NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.pbs.org/previews/1421/

1421: THE YEAR CHINA DISCOVERED AMERICA?, airing on PBS Wednesday, July 21, investigates a theory that could turn the conventional view of world history on its head: the startling possibility that a daring Chinese admiral, commanding the largest wooden armada ever built, reached America 71 years before Columbus.


The documentary examines the mystery surrounding China's legendary Zheng He and the spectacular Ming fleet of treasure junks he commanded in the early 15th century. The special provides a history of the known journeys of Zheng He's fleet and an account of new information uncovered by Gavin Menzies, a former British submarine commander who has spent nine years trying to prove that Zheng He reached America decades before Columbus. Menzies, author of the best-selling book 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, has assembled evidence that he believes substantiates his theory.


The first part of the documentary presents 15th-century China as an emerging super-nation with an armada of treasure junks that dominated the Indian Ocean. At the behest of Chinese emperor Zhu Di, Zheng He sailed this fleet to far-flung outposts throughout the eastern hemisphere, established major ports and extended the commercial reach of "the Middle Kingdom" far beyond its previous bounds. The first segment recounts this story through re-enactments, extensive location filming and innovative computer graphics imaging models of the fleet itself.


1421: THE YEAR CHINA DISCOVERED AMERICA? then investigates the major historical mystery that arises from Menzies' theory: Could this incredible and intrepid fleet have shown the European explorers the way to the west - reaching America's shores decades before Columbus? Menzies seeks to prove his extraordinary theory by retracing the steps he believes the Chinese took from Africa to Europe to the Caribbean and along the eastern coast of the United States. The program examines the evidence behind his theory, then puts it to the test, drawing together historical accounts, archaeology and information from consultations with contemporary historians, archaeologists and scientists. The results are often dramatic and - like Menzies' theory itself - highly controversial.

I guess that says enuff :)

Change the history books!!!

"it was believed that Columbus was the first one to put a foot on the new continent. Recently, researchers proved that the Chinese were the first to land, taking off the lead from the Spaniards!" That's ignoring the Vikings, but I imagine they're used to it by now :D

poor poor vikings, always being pushed aside.
Anyway, souds preaty great although I had already read the came close so it was only a matter of time someone would comeup with a theory.

I thought Vikings discovered America?

Columbus did not discover the American Continents. He was in idiot who got lost, not worthy of the praise that is heaped upon him. The American Continents were discovered long before he was even born.

Columbus did not discover the American Continents. He was in idiot who got lost, not worthy of the praise that is heaped upon him. The American Continents were discovered long before he was even born.

TRUE ON THAT!

The Romans knew that there was lands undiscovered out there. But the barbarians took the place of exploration. Barbarians like the anglo-saxons, vikings (didn't fight the romans, but would have lost to the ancient italians/romans), celtics, tribes...etc etc.

The Vikings came over with Erik the reds' son. But their colony was destroyed by natives (forgot the name of the tribe though)

Wow, does this matter? I read the book 1421 which detailed all of this - good read, mostly - but thought little of it...it was interesting, yes, but no need to rewrite the history books.

The asians did discover America first, when they crossed the Bering strait over into the American lands...the Vikings and the Chinese (I'm chinese :P) discovered it, too. But is American culture spun primarily from Nordish? Chinese? Or European?

That's why Columbus is in the history books, while the Chinese and Vikings not so much. So give credit where it's due.

Yeah, there's a reason they were named after Amerigo, cuz it was Amerigo who found out what it was that Columbus hit.

Also, like Luquillo said, Eric the Red found America a long time before Colmbus hit it.

Furthermore, the natives that destroyed the viking colonies found it first! :-P

i always thought it was the siberians

they had it easy though cos they could walk over

Acctually that would be the Kamchatcka peninsula and I though it was people from mongolian Tribes or somthing like that

Spain also stole the annual bull games by my ancestry romans. We used to do the same thing.

But now we get to fight the bulls HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA >:D

But now we get to fight the bulls HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA >:D

I see it as a mochary of italian heritage. Romans actually conquered the future spanish.

i watched the show on pbs the other day (well it was on in the background while i was on the puter so i didnt pay tons of attention to it)

the thing that suprised ME is that the chinese didnt cross the pacific!
they came around the Inidan ocean, around the cape of good hope, and up the coast of africa, (or not i missed that part) but struck out across the atlantic MISSING ALL OF EUROPE.

upon reaching the shores of the americas they immediately proceeded to F their brains out. it seems that according to this author the eastern indians have an enormous amount of chinese genes. (im not sure what makes them chinese) according to this author, columbus thought he had reached china because he met CHINESE PEOPLE.

it all seems very doubtful to me

but its interesting that the Mings, after quite alot of success with explorations around asia in the Indian ocean, decided that the whole thing was stupid, burned bunches of records on it, and decided to stay home from then on.

