Cheddar Man and the Immigration Mania By Brian Simpson

     In previous articles I have covered the strange case of Cheddar Man, a fossil, whose genetic analysis allegedly showed that ancient Britons had black skin and blue eyes. More recent articles have shown that under criticism from other geneticists, the team has moved away from the claim. But surely they must have been aware of the problems from the beginning, so why make the big public statement? Clearly to support mass immigration. Yet there is a problem with this line of argument, as this article details:
  http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2018/02/cheddar-man-using-archaeology-to-promote-immigration-cult.html

“consider the logical implications of this claim by Diekmann. Contrary to the pitch with which the discovery has been sold, it does not enhance but diminish the immigrationist point of view: IF it is true that the first Britons were brown, it means that Whites are unique to Europe. It means that we did not immigrate to Europe from another place, but are truly indigenous to Europe because we only evolved there. Whites are unique and indigenous to Europe — two hatefacts of the highest order to immigrationists. Rather than weakening the identity relation between being European and being White, a brown Cheddar man actually deconstructs the notion that ‘everybody is an immigrant’ — Whites aren’t in Europe. And there are even more implications:

If white is an evolution of brown, it also means that we are more evolved than Browns, at least in the sense of being better adapted to European climate and habitat. But possibly also in more complex, deeper ways, ways which would deeply upset any egalitarian world view. The idea that peoples from cold climates have a higher group intelligence because the evolutionary pressure to survive and cooperate has been greater in the harsh climate than in the warmer climes is reasonable to contemplate. If the conditions in Europe were so different from the place where the Cheddar man came from that they changed his phenotype within a relatively short span of time, why should his evolution be limited only to one particular characteristic, the pigmentation of his skin, and not to more aspects of his body and mind? Don’t hold your breath though that natural scientists will dare to address this obvious question with an open mind anytime soon. The belief in One World requires One Truth, the orthodox, politically correct truth that everybody is “equal.”

Turning briefly to the Americas, note the leftist double standard in treating distant ancestry. Amerindians clearly descend from Asiatic people. Yet no leftist makes the case that Amerindians owe something to Asiatics, that the pre-Colombian Americas were therefore a “nation of immigrants” and that — Heaven forbid! — the definition of a “native” to Canada is not an immutable truth but bound to change over time. No multiculturalist would ever argue this way because then he would have to concede that the European founding peoples of Canada have to be considered “First nations” too — and gone out of the window the carefully crafted special status of Amerindians would be.”

    This is good clear thinking showing the logical contradictions in the heart of the archaeology as ideology paradigm. I could not have put it better myself.