Were there Lemurians in America?

The legends of the peoples of the Andes indicate that, following “ … a terrifying period when the earth had been inundated by a great flood and plunged into darkness by the disappearance of the sun … and the people suffered great hardship … “ there arrived a bearded tall man clothed in a white robe, bringing with him a number of viracochas. He was on a civilising mission, teaching love and kindness, as well as such skills as medicine, metallurgy, farming, etc., including  …  terraces and fields to be formed on the steep sides of ravines, and sustaining walls to rise up and support them.” (Graham Hancock in ‘Fingerprints of the Gods’).

Were the terraces similar to those constructed on Luzon by those who were believed to have operated Nan Madol’s cyclone-control system? If so, were Kon Tiki and his Viracochas Lemurians? Did those legends of the Andes also refer to those who had created the huge buildings constructed of megaliths, and how this had been done? Had these been built by an earlier culture with access to ‘magic’?

In a comparable manner, Mexican and Maya legends refer to Kukulkan and his companions bringing civilisation to Central America from the east in boats. The previous practice of human sacrifice was forbidden, while he “ … caused various important edifices to be built … “ (Hancock). Did that include the step-pyramids, which would have required ‘magic’?

Like Viracocha, Kukulkan eventually left the peoples he had led to civilisation, promising to return. Why did they leave? Reference to the East (as the direction from which he had come) is confusing, for Lemuria would have been in the West of the Americas. Was Kukulkan then an Atlantean? According to other legends, Atlantis had been established in the Atlantic Ocean by earlier expatriate Lemurians!

However, the folklore, as well as some totem poles, of sundry Native Indian tribes in northern America seemingly suggest a more direct connection to Lemuria. Indeed, on the basis claimed by Churchward of the image of the deer and the Tree of Life being key elements of the faiths of a number of cultures, it has been claimed that the Lemurian influence, through immigration, had extended not only to the Maya, but also to the Navajo Indians in the American Southwest, to the Japanese (Jomon and Ainu), and to China!

Claims such as this appear to be based on the apparently unchallengeable fact that, when Caucasoid people (that is, obviously light-skinned, but also long-headed with high-bridge noses?) are found in the Americas, and in Asian terrain as far inland as Tibet, Xinjiang, and Central Asia, they must be of Lamurian origin. Indeed, there are some who claim that the Garden of Eden was Mu (Lemuria); and that the escapees from a drowning Motherland had travelled, progressively, all the way to India, and then to the Persian Gulf!

Was this track traced purely on skin and hair colour? If so, compare the skin colour of modern North and Central Asians in the temperate zone, beginning from the Mediterranean Sea. Would it not be strange were the Caucasians to have originated, not around the Caucasian Mountains, but in the middle of the Pacific Ocean?

Or, had there been a mother civilisation of advanced humans which established Lemuria, as well as the suddenly-arrived, fully-developed civilisations of Egypt, Sumer, Harappa, pre-Inca Andes, and pre-Olmec Mesoamerica? How could they have known enough maths and astrology (without guidance), to build pyramidal structures reflecting the layout of the Earth’s surface, and Earth’s alignments with certain star configurations?

Advertisements

Lemuria as mother civilisation

Examining what has been written about Lemuria (Mu) is like discussing Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny with non-Christian Asians. However, when an author describes his experiences (not speculations) when investigating cross-cultural links, in the context of the reported movements of peoples across the globe; or the probable existence in the distant past of an advanced civilisation spread over the Pacific, I cannot but keep an open mind. I am assured that no harm will come to my knowledge-bank.

The following represent the observations of Frank Joseph in his book on Lemuria. In Lima, Peru, at the Herrera Museum, he saw the blond and red-haired mummies of a pre-Inca (non-Indian) people. In Chicago’s Chinatown, he watched a Chinese lass executing her people’s ‘most ancient dance,’ dressed in attire almost identical to those of Aymara Indian girls in the Andes of Peru. In Minnesota, USA, at a celebration of the Cambodian New Year, he saw ‘the most Polynesian-performance’ outside Honolulu performed by Cambodians dressed in simple loin-cloths and sarongs, the men bare-chested.

Further, a Malaysian government representative told him about a legend of her people (obviously Malay) which referred to a great kingdom far to the east; and as that territory slid under the waves, another territory (Malaysia) rose from the sea to receive the survivors.

