Well, certainly anybody born there and who's parents were born there. But in regards to indigenous people which you seem to be asking (even though it has little to nothing to do with how i used the word native and the actual convo): most of the region was left uninhabited in the first centuries AD because of the north sea having free reign. It was a shitty place to reside permanently. The people who after the 3th or 4th century or so found ways to make a permanent home were never wiped out. Just invaded a lot of times. So, this: seems a gross exaggeration at best. But its not just an exaggeration imo, its blatantly wrong. Yes, most dutch partially descend from immigrants. No, these immigrants did not wipe out any indigenous population in the region that's now known as the Netherlands without evidence. If you are convinced of the opposite surely you can pinpoint these immigrants. Please do. It could very well be that the first time such a thing happened in my neck of the woods neanderthals were still involved No, it does not make it ok, just entirely irrelevant. You're talking about nomadic barbarians. If we would compare it to something close to our time the comparison of different warring native american tribes fits better than some totally foreign force obliberating the indigenous population. If you disagree please specify.
Yeah, I think you do get my point. They were nomadic barbarians....so it doesnt matter if they all died. Nomadic Barbarians, based on what, and when? It would have happened more than once. You can talk about American "injuns" as you put it because they still exist. We cant talk about Dutch "injuns" because they were all wiped out before modern history began. History is irrelevant? You are only there, in the neighbour hood you live in, with your white skin, advising 6 eyed on how he is wrong on immigration because of a long long history of your forefathers chopping peoples heads off that werent native to that area at whichever particular time
Lol Do you think this? Or are you implying I ment that because they were nomadic 'barbarians' it doesn't matter if they all died.. Because that was obviously not what I ment with it. I'm saying that there was no wiping out of an indegenous people by foreign invaders. If something like that happened before recorded history it was more like local (as in other north west european nomadic) people against another: similar to pre european native american nomadic peoples. I'm sorry, but you seem utterly clueless. There is no sign that the people that originally settled in the area of present day Netherlands were wiped out and replaced by other people. It seems that the Frisians, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Franks, etc. etc. have settled allover north west Europe (some more than others) and eventually we all became a mix of eachother. Its clear I don't think that.
Canoes, fishing villages 8000 BC First evidence of farming 5000 BC They werent all hunter gatherers, the land wasnt vacant. So I will ask you again, what happened to the dutch "injuns"?
Van Well within the context of modern day immigration you seem to be agreeing with some here that some types of migrants are going to ‘wipe out’ ‘western civilization’ (along they seem to suggest with present day Europeans). If I’ve got that wrong please explain what you are trying to say because you still seem to be saying it. So are you saying that the present day migrants, that people like 6 are talking about, are basically going to chop people’s heads off and take over the countries they have moved to? That their reason and intention in moving to these countries is to wipe out the present inhabitants? So your contention is that there never can be and never could be assimilation and merging and acceptance of people that migrations always result in the new group wiping out the old one? Now there are instances of that occurring such as the arrival of the Beaker People in Britain or the arrival of Europeans in North America but in the first example as it was the second it’s believed diseases was the big killer. Thing is that there are not that many examples of intentional genocide most migrations (as DNA research has confirmed) resulted in a merging of populations. Culture is another matter, cultures have a habit of changing and this can happen for many different reasons only one of which is migration, but do we want cultures that are stagnant? The problem is that there are right wingers that wish to stir up division to further their own agenda and political power by reducing a complex issue to simplistic sloganizing, the question is do you support that simplistic position?
Indigenous populations being wiped out by diseases brought by europeans is a throw back from 40, 50 years ago when we didnt understand everything and has perpetuated since. It was only 2 years ago they discovered DNA from Australasia and Melanasia in Ancient Native Amazonians. There was a human migration and population before the Native Americans, what we know as Native Americans wiped all them out 16,000 yeaes ago. DNA mapping has shown Native Americans are really Siberians, North Eurasians and are missing certain genes that make them susceptible to all viruses and bacteria, not just Europeans ones. Also strong evidence the Native American population was in decline well before europeans. The family of pox viruses has been around for 70000 years, the argument that they werent present in indigenous populations is very weak. The truth, which is becoming clearer recently. Is the Native Americans had been suffering pandemics regularly for thousands of years before first contact with Europeans. And it was actually their genome that was the problem, they werent going to build up immunity to some diseases no matter what. Lot of stuff, especially in the last decade to show we were previously wrong about a whole bunch of stuff
Van To repeat So are you saying that the present day migrants, that people like 6 are talking about, are basically going to chop people’s heads off and take over the countries they have moved to? That their reason and intention in moving to these countries is to wipe out the present inhabitants? To repeat The problem is that there are right wingers that wish to stir up division to further their own agenda and political power by reducing a complex issue to simplistic sloganizing, the question is do you support that simplistic position?
