Skeletons discovered in the Americas that are older than 6,000 years are not American Indian/Native American and should not be subject to their heritage claims.
I believe there were more than two waves, there are probably at least two waves that came down the Atlantic coast too.
Sounds reasonable. It should be remembered that over even a hundred years of history, let alone thousands, an awful lot happens. A large group of people who were living in a certain place in 2800 BC might have been living 3,000 miles away in 2700 BC, then been almost wiped out by 2600 BC, and then come to dominate a continent by 2500 BC. Sometimes there was little intermarriage, sometimes lots. If anything, lack of a stable government like we have in the US today would have made for greater instability than we see today. Sadly, the study of preliterate people can only result in the crudest appoximations of what was really happenning.
I believe you're right, IMHO. I have been around a lot of "Oriental Asians" (?), Native Americans and Latin Americans of limited European ancestry when they are infants. In a nursery, only their mothers could tell them apart. The common genetic relationship of these peoples is remarkable. I would guess that the Eastern NA Indian Tribes were a migration on their own. Perhaps related to the other two, but distantly.
Nevertheless, it's an interesting subject that has future implications. Especially for education.
Skeletons discovered in the Americas that are older than 6,000 years are not American Indian/Native American and should not be subject to their heritage claims.
All right, how do we go about undoing this cute bit of "control over the white man" BS?
Yes, even indians can play the "what can we do to screw them" because we can?