In Italy, the author learned that Lemuria is the name given by the proto-Romans (Etruscans?) to ‘their oldest ceremony,’ conducted every year on the 9th, 11th, and 13th of May. The ‘Lemuria’ was intended to propitiate the restless spirits of people who had died violently or prematurely. He wrote: ‘These troubled souls, the Romans believed, were accompanied by those of an ancestral people who perished tragically when their distant homeland, by the same name, was overwhelmed by a natural catastrophe in some far-off sea.’

Then there are the submerged massive stone ruins of a ceremonial building rising in tiers from the bottom of the ocean near Yonoguni Island of Japan. The author investigated these ruins often in the company of Prof. Yoshida, President of the Japan Petrograph Society, and has dived about 50 times to inspect the ruins. What he has to say should surely carry more weight than those of any armchair experts of the conservative kind.

How can an honest sceptic counter such undeniable observations by an author well-accredited as a researcher?

Sundaland – the mother civilisation?

The publisher of ‘East of Eden: the drowned continent of Southeast Asia’ by Stephen Oppenheimer says this about the book: “The biblical flood did really occur at the end of the last Ice Age. The Flood drowned for ever the huge continental shelf of Southeast Asia, and caused a population dispersal which fertilised the Neolithic cultures of China, India, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the eastern Mediterranean, thus creating the first civilisations.

“ … “The Polynesians did not come from China but from the islands of Southeast Asia.” … “The domestication of rice was not in China, but in the Malay Peninsula, 9,000 years ago.” So, there we go! Yet another fantastic scenario.

The evidence? From oceanography, linguistics, genetics, and folklore, says the author – as archaeology is relatively silent on this issue, unless one digs under the sea.

Oppenheimer says “It is beyond doubt that during the Ice Age, Southeast Asia was a single huge continent – a land mass which included Indo-China, Malaysia and Indonesia.” This would effectively be a substantial appendage, a peninsula, to continent Asia. Without writing, or archaeological finds, pre-history could seek to trace the family trees of languages to identify population movements (but not necessarily the ethnic or tribal links), aided by genetics. Folklore may be a starting indicative point in this search. This is what Oppenheimer has done to reach what he admits is a theory.

Thus, 3 sudden floods approximately 14,000 years, 11,500 years, and 8,000 years ago resulted in a rise in sea levels of 500 feet (120 metres). “Rapid land loss was accompanied by great earthquakes.” Contrary to the prevailing paradigm that everything important that has affected us commenced relatively recently – I am not sure how that view arose – Oppenheimer claims much longer histories; for example, for rice growing.

He concludes thus: “The final and most compelling evidence – that the present inhabitants of Southeast Asia have been there since the Ice Age, and started moving in all directions at the time of the floods – comes from the genes they carry ... Gene markers reveal Aboriginals of Southeast Asia at the root of the Asian family trees, and spreading to all parts of the compass as far as America and the Middle East. One particular marker – called the ‘Polynesian motif’ because such a high proportion of Polynesians carry it – originated in the people of Maluku (the Moluccas) in eastern Indonesia during the Ice Age. The fact that this marker has not been found in China, Taiwan or the Philippines contradicts the conventional theory, and allows a much older view of Southeast Asian prehistory.”

So, contrary to the post-colonial view that civilisation went from West to East, did it go from the East (via Sundaland) to the West, as Oppenheimer asserts?

A unified culture vs. multiculturalism (Part 6)

Dual citizenship is an anomaly to the reality that citizenship connotes a national identity, with an implicit commitment to one’s nation. Dual nationality undermines that commitment. Do the following benefits to some – tax advantages in the other nation (the country of origin); unfettered entry to both country of birth and country of adoption; and the freedom to take up arms on behalf of one’s ancestral folk – offset the deleterious international consequences flowing from the grant of dual citizenship?

Were one to get into a serious spot of bother with, or in, one’s secondary attachment, one’s national government is not likely to be able to offer adequate (or any) consular support. Some of Australia’s newest citizens have learnt that.

Then, there could also arise a comparable disadvantage were the nation of one’s ancestors to be bound by the Napoleonic Code in relation to citizenship. Under this Code, a government is entitled to treat the descendants of a former citizen, no matter where they lived, as citizens of the ancestral nation; even when these descendants had been born elsewhere, had lived there all their lives, and had never visited the tribal land.

For example, not that long ago, when an Australian official in his early twenties was to represent the Australian Government in the former nation of his father (both Australian citizens), it was discovered that the young man could be called up for national service were he to arrive at his ancestral land.

Normally, citizenship by birth is available to one born of permanent residents in the nation. Citizenship by descent is available to one born overseas to citizens who are temporarily away from home. Citizenship by grant is available to immigrants who satisfy specified legal conditions. Not that long ago, anyone taking up the citizenship of a foreign nation automatically lost the original citizenship.

