Places whose Natives are NOT who You Think They are

There are places in the world whose natives are not who you think they are. Because of the history of strange and bizarre migration patterns all around the world, different people have ended up in disparate lands, and sometimes those lands were actually completely uninhabited before their arrival, technically making them the indigenous people of that land they settled on.
Due to this somewhat whacky history, this has led to some rather strange cases of indigenous people where you definitely wouldn't expect them, such as the British being native to islands in Colombia or the Dutch being native to islands in Africa. In other the natives were actually wiped out or assimilated and hence no longer really exist, such as the Berbers in the Canary Islands in Spain or Celts in Iceland. We'll be covering a few of the more interesting cases today and going in depth on some of these topics. Thanks for watching!

[@NiskaMagnusson]

the Dutch are originally from the lost city of Weedlantis, a highly advanced technical society living in the North Sea on a man-made island metropolis, until they discovered cheap beer

[@Shoegazebasedgenre0.]

lol

[@backintimealwyn5736]

yeah right. Everyone has a msytical great ancestry lately. I'm from the lost civilization of Frankuku originated somewhere in the pacific islands. The original franks, who were black bytheway , because who has'nt been black at some point?

[@NiskaMagnusson]

@@backintimealwyn5736 critical thinking? what a race traitor. how dare you!

[@backintimealwyn5736]

@@NiskaMagnusson "critical thinking" i don't like the sound of that, it feels threatening.

[@NiskaMagnusson]

@@backintimealwyn5736 I wouldn't recommend it

[@Demographiaanthropology]

It's crazy how the Celtic influence on Iceland and the Berber influence on the Canary Islands almost completely vanished

[@johnnybegood3847]

Genetically and linguistically, the Celtic influence in Iceland still exists as the Icelandic language still has properties that can be traced to Celtic languages. The women of Guanches on the Canary Islands were not all killed so their descendants still inhabit the Canary Islands.

[@Demographiaanthropology]

@@johnnybegood3847 yeah its there but its barely noticeable. They didn't have that much of an effect

[@henkvandervossen6616]

@@johnnybegood3847 strangely there is a significant dutch/ flemish strain in Canary islands DNA. Flemish colonizers from when the low countries were under spanish control.

[@nuclearcatbaby1131]

I wonder if the Guanches ever made it across the Atlantic and made contact with/interbred with the Taino? I mean before Columbus.

[@henkvandervossen6616]

@@nuclearcatbaby1131 in the end, it does not matter. Both races have gone. Though the Taino DNA is still in thecpeople of Puerto Rico.

[@erikjarandson5458]

I'd say we need to distinguish between 'native' (etymologically "in-born") and 'aboriginal' (etymologically "very first"). Aboriginal are then the very first people known to have settled a land. Natives are anyone who isn't recent immigrants; who feel that their culture is tied to the land, that they're born to the land. There's a need for a third term, to describe the the people who have lived there the longest of those who are still a distinct people. I'd say 'indigenous', but it technically means the same as 'native'. Obviously, it would be possible for one people to be all of these things. The first people on most North Atlantic islands were monks seeking isolation. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call them 'natives'. Some may have brought secular people with them, though, whose children may be classified as native.

[@MiloTheCrotonian]

I love this comment. I agree a 3rd term should be made.

[@seanrea550]

It is a game of semantics. Aborigines, first born. I think indigenous or ancestral works as the second term leaving native to mean you were born and raised on the land.

[@no-body-22]

Aboriginal is synonymous with indigenous, especially here in Australia where your idea definitely wouldn't work. Indigenous people are by definition native but not the other way around.

[@maiaallman4635]

Good point

[@ghostsheet777]

@Jasta 2 If only lol

[@Demographiaanthropology]

For me the craziest thing is definitely how the Dutch are natives to the Mascarene Islands

[@Demographiaanthropology]

@@hkizzle4869 no there weren't. The dutch brought the bantus over

[@Bouvier28]

@@Demographiaanthropology from where?

[@aureavita8653]

@@Bouvier28 probably the cape colonies, before the british took over

[@Demographiaanthropology]

@@Bouvier28 from Africa obviously

[@Demographiaanthropology]

@@hkizzle4869 no you dumbass. EVERYONE knows that there were Native Americans but there were no Native Mascarene people

[@maxwellli7057]

The Han were indigenous to such a small part of China its insane how they got where they are today

[@Shadowofromefanatic]

Isn't that more of a cultural assimilation rather than genetic?

[@maxwellli7057]

@@Shadowofromefanatic both. The various tribes all converged together to become Han, each one leaving a genetic trace. Thats why so few Chinese people have significant amounts the DNA of the "original" Han, yet Han is the most populous ethnic group on Earth.

[@RocketHarry865]

@@maxwellli7057 I wonder how would china be like if China was never unified.

[@yurichtube1162]

@@RocketHarry865 there would be no china. China was named after the xing dynasty.

[@sylamy7457]

Never heard of the Han.

[@Кристина_Шульц]

Only 3% of Russia's territories are indigenous Russian land :c

[@belstar1128]

Yea Russia is too big it is just as colonised as the USA

[@Кристина_Шульц]

​@@timvanrijn8239 what relation do modern Russians have to the past of their ancestors? I'm an ethnic Russian and have not harmed anyone.

[@timvanrijn8239]

@@Кристина_Шульц nothing against you so much as i am venting my frustration with the history of the russian state goverment and the situation of modern peoples under russia like rhe karalian, and north caucasus. So sorry for saying that, just venting about things i find unjust.

[@enemy1191]

@@user-dc2hs9lt2m why? :d

[@davidderuiter726]

@@timvanrijn8239 I think Siberian tribes were dealt a far more worse card

[@Jon58004]

"We may never know the answer to this question." *shows a picture of penguins* I think I know who the natives are...

[@anneeq008]

Polynesians being native to Madagascar really surprised me! I'm somewhat surprised about Australasians to South America. That's a HECK of a journey to make!

[@spuriouseffect]

Considering they made it all the way to Easter Island, South America isn't that big of a jump. I read something a while back where the Polynesians could tell how far away, and in which direction, islands were located just by looking at the wave patterns. I don't know if that's true, but it's fascinating none the less.

[@isisalles]

Read Kon Tiki by Thor Hyerdahl. It may give you some insight.

[@xanv8051]

Also consider lower water levels

[@zacariasdelselva1119]

@@isisalles LOL! Thor Hyerdahl?? Please. He was the 'we wuz kangz' of Europeans. And according to his Kon Tiki writings, Polynesians spread from island to island just by luck (going with the flow of the wind), which is easily debunked. Don't tell people to read his pseudoscientific BS.

[@TalibanKampong]

hahaha.. lost direction in jungle is much better than at sea

[@DarBaby89]

I’m part of the Bornean Dayak tribe and I am surprised to learn that some of our seafaring ancestors sailed all the way to Madagascar. It is hard to learn about the history of our people as it is only passed down orally through the generations. So glad that the current advancement in genetics studies could tell us more about the history our people.

