The question of time of arrival is a fascinating one and a controversial one. This is true. But the article is not clear on the issue by the point where it gets into the weeds of this study and that.
What I would have liked to have seen is it set out three levels of certitude: iron-clad (well studied, widely distributed, and widely accepted) dates, evidentiary dates, and suggestive / indicative dates.
For the longest time, Clovis and dates of arrive in the 48 states area was accepted as about 12,000 years ago to 13k ya.
Then evidence was found that kept pushing out the time. I won't get into the weeds, but I became convinced that arrival was at least two to three times older though far from a final word. And it has been some time since I looked into it. So I am definitely not up to speed on latest research. But I wish the article spent more time on the research done and needed and less time on the case against racism.
We could say that the 12k ya is iron-clad, evidence I've seen discussed of 2-3x say 35k ya is more or less strong evidentiary, and the dates mention in the article of 250k are indicative. Definitely indicative of further research being needed. So in that sense I'm generally supportive of the goals of the article (more on indigenous oral tradition later).
The article mentions Australian indigenous boat building 60k ya, but then jumps to 200k and 250k without any connection or statement of the evidence other than mysterious and fascinating butchered bones in one study. But the other two studies used to buttress the argument are not discussed at all.
The article does make good cases for eradicating racism that has existed in archaeological study by non-indigenous researchers. But here in Canada, that seems known by the public and archaeologists, and is being worked on.
= new reply since forum marked as read