The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Geronimo
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Commenter Whoever writes:

in reply to prole:

Funny how so many North Americans claim native American ancestry, despite no evidence

Not really funny. Especially when you acknowledge that there are two countries in North America (or more specifically British North America) that have very different histories regarding Amerindians.
In Latin America, the Indian civilizations collapsed quickly and the survivors became an underclass ruled over by a European-descended elite.

In Canada, after the end of French rule, there was not much in the way of Indian resistance and they didn’t contribute much or detract much from the development of the country. They were just there.

But in America, the Indians fought back with everything they had not for years, not for decades, not for generations, but for centuries.

And the resistance began at the beginning, so to speak, as they were whipping the Spanish at least as early as 1513, when the Timucua drove Ponce de Leon off near present-day St. Augustine, Fla., and later that year the Calusa drove him out of San Carlos Bay, Fla. Four years later Hernando de Cordoba’s fleet, returning from a campaign against the Maya, dropped anchor in San Carlos bay to replenish water and supplies, but their landing party was driven off by the Calusa, who were described as “very big men with very long bows and good arrows.”

Ponce de Leon and Cordoba returned to San Carlos Bay in 1521 with 200 soldiers, settlers and supplies to establish a colony. The Calusa again defeated and drove them off, killing both de Leon and Cordoba.

Then there was the disastrous Navaraez expedition into northern Florida in 1527 with 600 soldiers, where the Spanish crossbows were no match for the Indians 7-foot long bows, as thick as a man’s arm, that could penetrate six inches of wood at 200 yards. Only four Spaniards survived the catastrophe.

In 1539, Hernando de Soto, who had been Francisco Pizarro’s chief military adviser and among the 168 who conquered the Inca empire, and a veteran of 15 years of warring against south-of-the Rio Grande Indians, landed in Tampa Bay with 330 infantry and 270 cavalry, most veterans of the Spanish conquests in the south. They had given up European armor and adopted Aztec quilted cotton armor covered with leather as more effective protection.

They marched north reaching the Choctaw town of Mabila on the present site of Selma, Ala., which they assaulted and took after prolonged fighting, estimated having killed 2,500 inhabitants.
But no Indian surrender ensued. Instead, they forced the Spaniards to retreat and harried them, the Chickasaw attacking and burning de Soto’s winter camp, inflicting severe losses. Ultimately, only about half of de Soto’s force survived the expedition — not including him.

And so it went for hundreds of years, into the 20th century, if we count the 1911 Shoshone uprising, which was not called a “war” but a “riot,” as nomenclature was changed after Wounded Knee.

It is remarkable that some 350 years after the Calusa crushed Ponce de Leon and Cordoba, the Sioux defeated Crook and annihilated Custer.

So the American Indian earned respect and a place in our history that he does not have in Latin America or Canada. That’s even reflected in our language. Only the American armed forces to this day speak of going into Indian Country, and mean it ominously. Only American paratroopers legendarily shout “Geronimo!” as they leap from airplanes. Only a famous American general was named after an Indian. We speak of being off the reservation, and on the warpath. We Indian wrestle and walk Indian file. Indians are a part of, in today’s parlance, who we are in a way they are not in Canada or Latin America.

Americans, at least those of old-settler stock, are not like Canadians or Latin Americans, either. They have an ornery character, especially those of Scotch-Irish ancestry who were our most legendary Indian fighters, a natural antagonism to the powers that be and a take-this-job-and-shove-it attitude. To them, Indians have a lot of admirable characteristics, real or mythical: stoicism, refusal to stay down or stay put, defiance, resistance… And many of those whose people were here from the beginning did fight Indians and some percent did marry into tribes.

It’s interesting that no white would proudly say (well, until very recently) that he was part black, certainly if he actually had no black blood. If he did have black ancestors it would be something to be ashamed of and hidden. No old-stock Californian would boast that he was part Chinese — again, especially if he actually had no Chinese ancestry. But lots of white Americans, as you say, claim Indian ancestry even when they don’t have it, and have done so since long before there was affirmative action or any official advantage to doing so, and long after the fierce warrior of forest and plain had been replaced by the rez drunk.

That is telling us something important about our country and our history. And I think it’s rather a good thing — that we don’t disparage those we displaced, but empathize with them, acknowledge their loss and try, in some way, to assuage it by claiming that we, too, are Indian, one with them, and one with our mutual land.

 
Hide 432 CommentsLeave a Comment
432 Comments to "Geronimo"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. syonredux says:

    In Latin America, the Indian civilizations collapsed quickly and the survivors became an underclass ruled over by a European-descended elite.

    Not as quickly as legend would have it……

    Spanish conquest of Yucatán

    The first encounter with the Yucatán Maya occurred in 1502, when the fourth voyage of Christopher Columbus came across a large Maya trading canoe off Honduras. In 1517, Francisco Hernández de Córdoba made landfall on the tip of the peninsula. His expedition continued along the coast and suffered heavy losses in a pitched battle at Champotón, forcing a retreat to Cuba. Juan de Grijalva explored the coast in 1518, and heard tales of the wealthy Aztec Empire further west. As a result of these rumours, Hernán Cortés set sail with another fleet. From Cozumel he continued around the peninsula to Tabasco where he fought a battle at Potonchán; from there Cortés continued onward to conquer the Aztec Empire. In 1524, Cortés led a sizeable expedition to Honduras, cutting across southern Campeche, and through Petén in what is now northern Guatemala. In 1527 Francisco de Montejo set sail from Spain with a small fleet. He left garrisons on the east coast, and subjugated the northeast of the peninsula. Montejo then returned to the east to find his garrisons had almost been eliminated; he used a supply ship to explore southwards before looping back around the entire peninsula to central Mexico. Montejo pacified Tabasco with the aid of his son, also named Francisco de Montejo.
    In 1531 the Spanish moved their base of operations to Campeche, where they repulsed a significant Maya attack. After this battle, the Spanish founded a town at Chichen Itza in the north. Montejo carved up the province amongst his soldiers. In mid-1533 the local Maya rebelled and laid siege to the small Spanish garrison, which was forced to flee. Towards the end of 1534, or the beginning of 1535, the Spanish retreated from Campeche to Veracruz. In 1535, peaceful attempts by the Franciscan Order to incorporate Yucatán into the Spanish Empire failed after a renewed Spanish military presence at Champotón forced the friars out. Champotón was by now the last Spanish outpost in Yucatán, isolated among a hostile population. In 1541–42 the first permanent Spanish town councils in the entire peninsula were founded at Campeche and Mérida. When the powerful lord of Mani converted to the Roman Catholic religion, his submission to Spain and conversion to Christianity encouraged the lords of the western provinces to accept Spanish rule. In late 1546 an alliance of eastern provinces launched an unsuccessful uprising against the Spanish. The eastern Maya were defeated in a single battle, which marked the final conquest of the northern portion of the Yucatán Peninsula.
    The polities of Petén in the south remained independent and received many refugees fleeing from Spanish jurisdiction. In 1618 and in 1619 two unsuccessful Franciscan missions attempted the peaceful conversion of the still pagan Itza. In 1622 the Itza slaughtered two Spanish parties trying to reach their capital Nojpetén. These events ended all Spanish attempts to contact the Itza until 1695. Over the course of 1695 and 1696 a number of Spanish expeditions attempted to reach Nojpetén from the mutually independent Spanish colonies in Yucatán and Guatemala. In early 1695 the Spanish began to build a road from Campeche south towards Petén and activity intensified, sometimes with significant losses on the part of the Spanish. Martín de Urzúa y Arizmendi, governor of Yucatán, launched an assault upon Nojpetén in March 1697; the city fell after a brief battle. With the defeat of the Itza, the last independent and unconquered native kingdom in the Americas fell to the Spanish.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_Yucat%C3%A1n

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Yes, and there also was this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion_of_T%C3%BApac_Amaru_II

    which in parts had the character of a veritable race war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/geronimo/#comment-1879492
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Bill P says:

    I read through my family’s genealogy book that goes back to an ancestor who arrived in Jamestown in 1610, and was pretty surprised to see how many people were killed by Indians. It seemed that one was as likely to die from encounters with Indians as from disease, and back then that’s really saying something. Despite this relentless hostility, the book made sure to note the family’s connection to Pocahontas and intermarriage with her descendants, and did so with pride.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max


    Copper was gold for the Virginia Indians. The Jamestown settlers kept alive during the difficult first years by trading German-made copper for food.
    [...]
    German woodworkers helped build a European-style house for Paramount Chief Powhatan in 1608 and lived in the same village as his daughter Pocahontas.
     
    - http://www.agas.us/GrasslBook2.htm

    The First Germans in America By Gary Carl Grassl
     
    - http://www.unz.com/gnxp/open-thread-10232016/#comment-1619904
    , @Ed
    Virginia had a "Pochantas Exception" in their anti- miscegenation laws because so many prominent families counted her as an ancestor, and as you point out, did so proudly.
    , @Pat Boyle
    Of course Jamestown wasn't the first settlement in British America. It was just the first that survived. There had been the "Lost Roanoke Colony' and the much earlier skraelings had driven the Norse out.

    My ancestor Abraham Piersay also got to Jamestown about 1610.
    , @FKA Max
    I just read through my wife's family history the other day and found this very interesting entry in it, that is relevant to this blog post, so I wanted to share it:

    Their son, John Ensigne, made his will in March 1676.
    It was signed and witnessed on the eve of the march against Indians. It reads:

    "Being about to go forth in the present expedition against barbarous natives I commit my soul to the hands of God my Creator: and I give to my Mother Elizabeth all the lands which my father gave me in his will dated 1663 during her life, and afterward the same to my daughter, Hannah. To my sister Hannah Shepherd's son Thomas Sheperd 20 acres of land next to Isaac Chittendens. To sister Elizabeth Wade's son Jacob, the bit cliff; he to pay his sister 10 pounds and his brother Joseph 5 pounds."
     
    John was born 1642 in Scituate or Hingham, Massachusetts. He died on March 26, 1676 on an expedition against Indians at Rehoboth, Massachusetts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. “… And many of those whose people were here from the beginning did fight Indians and some percent did marry into tribes.”

    I am of scots-irish descent and my mother had these ‘we have indian blood ‘ stories.. So did Johnny Cash’s family along with being ‘irish’ (which was probably semi correct, in the folk memory they came from Ireland, they just weren’t Irish).

    Well I did a 23andme – 98. north european, 100 european…I long suspected my mother’s story was BS with her I think it was her ‘conversion’ from being a southern belle to being a 60s liberal. She had to find some way to not be a southern belle. the story she told – so and so married an indian princess… is pretty common among southern women to the point of being googable….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Discordiax
    My mother greatly enjoyed claiming oppositional ethnicities. (Oppositional to NYC's Ellis Island schmaltz-ocracy anyway.)

    I"m reasonably confident that her claiming of lace-curtain pre-Ellis Island Irish ancestry (Yay IRA, boo National Review and Margaret Thatcher) and descent from William Henry Harrison's family are accurate, since they're based on records which exist and can actually be checked. (Although I haven't checked.)