[@user-xu2qd2bn1g]

jawa ppl said they sailed to madagascar malay ppl said they sailed to madagascar bugis ppl said they sailed to madagascar now dayak ppl said they sailed to madagascar SO WHICH ONE IS THE REAL?

[@rizkyadiyanto7922]

@@user-xu2qd2bn1g easy explaination: they are the same people called austronesian.

[@prodbasedmystik]

@@user-xu2qd2bn1g they all did probably

[@Seagull780]

I am native to the ocean from where my single celled ancestors came

[@Seagull780]

@I like girls only if you stop being gay

[@Goldrunner1169]

Lol

[@HebelDan]

@@Goldrunner1169 I'm native to the shallow pools!

[@TB-hq1ub]

Dumbass

[@ezandman6804]

...sure and my grandpa was an amoebe.

[@bigbootros4362]

I'm indigenous to my couch 😎

[@adrianavillacis9998]

SO FUNNY !!!! 😂😂😂.

[@ZhangtheGreat]

Really? Did you build your couch yourself? Did you produce all the materials needed to construct that couch? 😁

[@SameLif3]

Big Bootros ur gay

[@connr8691]

ZhangtheGreat no, but he was made on his couch, born on his couch, lived on his couch, and will die on his couch.

[@aureavita8653]

@@connr8691 he becomes the couch

[@salomez-finnegan7952]

About those islands above Scotland - that situation isn’t the least bit surprising. All of Western Europe (Iberian Peninsula, Gaul, British Isles) all used to be (and in most cases currently are still) predominantly Celtic in genetic ancestry

[@darkdestiny1989]

習禁評-小熊維尼Finnegan western Germany too. DNA paired with celts make up nearly 40% whereas “German” dna only about 10%. Greetings from Germany. 🙂

[@salomez-finnegan7952]

darkdestiny1989 No way, really?? I’m curious since I’m Irish & Gaulish, and I purposely use “Gaulish” (as opposed to French) since it encompasses both France & Belgium (+ arguably far west parts of Germany) all of which I am according to 23&Me (the 3 collectively form a continuous blob area) Like I’m genetically correspondant to 「much of northeast France + all of Belgium + far-northwest Germany」- I had always thought that northeast France & Belgium were heavily Germanified (although still mostly Celtic) and not the other way around 🤔🤔 Very interesting to hear you basically say the opposite 😳😯😆 Do you have any links you can share with me about that?? Thanks! 🙏🏻

[@darkdestiny1989]

習禁評-小熊維尼Finnegan I just found some German sources quickly google. For example www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article1398825/Nur-wenige-Deutsche-sind-echte-Germanen.html 30% Germans are of Eastern European origins, just 6% Germanic while the women are nearly 50% Germanic. indo-european.eu/2018/02/germanic-tribes-during-the-barbarian-migrations-show-mainly-r1b-also-i-lineages/ which states Germanic tribes had already great proportion of R1b which is directly connected to Gaulish celts.

[@ptbohall8075]

People tend to forget about the death rate during the Plague of Justinian. It pretty much wiped out everybody in Western Europe except those who fished for a living. They had to work hard repopulating the place over the next several hundred years.,

[@salomez-finnegan7952]

darkdestiny1989 just received this notification now - thank you!

[@martnmoreno7]

On Min 11:00 to me was the most interesting, I was surprised when you mentioned us @Masaman, I'm a Native of the Archipelago of San Andres, old Providence and St. Catharine, we are descendants of the first settlers, of the intermixing of the english puritans and the west african enslaved people who first inhabited the islands, we call our selves RAIZAL! We acually speak an english-based CREOLE, unfortunately we are now a minority in our territory bcs of mass migration from mainland Colombia whose language, culture and worldview are completely diffrent and therefore brings overwhelming repercussions(intended) for the indigenous people. Historically, genetically, linguistically and culturally we hold closer link and ties with other creole people on other islands and contries in the Caribbean and central America; we also have a history with the indigenous Miskito people.

[@triroa]

Sorry to hear your government is trying to breed your people out. The same case is happening here in the US with blacks and whites, who've been here together since the settler times. Looks like we'll be a giant mess very soon.

[@SameLif3]

Martn Moreno run for president and you’ll be the first

[@SameLif3]

Martn Moreno I know in Bolivia it was

[@davidcervantes9336]

@@triroa He’s basically a mix already so... well, in many ways, we all are. In the case of the US, blacks and whites have lived and mixed among each other since the country’s foundation, nothing has change and the government is certainly not making any effort to encourage or discourage what has always happened.

[@GlizzyGoblin757]

@@davidcervantes9336 lmao funny joke

[@OttoVonValentine0.0]

I'm Colombian, and I've been in the islands that you talked about, English is actually an official language there along with Spanish, and is not rare to find people who are able to talk to you in English, sadly, the only time I visited San Andrés I was 8 years old and I spoke little to no english :(

[@Demographiaanthropology]

Madagascar was actually the largest island settled by Oceanians

[@retf8977]

What about Papua New Guinea or Australia?

[@maxwellli7057]

@@retf8977 they didnt take over the entire island, only the coasts

[@Shadow1986]

@@maxwellli7057 what the fuck? Plenty of indigenous tribes with history deep within the Australian deserts.

[@youcantalwaysgetwhatyouwan6687]

Austronesians not Oceanians

[@LeagueUnionSevens]

Depends what you mean by "Oceanians". That word is typically used to refer to the black-skinned people who include Papuans, Melanesians and possibly Australian Aboriginals. Madagascar, on the other hand, was settled by Austronesians, who are a light brown-skinned people who travelled out of East Asia much more recently, and are a very different ethnic group to the above.

[@spookyshark632]

I was really surprised that the first inhabitants of Madagascar were from Asia considering how close the island is to Africa.

[@danshakuimo]

Are the waters between mainland Africa and Madagascar very rough? Or maybe the Africans didn't see a need to go to Madagascar, just like how China probably could've colonized Australia but didn't (then again, did they know). I would think maybe a few people visited or even lived there.

[@YaBoiDREX]

There is evidence of Khoisan inhabitants of the island but they were temporary and never permanently settled. The austronesians arrived by complete accident and were forced to set up permanently shop on the island. Bantu farmers then migrated to the island and introduced iron technology.

[@rizkyadiyanto7922]

@@danshakuimo chinese has been trading with people in malay archipelago for centuries, they never colonize anyone, only europeans colonize other nations,

[@prodbasedmystik]

@@rizkyadiyanto7922 well.... even as a taiwanese indonesian I'm goign to have to say us chinese people definitely colonised the southern half of china from the many different ethnic groups that lived there like the min and stuff

[@FirstnameLastname-qe3ry]

the native Malagasy was interesting to me. Austronesians came all the way to there just to be Bantu'd

[@paddaboi_]

What I can't imagine is them niggas rowing for like 3month in their small ass boats

[@tobisoleye1223]

@Johnny Bravo Which sub saharans say that?