But the Spaniards come from the vandals and the visigoths don't day and they where the ones who kicked them out of the ibirian peninsula

But the Spaniards come from the vandals and the visigoths don't day and they where the ones who kicked them out of the ibirian peninsula

Si, they ruined my roman ancestry after we were nice enough to invite them into our borders. Insult to injury when they stel and derive spanish out of my greatly cherished latin language. Though italiano is the closest universal language to latin.

Latin is unique, the one, the only, the greatest, the best, the most hallowed, and the most worthy language of them all. Everything else is derived from it, because everything comes from latin! Nothing is a substitute, not even Italian. Not even close...

Long live the glorious Romans! Who are all dead! ... but that's besides the point...

I once read somewhere that historians believe that North America was discovered even before the Vikings, some suggested Irish missionaries who traveled pretty much everywhere, Greeks, and egyptians.....but the Vikings is far more believable....

Latin is unique, the one, the only, the greatest, the best, the most hallowed, and the most worthy language of them all. Everything else is derived from it, because everything comes from latin! Nothing is a substitute, not even Italian. Not even close...

Long live the glorious Romans! Who are all dead! ... but that's besides the point...

It's alive in me. I can trace my roots to nowhere but Italia. Sono Italiano! My ancestry is roman no matter what you think. And out of ALL universal languages, italiano is the closest. Roma in our capital. I admit north of roma is majority barbarian (going by roman perspective at the time), but my origins is a few miles from Napoli. We are a minority in the north like spain is in certain parts of it's own country.

If they did, how come diseases weren't introduced earlier? No records of any Central American civilization indicates that, and I'm sure that if they landed elsewhere, archaeological evidence would show a die off at the time.

http://www.pbs.org/previews/1421/



I guess that says enuff :)

Change the history books!!!

"it was believed that Columbus was the first one to put a foot on the new continent. Recently, researchers proved that the Chinese were the first to land, taking off the lead from the Spaniards!" That's ignoring the Vikings, but I imagine they're used to it by now :D

I recently heard that the east coast of the american continent was on portugises maps over the atlantic just before colombus set off to find a ay to India. The reason the Portugal crown didn't sponsor him was that they knew allready that there was a continent between Europe and Asia in that direction.

Also, on even older maps done for Arabic slavetraders sailing in the atlantic you can find the shores of a continent printed in the far east. Think this was before the vikings arived here, not sure.

There is also the vikings, like you pointed out.

But those who discovered it first was actually the Indians (doh! =P).

However, it's pretty much thanks to Columbus expiditions that we got really aware of the great landmasses west of Europe.

It's alive in me. I can trace my roots to nowhere but Italia. Sono Italiano! My ancestry is roman no matter what you think. And out of ALL universal languages, italiano is the closest. Roma in our capital. I admit north of roma is majority barbarian (going by roman perspective at the time), but my origins is a few miles from Napoli. We are a minority in the north like spain is in certain parts of it's own country.

Yes, but you're not a bull-raping, war-loving, Greek-slaying, Zeus-worshipping Roman citizen...that is what I was referring to :P The Empire has fallen...

Most romans weren't in that scene. But i'd watch like the majority did, heh.

CHINA! CHINA! CHINA! CHINA!

Course we found America earlier than Columbus did. Columbus' boats was so puny, and yet they managed to cross the stormy Atlantic - wouldn't be too hard for the huge Chinese junks to do the same across the calm Pacific. YAH!

But the Spaniards come from the vandals and the visigoths don't day and they where the ones who kicked them out of the ibirian peninsula
No they don't. The Vandals only lived for a short while in Andalusia before the Visigoths pushed them out and they migrated to North Africa.

Well, i wouldnt doubt that the Chinese discoverd America before Columbus, but there are some other theorys. i think that the Vikings discoverd America during their time, which is a couple hundred years before the Chinese, and as somebody posted, they settled a city, but were driven out by, basically violent eskomo's.
But, i think the more famous Chinese Zhang He lived around 200 AD, during the time of the 'Three kingdoms', but it might be another just with the same name.
sorry if i am repeating anyone to much, those are just my two cents.

