Aussie cartoonist catches bike thief!!

[MERBman]

There's no such thing as a "full-blooded American".

[Keffria]

I think that what most people mean by "American" is really just "mish-mash-type person who was born in the States or has lived there for a given period of time". Or at least that's what I meant. But "American" is so much easier to say.

Edit: gawd, I suck at typing tonight.

[MERBman]

I'm a small portion American. I mean, real American.
There's a lake in Maine named after my great-great-grandfather

[Col]

I'm a small portion American. I mean, real American.

Like Native American?

[MERBman]

That is correct.

[Mr.Bob]

Oh. On a side note...found a laminated map of the world today that I just HAD to buy.

It's a normal map of the world, except it's upside down so that Australia is on top!

It's definitely going up on the classroom wall!

I was curious so I looked one up.

In the more regular world maps found in Australia, is Australia located in the middle, or the usual bottom right?

[Cope]

Say, where's my head at?

[Dutch!]

In the more regular world maps found in Australia, is Australia located in the middle, or the usual bottom right?

Our maps have Australia basically centre, yes. Europe and Africa are along the left side, and the Americas flank the right, with Asia in the middle. It looks right (at least to me) mainly because the large landmass of Asia fits nicely in the centre. It doesn't appear unbalanced like other versions.

Oh...and Australia's in the middle.

[Jim North]

I'm a small portion American. I mean, real American.

Like Native American?

Like the Americans who came over from Asia across the land bridge?

[Keffria]

I'm a small portion American. I mean, real American.

Like Native American?

Like the Americans who came over from Asia across the land bridge?

Better watch who you say that sort of thing around... That may be a widely-accepted theory, but many of the people it concerns will get very incensed if you imply that they haven't always been there. -_-

[Dutch!]

Struth...I think if you can prove you've been somewhere a shitload of thousands of years before any other dumb bugger in black and white clothes and a funny hat, then you can claim to be native.

[MixedMyth]

Not to mention that in many native groups' eyes, they have literally been there since the beginning according to oral traditions.

[DJMayhem]

Like Native American?

Like the Americans who came over from Asia across the land bridge?

Better watch who you say that sort of thing around... That may be a widely-accepted theory, but many of the people it concerns will get very incensed if you imply that they haven't always been there. -_-

... up until a million years ago?

[MixedMyth]

It's a funny old world. Mainstream America doesn't like to be reminded that they stole land and basically instituted a prolonged genocide (And no, I'm not using an overly strong term there. It's pretty much what it was). Therefore, we don't like to be reminded that there were people here long before us. Archeologists and scientists point out otherwise, that there were people living here for 10-30,000 years (probably more like the last estimate). Yet some native groups object to the scientists' claims, saying that they've always been here. Vicious circle or what?

An example-

I don't know how many of you follow the case of Kennewick Man. It was an increadibly old skelleton found in the Northwestern US. Now, one of the more popular current theories among archeologists is that there wasn't just one wave of people crossing to the Americas, but several. One of the reasons that it gained so much press is not simply its age, which is indeed remarkable as it is for an undetermined reason hard to find really old artifacts and remains in North America, but also because its features were classified as being 'caucasoid.' Now...here is where it gets wonky. Caucasoid is NOT the same as caucasian! It's simply a list of physical nuances in bone- a category. Yet the press had a hay day and you'd see such headlines as, "Europeans were here first!" After all, such a claim would ease the pangs of guilt. Yeah.

However, the Umatilla tribe (and possibly others...I don't quite remember) asserted that the bones should be given to them for reburial. Legally, any artifact from any institution that recieves government funding in any way MUST return, when possible, Indian artifacts to their parent tribes...although sometimes museums are asked to hold artifacts in trust. Obviously, this cannot be done for ancient groups who no longer exist. However, because the Umatilla oral tradition states that they have always lived on that land and because, legally, oral traditions are held to have the same weight as scientific evidence, the Umatilla asserted that the bones must be an ancestor of theirs. After all, they had always been there. Besides which, a law called NAGPRA is especially stern (and rightly so) on the point of returning Indian remains to their descendants. However, scientifically speaking there is no relation between the Umatilla and the skeleton.