[@tobisoleye1223]

@Johnny Bravo ​ Yeah but those are Black american channels, not present day Sub-Saharan Africans. Most Africans don't give a shit about history that's irrelevant to us... we have bigger problems to face than fabricating history Obviously I know Africa is the ancestral home of black Americans, but they share nothing in common with us culturally right now.

[@faanengaaw7357]

Im an Austronesian native from the Pacific islands.

[@goldgiverbeatz7433]

@@tobisoleye1223 that’s cause we are natives of the America’s , before the Mongolian and Serbians

[@wiv2631]

Masaman, thank you so much for investigating, researching and honestly reporting your conclusions without regard to current fads and political correctness.

[@Demographiaanthropology]

It's fascinating how people ended up being natives of so far away

[@icarus6492]

Idk where I heard this, but I remembered someone telling me that an ethnic is considered native to a land if their present culture and language was first developed on that land. Meaning, if a fully cultured and modern Dutch fleet came to an empty Mascarene Island, they are still not considered natives of the land because their culture and language came from another place. However, since Dutch culture and language as we know it today first began in the Netherlands, hence they are considered natives in Netherlands. It doesn't matter if their ancestors came from somewhere else or if someone else was there first. Because the present day language and culture was first born in that region, and hence they are natives of that area. Can anyone confirm that or correct me if I'm wrong?

[@ravinchowdhury5215]

That sounds interesting, but wouldn't that mean that most (US) Americans of European descent are native to USA? I get the feeling that this would make the term less useful

[@icarus6492]

@@ravinchowdhury5215 I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure I wouldn't call America as an ethnicity or culture on its own. I guess we need to define ethnic or culture is first.

[@GlamStacheessnostalgialounge]

Yeah so far this seems to be the best explanation for this.

[@wfcoaker1398]

I'd tend to agree, but the definition of "culture" and "language" can be hazy. I'm from Newfoundland. I would argue that we have a culture that is native to here, though most of its roots are European. But using the phrase "native to here" implies that our culture is in the same category as the culture of the people who were here before us, and I definitely don't agree with that claim. But if we are not "native" to here, where is our home? The West Country of England? Brittany? Normandy? Our culture is not to be found in any of those places. Are we native to here because some of our ancestors were First Nations people? But that runs the risk of ignoring, or even justifying, the way First Nations people are treated.

[@icarus6492]

@@wfcoaker1398 wow, that is interesting! I agree, the definition of culture is unclear. And in your case, it is even more complicated. Maybe there should be a new category for that situation. I think an anthropologist from your own country would be best to explain that to you. In my country, Malaysia, there different "categories" of natives. We have Orang Asli ("original people" in Malay) referring to the aboriginal tribes that live here, Bumiputeras (meaning "children of the earth" in sanskrit) to refer to the people who migrated here thousands of years ago and have developed a new culture and language here and is also used as the umbrella term for all natives, and Anak Negeri ("children of the state" in Malay) meaning sub-ethnics of foreign races that have adopted the Bumiputera culture and language after generations of cultural interaction.

[@archenema6792]

I am the only native inhabitant of the island of Solipsisto.

[@alanDAasian]

😉

[@robsonwilianwinchester9726]

What country this island is?

[@nsdtgabe4082]

ArchEnema 67 no, I am

[@theskyisblue8979]

Actually its me. All of you are simple beings.

[@lightarrow1684]

The Madagascar case is really interesting!

[@henkvandervossen6616]

Their main cultural and liguistic influence is of malay origin.

[@michaeljoseph1707]

Yes, Bornean people from Kalimantan is their ancestors. All our ancestors are sailors, I'm sure every ethnicity here in Maritime Southeast Asia has been in contact with one another.

[@hkizzle4869]

Bantu people was there and the Dutch came a d killed them this video is a lie

[@lightarrow1684]

@@hkizzle4869 did you watch the video? It was said that the first humans in Madagascar were not Dutch but Asian. And that the people of Madagascar have african paternal lineage and Asian maternal lineage(not everybody but a significant part of the population)...

[@hkizzle4869]

@@lightarrow1684 what do you mean did I watch the video , history books also says Christopher Columbus discovered America do you believe that too.

[@meganaxeliar]

I think indigenous/native is a concept we use to establish nationhood and the ‘rights and identity’ of a given populace that has lived and established in a particular land for a extremely long amount of time, becoming an intrinsic, immortalized ‘relic’ of the land, developing an ‘ethnic’ identity. The earth is full of infringements upon each others’ demographics, that it’s much more logical and consistent of people to establish themselves as the ‘clean slated’, indigenous peoples of their inhabited land to avoid any further confrontations and claims of the land by others, a form of innate human tribalism. The only way forward is to start respecting and protecting each others’ identities.

[@meganaxeliar]

@Jasta 2 Agreed, sad.

[@Demographiaanthropology]

It's crazy how all that time, Africans never discovered Madagascar

[@baronmunro1494]

It's entirely possible they did, but just never permanently settled it.

[@enriquegarcia7491]

There was Bantu migration on the Eastern side of Madagascar though.

[@dickJohnsonpeter]

Not really.

[@sammyr6911]

Former Martian Exactly do your own research. This guy mixes truth with a whole lot of lies. Only morons would think austronesians found Madagascar before Bantus settled there

[@yourhuckleberry6757]

@@vtecnegro85 no one traveled down ferocious rivers..Wtf. they got out and walked when it was bad. Vikings, China and kemet has boat burial rituals and snake knowledge. Your white and black people hung out with yellow people but the light brown people stole a different religion from some black, white, yellow, and dark brown people then some lighter brown people took that from the light brown people then some dark white and light brown people stole that.. started a corporation and gave light white people a picture of a light white Jesus. A lot of shades responsible for your hate.

[@AhidoMikaro]

Oh, baby. I only now noticed. The Masaman is now releasing videos in 1080p!

[@MilkJugA_]

The term "native" or "indigenous" is definitely highly relative by the cultures in the different regions, and means little by itself.

[@shiny_teddiursa]

acammtt lol meanwhile in Latin America, full-blooded amerindians who abandoned their culture and language are considered mestizos

[@AlexIncarnate911]

More like highly relative to political backlash, endless whining and victimisation culture.

[@ainslieberrafella]

Both words exist only for political purposes.

