and very minor in contribution, might be a few stragglers from the south Pacific reaching far southern South America.

Next, and again, likely small in contribution would be the Solutrean hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis). This posits that some people made the northern, island-hoping trek across the North Atlantic from western Europe all the way to eastern North America. To this day, eastern woodland Indians (or, what's left of them--very few!) physically resemble Europeans more than other Indians. Particularly the nose & orbits--rather Cro-Magnonish in my humble opinon.

Lastly, I don't think that there's much doubt anymore that the bulk of American Indians descend from people who crossed the Bering land bridge and entered North America by that route. This probably happened in waves and via different routes through ice free corridors and along the coast in boats.

[lei.talk]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Migration_map4.png/350px-Migration_map4.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Pre-history)

[Hrolf Kraki]

Well, the Vikings never had any permanent settlements in North America -- the skraelings were very immigration-critical, you see. ;)

So I'd guess that whatever admixture there may be it's quite insignificant.

Yes, most certainly. The settlement in L'Anse aux Meadows lasted only 20 years (1000 - 1020) due to extreme climate changes. Any potential babies born to Native American women by Viking men would have virtually no affect whatsoever on the traits of the millions of natives.

However, the settlement in Greenland did last quite a bit longer and there is evidence of settlers crossing the Davis Strait for lumber as late as the 1340s.

[Stefan]

Big topic, lots of questions!

Very briefly, I suspect a three-fold settlement of the Americas--one, and very minor in contribution, might be a few stragglers from the south Pacific reaching far southern South America.

Next, and again, likely small in contribution would be the Solutrean hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis). This posits that some people made the northern, island-hoping trek across the North Atlantic from western Europe all the way to eastern North America. To this day, eastern woodland Indians (or, what's left of them--very few!) physically resemble Europeans more than other Indians. Particularly the nose & orbits--rather Cro-Magnonish in my humble opinon.

Lastly, I don't think that there's much doubt anymore that the bulk of American Indians descend from people who crossed the Bering land bridge and entered North America by that route. This probably happened in waves and via different routes through ice free corridors and along the coast in boats.

Hm, that is similar to my theory. Except you think the European-look comes from actual Europeans and the Australoid look of the south comes from more recent Australoids instead of an ancient ancestors of the two. Quite interesting. :D

[SilverFish]

I have to disagree with the theories here.

At first, I thought NorthEastern Indians(Maine to North Carolina) have some admixture from the Cromagnid people. Their nose looks almost like faelish(which is characteristically prominent and broad), and their square jaw and heavy supraorbital bulge are comparable to Bruenn. They are also broad shouldered and tall and lean.


However, I don't think they receive any of that from the Cromagnid groups. If you take a look at South America and their Indians, you can see that they don't look pure Asian at all.

I think it is due to adaptations and the environment that they have adapted to for many years.

The NorthEastern Indians were hunter-gatherers as they hunted buffalo for foods. The meat they got were plentiful and full of protein which helped them get a lot of testosterone and look more masculine.

In the SouthWest, not so much as they don't have any large animals that they got their energy from. They weren't much hunter-gathers...

In conclusion, it's the environment that changed their phenotype.

[Óttar]

Well, Euros came from Central Asia if you go back far enough. Native American is a term which fits because the Vikings were only up in the north.

[Osweo]

I read and read about these Indians in the northeast, and the only pictures you get are rubbishy old paintings or shoddy old sepia prints.

Does anyone have any decent modern colour pics of a modern Indian with clean hair, good nutrition and normal western clothes? Or are they all mixed now?

[Óttar]

There are plenty of full-blooded Native Americans. I see a great many at the annual Indian Market in Santa Fe. There are however, also many who have light eyes and facial hair, an obvious sign of mixture.

[Cato]

For Heathens, you ought to look at Amerindians as you look at yourselves- as products of their respective lands and associated religious traditions. Most traditional Amerindians consider themselves to be native to the western hemisphere and not the progeny of immigrants across the Bering Strait. More open-minded ones'll follow usual secular opinions but still emphasize native cultures to some degree or another.

