Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:31 | #

Questions:  Can’t you walk across the Bering Strait every winter for months (unless it’s kept open with ice-breakers)?  If so, why did it need an ice age or a land bridge for boatless prehistoric people to get across? 

The other thing is why did the French Solutreans have to use small boats to inch along the ice cap’s edge in order to get to North America?  Why didn’t they simply walk on the ice?  Eskimos hunt on the ocean ice every winter, walking great distances on it.

Posted by snax on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:54 | #

A very useful tool for downloading and securing videos from youtube and google etc. is keepvid.com.

Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:57 | #

Fred, that is an excellent point.  And there is ample evidence that humans arrived before the era of the proposed “land bridge” anyway - say at least a millennia earlier.

Posted by Fr. John on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:53 | #

Fred, I wanted to be fair, but your comment that this BBC video is ‘superior’ to the Discovery Channel’s more cinematic, ‘story-telling’ version, (commonly known as “Ice Age Columbus”) could simply be a matter of taste, but I think it goes further than that.

I watched the whole thing, and saw many of the same characters acting as ‘talking heads’ in both videos, but what kept me from heart-pounding utterances of ‘Yes!’ on this film, was it’s complete capitulation to the ‘we are all one race, the human race’ [barf!] Multiculti Mantra; which is a religious tenet so utterly false, and so equally deadly to any White Racial Consciousness - as a vastly superior race, civilization, and people, (which we are) I couldn’t see HOW this film was ‘superior.’

When we hear WHITE Smithsonian scientists saying ‘...a remarkable people; of all the Stone Age cultures we have studied, the Solutreans were the most innovative, the most adaptive, the most inventive…’ do we think of an “Out of Africa” scenario, or do we think of Caucasians?

I will grant you, there are some hysterical moments in the BBC film that just cracked this American up; specifically when they talk about food sources for a Solutrean trans-Atlantic trip, and then the narrator says, ‘‘There is all the food anyone could want…in the sea.” And we hear the melody used in the American USDA ad campaign “Beef- it’s what’s for dinner,” slogan, using the same Copland music - all of it practically lifted verbatim from the memorable TV commercial. That was priceless!

But the ASSUMPTIONS about the physiognomy of those who did this voyage, the constant referring to wax dummies of hawk-nosed Amerindian types that we Americans are SO OVER, (over here) consistently gave a FALSE impression that this thesis [Solutre] is suspect. le’ts be honest. The Solutre thesis is not ABOUT THEM- but about US- Caucasians, heirs to the Kelts, the Vikings, the Romans and Greeks, as well as the Biblical Hebrews (who are NOT the same as the modern Khazarians)- that latter is another post!

The Mark Wahlberg-like facial features of the Stone Age Columbus actor in the BBC video is not ‘mainland European’ enough for me, either- that is where the Discovery Channel’s video is far more striking, in that a Celtic actress with a ‘French face’ clearly posits a more obvious link to the ‘Kennewick Man/Patrick Stewart’ genetic profile, that is so at odds with the Amerindian dummies, and thus slaps in the face those who would preach their Multiculti false religion.

In that one choice of actors, Discovery Channel strikes a visual image which mandates that one cannot overlook the reality of Solutre. The French- [or people living in what is now France] during the period under discussion were more likely ‘Celtic’ – or “Gaulish,’ than ‘Gallic’ -but they were also nowhere near Amerindian, Asian, or modern Semitic (Wahlberg is not a Jew, it would seem- but rather a good-looking, small-nosed Irishman apparently [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Wahlberg]  but his face (or the BBC actor’s) is too close to a flat-nosed Asiatic, to give a ‘neither/nor’ mindset in the viewer. For that reason, I do not see him as a Solutrean- I much prefer that blue-eyed brunette in the Discovery Channel video.

Then there is the assumption that such a voyage is impossible for Caucasians, but allowable, or even predestined[?] for Asians!
“Could they have made boats capable of surviving journeys across thousands of miles of icy water?’ ‘A ’polar desert’ -5000 km distance.’

Remember “Ra” and “Kon-Tiki” of Thor Hyerdahl? Duh!