[@ptbohall8075]

I'd just gotten into tracking down a Great Great grandmother who "looked different" than all the others when I first encountered the Sa'ami. The occasion was the death of the last speaker of what was known as the "11th Sa'ami language". Her own ancestors had gone to Europe as miners for the Swedish Empire, and they were driven out by the Russian Tsar from the Carpathian Mountains about 1812. Many fled to Hungary where 20 years later they migrated to the American Midwest to dig canals. Others fled back to the Sapma, in Northern Finland. That territory was lost to the Russians in midst of WWII and many of them migrated West into Sweden where they lived among Skolt Sa'ami who'd also fled Eastern Finland. The way the Sa'ami count things that made my Great Great grandmother a descendant of Skolt and closely related tribes from near a great lake in Finland. But they'd luckily LEFT the region about 1638 when they were rounded up by the Swedes for getting too close to Stockholm in winter, and transported to what is now Delaware. Ultimately, as early arrivals in the European diaspora that peopled America, they became ancestral to a huge group. As foreign people like the English began to spill into "Virginia" in the part called Pennsylvania and New Jersey, they moved West ~ for the most part DUE WEST to Kansas City leaving behind a string of towns named UNIONTOWN or variations thereof! Sometimes they'd call a place something Christmasy like Santa Claus, or Deerpark, or... whatever they fancied. Back in Europe the Russian Orthodox had tried to Christianize them ~ leaving them with only a barebones sort of Christian belief system in America. In Europe that same group created something called The Church of the First Born. And, later on, after the Swedes quit kidnapping tribal people and transporting them, many of them MIGRATED to America on their own. I estimate that today a good 9 million Americans have a strong Sa'ami racial component detectible in several serious genetic differences. Square hearts, improved night vision, loss of blue receptors, and ability to worm the extremities of the body without use of gloves down to 10 degrees Farenheit. That heart thing can sometimes lead to a strange arhythmia .... but the loss of the blue receptors allows for the formation of more than average the number of red receptors.... Another 30 million Americans also share in the ancetry, but their genomes are overwhelmed with OTHER European sourced DNA. They run into these people only in genealogical studies. Today there are only 90,000 identifiable Sa'ami in Scandinavia. There are likely many Europeans with a Sa'ami ancestor simply because those folks moved into the growth of deep ocean fishing in the 1700s. And into WHALING. Hence the fellows who could withstand Antarctic weather rowing around in dingy's spearing whales. Ordinary Europeans usually freeze first! You want to see the Sa'ami at work proving themselves to be DIFFERENT watch the Winter Olympic long distance skiing. The 40 k race starts out UPHILL. All those guys are Sa'ami except 1 German who probably has more than his fair share of Sa'mi ancestry. That square heart makes all the difference!

[@superstructure23]

Why do YOU capitalise RANDOM words in your SENTENCES?

[@emmamemma4162]

Did you mean to write Sámi and Sápmi? Do you have any sources for your claims about the Sámi having all these extraordinary physical features?

[@sharonkeith601]

Fascinating, that about the "square heart" and the dysarythmia! That should be made known to student doctors!

[@maiaallman4635]

Very interesting

[@roshe9124]

Interesting. Never. Heard. Of. This. Information

[@panscopia1791]

...it's called slavery bro....it's not just a white thing it's a human thing.

[@maxwellli7057]

One day those robots in the factories will rise up and the world will be like Hatti 1806

[@arthas640]

careful about sharing that, i've read some books and articles that seem to think it was invented by white people about 15 minutes after Columbus landed in the Americas and realized how hard it would be to start farming there. In one of my high school history classes I had a teacher that literally told us "modern slavery was invented after Europeans invaded Africa in the 15th century so they could import workers to North America and the Caribbean" which was especially dumb since the single largest importer of slaves was actually Brazil in addition to slavery being kind of universal for most of human history, and they already had very similar forms of slavery (I.E. chattle slavery) in other parts of the world. In some countries entire family lines would serve the same family for generations, which happened in areas as diverse as the Puget Sound, Yemen, and India.

[@chugggs3516]

@@arthas640 How did this person become a teacher haha.

[@darkdestiny1989]

Tell that to the many Eastern and Southern European slaves captured by Muslims in the 15th century. It’s right, not a white think. It’s typically human to try to gain an advantage over the other.

[@Tsalagi978]

Arthas Menethil yep and the Islamic Arab slave trade existed 700 years before the European one.

[@2011pmacz]

What's always fascinated me is that we are ALL survivors - we all have ancestors from 1000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago etc. When you think of that its' awesome!

[@samuelschonenberger]

Am I a native to this video?

[@MilNORtop10]

yes

[@budgetlifter]

no you didn't upload it, you migrated to it

[@ecar622]

Your a soujorner like Jesus yawey

[@daviddechamplain5718]

Imagine that, people have been conquering and mixing with each other since forever.

[@chizzlemo3094]

2 crazy points 1) all the islands off Africa were uninhabited until the Portuguese came, the Africans never learned to sail nor invented the wheel. 2) The natives of the Canary Islands were blonde haired and blue eyed. Where they originally came from no-one really knows but they had Egyptian-like practices such as embalming the dead.

[@alant9743]

As you very briefly touched down on Shetland, I think a video abiut our history, people, genealogy, language, names etc would be extremely interesting as we share a mixed scottish/Nordic culture/people.

[@Michael-kd1ho]

I heard a story once about a tribe on one of the Pacific islands who liked to prank European visitors. They would gather a tribal feast and feed the visitors strange things they fished from the sea, and then laugh and say he was crazy, we don't eat that crap.

[@jetblackhair92]

I look like a denisovan

[@GrexTheCrabasitor]

some denisovan recreations are beautiful tbh, dont feel bad

[@consonantsandvowels1]

Wilem Dafoe makes it work ❤

[@thewhovianhippo7103]

You Don't

[@og8k]

No shame in that

[@edgelord8337]

Tbh the word native seems to always cause some confusion. If your family is British and you've lived in South Africa for about 3 generations would you be considered native? Masaman videos do better explaining and debunking better than school and college does in a faction of the time. That's just how good these videos are.

[@hre2044]

I think in that context yes they would be a native. In the historical context as in are whites native to Africa, no. Are Dutch native to South Africa? well I think they were the first people in some of the southern tips.

[@teawanpaul6208]

The Dutch weren't the first in any parts of South Africa. People of Dutch descent make up the majority of the population in some towns and cities in South Africa though. This is a result of the displacement of native Khoikhoi and Bantu speaking people through colonization and later on during apartheid

[@demonkingkongo0524]

@@hre2044 no bantu lived south africa four thousands of years and khoisan for hundreds of thousands whites are not native in any part of africa

[@demonkingkongo0524]

@@teawanpaul6208 whites only make up 8 percent of the population

[@TheKeksadler]

@@teawanpaul6208 I had always thought the very southern tip was first settled by the Dutch. Was there new evidence recently dispelling this idea? I remember reading several years ago about South Africa being settled by Dutch and Bantu-speaking people roughly around the same time from opposite directions.