Well, i wouldnt doubt that the Chinese discoverd America before Columbus, but there are some other theorys. i think that the Vikings discoverd America during their time, which is a couple hundred years before the Chinese, and as somebody posted, they settled a city, but were driven out by, basically violent eskomo's.
But, i think the more famous Chinese Zhang He lived around 200 AD, during the time of the 'Three kingdoms', but it might be another just with the same name.
sorry if i am repeating anyone to much, those are just my two cents.

there is one famous zheng he in chinese history, and he lived in around the 1500s, sailed to the south seas, india, and eventually africa, supported with facts

200AD was not the three kingdoms...yet...late han dynasty

you may be talking about zhang qian, who discovered the asian steppes for the earlier han dynasty around 100B.C.

As a person of native decent I find it mildly amusing that various cultures argue over the 'discovering' of a land that had people on shore greeting them as they arrived.

There was a show on The Dicovery Channel once about who 'discovered' the Americas. Apparently, some archaeologist unearthed an Ancient Egyptian Pharoah and when lab tests were run, they turned up significant traces of Cocaine remnants in the mummy. Cocaine only grows in South America, suggestig that there was contact between Ancient Egypt and the cultures of Ancient South America.

I am curious where this movie got its info. I have an old book called Nu Sun, by Gunnar Thompson, that details evidence that the chinese landed in South America before Columbus, and before the Vikings had settled, and left, Newfoundland. It provides evidence of the Chinese in America from as far back as 500 BCE. The book was published in 1989, for i am curious as to why the idea of Old Chinese explorers in America is being treated as a novel idea.

I watched something on the discovery channel on the supposedly haveing contact with the Americas as well, it also went on to state theories of the Phoenician and Greek sailors (who I must say, really did get around). All that happened long before 500 b.c., according to the show, there are a whole lot of theories on this "who discovered the America's" stuff eh?

CHINA! CHINA! CHINA! CHINA!

Course we found America earlier than Columbus did. Columbus' boats was so puny, and yet they managed to cross the stormy Atlantic - wouldn't be too hard for the huge Chinese junks to do the same across the calm Pacific. YAH!

see now, thats what *I* assumed
but NOOOO
they came across the indian ocean under africa and across the ATLANTIC

go figure

If the chinesse discovered america then they had too much free time on their hands...so pointless

Shouldn't it be said that the Central Asian tribes who crossed the Bering land bridge first discovered America?

Salon doesn't rate the idea: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2003/01/07/menzies/index.html

I remember reading something ages ago about similarities between Chinese and Toltec artifacts which may have been more than co-incidence.

BUT

IIRC, the Chinese, like the Japanese, practiced very isolationist "foreign policy" in the middle ages - for the economy, you were only allowed to trade inside China. Anything else was forbidden by the Emporer - big Junks etc setting across the sea were a no-no.

I have no doubt the Vikings reached North America. Due to the streched supply lines, they didn't stay long. Plus the natives weren't too friendly. The Vikings had steel, the natives had strength in numbers.

It's also likely Basque fishermen knew of the New World years befor C.C.

If the Romans were the first, it explains why the natives used spears. Early Romans used spears. I only wish we discovered that worthless soil.

Interesting link: Greeks and Romans in the New World? (http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa080700a.htm)

i havnt read all the posts so this might have been said already. but how can you claim to discover a country when there are people on the shore waving to your men on the boats?

You can't really discover America if there were people here, so really it'd be more accurate to say that China or the Vikings were the first foreigners (sp?) to America.

The Chinese, the Vikings, the Irish (St Brendan), Columbus, whatever all had one major thing in common - the America that they "discovered" was already inhabited!!

Given that the most commonly accepted theory on the origins of humanity remains the "Out of Africa" version (and looks more and more likely with further genetic testing and population sampling) then it folows that the real "discoverer" of America is an unknown and unnamed "savage" whose descendants went on to populate the entire two continents.

Romans were the first to discover america as i imagined. Grazie Sydia for making public this page. It is true. Like alot of the other things other civilizations stole from the Romans/Ancient Italians, exploration was one of them.

Even though people were all ready living in the Americas and other people may have discovered it before Columbus, his voyage still had an enormous effect on world history. Think what the world would be like if Columbus never found any land. It probably would have been a long time before Europeans discovered the Americas.

