Well I appreciate you clarifying but I still have some issues. A small one is the fact that say we found skeletal remains in America from 20,000 years ago (which I don't think anyone has) and we had enough of the skeletal remains to infer diet. The suggestion that we would be able to identify from their diet that they came from a specific region in Western Europe which seems very dubious to me. For instance it implies that the 'settlers' would have been able to maintain a 'Gaul' diet in America which seems unlikely given the difference in climate.
The only plausible way I can see them identifying the origin of skeletal remains from back then is via bone structure/morphological differences and with assorted burial artificats/materials.
However setting that aside the major issue is I can't find ANY evidence that anyone is promoting the theory that it was people from the region of 'Gaul' who first settled America. Which suggests its either an entirely fringe theory or that you're remembering it wrong.
I can find discussion on the National Geographic website about studies and a documentary about early human migration to America but it makes no mention of Gauls and in fact discusses entirely different models and debates with which I am familiar, for example:
"From there, around 20,000 years ago, another small group of Central Asians moved farther north, into Siberia and the Arctic Circle. To minimize physical exposure to the extreme cold they developed, over many generations, stout trunks, stubby fingers, and short arms and legs.
Finally, around 15,000 years ago, as another Ice Age began to wane, one small clan of Arctic dwellers followed the reindeer herd over the Bering Strait land bridge into North America."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman_2.html
The only thing which I can find that sounds in any way similiar are the articles relating to skulls found which suggest that there may have been earlier settlers than the ancestors of 'native americans' but there is no suggestion in those articles that the skulls are from Gaul and in fact:
"A study of skulls excavated from the tip of Baja California in Mexico suggests that the first Americans may not have been the ancestors of today's Amerindians, but another people who came from Southeast Asia and the southern Pacific area."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0903_030903_bajaskull.html
"Traditionally, American Indians were thought to have been the first to arrive on the continent, crossing from Asia on a land bridge.
Dr Gonzalez told BBC News Online: "We believe that the older race may have come from what is now Japan, via the Pacific islands and perhaps the California coast."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3086777.stm
I realise this may all seem pedantic but the point is that making strong assertions based of dubious examples calls the validity of the points being made into question. And the assertion you made (see below) was not exactly equivocal on the matter though this could well be a matter of personality .
I don't think it quite works like that! As I think you know I study anthropology at a central london university but that doesn't mean that if you disagree with my opinions on the topic that you disagree with the entire weight of my academic subject or the institution I attend. There are lots of people studying in universities whose opinions on various topics are not well argued or well informed even if the subject they are studying relates to such topics. And even if your student was making a valid point it doesn't necessarily mean your interpretation or representation of what they said is valid. This is also not to say I disagree with the point that political correctness is related to many older concepts of different names... it definitely is, just that the appeal to authority that the above comment makes isn't a good argument.
The point I would again make is that it's not like tonnes of people are jumping in and accusing you of being racist but at the same time it's clear that just because someone says 'it's nothing to do with race' or 'I don't have poor white boy syndrome' doesn't make it true. I don't think anyone who makes such arguments would ever agree that they are engaging in unrealistic 'poor discriminated whites' type arguments.
Consider for instance that I could say "it's nothing to do with race but Jewish culture clearly produces a larger amount of greedy individuals than other cultures". I've said it's nothing to do with race but I am clearly still talking about race even though I've redefined it as 'culture'. Anyone who points that out I could then argue 'I said I'm not making this about race, why does someone telling the truth always have to be persecuted as a racist' but again how valid is that defence? Personally I don't give it much credence due to the fact that it's essentially the same tactic employed by groups like the BNP who try to frame their arguments as being about the 'facts' when their supposed 'facts' are when examined clearly marshalled and related to a racial ideology.
Just to be clear at this point I'm not saying your in the BNP or anything like that. Just in case I get interpreted wrong I want to make it clear that I'm quite certain you are not and also would I imagine strongly disagree with their ideas and also disagree with someone who was arguing for Jews being greedy. My point is however that simply saying an argument has nothing to do with 'race' doesn't make it so and that some of your previous arguments do seem quite hard to disentangle from the same kind of arguments made by those who argue that white people are discriminated against unfairly in modern multi-cultural America. In fact isn't that essentially your point?