[@nasjo30]

3:07 there is an editing error

[@Grunk111]

5:58 Yes but that was Celtic monks there on some sort of missions, not a functioning settlement of people that could constitute a native population. The Faroe Islands where at least temporarily habited a few centuries before the Norse arrived during two short periods. I guess the Celts (or was it Anglo-saxons?) could be considered native to the Faroese if one ignores the fact that they lived there only a few generations and then probably left on their own accord. Anyway in both cases the Celtic blood in the modern Scandinavian populations of the islands did not come from these scattered hermits but from Thralls, bought or "acquired celtic wifes" and norsemen from the British isles with mixed blood.

[@Fr4cturedMind]

@The Nova renaissance I believe he's mixing up Anglo - Saxon and Celt as synonymous

[@PFResearch]

The celtics are tlaxcalteca of Mexico and Cymerians or the maroons of florida. They are the people of the Sun that civilized Mediterranean countries

[@Grunk111]

@The Nova renaissance They were a maritime people with boats.

[@galoglaich3281]

I think what he is doing is mixing up the orkneys and shetlands with the faeroes and iceland.The shetlands and orkneys would of had a pictish population before scandinavian settlement

[@Mads_Vel]

Imagine all these people lived for thousand and some millions of years ago, and so much happens right now.

[@Mads_Vel]

@TheWeeaboo The first humans emerged in Africa around two million years ago, long before the modern humans known as Homo sapiens appeared on the same continent though

[@Mads_Vel]

@TheWeeaboo Yeah

[@hairsstandonend]

Such a great video. Nativeness is just a matter of timescale. How far back do you want go is often the question I ask people.

[@emilchandran546]

There are also examples of people who were the first to inhabit a place. I’m Australian and the Australian Aboriginals were the first inhabitants. With continuous inhabitation. Until colonisation they were it. I’d argue their claim to being natively Australian is stronger than say any Western European population. I mean time scale is one thing, and 60 000 years takes some beating. But even if 59 000 years from now, a distinctly Anglo-Saxon-Norman people and culture survived in Great Britain, they were not the first.

[@hairsstandonend]

@@emilchandran546 I think Australia and some other far-flung islands are good examples of exceptions where you really can go back to the first peoples.

[@DJTriesHard]

0:01 Picture brought back a ton of memories and an interesting story you might like! The picture is of a Wishram(Pronounced Wisham by people related, alive today, I've noticed). Taken in 1910 and she likely died in 1920 of the flu. Edward Curtis, the photographer, is known for making them wear traditional garbs even when they wanted to wear more common apparel of the times. But in 2014, I worked at a visitors center and I got to know a Wisham man, with a name I can't remember or pronounce . He was very elderly likely 80s or 90s and he loved visiting to see pictures of his family, he called them cousins. And he claimed to be a Medicine Man. I usually just called him Medicine Man. One day he came in and the place was very busy. He looked around. Noticed a man. And asked him, of all people there, what was wrong. The man had just lost his home in Crimea due to the Russian conflict and he began to get emotional. The Wisham man pulled him aside, gave him a charm, blessed him, and gave him a hug. Working in tourism I was very aware of what's staged and what's not and that wasn't. It genuinely touched me and left an impact to this day.

[@jamesthomas5109]

Awesome video Mason, best wishes from the UK. 🇬🇧👍🇺🇸

[@danielm.4346]

To Mason, Masaman. Fascinating. Thank you for having made this video of a compilation of your research on this topic . A lot of good work, beautifully and well presented. I wish you a very good 2021.

[@XxDEDEYExX]

great vid, Masaman. i always learn new things about the world from your vids.

[@jahmah519]

Its amazing how we have travelled this vast planet & the indigenous were always changing but then some who seized the lands as possession & then influenced the masses kinda changed our nature, guess this is all part of change

[@samuelmonteros]

Oh man, I really enjoy your videos @Masaman and try to always watch them when they come out! I was sad that you missed the interesting history of the settling of the Galapagos Archipelago for this one. I think it might really interest you. From the first known human visitors being European explorers and pirates- to German/Swiss naturalists and hermits that made one of these remote islands their home, Floreana. Here, even a “Baroness” arrived with her three male lovers and declared herself regent of the island. Then followed the penal colony and large migration of colonists from Ecuador after annexation, becoming the overwhelming majority of the population today. It’s just such an interesting history to me. You could even make the case that these Pacific islands are pretty unique in that their “native” population comes not from the old world, but from a new world republic, Ecuador. Anyway, big fan. Keep up the good work. Saludos desde Quito!

[@maddog5284]

i cant beleve you never mentioned the Falkland islands

[@armwrestlingfan6804]

Penguins were first!

[@maddog5284]

@@armwrestlingfan6804 ahh yes the penguin people of anartica who salied too the falklands too expand there Empire and too stick it too the spanish.

[@armwrestlingfan6804]

@@maddog5284 they sailed on their bellies like real men!

[@armwrestlingfan6804]

@Sam Wilt what did they build and leave behind? I tolt you it was the penguins and they still rule that place and can destroy you at any time!

[@cringyalienguy9787]

@The Nova renaissance DAS RITE

[@ecar622]

I'm only 3 minutes in and I'm thankful u made this. polynesians were know for long travel on canoe being able to survive off the ocean so I wouldnt doubt some made it to america.. think about it

[@kaptainplantit]

According to science, skin color is determined by ultraviolet ray intensity. Anywhere near the tropics people tend to have darker skin as opposed to further away from it. Wide nostrils are an attribute due to heat and humidity. Same goes for hair stright or kinky with an exception of altitude.

[@kaptainplantit]

Narrow nostrils are as humidifiers. I hope this helps 🙏

[@pedrogouveia4326]

@@kaptainplantit point being?

[@timvanrijn8239]

O thats realy intresting. Nature is amazing

[@sammyr6911]

Kaptain Plant-it No it’s determined by eumelanin. If a white person goes into the sun they get sunburned

[@Gepap3]

@@pedrogouveia4326 You put light skin people in the tropics long enough, and they will become "dark" eventually, without any outside action. And conversely, you move dark skinned people into away from the tropics and, unless they eat a seafood diet full of vitamin D, they will become pale. Any attempt to then judge people by something as shallow as skin color is deeply stupid as this is just a basic change to account for environmental differences.

[@badwolf47836]

Great video! You should do a video on the natives of Greenland, that gets ambitious very quickly

[@alaayuwuh3012]

I'm pleased that your now referencing Graham Hancock! I hope you'll continue citing his work, as it is Extremely Relevant! And, changes Everything we've been Conditioned to beleive.

[@GilgameshEthics]

LOL he's a total hack. And i don't see how it's relevant to accurate genetic works at all.

[@alaayuwuh3012]

@@GilgameshEthics you obviously haven't seen, or read any of his work... Your probably a Clovis First Rube!