When Australia offered dual citizenship, for political reasons, did that diminish the value of one’s passport to only a document of identity? What of one’s commitment to one’s nation? Is the replacement of colonialism’s globalisation by military power, by the USA’s globalisation by economic power, leading to the devaluation of sovereignty and national pride? At least until the next world war?

What of the complications for cultural identity of dual nationality? Are the principal signifiers of cultural identity becoming less significant to a peripatetic younger generation? Without the divisive influence of institutional religion, especially based on authority and priestly control, could cultural identities begin to coalesce?

Indubitably, as we immigrants in Australia have shown, there is an innate tendency for humans to be interested in one another, and thence to reach out to one another. Remarkably, Anglo-Australians did demonstrate, within two generations, a capacity to become multi-ethnic, and colour blind. We are now one national people.

A unified culture vs. multiculturalism (Part 5)

When it became clear that Australian governments were seeking to trade empowerment for ethnic votes, a claim arose that English is not our national language. I suggested that mandarin would soon be appropriate.

A de-feathered senior public servant then reportedly flew around the country in an attempt to develop a language policy. In a nation which has no population policy, no long-term economic policy, no stable education policy, and no urban planning (eg. schools and public transport)? The Minister grounded him (so it was bruited) by reminding him that only Ministers make policy!

“We are more multicultural than any other country in the world” (a meaningless assertion) is now being replaced with “We are multicultural,” in an effort to espouse ethnocentrism. An example: the Morris Dance was resuscitated in Canberra by those who claimed that the British too are an ethnic community! This occurred in a nation controlled by the descendants of British founders, and now dominated by Aussie Vaticanites.
More recently, a proposal that immigrant business signage should be in English as well is being rebuffed – because “we are multicultural.” Ethnicity rules, right?

Some years ago, Thailand and Indonesia required that immigrant origins and languages were not to be publicly displayed. Residents of Chinese origin continued to dominate the economies of these two nations (as they do in the rest of south-east Asia); but they took their identity from their nation-of-residence. National pride rules!

Unfortunately for the ambitious, ethnic empowerment expires with the death of the individual. Those whom I view as ‘professional ethnics’ are also being undermined (possibly unconsciously) by people who share their cultures. The latter make the necessary cultural and ideational adaptations, in order to become an integral part of a nation of substantially variegated origins; and to relate to others as equals, and access the equal opportunities thus available. Successful cultural blending follows.

For example (and it is a wonderful example), young Muslim women, covered head to foot, are playing sport, and being trained as life-savers. My faith in our young is growing and glowing. Those Muslim women, covered in toto, who had a swimming pool closed to all others (including non-Muslim women) when they collectively entered the pool, and their overt arrogance, should have no platform for their prejudice.

Cultural evolution is unavoidable, no matter how recalcitrant their community controllers might be. In some cases it might take decades before morally-crumbling control-structures give way.

When I was the Chief Ethnic Affairs Officer (for the state of Victoria) in Melbourne in the early 1980s, I saw Australia’s future. Three teenage boys, dressed identically (only the logos on their T-shirts were different), and expressing identical speech forms, but with their faces and heads indicating 3 different geographical (and cultural) origins in Europe were on my tram. They were Aussies, yet visibly the sons of post-war immigrants.

I was reminded of my children’s generation. Some of their friends were, as my children are, (in part) second-generation Aussies. Some of the parents, like me, were immigrants, and thereby first-generation Aussies (there being no second or subsequent generation immigrants, only Aussies). A shared education, buttressed by school teachers who commendably acculturated them to being one people, sport, socialisation, habituation, and commonsense, made them one people.

Ethnic empowerment, politically based upon an unwarranted emphasis on ethno-cultural differences, can have no future. Defending our national sovereignty will be difficult enough, especially with the insidious influence of dual nationality.

A unified culture vs. multiculturalism (Part 4)

A unified national culture implies a proudly-held sovereign nation, does it not? An unfettered sovereignty has, however, gone the way of the ‘dodo’ bird (non-existent). Having created their nations based on consanguinity (blood or genes), a shared culture (included a language), and a defined territory, European colonialism ran rampant in splitting trial boundaries all over the globe. This was in order to protect their respective spheres of interest.

Then the creation of the U.N. and its hydra-headed agencies (with their non-legally binding Conventions), and followed by trade agreements, a bonding unified national culture has to survive as best as it can. That is the external reality.