For Christians, you should accept that Jehovah created the human race and divided it into different and distinct nations after the Noahic flood and the tower of Babel incident. The Amerindians have various traditions of the one true God, such as Wakan-Tanka of the Sioux, that you ought to respect- as revered a leader of Black Elk (Sioux) accepted the truth of the Christian revelation and the mission of Jesus as much as he accepted the appearance of White Buffalo Calf Woman among his own tribal people (tribes being what we all identify with in the end, correct?), when she brought the first Peace Pipe to the Sioux tribes. Slandering these people is, to me, the same as slandering any of the more urban, settled tribes of Europe; just because they live in tipis or longhouses, or call God by names like Wakan or Manitou, doesn't make them any less worthy of respect than settled folk like the Han Chinese or Indo-Iranian Aryans (to say nothing of the European folk of course!).

Amerindians are the forebearers of the Europeans in the western hemisphere, just as, say, the pre-Indo-Europeans (Old Europeans according to feminist scholar Marija Gimbutas) were the forebearers of the Indo-Europeans in Europe proper. Many European-descended people in the western hemisphere have Amerindian ancestry, I may very well be one of them as a matter of fact, and this hardly makes me a mongoloid. Rather, it creates a powerful connection to my homeland- just as pre-Indo-European blood creates a strong connection to Mother Europe for any European living there today. Anyone who claims to be a purely-descended European is full of shit because there's no such thing- 100% white and purely-descended back to Adam and Eve or Ask and Embla? Hahaha! Admixture of non-white is something that I've accepted, and it doesn't mean that I'm a race-mixer now. My good ancestors, whoever they were and are, are a part of my genetic makeup, but, even if they weren't white folk, it doesn't dishonor who I am now.

[Cato]

P.S. For anyone who thinks that European explorers and colonists civilized the Americas, they should actually visit and study locales in said areas, such as the areas of the Mississippian culture perchance, or the old Maya heartlands, and talk to actual Amerindians, who weren't skraelings (nor were they the noble savages ala Pathfinder either; they were men with the strengths and weaknesses thereof) and who had a pretty decent life before Leif Ericson.

[Stefan]

For Heathens, you ought to look at Amerindians as you look at yourselves- as products of their respective lands and associated religious traditions. Most traditional Amerindians consider themselves to be native to the western hemisphere and not the progeny of immigrants across the Bering Strait. More open-minded ones'll follow usual secular opinions but still emphasize native cultures to some degree or another.

For Christians, you should accept that Jehovah created the human race and divided it into different and distinct nations after the Noahic flood and the tower of Babel incident. The Amerindians have various traditions of the one true God, such as Wakan-Tanka of the Sioux, that you ought to respect- as revered a leader of Black Elk (Sioux) accepted the truth of the Christian revelation and the mission of Jesus as much as he accepted the appearance of White Buffalo Calf Woman among his own tribal people (tribes being what we all identify with in the end, correct?), when she brought the first Peace Pipe to the Sioux tribes. Slandering these people is, to me, the same as slandering any of the more urban, settled tribes of Europe; just because they live in tipis or longhouses, or call God by names like Wakan or Manitou, doesn't make them any less worthy of respect than settled folk like the Han Chinese or Indo-Iranian Aryans (to say nothing of the European folk of course!).


I don't know where this is getting to, but what about the non-religous people like myself?


Amerindians are the forebearers of the Europeans in the western hemisphere, just as, say, the pre-Indo-Europeans (Old Europeans according to feminist scholar Marija Gimbutas) were the forebearers of the Indo-Europeans in Europe proper.

This comparison doesn't make much sense in my opimion. The "Old Europeans" weren't replaced, they just changed their culture and language as that of Indo-Europeans expanded. In the New World one group "replaced" the other for dominance in all aspects(including race), not just culture and language. Even more so, it should be safe to say that "racially" Indo-Europeans were much closer to "Old Europeans" than Europeans to Amerindians, even without knowing who the Indo-Europeans were in totality and how much impact they had in other aspects not including culture.

[Eldritch]

P.S. For anyone who thinks that European explorers and colonists civilized the Americas, they should actually visit and study locales in said areas, such as the areas of the Mississippian culture perchance, or the old Maya heartlands, and talk to actual Amerindians, who weren't skraelings (nor were they the noble savages ala Pathfinder either; they were men with the strengths and weaknesses thereof) and who had a pretty decent life before Leif Ericson.

