If Siberian-Americans didn't practice land ownership then how did the British take their land?

No i'm not. OP asked a question of how if Siberian-Americans didn't practice land ownership how the British took their land. You moved the goalpost here .

Newsweek is not a primary source nor has it toppled OOA. It still remains the primary theory of human evolution.

>the modification of the American continent by fire at the hands of American Indians was the result of repeated, controlled, surface burns on a cycle of one to three years, broken by occasional holocausts from escape fires and periodic conflagrations during times of drought. So extensive were the cumulative effects of these modifications that it may be said that the general consequence of the Indian occupation of the New World was to replace forested land with grassland or savannah, or, where the forest persisted, to open it up and free it from underbrush. Most of the impenetrable woods encountered by explorers were in bogs or swamps from which fire was excluded; naturally drained landscape was nearly everywhere burned. Conversely, almost wherever the European went, forests followed. The Great American Forest may be more a product of settlement than a victim of it."
Pyne, Stephen J., Fire in America: A Cultural History of Wildland and Rural Fire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

>“most of the forests seen by the first settlers in America were in their first generation after one or another kind of major disturbance”
Raup, H.M. 1967. American forest biology. Journal of Forestry. 65: 800–803

>European settlers found extensive areas of open game habitat throughout the East, commonly called “barrens”. The American Indians used fire to maintain such areas as rangeland. Europeans reported evidence of widespread grassland or savanna in two parts of Virginia: the Piedmont (including the Dan River watershed in southern Virginia) and the Shenandoah Valley.
Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America. Seattle, London: University of Washington Press.

Except they aren't Siberian Americans. They are Indigenous Americans.

Europeans are African Europeans by OPs definition.

Here's the primary
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127

>Come from Siberia 13,000 years ago
>Not Siberian

I think he was just making a joke.

Why is it someone who's been in this country for 400 years and identifies as an American isn't "indigenous" but Siberian-Americans are? Just because they've been here longer? How long do Americans need to stay in America to be considered indigenous in your opinion?

>burn it all down every few years
Wow what an industrious and productive people, no wonder their empires were so great

That's hominin evolution not Homo evolution. That doesn't reduce from OOA.
>13k

I want you to Google Monte Verde
Nope, it is intentional language
When do Africans and Middle Eastern migrants and refugees get to claim indigenous status?

>When do Africans and Middle Eastern migrants and refugees get to claim indigenous status?
I asked first. Go right ahead and answer, kid.

Nope and I am not a kid.

Your response was to my questioning OPs language and stating that using his logic Europeans are Africans.

Defend how Europeans are Indigenous rather than African migrants in Europe.

Slash-and-burn agriculture is still agriculture. They worked the land.

homo-sapiens originated in Europe. people who cling on to ooa are like people who clung on to geocentrism in the 1600s. Second, until you answer the question which was posed to you here about indigenous status you're not entitled to anything.

Abo tier.

Romans spoke of slash and burn farmers in all of Europe in the temperate forests.

Guess they were "abo tier" too
Actually no 1.because your "source" has not proven homo evolution outside of Africa and 2. My original rebuttal was never answered

Slash and burn implies they were clearing land for large scale farming, what you're describing could only be described as "working the land" in the sense that they occasionally set fires to prime areas for hunting/gathering

Most slash and burn globally and historically isn't large scale. It's subsistence level by definition

>My original rebuttal was never answered
I rebutted it with an alternative theory to ooa. Whether you agree with the theory or not is irrelevant. OOA was never a fact and just because troglodytes treat it as such doesn't make it so.

You moved the goalpoast first anyway. OP said nothing about groups of people deriving from anywhere, instead wondering how people without concepts of land ownership could have land taken from them. You chose to ignore this claiming "indigenous status" justifies Siberian-American land claims and I just wanted to know that since Siberians came to America 13,000 years ago, how long in your opinion is it going to take for other groups of people to be considered indigenous Americans?

wait so trees were indigenous to europe? did the vikings bring trees to america?

...

>Romans spoke of slash and burn farmers in all of Europe in the temperate forests.Guess they were "abo tier" too

The barbarians in Europe figured out metallurgy, which is more than you can say for abos or injuns

If slash and burn is defined as small scale subsistence farming then you can't point to it as a systematic "modification of the American continent."

OP posted an image delegitimizing Indigenous Americans of indigenous status.

That was the original goal post.

The scientific community all agree that OOA is the basis of Homo and your paper doesn't at all change that, it doesn't even question the validity.

That you refuse to acknowledge your own source isn't my problem, nor does it answer my rebuttal.
Metallurgy was quite common to the point that Copper Indians, Copper Crews and Yellow Knives were names placed of metallurgist indigenous people.

So, what's different from them and northern Europeans?

Systematic land modification is macro scale, slash and burn aka swidden is micro scale.

Aboriginals modifying hundreds of hectares is an expansive process with its own set of regulations and end results from swidden.

Both are valid processes for food production

By definition, slash-and-burn agriculture includes converting forests into crop fields and pasture.

>Abo tier.
In North America it's believed that slash-and-burn actually superseded forms of agriculture you'd consider more advanced;

>It has been supposed that the Indians who built the mounds in the Mississippi Valley were agriculturists, and were beginning to rise in the scale of civilization, but with the coming of the buffalo they found it so much easier to live on the flesh of that animal than to cultivate the soil, that they abandoned their fields, turned hunters, and lapsed into savagery. In order to enlarge the grass tracts and afford pasturage for buffaloes, they burned the land, killed the timber, and the encroachment of prairies upon the forests began from that time.

>That is believed to have occurred in comparatively recent times, perhaps not much more than a thousand years before the discovery of America. Evidence of it is found in the absence of buffalo bones in waste heaps, caves, drift, gravel, and bogs of the region until the most recent deposits were made. The mound builders pictured almost every animal now found native in the region, except the buffalo.
N. S. Shaler., "Nature and Man in America"

>The scientific community all agree that OOA is the basis of Homo
That's just false. Plenty of qualified scientist believe in the Multiregional theory. It's not some crackpot conspiracy. You can't just make stuff up and expect it to be taken seriously.

>Fossil remains of Graecopithecus found in Bulgaria and Greece have been dated to 7.2 million years ago, "several hundred thousand years older than the oldest known Africian hominid."
ooa btfo

>OP posted an image delegitimizing Indigenous Americans of indigenous status.
Siberian-Americans didn't practice land ownership and thus couldn't have had any land taken by the British.

So Gypsies would be indigenous Europeans?
Jews even more so

WE

Dude I'm studying anthropology and you're completely wrong. I will give you that elements of a weaker form of MR are being seriously considered and OOA is being adjusted. But at its most basic level, OOA is essentially proven and the "strong" version of MR is no longer tenable.

>homo-sapiens originated in Europe
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

PRIVATE land ownership, they didn't practice private land ownership.

Makes you wonder why any of them fought back against white encroachment at all

land was held in common, not privately held by foreign individuals

>Homo sapiens originated in Africa
WE

>Siberian-Americans

>"""""native""""" """""""""""""Americans"""""""""

What makes the red man red?

In a sense they did. You can't just walk into their towns and claim to own the lands without a fight. Especially when most of the natives weren't even nomadic and had ties to the land they worked on. And even nomads are territorial.

t. european anchor baby

t.Siberian anchor baby.

>homo-sapiens originated in Europe. people who cling on to ooa are like people who clung on to geocentrism in the 1600s

>Injun contribution to American history is literally burning down half the continent
Really makes your feathers tickle

>a tree
>not these guys
Shame.