[@GilgameshEthics]

@@alaayuwuh3012 Have read his work. It's crap. And no clovis first has been clearly disproven by evidence. I'm an evidence boy.

[@alaayuwuh3012]

@@GilgameshEthics I guess you are entitled to your opinions... even if they are incorrect.

[@GilgameshEthics]

@@alaayuwuh3012 i guess you are entitled to believe bullshit scifi pretending to be science but how about not spuing it as fact?

[@vivetv3710]

Can you do a video on Hausa people?

[@hebrewthought9976]

He already did I’m pretty sure

[@hebrewthought9976]

I did my dna break downs and I have a large % of Hausa Nigeria in me. I did a video on it.

[@vivetv3710]

pokezee king-wolf I mean specifically the Hausa, not on the Chadic people and Nigeria in general.

[@vivetv3710]

pokezee king-wolf He has one video on Malays and another on Austronesian people in general. And the Hausa are the largest Chadic group, and have the second most speakers in the Afro-Asiatic family after Arabic. And they’re Africa’s largest ethnic group.

[@LB_die_Kaapie]

@@vivetv3710 yes, but Malays are still a large group of different tribes who share similar genetics. You want him to focus on one tribe but that's not what he does.

[@jah2ras4i]

I like Masaman videos, easy to understand and very interesting, good work!

[@fieldworkr]

the subtle music in the background is a nice touch

[@AGenericAccount]

it's from the game "portal"

[@gabinator3343]

In my opinion someone native is the descendant of the first people in a certain area that have been there for over a thousand years.

[@gabinator3343]

Jay T no they really aren't. Assyrians are the original people of Turkey or at least the certain part of Turkey that was part of Mesopotamia.

[@skellagyook]

@Jay T The Turkic language now spoken there is not native, but Modern Turks in Turkey are mostly descended from the native/preceeding (pre-Turkic) peoples of Anatolia (Hittites, Hurrians, Hatti, Lydians, Luwians, Urartians, and some Greeks) that were there before the Turkic invasions from Central Asia (which imposed a Turkic language but only contributed a small amount of genetics).

[@skellagyook]

@@gabinator3343 Modern Turks (from Turkey) are mostly descended from Turkicized Anatolian natives (e.g. Hittites, Luwians, Hurrians, Hatti, etc.). The true ethnically Turkic Turks are in places like Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, certain other parts of Central Asia, etc.

[@anglo2184]

Jay T not true the English descend from the original Brythonic celts with a small amount of admixture from the tribes you mentioned also that admixture came to England over 1.5 thousand years ago so they are native

[@dereklanmbarn6607]

Jay T The Turks in turkey are turkisized ; not ethnic Turks from Central Asia.

[@justaconservativedominican1990]

Hi Masaman, I'm dominican, and I myself have tiny traces of Astro-asian/ Papuan in my native American 23andme results.

[@ANTSEMUT1]

On that note Taino genetic markers show up quite heavily in many Caribbean populations.

[@saulbravo3485]

How much African did u get

[@stikupartist3698]

@@saulbravo3485 I'm Puerto rican and I got %42 African DNA from various regions including Cameroon and North Africa. %15 indigenous Puerto rican and the rest is various European countries.

[@justaconservativedominican1990]

@@ANTSEMUT1 Yep I myself am 7.3% (native taino)

[@justaconservativedominican1990]

@@saulbravo3485 about 40%.. the rest European 52% and Taino around 7%

[@atatsmail260]

Like American, Australian, Canadian and New Zealanders are natives of England before the invasions

[@seadawgg65]

@Masaman - Excellent & interesting episode! B safe & Keep 'em coming!

[@alecsanderhamilton9224]

i learned something else about you in this video... i like your effort to be not be biased.... especially when dealing with sensitive topics

[@samvimes9510]

I want to know who _originally_ lived on the Azores, before the Portuguese showed up. There are many megalithic ruins on the islands, including over 100 step pyramids, that predate the Portuguese by at least a thousand years.

[@lorenzospitaleri]

it's atlantis

[@GilgameshEthics]

Never heard of this. Any sources?

[@mariodangelo9768]

Hmmm intriguing

[@JoseFernandes-js7ep]

I am Portuguese and I have never heard anything about that. Can you provide some pictures of those thousand megalithic ruins. Existing or not, the Azores were desert when the Portuguese arrived there.

[@fabiomorandi3585]

@@JoseFernandes-js7ep I think he jumbled together Mesoamerica, Malta and the Azores.

[@RPSchonherr]

A funny thing I learned is before mid 1900's Europeans divided themselves into races. My great grandfather listed his race as German on his US naturalization papers. This could include the countries of Poland, Prussia, Saxen, Switzerland, Denmark etc. as opposed to Latin races or the Irish (Celtic) race. Now all these races are lumped into the white race. I would suppose also that Africa also would be divided into several different black races too.

[@wolfieinu]

True. "Race" in the modern sense is a non-concept, it is just political, because it doesn't trace along actual cultural and ethnic boundaries but almost completely on appearance. Shallow and counter-productive.

[@itsnodawayitustabe5654]

Cant wait for his take on the recent study showing Ancient Colombians in the pacific

[@wren_roeglass]

Very interesting video! I am fascinated by the topic. It would be great to see your sources written or linked in the description. For those quibbling about the term "Native American Indian," I really can't blame the author for using it as some indigenous people self-identify that way. Just my take on it, 2. Personally my "thing" is that I would rather hear enslaved people referred to as such, and not or at least not only as "slaves." 3. I mean no offense to the author or participants in the comment section, I hope whoever may be reading this doing well and having a good day. :)

[@discocorco]

An epidemic wiped out up to 90 percent of the Indians along the Massachusetts coast in 1617-1619, including the Patuxets, before the arrival of the Mayflower. Since the land was clear of people, those who moved into the vacuum can claim to be natives. The land was not stolen, or conquered, nor was possession of the land resisted. Title to other lands was mostly bought from other tribes. If the Pilgrims then are not the natives, who are? All who occupied before died. It has been over 400 years since.

[@SOP83]

Can you do a video on the undiscovered tribes still around today ? It'd be nice to see a map showing just how many are left and where they are.

[@tsoliot5913]

I had a boss who was from Bermuda. He had strongly English features and spoke with a middle class English accent.

[@Stamboul]

I distinguish between native and indigenous. A native person is one that was born in a given place - which is why I avoid the term "Native American." An indigenous person is one that belongs to the group that is known to have continuously lived the longest in a given place. One can be native without being indigenous and indigenous without being native.

[@Ggdivhjkjl]

Was the man born in Antarctica in 1858 allowed to join the Australian Natives Association (ANA)?

[@astrose305]

Please make a video on the igbo people thank youuuu !!!

[@blickluke]

The dutch/whites of south africa are native there because until they got their and traded for that land, there was no farms, no cities or buildings, it was land not in use.