I for one used the word skraeling ironically. Besides as far as I know, the Vikings themselves didn't attach any derogatory meaning to the word.

But don't get me started on Pathfinder -- I hated that film. :mad:

[Allenson]

I read and read about these Indians in the northeast, and the only pictures you get are rubbishy old paintings or shoddy old sepia prints.

Does anyone have any decent modern colour pics of a modern Indian with clean hair, good nutrition and normal western clothes? Or are they all mixed now?

A few photos--some old, some recent. And yes, the few woodland indians that there are left are likely not 'pure blood'.

A Micmac woman from Nova Scotia:

http://www.annapolisheritagesociety.com/Micmac.jpg.jpg

Here are a few recent shots of Donna Loring, a representative for the Penobscot Indians in Maine. She's quite strongly Indian in pheotype, given her tribe and at this point in history:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LgtnwsfsFew/SFdvaD8fg3I/AAAAAAAAAVo/lkjvAvnk7P8/s400/165755-DonnaLoring-JCR.jpg

http://media.indiancountrytoday.com/images/Loring.jpg

http://www.bangorbookfest.org/2009%20author%20images/Donna%20Loring2.jpg

http://www.danielnpaul.com/scan_image/DonnaLoring.jpg

This guy is supposedly a Pequot from Massachussetts but he looks mixed with African to me:

http://www.theresident.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/mpmrc-a2.jpg


Oh boy! I just hit a treasure trove:

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~amciv/FromTheGospelToSovereignty.htm

Scroll down through this page of panelists/speakers and anyone with a tribal name after their own name, apparently is an Indian.

[Hrolf Kraki]

P.S. For anyone who thinks that European explorers and colonists civilized the Americas, they should actually visit and study locales in said areas, such as the areas of the Mississippian culture perchance, or the old Maya heartlands, and talk to actual Amerindians, who weren't skraelings (nor were they the noble savages ala Pathfinder either; they were men with the strengths and weaknesses thereof) and who had a pretty decent life before Leif Ericson.

The Mayan's empire collapsed because of their constant practice of human sacrifice and from my readings of Bernal Diaz, the Indians subject to the Mexicans were very grateful to the Spanish for their help in overthrowing the Aztec Empire. I'm arguing that in some instances, their lives weren't so decent and became better through Spanish influence. However, I do agree that overall the natives would have been just fine without the European arrival.

[Cato]

I for one used the word skraeling ironically. Besides as far as I know, the Vikings themselves didn't attach any derogatory meaning to the word.

But don't get me started on Pathfinder -- I hated that film. :mad:

I've some people use the term skraeling in a pejorative manner, which doesn't sit well with me. I don't have much of an opinion on the Mesoamericans, but I do have a high opinion of the Amerinds in the northeastern U.S., proximity and all, and what I know of their history.

Pathfinder was an ass film, and that's all I'll say about it.

[Cato]

The Mayan's empire collapsed because of their constant practice of human sacrifice and from my readings of Bernal Diaz, the Indians subject to the Mexicans were very grateful to the Spanish for their help in overthrowing the Aztec Empire. I'm arguing that in some instances, their lives weren't so decent and became better through Spanish influence. However, I do agree that overall the natives would have been just fine without the European arrival.

That's a point that should be stressed- that for the sophistication of the Mesoamerican cultures they were still the cultivators of a bloody-handed religion. However, this wasn't the mass of the Aztecan and Mayan people that engaged in human sacrifice but the upper crust of their societies. I imagine that the regular folk just worshipped as they still do today.

[SilverFish]

Here's a good Margid type Native American.

http://waddell.ci.manchester.ct.us/images-2007-2008/Nov%20pr/chartier.JPG

[SilverFish]

I have to say. This guy got some serious angle.

http://www.coventryps.org/ghr/z-images/dsc00437.jpg

[Cato]

^He's a striking fellow in a rustic manner. A native in buckskins is an impressive sight to behold- or one to scorn when it's a white wannabe.

[Electronic God-Man]

I've wondered...most Indians died because of diseases brought from the Old World (not just Europe but Africa too). People cry and moan about it, but would it have been preventable?