But wait, there's more! The scientist who was studying them is kind of a jerk. The Umatilla, once they heard of the bones, promptly had them yoinked away from the scientist. The scientist contacted them to try and discuss it. Submited some kind of proposal. However, he only waited two weeks. What kind of beurocracy works that quickly? Especially something that central to a group's identity. He's also been....rather disrespectful of other remains. In addition, other fringe groups suddenly poped up claiming that THEY were the decendants of this skelleton, so it belongs to them. One such group believed that the Norse were the first to arrive in the Americas, and that this was a Norseman...their ancestor. You'll particularly find this theory in Minnesotta.

Meanwhile a similarly ancient skeleton is found elsewhere. A similar situation between the local Indians and the scientists arises, but with much less animosity. They compromise. The scientists are permited to study the bones and, once they are done, the local tribes rebury them. With next to no press.

Heh. Sorry...I rambled. But I've sort of being studying this thing for some time now in school.

[Dutch!]

I am Spartacus! No, I am Spartacus! No, I AM Spartacus!!


Anyway...

Talking about ancient left overs...

A few years back in the outback of South Australia (I think) they stumbled upon an enormous carving of a human figure in the landscape itself. By enormous, it was several kilometres long.

Everybody was wondering which ancient aboriginal tribe carved this marvellous portrait of themselves or their myth into the landscape, and how did they do it?

They then discovered that...bugger me...it's only about a year or so old.

The question now is...

Which bugger managed to carve a kilometres long human likeness into the South Australian outback without anybody noticing...how did they do it...and why?

As of yet...the crafty old bugger hasn't come forward.

True story.

[Joel Fagin]

Which bugger managed to carve a kilometres long human likeness into the South Australian outback without anybody noticing?

You're kidding, right? He'd have more chance of being seen doing it on the dark side of the moon.

Oh, and: Natives are whoever got there first.

- Joel Fagin

[MixedMyth]

Hee hee hee! That's hilarious. If something like that happened around here, there'd STILL be people claiming that some ancient peoples did it...maybe Atlanteans, or aliens, or the lost tribes of Isreal. Or vikings, or Hindus, or Gypsies, or Danes, or Welshmen, or Egyptians, or Celts, or Spaniards...

I wrote a paper on it last semester. T_T It's quite tragic.

As to how he did it...well...not that I've been to Australia, but I've been lead to believe that the outback is rather ginormous and without, shall we say, much population. Was it near any towns, or was it in the middle of nowhere where no one would go for a while? And how high was it? Was it more like the Nazca lines, or an actual earth mound sculpture?

[Dutch!]

For those thinking I'm telling furphies (not mentioning any names, but his initials are Joel Fagin...)...

Here...I present to you information concerning the enormous, geoglyph Marree Man!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marree_Man

Buggered if anybody knows who did it...but it's fair dinkum HUGE!!

Cheers.

[Joel Fagin]

For those thinking I'm telling furphies (not mentioning any names, but his initials are Joel Fagin...)...

Oh, no. I remember that as well. I was expressing disbelief that you thought it odd no one saw it, not that it existed.

- Joel Fagin

[Jim North]

Like Native American?

Like the Americans who came over from Asia across the land bridge?

Better watch who you say that sort of thing around... That may be a widely-accepted theory, but many of the people it concerns will get very incensed if you imply that they haven't always been there. -_-

How dare I challenge their misconceptions!

Sorry, but really, I find stuff like mentioned in MM's above post to be highly ridiculous. The whole matter could likely be easily settled if the groups in question would just let the scientists do their tests and figure out who the remains actually belong to, but they're not going to do that because of the high chance that they're wrong aout it being related to their particular group. Instead of trying to find the truth, they'd rather continue to assert their baseless claims. If they're gonna continue doing that, then let 'em get incensed!