I was going to write a reply to this email but then I found the following
entry in my copy of the Encyclopaedia Galactica 117th Edition, unfortunately
very damaged where it had fallen through a wormhole from the year 4000 AD.
North America, European Colonisation of,
Recent work has disproved the long held notion that the settlement of North
America occurred by mass migration of Europeans across the Atlantic Ocean,
displacing the native inhabitants. Instead a model of small groups of
immigrants culturally transforming the native inhabitants is much more
plausible. Over time the inhabitants of North America adopted the fashions
and language of the settlers and even European names and places of origin.
The only ship we know of is the Mayflower which obviously incapable of
transporting more than a fraction of the known population of North America
across the Atlantic…
Some of the strongest evidence comes from the linguistic evidence; many
words in English such as barbeque, wigwam, tomahawk, and toboggan have a
native origin. Also the many place names prove continuity of settlement.
Though genetic studies have shown that the most of the present inhabitants
of North America have ‘European’ genes, we can safely ignore this evidence,
as we have no idea what the genetic profile of native North Americans was
like before the European settlement…
As all our sources are written with an obvious political bias we must treat
them with extreme caution and can safely ignore them if they do not conform
to the archaeological evidence…
email [log in to unmask]
> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:01:18 +0200
> From: Robert Vermaat <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Britain 'had apartheid society'
> Catherine Petts says
> > Very few people would argue with this, but it still leaves the
> > If
> > we accept that the Roman, Saxon and Norman colonisation of England is,
> > essentials, similar, that is simply a change at the top, why is the
> > linguistic result of the Saxon occupation so profound when the
> > and
> > subsequent changes of administration have relatively little effect on
> > common language after their arrival in the country?
> That is one of the questions to answer. But ask yourself this: when the
> British Iron Age Celts began to build Roman houses and use Latinised
> names, why is no-one even contemplating a massacre by the Romans? But
> when 'less developed' houses turn up, they 'must' be the result of a
> forced change? Sure, I don't doubt that migration took place - someone
> must have carried the influence of clothing, housing, fashion, etc. to
> Britain. But mass migrations displacing and replacing the natives
> without massive signs of breaks in agriculture? That sounds very hard to
> believe. Not so long ago it was still assumed that the Roman landscape
> had returned to waste and reforested areas, but that idea has been
> definitely disproved - it did not happen. So how did the supposed
> invaders force the natives to carry on in the same way, =E1nd lose their
> That's why I like Prior's approach more - prehistorians seem to be
> looking at such changes in a way that makes changes possible without a
> new people landing at the beaches and take over by force.
> Since there are no records of this change, why simply assume a mass
> migration when so many signs speak against it? In fact, it is only the
> written sources (written after 700 AD) that mention the 'landings' of
> families that supposedly were the ancestors of the later kings. And
> reading Bede clearly points out that no actual knowledge of the events
> during the period 400-550 existed - Bede had to fall back on Gildas'
> The thing is, we simply don't know when that linguistic result of the
> 'occupation' took effect; in a short while due to an invasion, or over a
> very long time? When exactly did all the inhabitants of, say, Essex or
> Surrey, speak a form of English and no longer a form of Brythonic? After
> 650 AD or even after 800 AD?
> Robert Vermaat
> The Netherlands