    But that wasn't enough. The Harrison ancestor, who converted to Catholicism, had to have married a Delaware Indian girl to account for the family shutting him out. And the 15 year old boy who ran away from New York to fight in the Civil War simply MUST have fought for the South, since the family records that he died in the "Battle of the Wilderness", the Southern name for the battle. (The Civil War pistol in the family safe deposit box does seem to be a CSA Navy sidearm.)

    So depending on the time of year, she (and therefore I) might be part-Indian, have Confederate ancestry, commiserate with American blacks about immigration, and have PResidential ancestry.

    Writing this down, it occurs to me that given her standards of evidence, the connection to President William Henry Harrison may be equally tenuous.

    EDIT: We also claimed WASP when negotiating with a Jewish real estate developer who wanted to buy our house, offering an even swap for "a place in a nice Italian neighborhood."

    , @Autochthon
    Your mom's story lacks internal coherence. Southern belles came of the tidewater plantations, of English provenance (not for nothing is the University of Virginia's mascot the cavalier...). These families staked out the fertile, productive, and (by the time civilian settlement began in earnest) relatively safe tidewater for their plantations and lived in related cities (Charleston, Savannah, etc.).

    The Scots-Irish generally arrived a little later and got the same welcome they had from the English for not being Anglican and from the Irish for not being Catholic: "Get on up to thr piedmont and the mountains where the lands are less productive and the Indians keep killing people; we're full up around here."

    These were the people who continued most of the fighting with Indians in Appalachia, its foothills, the Cumberland Plateau, etc. (until finally one of them, Jackson, pretty much fed up with the problems and having fairly decisively defeated them militarily, decided to relocate them en masse for their own good and Americans'). It was the proximity and interaction in those parts and times that led to occassional interbreeding. Even then, though, it was much rarer than is now popularly imagined, as everyone here notes.

    (Maybe your mom or you use the term "southern belle" a bit more loosely to simply mean she was a southern woman and not precisely from old money.)
    , @anonymous
    It would be interesting to find out how much of the genetic composition of the population of French Canada (including Quebec and the western part of New Brunswick) is indigenous North American. It is my understanding that there was no small degree of intermarriage between French settlers in Canada and the native population--particularly in the 17th and 18th centuries. My wife's ancestors on her mother's side settled in Canada during the French-Indian War and according to family lore it was believed (though never substantiated) that at least some of her ancestors married natives. A 23andme might provide the answer (though I have heard that their results are of questionable accuracy).
    , @Flinders Petrie
    I would be interested to see how many family stories of Indian ancestry debunked by 23andMe instead had unknown sub-Saharan ancestry.

    I get the feeling that, prior to the civil rights era, more than a few people dressed their mulatto grandmother up in Indian garb and called her a Cherokee princess.
    , @ben tillman
    A test of the sort you took can only confirm a claim of Indian (or other) ancestry. It cannot disprove one.

    Over time, the contribution of DNA to you from any one ancestor may drop to zero. If we ignore the (small) effect of meiotic drive, the first mixed generation will have received just 50% of its DNA from the Indian ancestor.

    Six generations later (with no further Indian admixture) that figure would be down to 0.8%, before we account for the small effect of meiotic drive and the potentially large effect of differential fitness influence.

    If, on balance, the Indian genetic contribution to your ancestral line was selected against, and the Indian's descendants with more Indian DNA had less reproductive success than those with less Indian DNA, the Indian ancestor's genetic contribution to his descendants would be eliminated at a faster rate.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    the story she told – so and so married an indian princess… is pretty common among southern women to the point of being googable….
     
    When you consider that Pocahontas's dad alone had 149 wives, it would seem impossible for an Indian not to have some royal blood.

    Same goes in Africa.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. syonredux says:

    Abraham Lincoln’s grandfather:

    One day in May 1786, Abraham Lincoln was working in his field with his three sons when he was shot from the nearby forest and fell to the ground. The eldest boy, Mordecai, ran to the cabin where a loaded gun was kept, while the middle son, Josiah, ran to Hughes’ Station for help. Thomas, the youngest, stood in shock by his father. From the cabin, Mordecai observed an Indian come out of the forest and stop by his father’s body. The Indian reached for Thomas, either to kill him or to carry him off. Mordecai took aim and shot the Indian in the chest, killing him.[2][6]
    Tradition states that Captain Abraham Lincoln was buried by his cabin, which is now the site of Long Run Baptist Church and Cemetery near Eastwood, Kentucky. A stone memorializing Captain Abraham Lincoln was placed in the cemetery in 1937.[12]
    Bathsheba Lincoln was left a widow with five underage children. She moved the family away from the Ohio River, to Washington County, where the country was more thickly settled and there was less danger of a Native American attack.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_(captain)

    Read More
    • Replies: @bored identity
    Is Mordecai okay?
    , @ben tillman

    Tradition states that Captain Abraham Lincoln was buried by his cabin....
     
    How did the cabin bury him?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @syonredux

    In Latin America, the Indian civilizations collapsed quickly and the survivors became an underclass ruled over by a European-descended elite.
     
    Not as quickly as legend would have it......


    Spanish conquest of Yucatán

    The first encounter with the Yucatán Maya occurred in 1502, when the fourth voyage of Christopher Columbus came across a large Maya trading canoe off Honduras. In 1517, Francisco Hernández de Córdoba made landfall on the tip of the peninsula. His expedition continued along the coast and suffered heavy losses in a pitched battle at Champotón, forcing a retreat to Cuba. Juan de Grijalva explored the coast in 1518, and heard tales of the wealthy Aztec Empire further west. As a result of these rumours, Hernán Cortés set sail with another fleet. From Cozumel he continued around the peninsula to Tabasco where he fought a battle at Potonchán; from there Cortés continued onward to conquer the Aztec Empire. In 1524, Cortés led a sizeable expedition to Honduras, cutting across southern Campeche, and through Petén in what is now northern Guatemala. In 1527 Francisco de Montejo set sail from Spain with a small fleet. He left garrisons on the east coast, and subjugated the northeast of the peninsula. Montejo then returned to the east to find his garrisons had almost been eliminated; he used a supply ship to explore southwards before looping back around the entire peninsula to central Mexico. Montejo pacified Tabasco with the aid of his son, also named Francisco de Montejo.
    In 1531 the Spanish moved their base of operations to Campeche, where they repulsed a significant Maya attack. After this battle, the Spanish founded a town at Chichen Itza in the north. Montejo carved up the province amongst his soldiers. In mid-1533 the local Maya rebelled and laid siege to the small Spanish garrison, which was forced to flee. Towards the end of 1534, or the beginning of 1535, the Spanish retreated from Campeche to Veracruz. In 1535, peaceful attempts by the Franciscan Order to incorporate Yucatán into the Spanish Empire failed after a renewed Spanish military presence at Champotón forced the friars out. Champotón was by now the last Spanish outpost in Yucatán, isolated among a hostile population. In 1541–42 the first permanent Spanish town councils in the entire peninsula were founded at Campeche and Mérida. When the powerful lord of Mani converted to the Roman Catholic religion, his submission to Spain and conversion to Christianity encouraged the lords of the western provinces to accept Spanish rule. In late 1546 an alliance of eastern provinces launched an unsuccessful uprising against the Spanish. The eastern Maya were defeated in a single battle, which marked the final conquest of the northern portion of the Yucatán Peninsula.
    The polities of Petén in the south remained independent and received many refugees fleeing from Spanish jurisdiction. In 1618 and in 1619 two unsuccessful Franciscan missions attempted the peaceful conversion of the still pagan Itza. In 1622 the Itza slaughtered two Spanish parties trying to reach their capital Nojpetén. These events ended all Spanish attempts to contact the Itza until 1695. Over the course of 1695 and 1696 a number of Spanish expeditions attempted to reach Nojpetén from the mutually independent Spanish colonies in Yucatán and Guatemala. In early 1695 the Spanish began to build a road from Campeche south towards Petén and activity intensified, sometimes with significant losses on the part of the Spanish. Martín de Urzúa y Arizmendi, governor of Yucatán, launched an assault upon Nojpetén in March 1697; the city fell after a brief battle. With the defeat of the Itza, the last independent and unconquered native kingdom in the Americas fell to the Spanish.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_Yucat%C3%A1n

    Yes, and there also was this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion_of_T%C3%BApac_Amaru_II

    which in parts had the character of a veritable race war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. syonredux says:

    The most important Indian War in US (post-colonial)history:

    The Northwest Indian War (1785–1795) also, known as the Ohio War, Little Turtle’s War, and by other names, was a war between the United States and a confederation of numerous Native American tribes, with support from the British, for control of the Northwest Territory. It followed centuries of conflict over this territory, first among Native American tribes, and then with the added shifting alliances among the tribes and the European powers of France and Great Britain, and their colonials.
    Under the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the American Revolutionary War, Great Britain ceded to the U.S. “control” of the Northwest Territory, which was occupied by numerous Native American peoples. Despite the treaty, the British kept forts there and continued policies that supported the Native Americans in the Northwest Territories. In 1787, there were 45,000 Native Americans in the territory, and 2,000 French.[1] President George Washington directed the United States Army to enforce U.S. sovereignty over the territory. The U.S. Army, consisting of mostly untrained recruits supported by equally untrained militiamen, suffered a series of major defeats, including the Harmar Campaign (1790) and St. Clair’s Defeat (1791), which were resounding Native American victories. About 1,000 soldiers and militiamen were killed and the United States forces suffered many more casualties than their opponents.
    After St. Clair’s disaster, Washington ordered Revolutionary War hero, General “Mad” Anthony Wayne, to organize and train a proper fighting force. Wayne took command of the new Legion of the United States late in 1793. He led his men to a decisive victory at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794. The defeated tribes were forced to cede extensive territory, including much of present-day Ohio, in the Treaty of Greenville in 1795.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Indian_War

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    St. Clair's Defeat also known as the Battle of the Wabash, the Battle of Wabash River or the Battle of a Thousand Slain,[3] was fought on November 4, 1791 in the Northwest Territory between the United States and the Western Confederacy of American Indians, as part of the Northwest Indian War. It was one of the worst defeats, in percentage of casualties, suffered by the United States Army. It was the largest victory ever won by American Indians.[4]
     

    The casualty rate was the highest percentage ever suffered by a United States Army unit and included St. Clair's second in command. Of the 52 officers engaged, 39 were killed and 7 wounded; around 88% of all officers became casualties. After two hours St. Clair ordered a retreat, which quickly turned into a rout. "It was, in fact, a flight," St. Clair described a few days later in a letter to the Secretary of War. The American casualty rate, among the soldiers, was 97.4 percent, including 632 of 920 killed (69%) and 264 wounded. Nearly all of the 200 camp followers were slaughtered, for a total of 832 Americans killed. Approximately one-quarter of the entire U.S. Army had been wiped out. Only 24 of the 920 officers and men engaged came out of it unscathed. Indian casualties were about 61, with at least 21 killed.
    The number of U.S. soldiers killed during this engagement was more than three times the number the Sioux would kill 85 years later at the Battle of Little Big Horn

     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Clair%27s_Defeat
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. syonredux says:
    @syonredux
    The most important Indian War in US (post-colonial)history:

    The Northwest Indian War (1785–1795) also, known as the Ohio War, Little Turtle's War, and by other names, was a war between the United States and a confederation of numerous Native American tribes, with support from the British, for control of the Northwest Territory. It followed centuries of conflict over this territory, first among Native American tribes, and then with the added shifting alliances among the tribes and the European powers of France and Great Britain, and their colonials.
    Under the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the American Revolutionary War, Great Britain ceded to the U.S. "control" of the Northwest Territory, which was occupied by numerous Native American peoples. Despite the treaty, the British kept forts there and continued policies that supported the Native Americans in the Northwest Territories. In 1787, there were 45,000 Native Americans in the territory, and 2,000 French.[1] President George Washington directed the United States Army to enforce U.S. sovereignty over the territory. The U.S. Army, consisting of mostly untrained recruits supported by equally untrained militiamen, suffered a series of major defeats, including the Harmar Campaign (1790) and St. Clair's Defeat (1791), which were resounding Native American victories. About 1,000 soldiers and militiamen were killed and the United States forces suffered many more casualties than their opponents.
    After St. Clair's disaster, Washington ordered Revolutionary War hero, General "Mad" Anthony Wayne, to organize and train a proper fighting force. Wayne took command of the new Legion of the United States late in 1793. He led his men to a decisive victory at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794. The defeated tribes were forced to cede extensive territory, including much of present-day Ohio, in the Treaty of Greenville in 1795.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Indian_War

    St. Clair’s Defeat also known as the Battle of the Wabash, the Battle of Wabash River or the Battle of a Thousand Slain,[3] was fought on November 4, 1791 in the Northwest Territory between the United States and the Western Confederacy of American Indians, as part of the Northwest Indian War. It was one of the worst defeats, in percentage of casualties, suffered by the United States Army. It was the largest victory ever won by American Indians.[4]

    The casualty rate was the highest percentage ever suffered by a United States Army unit and included St. Clair’s second in command. Of the 52 officers engaged, 39 were killed and 7 wounded; around 88% of all officers became casualties. After two hours St. Clair ordered a retreat, which quickly turned into a rout. “It was, in fact, a flight,” St. Clair described a few days later in a letter to the Secretary of War. The American casualty rate, among the soldiers, was 97.4 percent, including 632 of 920 killed (69%) and 264 wounded. Nearly all of the 200 camp followers were slaughtered, for a total of 832 Americans killed. Approximately one-quarter of the entire U.S. Army had been wiped out. Only 24 of the 920 officers and men engaged came out of it unscathed. Indian casualties were about 61, with at least 21 killed.
    The number of U.S. soldiers killed during this engagement was more than three times the number the Sioux would kill 85 years later at the Battle of Little Big Horn

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Clair%27s_Defeat

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. I love this comment. It’s well-written and intellectually provocative in the best sense of the word.

    But I think it greatly exaggerates the military effectiveness of the Native Americans in what is today the United States. The U.S. didn’t have much of a military for the Indian Wars because it didn’t need a large military for the Indian Wars.

    The Native Americans were certainly a threat to American settlers, and as King Philip’s War shows, they were very dangerous when the numbers and weapons were closer to even.

    But after the founding of the United States, were they as large a threat as disease or other Europeans or even other Americans? I doubt it. I’m skeptical it was even close.

    “Whoever” also loads up on the experience of the Spanish in what is today the American Southeast, but why would that affect how American Anglos later viewed the Natives?

    Again, great comment. I just think it stretches the facts to fit the perception.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Another Canadian
    Like many Americans, you consider time zero as the Revolution. The revolution was catastrophic for the Indians. Prior, they were an existential threat to communities in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. Consider the evacuation of these areas to the Carolinas at the beginning of the 7 Years War after Braddock's defeat. Many family genealogies have "brick walls" at this point because ancestors were massacred or kidnapped at the hands of the Indians. Same thing in Virginia 1774-1781 with Lord Dunmore's War and the Revolution. An important outcome of the Revolution was putting an end to the Indians as an existential threat to entire communities.
    , @syonredux

    But after the founding of the United States, were they as large a threat as disease or other Europeans or even other Americans? I doubt it. I’m skeptical it was even close.
     
    As I noted upthread, the Northwest Indian War (1785–1795) was the only time that the Amerinds really posed a significant threat to the US, and that was largely because they had the backing of the British . During the early post-Revolutionary period, the British seriously contemplated creating an Amerind puppet state in the Old Northwest. However, with the onset of the French Revolutionary Wars, the Brits, valuing peace with the Americans, ceased supplying aid.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Indian_War

    , @Chris Mallory
    The Comanche in Texas were a major threat up into the 1870's.
    , @Don't Look at Me
    Indigenous Americans tended to think tactically, not strategically. They were good fighters, but had no idea what they were getting into against Americans/Texans/Europeans, who sought to completely defeat an enemy, and wouldn't be satisfied by just winning a battle or two.

    The Comanche, for example, initially treated the Texans like any other Indian tribe. If they saw an advantage, like an isolated Texas ranch, they would raid, take their stuff, kill their men, rape their women, and sometimes steal their children to increase Comanche numbers. This was business as usual for the Comanche. They expected the Texans to respond like the Apaches would have, maybe counter attack with a raid of their own to get even, but nothing more. Instead the Texans, and later the Americans, attempted to completely defeat them. They were quite surprised at the relentless pursuit and had no answer for it. The slaughter of Buffalo for their skins was encouraged by the American government, because this was the Comanche's commissary. They were completely incapable of surviving in significant numbers without it. This was a strategic move that the Comanche were unable to anticipate, because they really knew very little about us.

    And that's why they never stood a chance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Good comment.

    More evidence in support of his thesis:

    – Indian-named U.S. military equipment, such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    – Indian-era military terms, such as Kit Carson scouts in Vietnam.

    – Indian sports team names.

    – Rambo being half-Indian.

    – The whole western movie genre.

    – Indians and quasi-Indians in other genres, like the Martians in the Martian Chronicles, space Indians in Star Trek TNG, etc.

    Read More
    • Agree: ic1000
    • Replies: @syonredux
    John Ford's Cavalry Trilogy:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBlg_BDkEAg
    , @anonymous

    Indian-named U.S. military equipment, such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.
     
    I believe it is US Army tradition to name all of its helicopters with Indian names. Even the famous UH-1 "Huey" was officially known as the Iroquois. In fact there only a couple exceptions I can think of. The most famous of which is the Bell AH-1 Huey Cobra which I don't think ever had an Indian name.

    PS. When I was in the Army our battalion had Indian nicknames for each infantry company based upon its first letter. Alpha company was known as "Apache", Bravo was known as "Blackfeet" and Charlie was known as "Comanche". Collectively our battalion was called the "warrior" battalion by the brigade we were assigned to.

    , @guest
    Here in MN every damn thing is named after Indians, from bodies of water to gas stations to some frickin' stump in the woods. So I wouldn't put too much stock in the naming phenomenon.

    There is general recognition of the fighting spirit of the Red Man in U.S. culture, though. Especially in tv and movies.
    , @bored identity
    Who For Real Whomed & Freudienized Names of US Military Machinery?

    Star F%ck Next Generation Celebration:

    1.All Thangs Vietcong Considered.


    2 Any global IED's Outbreak.


    3. Any Other Kind of Imaginable Assymetric War of (((Your))) Choice.


    4. American Revolutionary War is not to be included in this arrangement , because Rednecks killing red Redcoats in guerilla warfare is bad.


    WWI was Good

    WWII was Even Better.

    *************

    You 're all masochistic cucking idiots.


    Delete your internet accounts, have a simplest ever possible life, and go back to your wigwams,your squaws , and healthy pemican diet.


    You welcome.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    I believe “Whoever” is a gal. And a Millennial (!) who is extremely knowledgeable about all sorts of interesting stuff, judging by her comment history.

    On topic, I visited Old Deerfield, MA last summer. There was quite a bit of harrowing action in the Connecticut River Valley back in the day:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bloody_Brook

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Deerfield

    Here’s a Romantic engraving depicting the Angel of Hadley.

    , @oh its just me too

    – Indian-named U.S. military equipment, such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.
     
    I wonder when the US army is going to be accused of cultural appropriation - like our sports teams have.

    my favorite though is the fact that on army unit (The rangers?) still carry tactical tomahawks, despite expert insistence there are more useful weapons.
    , @Njguy73
    Two words: Billy. Jack. 'Nuff said.
    , @Percy Gryce
    Second Infantry Division:

    http://2ida.org/patch/
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    Plus, the Indian good luck symbol:
    Patch of the 45th Infantry Division
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Sid says:

    My grandfather (Greatest Generation) had dark hair and skin, loved the outdoors, and went through his genealogy thoroughly. He never found proof he had Native American blood, but loved indulging the possibility.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fiddlesticks
    Even core Americans can look like this if they have some Welsh blood (think of all the Joneses).

    Which is why Catherine Zeta-Jones could play "Elena Montero" in Zorro.
    , @Jefferson
    "My grandfather (Greatest Generation) had dark hair and skin, loved the outdoors, and went through his genealogy thoroughly. He never found proof he had Native American blood, but loved indulging the possibility."

    I have dark hair too and no Amerindian DNA popped in my 23AndMe ancestry. Apparently dark hair is not an exclusive Amerindian trait. Apparently I inherited dark brown hair/black hair from a group of people called the Mediterraneans. Has anybody here ever heard of these people?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. A footnote to the excellent post: one reason (clearly not the only) for the Indian success against the white man from 1784 through Custer’s slaughter was our old friend, the Second Amendment. A whole batch of westerns were made (“Man from Laramie” probably the best) that villified the “gun runner” who sold Winchesters to the braves. Well, yes, maybe, but on the other hand the braves were frequently better armed than the cavalrymen with repeaters; then as now, firepower rules. All the mythic resonance of the brave and the society that spawned him is directly related to the fact that, unlike the African braves, he had maximum guns, and we did not. The wonderful heritage of the red dog soldier is one benefit to 2A that liberals should love.
    Finally, it’s got to happen sooner or later, but I keep waiting for a revisionist “pro gun-runner” western to arrive to hosannas from the elite press.

    Read More
    • Replies: @oh its just me too

    . A whole batch of westerns were made (“Man from Laramie” probably the best) that villified the “gun runner” who sold Winchesters to the braves
     
    THAT tradition was started by our friends the Canadian British who intentionally sold them AFTER the revolution... one of the reasons for the war of 1812
    , @Bill B.
    "African braves" are not in fact very good at fighting modern or quasi-modern battles.

    (With one astonishing Zulu success.)

    Western armies in Africa are almost invariably successful in short term operations. EG the British army in Sierra Leone in 2000.

    On the other hand the red Indians have been outstandingly good at guerrilla and small group warfare. That is why they are overrepresented in the SEALs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. eah says:

    telling us something important about our country and our history

    Yes — that you shouldn’t let your country be invaded — especially by people who feel absolutely no ‘empathy’ for you and your kind, and never will — see eg ‘white privilege’, ‘institutional racism’, etc etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    https://twitter.com/BrittPettibone/status/866007622314467328
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Grumpy says:

    This beautifully written comment brings to mind a couple of thoughts.

