Might as well go all the way back to the Vikings then.
This is silly really, even the Australian 1st Nations people debate. There are research papers(hotly denied) floating around now that are suggesting archaeological record shows that long before the people who we now call 1st Nations arrived, there was a civilisation of real 1st Nations based around a race closer to Homo Floresiensis. The original 1st Nations people were basically driven or breed to extinction by those who currently identify as 1st Nations. So I wonder if the people making the new apologist rules and reparations are prepared to be judge under the same terms of reference. What happens if science now finds the genuine 1st Nations people were a bunch of now extinct ancestors of Homo Floresiensis from East Java?
It's a bit like the Maori / Moriori debate in New Zealand. In turns out the Maori weren't the first settlers, but now they claim the land of the long white cloud having slaughtered the original Moriori pacifist farmers. And of course while denying that invasion model the Maori get compensated for the evils of the more recent European settlers.
Both groups will tell you their culture records verbally or artistically trace back to a time proving occupation, they can tell you the type of plants, weather, rivers and lakes that existed tens of thousands of years back. but that same history seems to conveniently omit obliteration of the original residents. Were the original residents as insignificant to them as some mega-fauna and so not worthy of a record in history?
Pssst, "Be careful what you ask for, and don't mention the war!"
This is silly really, even the Australian 1st Nations people debate. There are research papers(hotly denied) floating around now that are suggesting archaeological record shows that long before the people who we now call 1st Nations arrived, there was a civilisation of real 1st Nations based around a race closer to Homo Floresiensis. The original 1st Nations people were basically driven or breed to extinction by those who currently identify as 1st Nations. So I wonder if the people making the new apologist rules and reparations are prepared to be judge under the same terms of reference. What happens if science now finds the genuine 1st Nations people were a bunch of now extinct ancestors of Homo Floresiensis from East Java?
It's a bit like the Maori / Moriori debate in New Zealand. In turns out the Maori weren't the first settlers, but now they claim the land of the long white cloud having slaughtered the original Moriori pacifist farmers. And of course while denying that invasion model the Maori get compensated for the evils of the more recent European settlers.
Both groups will tell you their culture records verbally or artistically trace back to a time proving occupation, they can tell you the type of plants, weather, rivers and lakes that existed tens of thousands of years back. but that same history seems to conveniently omit obliteration of the original residents. Were the original residents as insignificant to them as some mega-fauna and so not worthy of a record in history?
Pssst, "Be careful what you ask for, and don't mention the war!"
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"