The people who were seen in what is now Holland were, in 60 B.C, referred to as Indians. This should tell you that this claim is beyond moronic.

They were, in all likelihood, from the Indus Valley in India. You know, where Columbus thought he had landed and named the people after. If they had come from North America, they wouldn't have been called Indians--they would have been called by whatever group they came from, just like everyone else was everywhere else.

To quote Tiako from the first time that this appeared here, "Huh?"

Even though this particular story is apocryphal, there is some evidence of Native Americans (or Inuits) arriving in Europe before Columbus. The evidence is from Columbus himself, who describes a story he heard about a couple from "Cathay" (China) when he visited Galway, Ireland, in 1477.

Men of Cathay have come from the west. We have seen many signs. And especially in Galway in Ireland, a man and a woman, of extraordinary appearance, have come to land on two tree trunks.

Possibly a couple of Greenlanders blown across the ocean in a log boat.

What the fuck? Is this true??

One of the best examples of how we got Native Americans all wrong is Cahokia, a massive Native American city located in modern day East St. Louis. In 1250, it was bigger than London, and featured a sophisticated society with an urban center, satellite villages and thatched-roof houses lining the central plazas. While the city was abandoned by the time white people got to it, the evidence they left behind suggests a complex economy with trade routes from the Great Lakes all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico.

Always scrutinize the citation list of any online article.

Especially if it comes from a website that relies on click baiting, and is from square one pitched as a comedy site.

Cite? Original link?