    1) If the civilizations of the south, in the Americas, were conquered more easily than the less “urbanized” peoples of the north, does this tell us something about the weaknesses of civilized peoples generally?

    2) As you point out, the American language shows a great deal of respect for Indians, but political correctness has painted the real respect as ridicule. Meanwhile, phony respect has replaced real respect, and Indian references are being excised from the language.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lex
    Just compare wars in centralized Iraq and tribal Afghanistan. There are probably some villages in Afghanistan where people have no clue there was war with USA or that USA exists.
    , @Pat Boyle
    1) If the civilizations of the south, in the Americas, were conquered more easily than the less “urbanized” peoples of the north, does this tell us something about the weaknesses of civilized peoples generally?

    No it doesn't. Disease (largely smallpox) was hugely effective in destroying Amerindian population concentrations. A lot of the most successful Indian resistance to the white invasion were by tribes with low population densities that couldn't support the spread of the diseases.

    , @Pepe

    If the civilizations of the south, in the Americas, were conquered more easily than the less “urbanized” peoples of the north, does this tell us something about the weaknesses of civilized peoples generally?
     
    If you're fighting a technically inferior enemy, it's much easier to get it over with quickly if you can decapitate a head, rather than fight dozens or hundreds of smaller nomadic tribes.

    Another advantage was that once the head was decapitated, there was an existing government bureaucracy on the ground to continue with the daily government administration. The Spanish were wise to use native royalty and elites to fill these positions.

    Which gets to a third point. The surviving native elite class in Latin America wouldn't have served well in the future Spanish bureaucracy if that elite hadn't gone into the clash of civilizations with an inferior complex, sensing their civilization was somehow not worthy or doomed.
    , @guest
    "does this tell us something about the weaknesses of civilized people generally?"

    No, because those civilizations were defeated by even more civilized people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Hubbub says:

    I lost all my Cherokee Indian blood when I got my Ancestry DNA results. English and Scots. Oh, well, I’ll never tell.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gospace
    My family had rumors. DNA confirmed they were rumors. Also rumors we were descended from a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Turns out that particular signer has no known living descendants. We are descended from his grandfather.... and it took me a long time to find that.
    , @Jim Don Bob
    I am considering doing the DNA thing too. What are the differences between the various tests and companies?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. eah says:
    @eah
    telling us something important about our country and our history

    Yes -- that you shouldn't let your country be invaded -- especially by people who feel absolutely no 'empathy' for you and your kind, and never will -- see eg 'white privilege', 'institutional racism', etc etc.

    https://twitter.com/MarkSimoneNY/status/864626758393442305

    Read More
    • Replies: @Amasius
    And anyone who opposes the destruction is a racistdaviddukekkkneonaziwhitesupremacist. Persuasion checkmate, fun game while it lasted.
    , @Altai
    It's interesting that at first black South Africans were copying the language, metaphysics and tactics of black American Twitter and SJWs with the various 'Fallist' campaigns but now it's the reverse, taking down statues, mass renaming of street names are very South African things.

    The Rhodes Must Fall protests grew quickly as they were inspired by the mass of protests of no particular point in US universities but unlike in the US, black students were the majority. They had success of a kind and now they're influencing black activism in the US. Twitter has weird effects on political philosophy.

    As always, American dominance of sociology underpins it all.

    , @Hubbub
    Once a society gives in to questionable demands, the demands begin to pile up until the society has no foothold. As one could tell from the beginning of the Second Reconstruction with only Blacks Lives Mattering the demands, this time, would know no end. The demands will continue until we have no white society left, or the majority of whites get the balls to say 'enough!' There is no White monument that cannot be destroyed by simply playing the racism card.

    But like most bigoted groups, we can wait for the BLM to begin to devour its own, just as the Liberal Left is beginning to do.
    , @eah
    https://twitter.com/Raiden679/status/866495472504012800
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. FKA Max says:

    So the American Indian earned respect and a place in our history that he does not have in Latin America or Canada. That’s even reflected in our language. Only the American armed forces to this day speak of going into Indian Country, and mean it ominously. Only American paratroopers legendarily shout “Geronimo!” as they leap from airplanes. Only a famous American general was named after an Indian. We speak of being off the reservation, and on the warpath.

    Code name Geronimo controversy

    “Geronimo is a hero. He’s a national patriot for our peoples. And in that, it is indeed an egregious slander for indigenous peoples everywhere and to all Americans, I believe, to equate Osama bin Laden with Geronimo. The reality is, is that the military is full of native nomenclature. You’ve got Black Hawk helicopters, Apache Longbow helicopters. You’ve got Tomahawk missiles [...] The U.S. military still has individuals dressed—the Seventh Cavalry, that went in in Shock and Awe, is the same cavalry that massacred indigenous people, the Lakota people, at Wounded Knee in 1890. You know, that is the reality of military nomenclature and how the military basically uses native people and native imagery to continue its global war and its global empire practices.”
    — Winona LaDuke, activist and author of The Militarization of Indian Country, on Democracy Now![12]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_name_Geronimo_controversy

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seth Largo
    Winona LaDuke, daughter of a Bernstein from the Bronx. It always seems to be the half- and quarter-breeds that go leftist with their activism. The full-bloods just seem to want respect, land (rightfully theirs anyway), and casinos.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Pincher Martin
    I love this comment. It's well-written and intellectually provocative in the best sense of the word.

    But I think it greatly exaggerates the military effectiveness of the Native Americans in what is today the United States. The U.S. didn't have much of a military for the Indian Wars because it didn't need a large military for the Indian Wars.

    The Native Americans were certainly a threat to American settlers, and as King Philip's War shows, they were very dangerous when the numbers and weapons were closer to even.

    But after the founding of the United States, were they as large a threat as disease or other Europeans or even other Americans? I doubt it. I'm skeptical it was even close.

    "Whoever" also loads up on the experience of the Spanish in what is today the American Southeast, but why would that affect how American Anglos later viewed the Natives?

    Again, great comment. I just think it stretches the facts to fit the perception.

    Like many Americans, you consider time zero as the Revolution. The revolution was catastrophic for the Indians. Prior, they were an existential threat to communities in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. Consider the evacuation of these areas to the Carolinas at the beginning of the 7 Years War after Braddock’s defeat. Many family genealogies have “brick walls” at this point because ancestors were massacred or kidnapped at the hands of the Indians. Same thing in Virginia 1774-1781 with Lord Dunmore’s War and the Revolution. An important outcome of the Revolution was putting an end to the Indians as an existential threat to entire communities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Like many Americans, you consider time zero as the Revolution.
     
    I did mention King Philip's War in the post you're responding to.

    But I would argue that in the pre-Revolutionary period you're focused on - from the Seven Years' War to the Revolution - American colonists were still far more concerned about the might of the European powers than they ever were about the Indians. I mean, how many Americans died in Lord Dunmore's War? How many even participated?

    The Americans worried the Europeans might stir the Indians up, but they were not greatly feared as a military force in and of themselves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. syonredux says:
    @Pincher Martin
    I love this comment. It's well-written and intellectually provocative in the best sense of the word.

    But I think it greatly exaggerates the military effectiveness of the Native Americans in what is today the United States. The U.S. didn't have much of a military for the Indian Wars because it didn't need a large military for the Indian Wars.

    The Native Americans were certainly a threat to American settlers, and as King Philip's War shows, they were very dangerous when the numbers and weapons were closer to even.

    But after the founding of the United States, were they as large a threat as disease or other Europeans or even other Americans? I doubt it. I'm skeptical it was even close.

    "Whoever" also loads up on the experience of the Spanish in what is today the American Southeast, but why would that affect how American Anglos later viewed the Natives?

    Again, great comment. I just think it stretches the facts to fit the perception.

    But after the founding of the United States, were they as large a threat as disease or other Europeans or even other Americans? I doubt it. I’m skeptical it was even close.

    As I noted upthread, the Northwest Indian War (1785–1795) was the only time that the Amerinds really posed a significant threat to the US, and that was largely because they had the backing of the British . During the early post-Revolutionary period, the British seriously contemplated creating an Amerind puppet state in the Old Northwest. However, with the onset of the French Revolutionary Wars, the Brits, valuing peace with the Americans, ceased supplying aid.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Indian_War

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    Yeah, I read your comments after I posted. They were excellent as usual.
    , @Autochthon
    I take your points, but one mustn't conflate an existential military threat to the U.S.A. and its military as such with threats to individuals and communities. It's cold comfort to the thousands of pioneers slaughtered on the frontier as their homesteads and villages were razed by Indians to know that the folks back in Charleston and Boston (or even the closest garrison, even if it were only a few miles away) were safe as could be (no one can blame the Indians, mind you, speaking of existential threats: this was all part of the long war over who got to keep the continent at the end of it all...).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @syonredux

    But after the founding of the United States, were they as large a threat as disease or other Europeans or even other Americans? I doubt it. I’m skeptical it was even close.
     
    As I noted upthread, the Northwest Indian War (1785–1795) was the only time that the Amerinds really posed a significant threat to the US, and that was largely because they had the backing of the British . During the early post-Revolutionary period, the British seriously contemplated creating an Amerind puppet state in the Old Northwest. However, with the onset of the French Revolutionary Wars, the Brits, valuing peace with the Americans, ceased supplying aid.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Indian_War

    Yeah, I read your comments after I posted. They were excellent as usual.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. bored identity’s Favorite Injun:

    Just kiddin’.

    Let’s Make Blankets Great Again!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spaYIeWZfk8
    , @BEER/ we're all going to die
    Hell that's an old Chinamen story if I ain't mistaken. Daoist I believe. The writers (gems probably) writing for that Swipple show were cultural appropriatin'. And well that Indian character speaks for itself doesn't she? ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. syonredux says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Good comment.

    More evidence in support of his thesis:

    - Indian-named U.S. military equipment, such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    - Indian-era military terms, such as Kit Carson scouts in Vietnam.

    - Indian sports team names.

    - Rambo being half-Indian.

    - The whole western movie genre.

    - Indians and quasi-Indians in other genres, like the Martians in the Martian Chronicles, space Indians in Star Trek TNG, etc.

    John Ford’s Cavalry Trilogy:

    Read More
    • Replies: @antipater_1
    Fort Apache is a terrific old movie. Henry Fonda steals the show as the humorless half crazy military officer.

    Gentlemen! I am not a martinet! As he proceeds to be a martinet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. FKA Max says:
    @Bill P
    I read through my family's genealogy book that goes back to an ancestor who arrived in Jamestown in 1610, and was pretty surprised to see how many people were killed by Indians. It seemed that one was as likely to die from encounters with Indians as from disease, and back then that's really saying something. Despite this relentless hostility, the book made sure to note the family's connection to Pocahontas and intermarriage with her descendants, and did so with pride.

    Copper was gold for the Virginia Indians. The Jamestown settlers kept alive during the difficult first years by trading German-made copper for food.
    [...]
    German woodworkers helped build a European-style house for Paramount Chief Powhatan in 1608 and lived in the same village as his daughter Pocahontas.

    http://www.agas.us/GrasslBook2.htm

    The First Germans in America By Gary Carl Grassl

    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/open-thread-10232016/#comment-1619904

    Read More
    • Replies: @gospace
    My ancestors lived in Powhatan VA in the 1600's. And I have distant relatives with the same surname still living there. Some in ancestral houses from the early 1700's. It's really amazing the stories you can find using google...