Wow...why does this matter? That China, the Vikings, the ancient inhabitants of Asia (who crossed the Bering strait), and possibly the Greeks and Romans, all discovered America is a fact...but Columbus is in the history books for a reason, the same reason that most Americans are of European descent and not of Chinese or Nordish or Native descent...

see now, thats what *I* assumed
but NOOOO
they came across the indian ocean under africa and across the ATLANTIC

go figure

or that. doesn't matter what route they took, as long as we did it earlier than Columbus.

Wow...why does this matter? That China, the Vikings, the ancient inhabitants of Asia (who crossed the Bering strait), and possibly the Greeks and Romans, all discovered America is a fact...but Columbus is in the history books for a reason, the same reason that most Americans are of European descent and not of Chinese or Nordish or Native descent...
Nordish types are also Europeans.

Yeah, there's a reason they were named after Amerigo, cuz it was Amerigo who found out what it was that Columbus hit.

Also, like Luquillo said, Eric the Red found America a long time before Colmbus hit it.

Furthermore, the natives that destroyed the viking colonies found it first! :-P

Actually it was Leif Eriksson, the son of Erik the red. As for Amerigo; there is some conjecture on that too:

Did The Vikings Name America?
by Dick Wicken

A number of theories regarding the origin of the name "America" have been advanced, but none have been proved true.
First, and most generally accepted, is that the name "America" is derived from the first name of Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian mapmaker and self-promoter who explored the seacoasts of North America in the decade following Christopher Columbus' "discovery" of the New World for her most Catholic majesty, Isabella of Spain.

However, there has been no substantiation that this derivation of the name "America" is correct: and there is other evidence indicating that Amerigo Vespucci was not above turning to personal advantage an odd coincidence of phonetics in the sound of his first name and a composite word of ancient Norse invention, evidently in very current use by the North Atlantic sailing fraternity from about the year 1000 until well past the times of Columbus, Cabot and Vespucci.

The claim that the name of the entire continent, North and South, was derived from a given name is odd in itself, for common practice at the time would indicate using a man's family name to derive an identity for a locality.

Secondly, and less generally accepted, is a theory emanating from Bristol, England, submitting that the name "America" was derived from name of one Richard Ameryke, a tax collector for King Henry VII as well as the city's leading lumber merchant. Ameryke was an enthusiastic supporter and financial backer of the Italian navigator, John Cabot. Under letters-patent from Henry VII, dated 5 March 1496, Cabot set sail from Bristol in 1497, accompanied by his three sons.

On 24 June 1497 he sighted Cape Breton Island and Nova Scotia, thus "discovering" the mainland of North America - about 600 years after the Vikings had done so.

There is no more factual substantiation of the Bristol theory of the origin of the name "America" than the highly questionable claims of Amerigo Vespucci.

Thirdly, the theory has been advanced that America was named for a Spanish sailor bearing the ancient Visigothic name of "Amalrick".

Since these unproved - and quite possibly, unprovable - claims and theories are being advanced and accepted, it seems only right to submit a fourth unproven, equally logical and far more possible theory of the origin of the name "America".

Therefore, it is herewith submitted that the word "America" is simply a phonetic derivation of an ancient Norse compound word "omme-rike". In its simplest translation from the largely four-letter language of the Viking discoverers of the New World, it means "the remotest land". The various parts of the New World were referred to in the Icelandic Sagas as Helluland (Stoneland), Markland (Woodland) and Vineland (Wineland). "Omme-rike" would have been the logical name to apply to the great land mass as a whole.

In support of this submission the following facts are listed for consideration:

The long-used and familiar name occurring in classic writings, "Ultima Thule," designating a mysterious distant land. The meaning of these two words is singularly interesting in itself. Ultima means "the end," "remotest," and Thule is derived from, not Latin, but from the old Norse word "Thyle," which means to "speak". It is safe to assume that when the Norse word meaning speech is used, the speech being referred to is Norse. The simplest translation of "Ultima Thule" is "the farthest out land where Norse is spoken". The obvious conclusion is simply that "Ultima Thyle" means what it says.