The Amerindians were rather susceptible to disease it appears. Wouldn't the two worlds, Old and New, have eventually made contact and killed off the Amerindians who were so susceptible anyway?

Just some half-thoughts.

[Rusalka]

the Indians subject to the Mexicans were very grateful to the Spanish for their help in overthrowing the Aztec Empire.

Well, that depends on your source. While some say what you stated, others argue that what the Spanish did was, in a very Machiavellian move, put the tribes against each other and then offer themselves as "arbitrators", with the results known to all of us. Another factor often mentioned for the defeat of the Aztecs is the high religiosity of the Aztec leaders, who saw the arrival of the Spanish as a message from the gods, and were reluctant to fight them back.


this wasn't the mass of the Aztecan and Mayan people that engaged in human sacrifice but the upper crust of their societies

Indeed and it was quite the honor. They still had to be drugged before the rituals because their surival instincts always kicked in at some point.

[Hrolf Kraki]

Well, that depends on your source. While some say what you stated, others argue that what the Spanish did was, in a very Machiavellian move, put the tribes against each other and then offer themselves as "arbitrators", with the results known to all of us. Another factor often mentioned for the defeat of the Aztecs is the high religiosity of the Aztec leaders, who saw the arrival of the Spanish as a message from the gods, and were reluctant to fight them back.



Indeed and it was quite the honor. They still had to be drugged before the rituals because their surival instincts always kicked in at some point.

My source? Bernal Diaz. He was there. They didn't need to do much convincing to place tribes in opposition to the Mexicans as the Mexicans were hated by pretty much every other tribe in the area.

[The Khagan]

They are ethnically Mongoloid. So yes "asian" even tho they are not in asia.

How is one ethnically mongoloid? Mongoloid is a phenotype, which is somewhat intrinsic with ethnicity, but not always so.

Also, population genetics of Native Americans show that they came from one founder population that developed in Beringia during the last ice age. Genetically, they're pretty homogeneous, demonstrated by the fact that European diseases worked so well against virtually all of them. However, there is an argument about the origins of the Fuegians who live on the southernmost tip of South America who display clear Australoid features. There has been contact between Oceania and South America, as evidenced by the fact that there are Sweet Potatoes in Polynesia and Melanesia, but this trade was relatively recent I believe.

[Eldritch]

How is one ethnically mongoloid? Mongoloid is a phenotype, which is somewhat intrinsic with ethnicity, but not always so.

Also, population genetics of Native Americans show that they came from one founder population that developed in Beringia during the last ice age. Genetically, they're pretty homogeneous, demonstrated by the fact that European diseases worked so well against virtually all of them. However, there is an argument about the origins of the Fuegians who live on the southernmost tip of South America who display clear Australoid features. There has been contact between Oceania and South America, as evidenced by the fact that there are Sweet Potatoes in Polynesia and Melanesia, but this trade was relatively recent I believe.

Welcome to the Apricity, Arngrim.

May I ask you to post an introduction thread here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7), as is customary for new members?

[OneWolf]

Here are some things you might find interesting about Native Americans.
First, a lot of the tribes use the Swastika and Thunderbird as symbols.
Second,they do the "Heil Hitler" salute which means well being or peace.
And third there was another race of people in America whenever these
people crossed the "Land Bridge" into North America.Almost all Natives
have a story about another group of people that they defeated that was here
before them.Kennewick Man comes to mind and here is a link describing him

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/hive/Kenn-Man/Kennewic.htm


And probably one of the most fascinating finds to me is the Spirit Cave mummy.The Pauite Indians still tell the tale about how their ancestors
cornered and exterminated Red-Headed giants in a cave in Nevada.

xppOQnAAIZA

[Piparskeggr]

Just a short note...my great great grandmother was a Mohawk infant adopted by French-Canadians, so not much of an identity for me.

I've long thought that there were several different "Peoplings" of the Americas, of which the proto-Sino-Mongoloid tribes folk were the most numerous and successful.

My grampa Harold always said he got his "Roman nose" from his Mohawk grandmother, his daughter Charlotte also has it. The one picture I have of his mother; she doesn't seem to have it, neither did my dad, he had the Burke nose.

(My great grandmother)
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=11&pictureid=1056

Good discussion, though.