    I doubt there's a county in the United States that doesn't have at least one town or major geographical feature that isn't named after an Indian chief or tribe. Alas, no Indian blood as I said in another comment. Though I have traced other branches of the family that have Indian blood. And African blood.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @syonredux
    Abraham Lincoln's grandfather:

    One day in May 1786, Abraham Lincoln was working in his field with his three sons when he was shot from the nearby forest and fell to the ground. The eldest boy, Mordecai, ran to the cabin where a loaded gun was kept, while the middle son, Josiah, ran to Hughes' Station for help. Thomas, the youngest, stood in shock by his father. From the cabin, Mordecai observed an Indian come out of the forest and stop by his father's body. The Indian reached for Thomas, either to kill him or to carry him off. Mordecai took aim and shot the Indian in the chest, killing him.[2][6]
    Tradition states that Captain Abraham Lincoln was buried by his cabin, which is now the site of Long Run Baptist Church and Cemetery near Eastwood, Kentucky. A stone memorializing Captain Abraham Lincoln was placed in the cemetery in 1937.[12]
    Bathsheba Lincoln was left a widow with five underage children. She moved the family away from the Ohio River, to Washington County, where the country was more thickly settled and there was less danger of a Native American attack.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_(captain)

    Is Mordecai okay?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. LOL. We wuz Injunz!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “despite no evidence”

    I hear this phrase a lot in discussion of this topic, but I think it is often used in a misguided way. The simple fact is that oral family tradition IS evidence. It may be defeasible evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.

    Many people chastise Elizabeth Warren for claiming to be Indian. Obviously, she is not more than a small fraction Indian, at most. But I see no reason to insist that it is absurd for her to claim to be 1/32 Indian. (I do find it utterly absurd for her to get a job at Harvard as a “Person of Color”.) I genuinely believe that she thinks she has a well-grounded basis for claiming Indian ancestry, and I do not fault her reasoning. Of course, she might be wrong, but that is how life is. We can fault her for trying to claim some racial perks without faulting her for taking seriously her family history.

    Even if many “white” and “black” Americans are wrong in claiming Indian ancestry, many are right, even if they have no certificates of tribal membership or whatever.

    (I am fairly confident I am one of the white Americans who is right about it…)

    Read More
    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I see no reason to insist that it is absurd for her to claim to be 1/32 Indian
     
    Of course it is absurd. Consider this: 1/32 equates to about as much ancestry as the amount of Neanderthal ancestry in most Europeans. Neanderthals died off 30,000 years ago.
    , @The Alarmist
    Steve tried to put me straight on this once in the past, but I remain convinced that Elizabeth Warren is 1/24th Indian. Ponder the possibility.
    , @geronimo.pratt.and.whitney
    "Even if many “white” and “black” Americans are wrong in claiming Indian ancestry, many are right, even if they have no certificates of tribal membership or whatever."

    From what I have seen at 23andme, the vast majority of African Americans have at least small percentage of Indian blood, which is interesting because they seem a lot less likely to claim it than whites, who have much less evidence of it.
    , @Fiddlesticks
    Even if many “white” and “black” Americans are wrong in claiming Indian ancestry, many are right, even if they have no certificates of tribal membership or whatever.

    Meh. Steve already covered this. Native American admixture was just as microscopically small as black admixture in people identifying as white.
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/

    Claiming exotic ancestry based on family lore kind of went out the window during this decade of 23andMe et al.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    A quite interesting book from a few years ago is Blood and Thunder: The Epic Story of Kit Carson and the Conquest of the American West. (When I just checked the name on Amazon, it had 666 reviews…. take that as you wish!) Today elite opinion probably regards him as a sort of genocidaire, but there are very few Americans who have had a more respectful engagement with Indian culture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jill
    The book also covers the constant wars and hatred between each of the indian tribes and the despicable monstrous acts that they committed to each other, their constant pillaging and looting of other villages and the kidnapping of each others woman and children to use as slaves.

    "Whoever" conveniently leaves those facts out.
    , @Formerly CARealist
    my husband is deep into that book right now and thoroughly enjoying it.

    I really liked Buffalo Bill's biography of Kit Carson too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. gruff says:

    180

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    But in America, the Indians fought back with everything they had not for years, not for decades, not for generations, but for centuries.

    This does reflect highly of the American Indians. The history of the world is one of endless conquest. One group moves in and pushes another out. But there has never been such a mismatch as that which occurred between the hunter gathers of America and an agricultural people on the cusp of the industrial revolution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Dave Pinsen
    Good comment.

    More evidence in support of his thesis:

    - Indian-named U.S. military equipment, such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    - Indian-era military terms, such as Kit Carson scouts in Vietnam.

    - Indian sports team names.

    - Rambo being half-Indian.

    - The whole western movie genre.

    - Indians and quasi-Indians in other genres, like the Martians in the Martian Chronicles, space Indians in Star Trek TNG, etc.

    Indian-named U.S. military equipment, such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    I believe it is US Army tradition to name all of its helicopters with Indian names. Even the famous UH-1 “Huey” was officially known as the Iroquois. In fact there only a couple exceptions I can think of. The most famous of which is the Bell AH-1 Huey Cobra which I don’t think ever had an Indian name.

    PS. When I was in the Army our battalion had Indian nicknames for each infantry company based upon its first letter. Alpha company was known as “Apache”, Bravo was known as “Blackfeet” and Charlie was known as “Comanche”. Collectively our battalion was called the “warrior” battalion by the brigade we were assigned to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Were you in the 1/501 PIR, aka the "Geronimo" battalion as well? I was there from 2002-2005.

    They sent me after that to the "Tomahawk" Battalion, 4/23 IN. Also Apache and Commanche Company, but Blackhawk Company instead of Blackfoot.

    As an aside, the Heard Museum in Phoenix is rather interesting, dedicated as it is to Southwest Indians. There's a rather interesting display regarding the Indian Schools, with a quote from their commandant, who was a veteran of the Indian Wars and said "It was by my hand that I struck the Indian down, and it will be my hand and the grace of God that I raise the red man back up to stand side by side with the white man as brothers and equals in this nation we share."

    A charge he took seriously - even through all the moaning about the US taking the kids off the rez the display concedes that the schools did teach like they were supposed to.

    , @Anonymous
    The commenter who Steve quoted up there seems to be one of those sappy muscleheads, like Vin Diesel. When they happen to think of something slightly deep, they like it so much they consider it the most profound insight anyone in their generation has ever had.

    I'm far from an SJW, but the weird American and Australia/NZ affliction for naming things after the natives seems to be an overcompensation for being the two areas of European colonialism where the natives were most efficiently wiped out.

    Australia, NZ and the USA would be similar to Brazil today if they hadn't ruthlessly cleaned out the natives before populating them with Europeans. This assertion should be pretty uncontroversial around these HBD-aware parts.

    When I see a New Zealand sports team perform the Hakka it strikes me as the most ugly form of cultural appropriation (again, I'm no SJW but that doesn't mean all their ideas are stupid). First you massacre the natives. Then you feel guilty about it so you take over quirky but safe aspects of their culture and pretend like the real thing is still alive. The old Christian urge to repent writ large.

    It's like the cultural equivalent of a zoo. You destroy the wild habitat of lions and tigers, then put a few specimens behind thick glass where your kids can laugh at them, and then feel so good about yourselves.
    , @Anon
    Claiming "Indian" heritage is a means for many whites to avoid facing the reality that those "Indian" ancestors they claim were actually black. Take the Melungeons of Appalachia, for example. They went generations thinking they were dark because they had native ancestry. Nope. Took a DNA test and found out they're ancestors were mostly black; I haven't heard much from the Melungeons since. In fact, I've known several Southern families who told tales of having native ancestors only to get similar results and never broach the subject again.

    O/T: do the Melungeons get reparations, too? If Ta-Genius Coates gets a million reparation dollars Ta-Morrow, does the white guy who is 1% black get his $10,000 as well?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. guest says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Good comment.

    More evidence in support of his thesis:

    - Indian-named U.S. military equipment, such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    - Indian-era military terms, such as Kit Carson scouts in Vietnam.

    - Indian sports team names.

    - Rambo being half-Indian.

    - The whole western movie genre.

    - Indians and quasi-Indians in other genres, like the Martians in the Martian Chronicles, space Indians in Star Trek TNG, etc.

    Here in MN every damn thing is named after Indians, from bodies of water to gas stations to some frickin’ stump in the woods. So I wouldn’t put too much stock in the naming phenomenon.

    There is general recognition of the fighting spirit of the Red Man in U.S. culture, though. Especially in tv and movies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Plenty of stuff around here is named after Indian words too (e.g., Manhattan, Hackensack). That's another sign of respect for Indians.
    , @Jack Hanson
    My only gold box from Steve came from pointing out that US Special Forces has a higher than average proportion of Indians than you would expect.

    The one guy I knew had carried a legit steel tomahawk on patrol with him and said he had taken scalps in Panama and Desert Storm, so go figure. I imagine that long range scouting missions probably resonate hard with the descendants of the the braves.
    , @HA
    "There is general recognition of the fighting spirit of the Red Man."

    Raiders -- be they pirates or Comanches -- were commonly fetishized by landlocked homesteaders. The hunter/gatherer lifestyle of some tribes was in many ways an improvement over the endless drudgery of sodbusting and sharecropping (at least until the buffalo was exterminated).

    That old anthropology chestnut about how the adoption of agriculture was a colossal mistake would not have seemed shocking to a settler gazing up from his plow to see raiding Comanche come and go. And as Gwynne pointed out in Empire of the Summer Moon, children kidnapped by Comanche tribes (even those who had seen their family members brutally murdered) fell deeply into Stockholm syndrome, so that even when they were "rescued", they longed to return to life on the plains, whereas adopted/kidnapped Native American children often had a rougher time in adapting to the white man's ways.

    (That being said, as Gwynne's book makes clear, it was actually the introduction of the white man's technology -- specifically, the superweapon more commonly referred to as the "horse" -- that transformed the Comanche from a tribe of runts kicked around by most everyone else, into the Mongols of the plains, who dispensed havoc not just to white men, but other tribes. As for Geronimo, his Apache tribe originated in Canada. It was the horse that allowed them to migrate into the Texas panhandle, and then the horse-obsessed Comanche that chased them out from the panhandle into New Mexico.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. “Only a famous American general was named after an Indian”

    OK, I was just about to post when it finally came to me: William Tecumseh Sherman:

    Sherman’s unusual given name has always attracted considerable attention. [5] Sherman reported that his middle name came from his father having “caught a fancy for the great chief of the Shawnees, ‘Tecumseh.’”[6] Since an account in a 1932 biography about Sherman, it has often been reported that, as an infant, Sherman was named simply Tecumseh. According to these accounts, Sherman only acquired the name “William” at age nine or ten, after being taken into the Ewing household. His foster mother, Maria Willis Boyle (Maria Ewing), was of Irish ancestry and a devout Roman Catholic. Sherman was raised in a Roman Catholic household, although he later left the church, citing the effect of the Civil War on his religious views. According to a story that may be myth, Sherman was baptized in the Ewing home by a Dominican priest, who named him William for the saint’s day: possibly June 25, the feast day of Saint William of Montevergine.[7] The story is contested, however. Sherman wrote in his Memoirs that his father named him William Tecumseh; Sherman was baptized by a Presbyterian minister as an infant and given the name William at that time.[8] As an adult, Sherman signed all his correspondence – including to his wife – “W.T. Sherman.”[9] His friends and family always called him “Cump.”[10]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman#Sherman.27s_given_names

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. Felix.. says:

    “That is telling us something important about our country and our history. And I think it’s rather a good thing — that we don’t disparage those we displaced, but empathize with them, acknowledge their loss and try, in some way, to assuage it by claiming that we, too, are Indian, one with them, and one with our mutual land.”