“How could they NOT have done it?” “ An extraordinary people from Europe.”  Yes, the video answers their own questions, but a little too quietly, a little too late. The conclusions state the obvious, but far too late in the video to move the soul. The DC video, OTOH,  makes the American/Anglo-Saxon nature seem almost to say ‘Of COURSE they did it,’ and it did so, in that it thrilled me with a sense of PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION with the Solutreans! Having said that, when the BBC show makes comments like “Could there be Ojibwa –Chippewa possessing mitochondrial DNA 14-15,000 years ago, in the Great Lakes region?” I raise my eyes heavenward, and shout - Ever hear of the Kensington Runestone? DUH!

Finally, the last few minutes trash everything that has gone on before. ‘This discovery may not be so upsetting to ‘native Americans’ after all,’ the narrator intones.

Frankly, who cares? As a man who has lived in the state where the Ojibwa/Chippewa have been indigent for decades, if not centuries, such talk is nothing but PC propaganda, and means NOTHING to my soul, my race, my ancestors.

But the most egregious examples of this in the BBC film are the comments of Dr. Joallyn Arcahambault, (an [Amer]Indian) who tries to multiculturalize this whole thing,  when she says ‘we are truly all one species, and that our ancestors… were very much like us, I think that’s marvelously creative and courageous.” BUT IT’S NOT HER PEOPLE. We’re talking about Caucasians, not Eskimos, or the ‘Red Man.’ She and her race are, to be utterly blunt,  a ‘Johnny-come-lately’ in this continent settlement scenario- and here the DC fom makes it crystal clear.  But, in having her pontificate such statements, she thus succeeds in dismissing the superiority of Caucasian Man over all other races, (remember India, Brits?) in this quest for ‘who are the Native Americans?’

Now, as a Brit, and watching the BBC with a reverence most Irish reserve for the Pope, I can understand a desire for a ‘rational, calm’ approach in your science. After all, it’s in your nature. But, for me- as a Celt, and a Norther European, and an American to boot, I want MORE from science, after the last 150 years of Darwinian claptrap about an “out of Africa” scenario comparing my great-great-great- grandmother to some primate ‘Lucy’. NO THANK YOU. I have written about this, in my own feeble attempts to grasp the enormity of this discovery for the White Christian Europeans of America and the World.

http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2008/10/04/a-book-entitled-‘to-the-american-indian’/
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/mitochondrial-eve-proves-scripture…for-whites/

So, when I read the last credit for the BBC program, and saw ‘written and produced by Michael LEVY,” all of a sudden a light should flash on in your head, as it did in mine. LEVY? Oy! ‘Ye are of your father the Devil, who has been a liar from the beginning.’ - Jesus Christ to the Jews

I think there is a lot to be learned from the BBC version, but I still prefer the DC video more. And I no longer trust ANYONE with a Jewish surname. They lie far too often.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:01 | #

Fr. John, it is true that there was more egregious rhetorical/narrative capitulation in the BBC video than in the Discovery video, but when the science itself is in dispute, the rhetorical/narrative must take a backseat.  I thought the BBC video’s presentation of the science was more accurate.

Posted by torgrim on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 19:24 | #

There may be cause to support the thesis that the Solutrean People may have survived in isolated areas into the modern era.

One such example among many, are the people known as the Red Paint People or Beothuk of Newfoundland.

http://www.infonet.st-johns.nf.ca/green/beo1.html

The last “chief”,Nonosbawat, was killed by soldiers in the early 19th century. The records of his death were described as,
“after he was stabbed by the soldiers bayonets, he lay on the ice, and we measured his height, he was six foot six and the blood coming from his mouth covered his beard.”

Reportedly, many Beothuk were transported to London, and when dressed in English clothing, they were able to pass for Englishmen.

There seems to be some interest in DNA, testing of Beothuk remains, but frankly, nothing that I have found seems conclusive, as to relatedness to Europeans. Could this be from lack of interest or some other motive?
I do not know.

Posted by Thunder on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 09:04 | #

Absolutely fascinating and thoroughly enjoyable.  My ears really pricked at the mention of the Ojibway.  I am a white Canadian with a French surname and native status in Canada.  I am actually a member of one of the Great Lakes Ojibway First Nations and my cousin of the same surname is the current chief.

Even though my ancestry is mixed—French, Ojibway, Scottish, Irish, English and Dutch.  I have always related to the Anglo-Canadian heritage of my upbringing.  And yes, despite all that mix I fully concur with those on this site who support the egi of whites.  Many of the comments here resonate with me.

I wonder though, could my ancestors, the French fur traders and their Ojibway counterparts actually be intermarrying with distant Salutrean relatives?

Maybe I should call myself Thunderbird (an Ojibway legend).

.