[Pallantides]

Hello,

I have been having a discussion with a friend of mine about Native Americans.
I know some people would not call them Native Americans because they are convinced that there were vikings living there before them, but i'll just call them Native Americans instead of Indians to avoid confusion with people from India.

They must be mentally challenged.

[Cato]

Just a short note...my great great grandmother was a Mohawk infant adopted by French-Canadians, so not much of an identity for me.



A lot of American citizens have Amerindian ancestry. Supposedly, I've got Cayuga and Seneca ancestors, but I've never been able to confirm or deny this.

[Piparskeggr]

A lot of American citizens have Amerindian ancestry. Supposedly, I've got Cayuga and Seneca ancestors, but I've never been able to confirm or deny this.

I'd heard about the Mohawk relationship for all my life, but was only able to make the actual connection last year.

[Fire Haired]

Hello,

I have been having a discussion with a friend of mine about Native Americans.
I know some people would not call them Native Americans because they are convinced that there were vikings living there before them, but i'll just call them Native Americans instead of Indians to avoid confusion with people from India.

Could someone tell me where Native Americans really come from? I have been searching on the net and every website told another story.

Another thing, what are the biggest racial differences between them and white people? I'm just wondering, that's all. I know they can look different, but when, for example, a white person mixes with a Native American person many white characteristics stay dominant, instead of a negro mixing with a white.

Maybe it's a dumb question and maybe not, but I am only wondering about those things, so I hope someone can explain it to me.:thumbs up

Native Americansa are in the Mongloid Oceania race here is a link that explains it http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?84361-All-Human-Races-According-to-DNA
they are also in the Mongloid subgroup of the Mongoloid Oceania race native Americans have specific and unqiue mtDNA haplogroups which are passed down from mother to children it is a direct lineage like a lastname but it comes from moms 95% of Native American mtDNAs are descended from the six founding mothers of the A2, B2, C1b, Cc, C1d, and D1 sub-haplogroups these mothers are dated as 18,000-21,000 years old no one in the world has these specific subclades which means they originated in America and native Americans ancestors where already settled in America at least 18,000-21,000ybp and since 95% of Native Americans have these mtDNA grouops that means 18,000-21,000ybp was around the time of the founding family of all Native Americans and they probably lived around the Bering Straight or in northern Canada.

The other 5% is composed of the X2a, X2g D2, D3, C4, and D4h3 sub-haplogroups all of these groups are only found in Native Americans except X2a which is also found in Galilean Druze in Isreal mtDNA X2 is a Caucasin haplogroup here is link where it explains how there was a migration of Caucasians probably from the mid east possible Europe to north America 15,000-20,000ybp.http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...g-DNA-evidence

The oldest remains of human settlement are in Bluefishes in Yukon Canada right next to Alaska they are Mammoth bones that appear to have been chipped by Humans and are dated as 28,000 years old, there are pieces of charcoal from south Carolina that are 16,000-20,000 years old. there are multiple spots in north and south America of Human skeletal remains and signs of human settlement that are 14,000-15,000 years old there has also been DNA taken from two 14,300 year old peices of human crap in oregan both had specfic native American mtDNA subclades of haplogroup B2 and C2 and since there are human remains in north and South America from this time and now DNA from them proves they where Native Americans ancestors this also means this family all native Americans are apart of already was spread out in north and south America 14,000-15,000ybp which probably means they first migrated to America over 20,000ybp

so native americans ancestors from what we know where the first Americans so native american is a accurate name for them
it is true that it seems that caucasins probably from the mid east possibly europe came to america 15,000-20,000ybp but what probably happened is native americans ancestors in northeast asian inter married with caucasins in the mid east then tehy brough a Caucasin X2 mtDNA haplogroup to america

also La Dene people liek Inuit are from another family that came 6,000-10,000ybp but they are the closest relatives to native americans and orignally came from the same family like 30,000-40,000ybp

a 42,000 year old DNA sample from northeast china near Bejing had mtDNA B4'5 which is still common in Mongoloid today its austomnal DNA was in they ancestor family of all Mongoloids including native americans

[Gorštak]

There is one wonderful book about them
http://www.zaslike.com/files/gxthkx0ap6rftygr2omq.jpg