The analysis of the word in question, "America," as to its possible meaning in old Norse, the language of the Vikings, still current in a slightly changed form in Iceland and in isolated parts of Norway. In old Norse, the word "America" strongly suggests two separate words, "omme" and "rike". "Omme" means "over," "out," "out there," "the end," "final," "furthest out," "most remote," "very last," or "ultimate"
Rike" appears in lively existence today both in contemporary Norse, and its use by the Vikings to designate large land masses is amply attested to today in the names of places in the areas of Viking operations. Sometimes the word is slightly modified, but its presence is as easily recognized as its meaning. In old Norse it is pronounced rica as in America, It is spelled in a number of ways, but always pronounced the same: rige, rega, rike, rikja, reykja. In German it appears as "reich". It always means the same thing: country, land, kingdom empire. Examples of the use of this ancient Norse word can be found in the following:

Norege, pronounced nor-reeg-eh, meaning Norway.
Sverige, pronounced sver-reeg-eh, meaning Sweden.
Frankrike, pronounced frankr-reeg-eh, meaning France.
Osterike, pronounced oste-reeg-eh, meaning Austria.

The above should be sufficient to prove that it was common practice for Vikings to use this word to designate countries.

Combined, the old Norse words "omme" and rike" would be pronounced "Oh-ma-reeg-eh" - virtually identical to "America" - and would translate into an almost identical meaning with the oft repeated classic term "Ultima Thule (Thyle)" when one considers that Norse was a spoken, not a written, tongue, and that Latin was the only written language of the time; additional inferences are obvious.

On one of Verrazzano's maps, the coast of New England is oddly named "Norumbega". Naturally, one cannot expect a "segener" like Verrazzano to pronounce Norse words correctly, much less spell or understand them. Basic study on the possible Norse origin of the word "Norumbega," bastardized by an ignorant Latin, suggests much support for the idea advanced: "Norum" is nothing else than the Norse word "naerom," meaning "near under" (and contains the stem word "om" from "omme") and "bega" is merely a misspelled-and-mispronounced Italian version of the Norse word "rege" or "rike". I believe it is obvious that "Norumbega" is an Italianized version of the Norse word "Naerom-rega," "Naeromrike," or, possibly, "Naerom-vikja" which would translate into the meaning of "the near-under regions" or "the near-under-harbor". But its real meaning is even clearer: It is only a slightly modified version of "omme-rike".



Finn Magnussen has established that Columbus did visit Iceland at least once in 1477, fifteen years before undertaking his first voyage to the New World. He could have easily heard of Ommerike and could even have visited there in a Norse ship.


Previous to the great plague, Iceland and Greenland - and the lands beyond - are believed to have supported a population numbering into the hundreds of thousands. One of the major ports doing business in this area was Bristol, England. It was the home base for John Cabot and source of the Bristol Theory of the origin of the name "America". The first White man to see America was Bjarne Herulfssen, wind-blown upon it while bringing a cargo of wood (reader please make note of the cargo) from Norway to Iceland, 600 miles across open seas. It is rather naive to assume that what happened to Bjarne Herulfssen did not happen to others, Bristol traders as well as Norsemen. It is, I believe, quite safe to assume that Bristol ships had sailed the Ommerike coast long before John Cabot - if only by accident - and referred to the place by its Norse name.


The key to the main reason that the Icelanders and Greenland Norse would never have abandoned contact with Ommerike can be found in the cargo of Bjarne Herulfssen's ship. As there are no forests on either Iceland or Greenland and wood was needed to sustain life (both to keep warm in the rigorous winter and as building material for shelter for humans and livestock as well as for building and repairing ships), a source of supply of lumber had to be maintained. It had to come either from Europe or Ommerike. Europe meant a six hundred mile voyage across the open seas, with plenty of chance of disaster from the elements, desertion of the crews on arrival and payment of some kind to secure lumber; while a voyage to Ommerike meant a two hundred and fifty mile open sea voyage from Iceland to Greenland with landfall almost certain, another two hundred and fifty miles to certain landfall on the Ommerike coast, and from there on a cold but relatively safe coastal voyage to endless forests that were free for the taking - with little chance that the crew would desert or refuse to return to Iceland.
Any present Icelander, given a similar choice of voyages, would set his sails for Ommerike, not Europe.



Vatican records in Rome are reported to establish that a Bishop Eric Gnuptson (probably Knutssen), Bishop of Greenland and neighboring regions, arrived in Ommerike in the last year of Pope Pashal II, stayed for at least one year and then returned to Rome via Greenland and Iceland. His ministry is said to have included seventeen parishes. There is also a reported Norwegian record granting the King's authority to one George Knutsen to recruit the sons of leading Norwegian families to go to the lands beyond Greenland to search out and induce to return to the fold those colonists that had drifted off to live with the natives.