    Is it a good thing though? I’d argue this mentality is part and parcel of what we nowadays call cucking. It is, in other words, part of the reason why we are on the road to eradication as a people. It’s just my opinion and all, but a characteristic that leads to your overwhelmingly powerful tribe being conquered and dispossessed by weaker tribes because you’re oh so compassionate that you think self defense is “bad” is a rather bad thing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. @Dave Pinsen
    Good comment.

    More evidence in support of his thesis:

    - Indian-named U.S. military equipment, such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    - Indian-era military terms, such as Kit Carson scouts in Vietnam.

    - Indian sports team names.

    - Rambo being half-Indian.

    - The whole western movie genre.

    - Indians and quasi-Indians in other genres, like the Martians in the Martian Chronicles, space Indians in Star Trek TNG, etc.

    Who For Real Whomed & Freudienized Names of US Military Machinery?

    Star F%ck Next Generation Celebration:

    1.All Thangs Vietcong Considered.

    2 Any global IED’s Outbreak.

    3. Any Other Kind of Imaginable Assymetric War of (((Your))) Choice.

    4. American Revolutionary War is not to be included in this arrangement , because Rednecks killing red Redcoats in guerilla warfare is bad.

    WWI was Good

    WWII was Even Better.

    *************

    You ‘re all masochistic cucking idiots.

    Delete your internet accounts, have a simplest ever possible life, and go back to your wigwams,your squaws , and healthy pemican diet.

    You welcome.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. anon says: • Disclaimer

    http://www.whitewolfpack.com/2012/09/the-mohawks-who-built-manhattan-photos.html

    Some tribes found work to their liking.

    From New Yorker, 1949

    http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/j6075/edit/Mitchell.html

    Another perspective:

    One night when they were all drunk the Indians admitted they were scared fecal matter-less while iron hopping; they just didn’t admit it because of the above-mentioned warrior ethic. (They didn’t actually say “warrior ethic,” of course; that was Freilich’s take on it.) Freilich pointed out in his article that the Iroquois warrior tradition boiled down to going off with the boys to perform insane feats of bravery and generally raise hell, then coming home and boasting about your exploits. The warpath being no longer socially acceptable, steelwork was the next best thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @new handle
    Buffalo Joe,
    you must've crossed paths with many Mohawks and others in the steel erection business. Please elaborate on experiences. Some of us marvel at, or maybe shake our heads at, the notion of walking along beams dozens of stories up, where gusts of wind or missteps could lead to disastrous falls or death. Seeing a row of guys sitting on a beam high in the air enjoying lunch represents such a different part of life that is far removed from the street.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. FredW says:

    All that history and not a single mention of smallpox? Montezuma’s native enemies, who allied themselves with the Spanish didn’t get much attention either. For a bit more info on North American Indian wars I recommend “The Border Wars of New England”

    https://archive.org/details/borderwarsnew00drakrich

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    His point was the fierceness and military effectiveness of American Indians versus elsewhere. Partly, that was due to our Indians being less civilized/centralized/urbanized than those in Latin America, which made them less vulnerable to being conquered in the same way; partly it was due to our Indians being better warriors; and party it was due to geography. Smallpox didn't become a factor until the late 19th Century, IIRC.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Even Optimism is defined as Inevitable Conflict.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Superunknown was a very suicide-y album. I never paid great attention to Soundgarden lyrics, because they always seemed vague and mostly about snakes. But Superunknown I've listened to a billion times, and its depression has seeped into me.

    That song, The Day I Tried to Live, is relatively upbeat. But I get an existentialist vibe from it (nothing matters, so why not make the best of it!), and one must never believe existentialist when they appear happy.

    Head Down tells you to love your life, but you gotta keep your head down, and if you smile they'll slap it off your face.

    Like Suicide, it's safe to say, is at least partly about suicide.

    Mailman I've heard is about "going postal," but all I get from the lyrics is about "heading for the bottom" and riding it all the way.

    Then there's the self-explanatory Let Me Drown and Fell on Black Days.

    The most famous track, Black Hole Sun, I always took as a call for the End of the World. Everyone would die if our sun turned into a black hole, obviously.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Benjamin Franklin on the appeal of the native life:

    When an Indian Child has been brought up among us, taught our language and habituated to our Customs, yet if he goes to see his relations and make one Indian Ramble with them, there is no perswading him ever to return, and that this is not natural [to them] merely as Indians, but as men, is plain from this, that when white persons of either sex have been taken prisoners young by the Indians, and lived a while among them, tho’ ransomed by their Friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a Short time they become disgusted with our manner of life, and the care and pains that are necessary to support it, and take the first good Opportunity of escaping again into the Woods, from whence there is no reclaiming them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. anon says: • Website • Disclaimer

    Only tenuously related, but I was amazed to read an article about immigration restriction in the Guardian yesterday which takes at face value the citizens’ claim that outsiders are part of the problem:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/20/canada-first-nations-kanai-reserve-drugs-opioid-fentanyl

    The policy seems unlikely to work, but what a refreshing lack of sneering!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @guest
    Here in MN every damn thing is named after Indians, from bodies of water to gas stations to some frickin' stump in the woods. So I wouldn't put too much stock in the naming phenomenon.

    There is general recognition of the fighting spirit of the Red Man in U.S. culture, though. Especially in tv and movies.

    Plenty of stuff around here is named after Indian words too (e.g., Manhattan, Hackensack). That’s another sign of respect for Indians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    36 Dave Pinsen > That’s another sign of respect for Indians


    I'm not so sure of that. Quite a long time ago, I read a essay which cited the many many places throughout the world and throughout the ages where conquerors never really bothered to change the name of a place.

    When the Romans burned Jerusalem, it was worth (in their eyes) noting with a name-change because it was NOT a city which had been taken..... it was the Hasmonean Royal Family's reign which was destroyed.

    Whereas, individual Hebrew villages in the Gallilee, were often left un-molested

    The AmerInds didn't really HAVE a regime. There were no Apache bureaucrats.....

    I myself blame the Disney film "Dances With Wolves" for much of the officialization of the narrative that the AmerInds were as pure as the driven snow.

    iSteve for FBI Director !!

    , @Lex
    It has little to do with respect and a lot with toponyms often going only through cosmetic changes after conquests.
    , @for-the-record

    Plenty of stuff around here is named after Indian words too (e.g., Manhattan, Hackensack). That’s another sign of respect for Indians.
     
    Has anybody mentioned state names? Around half are of "native American" origin, if I recall corectly (plus Indiana!).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Dave Pinsen
    Good comment.

    More evidence in support of his thesis:

    - Indian-named U.S. military equipment, such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    - Indian-era military terms, such as Kit Carson scouts in Vietnam.

    - Indian sports team names.

    - Rambo being half-Indian.

    - The whole western movie genre.

    - Indians and quasi-Indians in other genres, like the Martians in the Martian Chronicles, space Indians in Star Trek TNG, etc.

    I believe “Whoever” is a gal. And a Millennial (!) who is extremely knowledgeable about all sorts of interesting stuff, judging by her comment history.

    On topic, I visited Old Deerfield, MA last summer. There was quite a bit of harrowing action in the Connecticut River Valley back in the day:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bloody_Brook

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Deerfield

    Here’s a Romantic engraving depicting the Angel of Hadley.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    TIL re "Whoever".

    There's a lot of that sort of history in the Northeast. I saw a monument to some battle with Indians in or near Scranton, PA when I was there a decade or so ago. Just looked up Scranton on Wikipedia and saw no mention of it, so maybe it was just outside.

    Where I live is somewhat unique in that the land was purchased peaceably from the local Indians by the Dutch, before being taken by the English.
    , @FredW
    700 versus 80 is pretty good odds for the attackers. I'm surprised that the revisionist historians haven't gotten the signs pulled down yet.
    , @Gringo
    On topic, I visited Old Deerfield, MA last summer. There was quite a bit of harrowing action in the Connecticut River Valley back in the day.

    One consequence of growing up in New England was getting a dose of New England history that most parts of the country didn't get. My 8th grade teacher read us this book for the first 20 minutes of the class day:The Boy Captive of Old Deerfield.

    On the morning of February 29, 1704, a French and Indian force invaded Deerfield, MA, the northwesternmost outpost of the colonial frontier. During the raid, 47 residents of Deerfield were killed and 112 were taken captive by Indian raiders who forced their captives to March north in grueling conditions to Canada.
    "The Boy Captive of Old Deerfield" tells the story of 10-year-old Stephen Williams, one of the 112 residents taken captive in the raid. Smith describes Stephen’s transition from a boy terrorized by all that has happened to him and to those he loves to a boy who, over time, begins to adapt to the Indian way of life. Come follow Stephen as he battles starvation, learns to hunt, escapes dangerous situations and more.

     
    A family in town had a famous ancestor from the same town who played a part in the Revolutionary War- enough of a part to have a statue at the state capitol. I found about the statue in recent years from the Internet. The family never said a word about the statue. That is an example of Yankee taciturnity.

    I never liked Cowboy and Indian movies all that much, though they were ubiquitous when I was growing up. Relatives of mine out west had small farms with cattle- and abut the only thing they seemed to have in common with the Cowboys in the movie were cowboy boots. A reason I couldn't get all that hyped up about playing Cowboys and Indians was that I found it hard to view Indians as enemies, given that I had aunts who were 1/8th Indian, married to my mother's brothers. It was also difficult to view Cowboys and Indians as enemies, as an uncle who ran some cattle was married to my aunt who was 1/8th Indian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @anonymous

    Indian-named U.S. military equipment, such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.
     
    I believe it is US Army tradition to name all of its helicopters with Indian names. Even the famous UH-1 "Huey" was officially known as the Iroquois. In fact there only a couple exceptions I can think of. The most famous of which is the Bell AH-1 Huey Cobra which I don't think ever had an Indian name.

    PS. When I was in the Army our battalion had Indian nicknames for each infantry company based upon its first letter. Alpha company was known as "Apache", Bravo was known as "Blackfeet" and Charlie was known as "Comanche". Collectively our battalion was called the "warrior" battalion by the brigade we were assigned to.

    Were you in the 1/501 PIR, aka the “Geronimo” battalion as well? I was there from 2002-2005.