[@rekinludojadek]

There is distinct language in Poland called wymysorys (in EN) or wymysiöeryś by themself en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wymysorys_language Now about only few dozens of people speaks wymysorys. The language comes from German/Dutch/Frisian immigrants to Poland. They evolved their own language spoken only in few villages.

[@themobstar58]

it's like the sorbs but reverse

[@2Hesiod]

There is a great Mayan mural unmistakably showing a battle at sea between Mayans and blonde haired blue eyed men. It's in a Thor Heyerdahl book.

[@afikax8933]

I feel like the idea of who belongs where was a strategy during colonialism, in some countries it was a method of justifying the reasoning behind taking ownership of land because colonialists would argue that inhabitants weren't indigenous. Look at the history of great Zimbabwe for example...

[@Mulambdaline1]

Great video! Never thought about the subject before.

[@mkim4091]

When people are referred as Indigenous it means they inhabited the land pre colonization like Aborigines of Australia or Natives of Americas. **** I'm adding in that this term isn't my modern definition. The term is defined by the United Nations Special Rapporteur. ****

Pre colonisation? Colonisiation has been happening since the beginning of time. No one is native to anywhere.

[@demonkingkongo0524]

@ so can africans and Arabs invade Europe

[@mkim4091]

William Wallace, Sure colonialism takes many forms but the causes remain the same; power, religion, status, and most of all greed. It takes tremendous amounts of greed to travel to another land to kill, maim, subjugate and enslave another people. We associate colonialism with the European colonisations from the 15th through to 19th centuries.

[@skellagyook]

The indigenous people of a given place are the oldest/earliest surviving human population there, even if they do not necessarily descend (or do not purely descend) from the first people ever to live there.

[@imperator692]

@ You're arguing very dumb semantics. Yes, technically everywhere is colonized because people aren't indigenous to any part of the earth beside Eastern Africa, but you still know what this person means by colonization. You know that they're talking about the European colonizations, the ones that had probably the most impact on earth. Stop arguing dumb points, it makes you look very aggressive and not fun to talk to. Also, about the Crusades thing. If the crusades was really about that, don't you think it would've happened when those Muslims expanded into Southern Europe rather than waiting 200 years to do it?

[@JotaGC]

I'm from the Canary Islands and I think you missed some points regarding the history of the islands. First, an important detail: the original inhabitants of the islands were not called "Guanches". This is a common mistake even among Canarians. Guanches were the inhabitants of the island of Tenerife (Canary Islands), and each island had its own demonym. For example, the original inhabitants of the island of Gran Canaria were simply called "Canarians" or "ancient Canarians", the original inhabitants of La Palma were called Beneahoritas, etc. So, for a more exact and correct way to call them, the original inhabitants of the Canary Islands, as a whole, should be called Canarian aborigins. Also, the Spaniards were not the only European nation to colonize the islands as you make seem in the video. The Portuguese, the Flemish, the Normans, the Genovese, the English/Irish, etc are also part of the Canarian colonial identity since the beginning of the European era in the islands, from which we have inherited many words and surnames (some of them Castilianized over the centuries) that are now almost (or completely) exclusive to the islands. Other than those two things, you did a good job mentioning us on this subject that really fits us well, being the only islands in the Macaronesia to be inhabited prior to the European colonization. For such a tiny territory, we really do have a dense history.

[@stoneylonesome4062]

*Shows picture of Göbekli Tepe at **1:41** Mark* *Joe Rogan and Graham Hancock have entered the chat*

[@bjrnjohanhumblen8620]

I read in a book about the canary Islands from the 70s that matching hyroglifics from the canary Islands and the cape verde Islands existed proving that the Canarians not only had boats before because they stopped using them, but they also reached the cape verde Islands. But i cant find anything about it online. But i did find a story of a megatsunami that hit the cape verde Islands about 65.000 years ago and a giant rock was found 200 m beyond the shoreline. And when it happened it was the ice age and the shoreline was even further down in the ocean

[@rose-kp4lf]

65000 years human lives maximum 100 110 years drop in the ocean

[@kyleseageruberalles2222]

Finally a video about natives that isn't political

[@gengis737]

"The English were the first to settle Tristaõ da Cuña island" As the name certainly prove it. British were late explorers, they reached Pacific two centuries after Portuguese, Oceania one century after the Dutch. French Coureur des Bois explored North America two centuries before Lewis and Clark. British was better at expelling the early arrived and renaming the place under english names.

[@RPSchonherr]

Yea, like New York and New Jersey.

[@Saufs0ldat]

Discovering and actually settling an island are two VERY different things.

[@francesca6355]

evidence for expelling people?

[@gengis737]

@@francesca6355 Acadie, as an example.

[@francesca6355]

@@gengis737 Really..thats your best example.Quote from wikipedia "In the years after the British conquest, the Acadians refused to swear unconditional oaths of allegiance to the British crown. During this time period some Acadians participated in militia operations against the British and maintained vital supply lines to Fortress Louisbourg and Fort Beausejour." So they were left alone for YEARS and only because they caused a military threat were they told to leave. this is not evidence of the British being better at expelling earlier colonists at all but rather the earlier colonist simply not understanding that they couldn't continue causing disruption and mayhem without consequences.

[@Demographiaanthropology]

it's surprising how Africans never discovered the Mascarene Islands

[@TonyMishima92]

Demographia It's not surprising at all given the dates for the Ban. Expansion and the lack of seafaring in the isolated pre-Ban. tribes. The ancestors of most Africans in much of central, southern, and Eastern Africa today weren't even there around 2 thousand years ago. It's interesting that Masaman didn't touch on that point in this video.

[@hebrewthought9976]

TonyMishima92 where the fuck did you get that bull shit from ?

[@LB_die_Kaapie]

@@hebrewthought9976 omg stfu and stop reading from a religion started in a Pentecostal church in the usa called the 'hebrew Israelites' damn 100 year old BS belief system lmfao

[@hebrewthought9976]

L B listen you single celled troglodyte take your ass back to the opioid zoo you call a trailer park home and find someone to play with or play in traffic I don’t care stop messaging me with your nonsense

[@TonyMishima92]

@@hebrewthought9976 Try google my friend. Look up the Bantu Expansion.

[@ANDERS25920]

Very interesting video iam of cape verdean decent but as you may notice before 1492 no people were there, the moors of spain were sent to cv

[@Thedreadymissheady]

The Penguins are Antarctica's natives

[@anawkwardsweetpotato4728]

There is a supposed group of people, the Vazimba, who inhabited the island of Madagascar before Austronesians and Bantus arrived. They apparently had their own kingdoms before the conquest of the Merina Kingdom, and may have been a pygmy population. Another anomaly I'd like to know is why a percentage of Azorean DNA (in contrast with mainland Portguese DNA) contains haplogroups/haplotypes common to East Asia.

