When are the Comanche members gonna apologize to us Apache members for stealing our land and horses? [I Love Native Americans]

@SW-User To sail from Asia to the south Americas and then walk north, but same difference. I will not rest until the northern Souix get what they deserve from the southern Souix. Those land grabbers.

@uncleshawn so it was the souix?

@SW-User ??

@uncleshawn which one was the first Native American tribe to walk across the ice? They are the rightful owners of the land

@SW-User I don't think they came that way, but anyway.... There are no tribe designations for people that long ago. You are talking the beginning of the Pre-Columbian people.

@uncleshawn which way they came in? In your opinion

@SW-User Used boats to south Americas and walked to the north. People may have walked in from the north, too. The idea of people walking in from the north has been the dominant idea because it was believed the further back in time, the dumber the people (evolution), and therefore long ago people could not have been smart enough to come across in boats and therefore they did not. The evidence of peoples arriving by boats in the south is now overwhelming and breaking down the mainstream view. It takes a lot of time to break down old wrong ideas, but the dominant incorrect view will eventually die.

@uncleshawn why would they walk towards north though?

@SW-User That's what people do. They break into groups, and keep moving away from one another in those groups. Then sub-groups, and on and on.

@uncleshawn but why north? They’re not stupid right? They know that the further north you go,the harder it will become to stay alive

@SW-User It's not very complex. 1. If they came from the north, why would they venture all the way down south when they didn't need to, and going through and into areas that are less livable than north america? The argument against the opposing view defeats the argument for the current dominant view. 2. If staying in the far north is "stupid", then why did they stay there? This idea is self-defeating. 3. The American tribes have oral histories of why tribes moved far north. But, this is rather moot because of point 2.

@uncleshawn if they came from mongolia and they had a compass(which they did) it’s really likely that they chose the shortest route across instead of doing a loop down south though don’t you think? They didn’t think it’s stupid. They have always lived there. Had no knowledge of warmer climates down south until they actually travelled down there no? Sounds logical

@SW-User I think you are steeped in a view and have difficulty thinking out of it, which is normal. Did you not question this view when you were first told to believe it? 1.No one has the position that people from Mongolia went by boats to the south. They came from south Asia and moved east. 2. Are you unaware of the view that people came up from the south? (There are other views, as well, but we'll just stick with this to make it very simple.) There are plenty of experts who are proponents of it. 3. To go far south, people had to cross *out of* better land to *enter into* worse land. Your argument seems to think they turned around and came back. If that is not the argument, then what is the argument?

@uncleshawn natives didn’t come from south Asia though. Where did you hear that?

@SW-User Your arguments are so far self-defeating. Except the one about going to the south from Mongolia, which an argument against a position that no one has. There ARE arguments for the mainstream view, but you are not articulating them. Seriously...slow down a bit...your arguments are self-defeating.

@uncleshawn so again..where did you hear that people crossed from south asia? It’s not like that no one has but the Chinese history dates pretty far back man.

@SW-User You are way behind, my friend. That peoples came from Asia by boat is in the mainstream now. What the "experts" are debating and looking for evidence of is how many and where exactly did they move to and such. I don't know what to say. You are behind, and I think you are very much repeating what you have been told and not thinking it through.

@uncleshawn okay but can you provide a link where any historian claims that the first settlers came from south asia? So i can can catch up

@SW-User From south Asia eastward, not from China. There may have been travel westward into south Americas, but I am keeping it as simple as possible for now.

@uncleshawn the link please. Not your own thoughts. Keep it simple

@SW-User No one knows who exactly was first and from exactly where they came, but the view that people came from Asia to the South Americas and is now in the mainstream. Not that I care it is in the mainstream; I held that view *before* it got in the mainstream because of evidence and logic. .....I have followed this issue for several decades. If you are interested in it, you can find plenty of information for the various views and the various evidences for them -- archaeological, linguistic, etc.

@uncleshawnif you have studied it for decades,you must have sources you base your theory on. That’s the one im interested in

@SW-User You are seriously interested in this? I have read many sources over the years. Don't remember them all, obviously, but I have several right here in front of me. How about you? You presented self-defeating arguments so far (not trying to be rude), so what you have left is a view which you hold to regardless. So, I pose the question to you: Where did you hear that view? And after you heard that view, why did you believe it? ....If you are sincere, then first deal with the what, how, and why of your own view. That's what I did when I was taught it. I did not simply accept it and repeat it.

@uncleshawn because im hungarian and nobody really knows how we ended up in Central Europe as outsiders. Our language has nothing to do with other languages around us. We are not slavic . We are not Asian. That’s what sparked it all. We came from northern asia it seems like. We were the ones travelled south. We were not the ones who crossed over though. Those were the mongolians. Not the Chinese. I actually had to made my wife translate ancient Chinese history for me to learn more. They actually have detailed history going back probably further than any other nation. They have records of us as well as mongolians leaving the continent

@SW-User Yah, Hungarian history is interesting. And there's an important point: "experts" disagree greatly about things in more recent history, so they are very ignorant of what really happened thousands and thousands of years ago. Just theories.

If you have a good idea where Hungarian people came from, I am interested. A lot of mystery there.

People are taught theories in school as if they are facts. The idea of people crossing a land bridge to north America is a very loose idea. Very Very little evidence for it. Now, the "experts" know this, but it is taught in schools and on tv as if it is established fact.

The Mongolia land bride idea was always a very loose idea. In the 1990s the "experts" began to propose other ideas. At present, there are various ideas. The land bridge idea is slowly losing ground.

The earliest known American settlement, until 1970s or 1990s (I forget), was in NEW MEXICO! Clovis people. Why would the oldest settlement way down in New Mexico if people came from Mongolia via a land bridge? So, "experts" began to question the land bridge idea more than they did before. Then, a settlement was found in South America that is older than Clovis. That totally confused the "experts". Then, a people older than Clovis was found. Bottom line: there is HUGE confusion and debate about where the original people came from, and from where they came. DNA, linguistics, archaeology, etc. It is a big mess. Yet people are told in school of one theory and told it is fact. THis happens in all fields of study in schools.

This is from the American National Park Service about the origins of the first Americans.... [b]The most important thing to realize is that even the most current and modern theories we have are entirely speculative and continually evolving. Discontinuity in sparse evidence, combined with weaknesses in dating methods, discrepancies in artifacts and genetics, and our own subjective interpretations provide endless hurdles to overcome.[/b]