    They sent me after that to the “Tomahawk” Battalion, 4/23 IN. Also Apache and Commanche Company, but Blackhawk Company instead of Blackfoot.

    As an aside, the Heard Museum in Phoenix is rather interesting, dedicated as it is to Southwest Indians. There’s a rather interesting display regarding the Indian Schools, with a quote from their commandant, who was a veteran of the Indian Wars and said “It was by my hand that I struck the Indian down, and it will be my hand and the grace of God that I raise the red man back up to stand side by side with the white man as brothers and equals in this nation we share.”

    A charge he took seriously – even through all the moaning about the US taking the kids off the rez the display concedes that the schools did teach like they were supposed to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Jack, as an aside to your comment on the Heard Museum, the Remington Museum in Corning, NY has a great collection of Indian related art and artifacts. The museum is named for it's sponsor, not the gun company nor the artist, Fredric Remington. combine a trip to Corning for this and the glass works/museum.
    , @anonymous

    Were you in the 1/501 PIR, aka the “Geronimo” battalion as well? I was there from 2002-2005.
     
    No, I was in the 2/17th INF which was part of the then 6th Infantry Division (Light). This was back in 1987 in Ft. Richardson, AK.

    On a side note which might be of interest to you, the three infantry battalions in Alaska at that time had a most unusual structure. Alpha and Bravo companies were regular, 'leg' light infantry while each Charlie company was airborne light infantry. So when the battalion deployed to the field, alpha and bravo would land in C-130s on rough, unpaved strips while charlie would parachute in. From that point on all three companies would link up and operate as a battalion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Amasius says:
    @eah
    https://twitter.com/BrittPettibone/status/866007622314467328

    And anyone who opposes the destruction is a racistdaviddukekkkneonaziwhitesupremacist. Persuasion checkmate, fun game while it lasted.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @FredW
    All that history and not a single mention of smallpox? Montezuma's native enemies, who allied themselves with the Spanish didn't get much attention either. For a bit more info on North American Indian wars I recommend "The Border Wars of New England"

    https://archive.org/details/borderwarsnew00drakrich

    His point was the fierceness and military effectiveness of American Indians versus elsewhere. Partly, that was due to our Indians being less civilized/centralized/urbanized than those in Latin America, which made them less vulnerable to being conquered in the same way; partly it was due to our Indians being better warriors; and party it was due to geography. Smallpox didn’t become a factor until the late 19th Century, IIRC.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    38 Dave Pinsen > Smallpox didn’t become a factor until the late 19th Century, IIRC.


    Not sure about smallpox specifically..... but go re-read the book, "1491"

    The Mass colonists never really had to fight anyone. They had all died off.
    , @reiner Tor
    This.

    The diseases struck the hunter-gatherers slowly because of the much lower population density, they were better warriors than any farming peoples because nomadic pastoralists and hunter-gatherers were always better suited to fighting than farmers, and lack of centralization and nomadic lifestyles meant it was very difficult to subdue them by striking their political centers.

    , @FredW
    More precisely the native cultures had not developed even to a city state level. The "noble savage" mytholoy helps camouflage just how savage life on the frontier could be but today we don't hear much about dead white children killed in Indian attackschool because it violates the narrative. Guess some kids had it coming since they chose their parents so poorly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @guest
    Here in MN every damn thing is named after Indians, from bodies of water to gas stations to some frickin' stump in the woods. So I wouldn't put too much stock in the naming phenomenon.

    There is general recognition of the fighting spirit of the Red Man in U.S. culture, though. Especially in tv and movies.

    My only gold box from Steve came from pointing out that US Special Forces has a higher than average proportion of Indians than you would expect.

    The one guy I knew had carried a legit steel tomahawk on patrol with him and said he had taken scalps in Panama and Desert Storm, so go figure. I imagine that long range scouting missions probably resonate hard with the descendants of the the braves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Tom Threepersons, one of the more legendary Border Patrol Agents in history and an Indian, apparently took it as a personal insult whenever illegal aliens tried to cross.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. Whoever says:

    It’s very kind of you to feature my comment. Unexpected and appreciated.
    Thank you — Nea’êše!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. Neoconned says:

    I inherited my grandmother’s long Cherokee face. Her grandmother was a Cherokee from Chattanooga named Ma Belle w straight jet black hair to her waist and dark skin described as almost black.

    Also have Choctaw blood thru my redneck grandfather.

    In his case his great grandfather was actually a federal Indian agent who married a Choctaw woman.
    e
    I cant speak for other whited but ive got documentation from my family’s geneologist, etc

    ……not that it matters to me but whatever

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    That is interesting if Cherokees are characterized by long faces because Indians farther south in Mexico and Central America are said to have shorter faces.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    “He’s got ribs in his belly”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    I believe “Whoever” is a gal. And a Millennial (!) who is extremely knowledgeable about all sorts of interesting stuff, judging by her comment history.

    On topic, I visited Old Deerfield, MA last summer. There was quite a bit of harrowing action in the Connecticut River Valley back in the day:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bloody_Brook

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Deerfield

    Here’s a Romantic engraving depicting the Angel of Hadley.

    TIL re “Whoever”.

    There’s a lot of that sort of history in the Northeast. I saw a monument to some battle with Indians in or near Scranton, PA when I was there a decade or so ago. Just looked up Scranton on Wikipedia and saw no mention of it, so maybe it was just outside.

    Where I live is somewhat unique in that the land was purchased peaceably from the local Indians by the Dutch, before being taken by the English.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Lex says:
    @Grumpy
    This beautifully written comment brings to mind a couple of thoughts.

    1) If the civilizations of the south, in the Americas, were conquered more easily than the less "urbanized" peoples of the north, does this tell us something about the weaknesses of civilized peoples generally?

    2) As you point out, the American language shows a great deal of respect for Indians, but political correctness has painted the real respect as ridicule. Meanwhile, phony respect has replaced real respect, and Indian references are being excised from the language.

    Just compare wars in centralized Iraq and tribal Afghanistan. There are probably some villages in Afghanistan where people have no clue there was war with USA or that USA exists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. OT: Apparently Richard Spencer’s membership in an Alexandria gym was revoked (no reason given) after deranged Georgetown professor (((Christine Fair))) confronted him in the gym for being “a hateful, white supremacist who has no place in this century..much less our gym,” among other things.

    So, iSteve legal experts, wots the deal? Can a public accommodation be held legally liable for discrimination on the basis of a customer’s (non-venue expressed) political beliefs?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ed
    Not a lawyer but he's not a member of a protected class, so seems like he'd be out of luck. The woman should have been tossed out.
    , @Autochthon
    Let not your heart be troubled: I jusg confirmed she has helfully committed genetic suicide so our children don't have to put up with any of hers.

    The one ray of hope as the world turns is that all the right people continue killing themselves while those of us hoping to preserve our peoples and out civilisation create the future by actually reproducing.

    The question is whether this phenomenon will turn the tide quickly enough, since, sadly, the genetic suicide does not much extend beyond the self-loathing Europeans, so if the brown people inundate us in the meantime the game is up.
    , @Cagey Beast
    Yelling at Richard Spencer in person AND getting him kicked out of your social space must be the SJW equivalent of winning the World Series. They'd give her a ticker-tape parade if it wasn't so patriarchal and didn't require so much organizing.
    , @The Alarmist
    He might have stronger legal protections if he actually registered as a Nazi (see Skokie), but look out for Joliet Jake and Elroy. Otherwise, he has no case in modern America, precisely as a WM, he is not ever going to be a protected class.
    , @bored identity
    ...who has no place in this century:


    "Damn it, Gym, I'm a doctor, not a-- (beamed out)"
    , @Thea
    On a superficial level, Spencer is rather attractive and she is not. I wonder how angry that makes her remember the alpha pump and dumps of her youth.

    Or perhaps she has a very bitter divorce in her past.

    Antidepressant meds can do terrible things to a person.

    , @Curle
    The background facts raise a distinct possibility that race was, in fact, the reason for revoking his membership. He should consider filing a claim and looking for evidence they'd previously booted black nationalists. If he can locate some Nation of Islam members who've kept their membership (if outed) he might have something to work with.
    , @ANON
    The law is one thing; its administration quite another. In today's USA, it's all about the social status of your group, and not only are white males at the bottom, conscious (or "woke") white males are the lowest of the low. (Of course, I use the terms differently from typical race agitators.)

    Simply imagine such a person as Richard Spencer (who is a bit of a clown, with a habit of shooting himself in the foot) in front of a jury in a large American city. That will tell you all you need to know about what's left of his rights.

    This is why control of mass-media entertainment / propaganda is control of everything. They construct reality.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. guest says:
    @Clifford Brown
    Even Optimism is defined as Inevitable Conflict.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbckIuT_YDc

    Superunknown was a very suicide-y album. I never paid great attention to Soundgarden lyrics, because they always seemed vague and mostly about snakes. But Superunknown I’ve listened to a billion times, and its depression has seeped into me.

    That song, The Day I Tried to Live, is relatively upbeat. But I get an existentialist vibe from it (nothing matters, so why not make the best of it!), and one must never believe existentialist when they appear happy.

    Head Down tells you to love your life, but you gotta keep your head down, and if you smile they’ll slap it off your face.

    Like Suicide, it’s safe to say, is at least partly about suicide.

    Mailman I’ve heard is about “going postal,” but all I get from the lyrics is about “heading for the bottom” and riding it all the way.

    Then there’s the self-explanatory Let Me Drown and Fell on Black Days.

    The most famous track, Black Hole Sun, I always took as a call for the End of the World. Everyone would die if our sun turned into a black hole, obviously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Black Hole Sun" is some kind of musical inversion of George Harrison's "Here Comes the Sun," right?
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    But Superunknown I’ve listened to a billion times, and its depression has seeped into me.
     
    That cannot be good. Stop listening to it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. RH says:

    I hate to spoil the fun, but phrases and terms like “on the warpath”, “Indian wrestle” and “Indian file” have been in common use in Canada for all of my life, with “off the reservation” somewhat less common, though far from rare. I was born in 1946.

    Cordially, RH

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. Karl says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Plenty of stuff around here is named after Indian words too (e.g., Manhattan, Hackensack). That's another sign of respect for Indians.

    36 Dave Pinsen > That’s another sign of respect for Indians

    I’m not so sure of that. Quite a long time ago, I read a essay which cited the many many places throughout the world and throughout the ages where conquerors never really bothered to change the name of a place.

    When the Romans burned Jerusalem, it was worth (in their eyes) noting with a name-change because it was NOT a city which had been taken….. it was the Hasmonean Royal Family’s reign which was destroyed.

    Whereas, individual Hebrew villages in the Gallilee, were often left un-molested

    The AmerInds didn’t really HAVE a regime. There were no Apache bureaucrats…..

    I myself blame the Disney film “Dances With Wolves” for much of the officialization of the narrative that the AmerInds were as pure as the driven snow.

    iSteve for FBI Director !!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    When the Romans burned Jerusalem, it was worth (in their eyes) noting with a name-change because it was NOT a city which had been taken….. it was the Hasmonean Royal Family’s reign which was destroyed.