[@bumblingbureaucrat6110]

It's probably just the result of the Founders Effect.

[@mansurx26]

Can you make a video about un-contacted tribes like the Sentinelese people.

[@chlomomorris]

I’ve been listening to Graham Hancock’s book, America Before, talking about the first humans in the Americas & how archaeologists believe they got there. It’s fascinating.

[@AhJodie]

This video is a great way to stand on your view with all this evidence. I like it!

[@mermaidmimsy]

The Dutch, British, nords and Danes pretty much own the north sea. They had Doggerland but sadly it sank.

[@GrexTheCrabasitor]

holy fuck, ive never heard of doggerland

[@MuFu23]

>Nords My ancestors are smiling upon me, Imperial. Can you say the same?

[@mermaidmimsy]

@@MuFu23 “Let me guess… someone stole your sweetroll?”

[@patrickaalfs9584]

I recently had my "Twenty three and Me," test done. They find certain haplotypes in your genetic code that are associated to regions or ethnic areas in history. However, the ethnic population they designate to be yours is somewhat arbitrary because of the limited number of generation the test can cover. If my ancestors were Frisian in the twelfth century, it doesn't mean they were Frissii in the first century. Most tests only focus on the post "great migration" period in Europe so an Anglo Saxon haplotype winds up in the UK even though both populations originally inhabited Northern Germany and Southern Denmark.

[@RPSchonherr]

Upload your DNA file to mytrueancestry.com/ they do a more thorough historical analysis of haplogroup origins through different eras of history. I did Ancestry.com for me and my wife and it was pretty vague like 23 and me is. This other was able to show my wife's Cherokee ancestry when Ancestry didn't. If you pay extra they will deep dive your mitocodrial DNA, X and Y chromosomes. Ancestry and 23andme only do your Y results though the rest is in the file.

[@patrickaalfs9584]

@@RPSchonherr Thanks for the info Robert. Using Y marker was fine in my case because I only had questions about my dad's ancestry anyway. I still think the results seem somewhat arbitrary because modern concepts like national/regional origin were non existent and early populations didn't habitually spend their entire life cycles in "low resource" environments that are mapped as part of the results. My point is, if your wife is of Cherokee ancestry, her Cherokee ancestors may also have pre-migration Siberian ancestry from centuries before that I would think are just as interesting and important for your wife to know. By the way. was there anyway to designate "Native, new world" haplogroups from Cherokee haplogroups? I would have thought they all appeared as a distinct group besides a few district South American genetic lines with polynesian/aboriginal influences.

[@Periskop1]

Great video as always.It would be interesting to know your take on populations with sinodonty and sundadonty features in the context of immigration.

[@williamozier918]

I'm curious, if the words natvie and indigenous are as was said arbitrary, what is the proper wording we aer looking for to describe the phenomenon we're talking about?

[@kamelhaj6850]

The history of the Americas is much more complex than first thought. Like you said, first were the Austronesians, then a slightly larger group (related to the Ainu people), then the ones we call Native American. Overlapping with this were several incursions from what is now Europe (look up the "moon-eyed people"), Africa (seen in the statues you mentioned), and Polynesians (builders of the totem poles). Throw in a possible number of Phoenicians, Basque, Chinese, Irish, etc. and you get a long record way before Columbus' "discovery".

[@colinrice6865]

Sources?

[@kamelhaj6850]

Look up articles about DNA in Native Americans in South America, especially for the Polynesian influence. You'll also discover DNA in certain Native tribes which have many non Native markers. Most all of the other incursions were killed off by the Natives, but relics of their being in the Americas are there - wall paintings, distinct wares, and skull fragments. Also some of their languages are quite different from neighboring tribes (and I'm not talking simple dialects). Native American oral histories also mention these things. Of course, some claims are harder to prove, like the Basques and Knights Templar. @@colinrice6865

[@kylemullen1139]

Wouldn’t the Vikings be native to southern Greenland thus meaning there are native Norwegians to North America.

[@mardasman428]

Considering that these are islands, they will have very different migration patterns than other places, especially if these are remote islands.

[@kostas6621]

Very informative!

[@robrod7120]

I’ve always wondered about this. Were the norse native to greenland, and were they colonized by inuit groups? Since technically they were there ‘first’. Strange world

[@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions]

The Norse were the first to southern Greenland, but they were not the first humans there! Other Inuits were first, but who are not directly related to the current group that calls the island home. There was a small window of time were the Norse were the only humans there but the ancestors of the current Inuit group made it soon afterwards (however I've read that it could have been near simultaneously) on the northern side, but weirdly enough by the time those Inuit made it south, the Norse were pretty much extinct.

[@arthas640]

@@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions yeah, greenland has kinda changed hands a few times. it was settled by Canadian Eskimos, then Alaskan Thule/Inuit, then for awhile the Alaskan Thule lived in the north with Vikings in the south, then it as all Inuit, then taken over again by Denmark.

[@JoseFernandes-js7ep]

The map at 1:00 is somewhat confusing to me. Weren't Neanderthals mostly living in Europe? So, how can the present European the ones with the smallest amount of Neanderthal DNA?

[@sambulls]

no , europe mostly, near east and even asia.

[@readingforwisdom7037]

Brilliant, very informative

[@Bluebayou99]

Hey do a video on The Choctaw Indians of Amite and the Tangipahoa Indians

[@vtron9832]

Well, in my opinion. A group becomes native to a land if they develop a different culture or ethnicity when they become detached from the land from where the original settlers came from. And yes, only the first people to do this would be considered native.

[@timvanrijn8239]

First people. Eum how.far back do we go

[@bastiaanbogers4114]

Well, as shown in the video, this definition doesn't work if you don't draw a line somewhere. It would mean that the English are not native to England, cause there were Celts before them. It would mean the Spaniards are not native to Spain, as there were Aquitanians before them in ancient times. Turks are not native to Turkey. Bantu people are not native to most of the places they live. Aztecs are probably not native to Mexico. It's just completely arbitrary in many cases. Except for cases were the current inhabitants were literally the first to get there.

[@vtron9832]

Bastiaan Bogers well, lets use the example of Aztecs. Yes it is true that the region they currently inhabit of the Mexican valley is not their homeland because they ancestors migrated from the north many hundreds of years earlier, but it would be unfortunate to say that certain groups of people have no homeland. Another example: Most Indo-Europeans aren’t native to most of the lands they travelled to, but the Indo-Aryan culture did in-fact emerge here, so it should be their urheimat.

[@bastiaanbogers4114]

Vtron But you’re original definition was that only the first people could be considered native. The entirety of Europe was once inhabited by Celts, but they have all been replaced by Germanic, Latin and Slavic people. So Germans would then not be considered the native people of Germany by your definition. My point was that in the end it’s always arbitrary where you draw the line. How far back in history do you go?