There can also be (will be?) home-grown blemishes on a national culture. In Australia, the ‘founding fathers’ permitted (predominantly) Irish Roman Catholics to establish and control their own schools. I have been told reliably that school children daily manifested that chasm representing sectarian religious prejudice. Even at the end of the twentieth century, I heard comments displaying this bilateral disdain from retirees.

A more recent blemish has come from some Islamicist immigrants (how were they selected?) Unlike most of our Muslim entrants, who adapt to the institutions, behavioural practices, and social mores of the nation they chose to enter, some seek sharia law. Perhaps, as I wrote sardonically in an anthology published by the Multicultural Writers Association of Australia, the proponents of this claim requiring Australia to adapt to the immigrant “miss the sharia law they never had.” Strangely, my article was then mentioned in a Malaysian journal.

As well, does suburban Australia experience strong sand-storms (up to head-height), thereby requiring full body-cover? Should multiculturalism policy be viewed as partly responsible for the claim by some immigrants that they have a right to practise in Australia all the cultural practices they imported from tribally-controlled territories, when such practices are not part of, or anathema to, a Western cultural milieu?

I instance clitoridectomy, child marriages, multiple wives, instant divorce available to the whim of husbands, a ‘walking tent’ on suburban streets, and niqab-wearing drivers of motor cars on busy city streets.

Do the proponents of such cultural practices see themselves as only campers in Australia, rather than adapted and integrated citizens? Will they then reject Western cultural values such as official welfare and other public handouts in order not to taint their cultural autonomy?

The good news is that the great majority of Muslims, like immigrants of other faiths, adapt their behaviour to prevailing practices amongst an evolving population. I observed all this in my role as Chief Ethnic Affairs Officer for the Department of Immigration & Ethnic Affairs in the State of Victoria.

Cultures too evolve! And that happens also in nations whose then cultures are sought by some immigrants to be imposed onto the nation in which they chose to live. An integrated nation represents the future!

A unified culture vs. multiculturalism (Part 3)

There is evidence that both sides of politics in Australia once sought the chimerical ethnic vote. The waiting period for residents to apply for citizenship was reduced from 5 years (out of 8) to 3 years by one government; and then to 2 years by the other.

This happened some time after my expert team had carried out the first review of the Australian Citizenship Act of 1948 (in the early 1980s). Our recommendations were accepted. Reflecting our basal position that citizenship involved a commitment to the nation, I had recommended that only a citizen can govern, administer, or fight for Australia.

My suspicion (in my retirement) was that the motivation for seeking the ethnic vote had been ethnic empowerment. Well-settled Australians of European stock had convinced the federal government to set up a parallel settlement –assistance program, at considerable cost, in the 1970s. Their claim had been that immigrants had to be taken by taxpayer-funded ethnic community employed social workers to needed services, both public and private, instead of being shown where to go. How had earlier arrivals, from 1948, managed?

The immigrants, then, were primarily European and Levantine; Indo-Chinese refugees and the preferred East Asian immigrants had not arrived. Whether the latter 2 communities could self-manage, on arrival, needed settlement services, is highly questionable.

Thus, long-established European communities received grants, in spite of a scarcity of new intakes. Late in the 1980s, second-generation Aussies argued for the continuation of these grants to assist ageing immigrant populations, which had already integrated into the nation.

Then, a superstructure of ethnic community organisations evolved nationally, through federal government facilitation and funding. Federal public servants (Anglo-Celt, with one exception – me) provided necessary briefings for their conferences. State government too set up advisory bodies. The unspoken emphasis was on ethnicity retention. The thrust of these federal and state bodies, then, was opposed to ‘mainstreaming,’

Mainstreaming involves the delivery to all Australians, equably, of all necessary services, by both public and private agencies, irrespective of country of origin or ethnicity of clients. Why was that not acceptable to ethnic community leaders?

Quaintly, federal multiculturalism policy encouraged ethnic identification, through the retention by ethnic communities in Australia of those aspects of their imported cultures which were not inconsistent with Australia’s cultural values – just as we were merging into one integrated people. Was ethnic empowerment enhanced by this emphasis?

Reality was recovered when Prime Minister Howard and NSW State Premier Carr jointly and sensibly replaced multiculturalism policy with a policy of celebrating a shared Australian citizenship. The residence requirement for citizenship was also raised to 4 years.

Then the value of citizenship was diminished by the availability of dual citizenship – except for those who seek to be members of Parliament. Who would want to be governed by politicians owing part-allegiance to a foreign government?

Does a degree of ethnic empowerment continue through ministers of multiculturalism, advised by appointed ‘ethnic’ advisers? Would this be compatible with a substantially-integrated Australia, which is also colour blind?