The Vatican could well have had very real practical reasons to be reluctant to place too great an importance to the Norse adventures in the New World or to publicize them. The Church's authority always diminished in direct proportion to the northward distance from Rome. The grip on the countries around the Norwegian sea was always precarious, and any real hold in Iceland or Greenland was virtually non-existent.
Undoubtedly it seemed - and proved to be - to the Vatican's advantage that the discovery and all ensuing "rights" to the New World be credited to the enterprise and operation of nations ruled by devout Christians.

The name of this wondrous land, Ommerike, was so well established, so totally known and accepted, such common knowledge that none of the Italian navigators, not Cabot, Vespucci or even Columbus himself, ever thought of calling the place by any other name but the already long established Ommerike - America.
The political expedients employed in this great delusion worked very well indeed, for both the nations of Spain and Portugal and for the Catholic Church. However, the days of such reasoning and shenanigans are long past and no reason remains, except indifference, to continue to deny that someplace in forgotten archives of the Vatican exist maps and written reports of Bishop Erie Knutssen and many others who visited the New World long before Columbus, voyaging over the Icelandic-Greenland route, and perhaps even as far as the islands of the Gulf of Mexico or even Mexico itself.

Bit by bit, in unexpected ways, the truth of the discovery of the New World surfaces, the last example of which is the authenticated Yale University Vinland map. There will be many more such scholastic breakthroughs and it is safe to predict that in some future rediscovered map or written report predating both the Italian Amerigo Vespucci and the Englishman Richard Ameryke, a name for the new lands will appear very close to "Ommerike".

As stated before, these submissions are mere theories, with no more substantiation than the theories of other origins of the name "America". Proof of them must be left to better and more thorough scholars than the writer. But the meaning of the word "omme-rike" in ancient Norse is sound, and should provide a new and different source to explore in searching out and authenticating a page of human history replete with all the ingredients of enchantment and subterfuge of a mystery novel.

So in this case, it really is AmeREICHa. Heil Bush.

IIRC, the Chinese, like the Japanese, practiced very isolationist "foreign policy" in the middle ages - for the economy, you were only allowed to trade inside China. Anything else was forbidden by the Emporer - big Junks etc setting across the sea were a no-no.



Not true. Throughout the dynasties there was a lot of exploration to foreign places by Chinese explorers. A few of the most important and significant:

1. Zhang Qian, early Han Dynasty, c. 100B.C.: set off from China to the "Western Regions" in Central Asia, reaching places like Xinjiang and Kazakhstan.

2. Silk Road traders between 100B.C. and 1000A.D., eager to bring back mysterious Western products such as glass, wool, grapes, horses, magic tricks, and Buddhism.

3. Xuan Zhuang, Tang Dynasty, c. 900A.D.: set off from China to India by way of Turkestan to look for Buddhist books.

4. Zheng He, Ming Dynasty, c. 1400A.D., set off from China to the South Seas, then India, Africa, and perhaps even America - began a migration trend for Chinese to settle in the South Seas. Wonder why the majority of Southeast Asia is Chinese?

We were also very eager to receive foreigners like Marco Polo during the Yuan Dynasty (c. 1000A.D.), and Matteo Ricci during the Ming Dynasty (c. 1400A.D.)

True isolationist policy did not happen until the reign of Qianlong in the Qing Dynasty (c. 1700A.D.). Sadly, he stupidly believed that the Chinese were superior than the rest of the world, even if we believed that all along, and banned China from foreigners. Funny, because the Manchus were foreigners as well, which makes his claim absolutely ludicruous. Of course, at the same time foreigners were becoming nasty, bringing in items such as Christianity, opium, and imperialism...you know the rest...

America was discovered by the first people to live there, not the Chinese or Columbus.

America was discovered by the first people to live there, not the Chinese or Columbus.

And that would probably be the people of whom Kennewick man was one, currently dated at 8,400 years old and not classified as a "Narive American"

And that would probably be the people of whom Kennewick man was one, currently dated at 8,400 years old and not classified as a "Narive American"
Kennewick man is one skeleton. for all we know, they guy was an explorer who died there alone. There ahve been plenty of Amerindian skeletons that far outdate his remains anyways, so your remark defeats itself.

Kennewick man is one skeleton. for all we know, they guy was an explorer who died there alone. There ahve been plenty of Amerindian skeletons that far outdate his remains anyways, so your remark defeats itself.

Yeah, I know, I was just trying to put the cat amongst the pigeons there.