Yeah that seems to be a frequent tactic of yours, and Im not the only one that has noticed I talk about people running around chopping each others heads off 8000 years and it gets changed by you this modern day argument. Now show me where either I or 6 eyed said anything remotely close to that in regards to modern dsy immigration Do I support what simplistic position? What is the more complex assumedly left wing position. Not haviing a position isnt a position nor a complex one Can I use The Netherlands as an example again? You know, part of the culturally superior and liberal Utopian EU. Because a quick check seems to suggest more immigrants made residence just in my city alone, Sydney, in 2017, than in their whole country. Netherlands population rises to 17.2 million on immigration, Dutch re-patriation 17 million people in the Netherlands, why only 100, 000 immigrants on one year and most seem to be from other EU countrirs and Russia Its been 250,000 a year in my country the last couple years, theres only 25 million of us. And even with Trump at the helm, is the US still letting in more immigrants in than EU member countries? So what us the more complex liberal argument? Pretend they care, but actually be more hardline on immigration?
Van So its confusing are you saying it was or wasn’t diseases that was the major factor in the depopulation? Now while I’d admit I haven’t read up on this for some years (although not 40-50) but a quick look at wiki and it still seem that the main reason for the drop in population is still thought to be due to disease. Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas - Wikipedia They now believe that widespread epidemic disease, to which the natives had no prior exposure or resistance, was the primary cause of the massive population decline of the Native Americans. But if you cite your sources I’d be intrigued to take a look.
LOL Van have you actually been reading this thread or what? Here is just one comment from 6 - Then you have leftist westerners like you who want to mass import that same illiberal right-wing culture over here. By doing so, will undo centuries of liberal egalitarian accomplishments The contention being that there is a mass migration of Muslims that will basically destroy the culture of the western countries they move into. You seemed to back up 6’s view by implying such things had happened before in history where one group of people had ‘wiped out’ other groups - Where are the indigenous/aboriginal people that used to inhabit the lands that are now covered by the Netherlands? A ask again – So are you saying that the present day migrants, that people like 6 are talking about, are basically going to chop people’s heads off and take over the countries they have moved to? That their reason and intention in moving to these countries is to wipe out the present inhabitants? The problem is that there are right wingers that wish to stir up division to further their own agenda and political power by reducing a complex issue to simplistic sloganizing, the question is do you support that simplistic position? The simplistic argument being that there is a mass migration of Muslims that [purposely] wish to destroy the culture of the western countries they move into. Do you agree with that and if so why?
Lot of Ifs there dude, and I still dont see anywhere where you have shown either of us talking about them chopping peoples heads off in the present. And this is after the fake LOL and "Van have you actually been reading this thread or what?"
VG, you went on about indigenous people and wiping out populations simply after noticing the word native. Which was used properly, you just took it out of context entirely. You were trying to make a point about the indigenous population that lived in the location of what's now called the Netherlands, but they were not wiped out. Your point is at best hypothetical, which doesn't mean it has no validity, but it seems lost now in regards to the original topic. So maybe you can reformulate your point again? Concrete and specific. So just to be clear no one was talking about native americans as in indians, or other indigenous people before you.
Post #20 It was Balbus that first raised talk of modern day muslims wanting to start caliphates. Took the thread off topic. Then reorganized it as a question "people like 6 eyed say...." Do you agree? I dont see any reference to it from 6 Eyed. Show me where 6 eyed is talking about muslims invading and starting up a caliphate. Balbus made it up, then later tried to present it as fact. A common tactic with him, and Im not the only one that has noticed
