,
"Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote in message
...
Carmen wrote:

"Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote in message
...
benlizross wrote in article :

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

Not That Kerry wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:04:03 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky

wrote:

benlizross wrote:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote:

The mainland that the
Polynesians came from was Asia -- or at the very
least,
their sailing
technology came from there.

How so?

In actual fact, the evidence points elsewhere.

Really? Perhaps you could give some evidence in support
of
this amazing
claim.

There's a marked similarity between the Canadian West Coast
canoes and Polynesian canoes, for example.

Yuri.

Well maybe the Canadian West coasters came from Asia
too...why
fancy
that...They did!

Yes, kerry (Not That Kerry), you do seem to have a point
here...

It is indeed quite possible, and even probable, that the
Canadian West coasters came from Asia at some point in time
-- skipping along all that near-continuos coast-line --
before they went on to Polynesia, and became Polynesians!
This seems like the most rational scenario, that's also
supported by plenty of archaeological evidence.

Archaeological evidence! Great! Tell us all about it!
Uh...you don't by any chance mean pictures of totem poles, do
you?

Ross Clark

For example, the same types of stone sledge-hammers, the
elbow adze, composite fish-hook, patu-type club, stone
pounders and pestles, etc.


I was going to ask you for a reference, but then I noticed that this
is
just a selection from the list in Heyerdahl 1952, pp. 92ff. Ho hum.

Ross Clark

I see... So it seems like, according to Dr. Clark's system
of values,

1. Anything that Heyerdahl has ever said is automatically
wrong.

2. Any subject upon which Heyerdahl had ever touched is
automatically tainted, and is no longer worth talking about.

No doubt these assumptions do simplify Dr. Clark's Universe
considerably...

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in
nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of
thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith

So you really really think that they are linked ?

That's right, Carmen.

If so what are the implications and are there any real implications ?
In other words so what ?

Well, there are great many reasons why we might want to
study history. For example, it's important, it's
educational, and also it can be great fun!

Why Study History?
http://history.hanover.edu/why.html

So, Carmen, would you now perhaps suggest some reasons why
we should not study history?

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

"Genuine ignorance is ... profitable because it is likely
to be accompanied by humility, curiosity, and open
mindedness; whereas ability to repeat catch-phrases,
cant terms, familiar propositions, gives the conceit of
learning, and coats the mind with varnish water-proof
to new ideas" -- John Dewey

Where did you get the idea that I think we should not study history?

I have been looking into history for a long time and am reasonably
knowledgable about various things.

Carmen