    Whereas, individual Hebrew villages in the Gallilee, were often left un-molested
     
    The Hasmonean dynasty effectively ended with Herod. The Romans didn't sack Jerusalem (the first time) until a 100 years later. And they didn't change it's name then. They changed it after the Bar Kochba rebellion in the 2nd century. At that time, the changed the name of the whole country too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Karl says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    His point was the fierceness and military effectiveness of American Indians versus elsewhere. Partly, that was due to our Indians being less civilized/centralized/urbanized than those in Latin America, which made them less vulnerable to being conquered in the same way; partly it was due to our Indians being better warriors; and party it was due to geography. Smallpox didn't become a factor until the late 19th Century, IIRC.

    38 Dave Pinsen > Smallpox didn’t become a factor until the late 19th Century, IIRC.

    Not sure about smallpox specifically….. but go re-read the book, “1491″

    The Mass colonists never really had to fight anyone. They had all died off.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Sure the Massachusetts colonists had to fight Indians. See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Philip%27s_War
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    But lots of white Americans, as you say, claim Indian ancestry even when they don’t have it, and have done so since long before there was affirmative action or any official advantage to doing so, and long after the fierce warrior of forest and plain had been replaced by the rez drunk.

    I always thought the difference between Canada and the US in this area was caused by the invisibility of modern US natives. Most Americans have heard of the terrible conditions on reservations, but the issue has nowhere near the visibility in the US that it has in Canada. So in the American public consciousness the mysterious warrior has never really been replaced by the rez drunk.

    And lots of people in Canada do claim dubious Indian ancestry. But maybe that’s a more recent phenomenon. And it’s probably much less present in the western provinces, where the numbers of actual natives are a lot higher.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. Lex says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Plenty of stuff around here is named after Indian words too (e.g., Manhattan, Hackensack). That's another sign of respect for Indians.

    It has little to do with respect and a lot with toponyms often going only through cosmetic changes after conquests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. iffen says:

    That is telling us something important about our country and our history. And I think it’s rather a good thing — that we don’t disparage those we displaced, but empathize with them, acknowledge their loss and try, in some way, to assuage it by claiming that we, too, are Indian, one with them, and one with our mutual land.

    Maybe it grows out of the ground and the descendants of mestizos will feel the same way and will claim that,”We, too, are one with the old stock.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. Ed says:
    @Bill P
    I read through my family's genealogy book that goes back to an ancestor who arrived in Jamestown in 1610, and was pretty surprised to see how many people were killed by Indians. It seemed that one was as likely to die from encounters with Indians as from disease, and back then that's really saying something. Despite this relentless hostility, the book made sure to note the family's connection to Pocahontas and intermarriage with her descendants, and did so with pride.

    Virginia had a “Pochantas Exception” in their anti- miscegenation laws because so many prominent families counted her as an ancestor, and as you point out, did so proudly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Virginia had a “Pochantas Exception” in their anti- miscegenation laws because so many prominent families counted her as an ancestor, and as you point out, did so proudly.
     
    Well, Ed, it sounds like pretty righteous legislation, as who wouldn't wanna Poke-a-hontas?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Latin America is not one country either. Their Indians are a very big deal as well, culturally, if generally for different reasons. Interestingly, Chile and Argentina, the whitest parts of Latin America, might be the most similar to the USA in this regard: they greatly valorise the Patagonian natives that put up such a long and fierce fight (especially if you compare them to the pushover Incas), even though few of them are really related to them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Interestingly, Chile and Argentina, the whitest parts of Latin America, might be the most similar to the USA in this regard: they greatly valorise the Patagonian natives that put up such a long and fierce fight (especially if you compare them to the pushover Incas), even though few of them are really related to them."

    Actually Chilenos and Argentinians are way more likely than White Americans to have some Indigenous ancestry in their family tree.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3142769/
    http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?135306-Racial-admixture-in-Chile-(-2014-study-)

    So when a Argentinian or a Chileno say they have some Indigenous ancestry in their family tree, they are most likely not lying and are not Transracial like Elizabeth Warren.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Ed says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    OT: Apparently Richard Spencer’s membership in an Alexandria gym was revoked (no reason given) after deranged Georgetown professor (((Christine Fair))) confronted him in the gym for being “a hateful, white supremacist who has no place in this century..much less our gym,” among other things.

    So, iSteve legal experts, wots the deal? Can a public accommodation be held legally liable for discrimination on the basis of a customer’s (non-venue expressed) political beliefs?

    Not a lawyer but he’s not a member of a protected class, so seems like he’d be out of luck. The woman should have been tossed out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. KM32 says:

    Saying that native resistance collapsed quickly in Latin America is showing a lot of ignorance about the history of those regions. Look up the history of the Mapuche in Southern Chile who resisted until the late 19th century. The Inca, the Maya, and others kept resisting long after the initial conquest, and some of these people were conquered largely through smallpox, which spread faster due to their settled nature.

    Also, if you go into the South America, you can see that in some cases they’re still resisting, and millions still speak native languages, maintain old cultures, and dominate large regions of Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia.

    Read More
    • Agree: prole, Logan
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. jill says:
    @Anonymous
    A quite interesting book from a few years ago is Blood and Thunder: The Epic Story of Kit Carson and the Conquest of the American West. (When I just checked the name on Amazon, it had 666 reviews.... take that as you wish!) Today elite opinion probably regards him as a sort of genocidaire, but there are very few Americans who have had a more respectful engagement with Indian culture.

    The book also covers the constant wars and hatred between each of the indian tribes and the despicable monstrous acts that they committed to each other, their constant pillaging and looting of other villages and the kidnapping of each others woman and children to use as slaves.

    “Whoever” conveniently leaves those facts out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    "despite no evidence"

    I hear this phrase a lot in discussion of this topic, but I think it is often used in a misguided way. The simple fact is that oral family tradition IS evidence. It may be defeasible evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.

    Many people chastise Elizabeth Warren for claiming to be Indian. Obviously, she is not more than a small fraction Indian, at most. But I see no reason to insist that it is absurd for her to claim to be 1/32 Indian. (I do find it utterly absurd for her to get a job at Harvard as a "Person of Color".) I genuinely believe that she thinks she has a well-grounded basis for claiming Indian ancestry, and I do not fault her reasoning. Of course, she might be wrong, but that is how life is. We can fault her for trying to claim some racial perks without faulting her for taking seriously her family history.

    Even if many "white" and "black" Americans are wrong in claiming Indian ancestry, many are right, even if they have no certificates of tribal membership or whatever.

    (I am fairly confident I am one of the white Americans who is right about it...)

    I see no reason to insist that it is absurd for her to claim to be 1/32 Indian

    Of course it is absurd. Consider this: 1/32 equates to about as much ancestry as the amount of Neanderthal ancestry in most Europeans. Neanderthals died off 30,000 years ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @oddsbodkins
    Yet that small admixture is brought up as evidence for HBD often in comments on this site.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Randal says:

    This idea of a grudging (and becoming less grudging over time as actual threat recedes) respect for a competent defeated adversary is a commonplace, I think, at least of European culture if not of human nature in general. It was formalised in the British Empire with the notion of “martial races”, in India and later less systematically in Africa.

    For great examples of the kind of thinking and attitudes involved, I think the Flashman books of George MacDonald Fraser would serve well.

    It signifies in reality, I think, an enemy who fights well and hard, yes, but also who is not really any great existential threat. The latter groups are more likely to be hated, despised and suppressed without any such pretence of respect. Modern theorists regard the martial race concept in India, in its application, as a tool for suppressing the real threats to British rule – the bulk of the Indian peoples – by using more marginal groups for the military.

    lots of white Americans, as you say, claim Indian ancestry even when they don’t have it

    Interesting that there are two concrete examples already in the comments here of such claims being refuted by modern genetic testing. I suspect that is likely to be a common occurrence as genetic testing becomes more commonplace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    The first "great book" of Western Civilization, the Iliad, is a perfect example of this. The Greeks don't come off very well. Achilles is a tantrum-thrower, Agamemnon is a selfish creep, Odysseus is a snake, Menelaus is a cad, Helen is the bitch that started it all.

    Except for Paris, who comes off as a pussy, the Trojans are all noble and respectable. Hector is truly heroic, Priam and Andromache are sympathetic, Aeneas is brave.
    , @Curle
    DNA tests aren't necessarily going to pick up an Indian ancestor more than 5 generations back especially if there was no additional Indian DNA added to the mix in the interim.

    My father's family is known for their dark features. They've been living in a small endogamous East TN community near an old British fort (and also on Juan Pardo's route) since before the Revolution. They've imagined themselves part Indian. DNA results show inexplicably (given the conventional story that the Spanish left the Southern Highlands in 1567) high amounts of Spanish DNA. I'm guessing the Spanish presence north of FLA was longer and greater than we've been led to believe by historians of the past and that many of these part Indians are in fact part Spaniard.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. So what’s the lesson for us? We need to kill a lot of bankers and college professors on our way down, and then in the future America they’ll remember us with some respect?

    Read More
    • LOL: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Bankers, college professors and bobos seem to have great respect for the ISIS inspired terrorists who occasionally massacre people within their urban bubble, so who knows what they'd think of such things? Who can even say there will be bobos, SJWs and college professors in the future? There will always be bankers, of course, but probably nothing like the ones we have now.

    On the other hand, the indigenous peoples of Europe will be remembered fondly and romanticised by their Afro-Muslim conquerors the way the Indians of North America are now by Whites. Euro-Muslims will entertain the idea that the green eyes or light brown hair of this or that person comes from their mixed Frangistani blood. Some might take these musings too far and embrace the pre-Islamic civilization of Europe. They'll end up getting the same treatment that Zoroastrians and Yazidis get in their homelands.
    , @OilcanFloyd
    Sounds good to me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Pincher Martin
    I love this comment. It's well-written and intellectually provocative in the best sense of the word.

    But I think it greatly exaggerates the military effectiveness of the Native Americans in what is today the United States. The U.S. didn't have much of a military for the Indian Wars because it didn't need a large military for the Indian Wars.

    The Native Americans were certainly a threat to American settlers, and as King Philip's War shows, they were very dangerous when the numbers and weapons were closer to even.

    But after the founding of the United States, were they as large a threat as disease or other Europeans or even other Americans? I doubt it. I'm skeptical it was even close.

    "Whoever" also loads up on the experience of the Spanish in what is today the American Southeast, but why would that affect how American Anglos later viewed the Natives?

    Again, great comment. I just think it stretches the facts to fit the perception.

    The Comanche in Texas were a major threat up into the 1870′s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    The Comanche in Texas were a major threat up into the 1870′s.
     
    Only to isolated families and small settlements. There were only a few thousand Comanches in 1870 compared to over 800,000 Americans living in Texas.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Svigor says:

    Then there was the disastrous Navaraez expedition into northern Florida in 1527 with 600 soldiers, where the Spanish crossbows were no match for the Indians 7-foot long bows, as thick as a man’s arm, that could penetrate six inches of wood at 200 yards. Only four Spaniards survived the catastrophe.

    This is what I call an unreliable report. 9mm ball won’t penetrate even 1″ of wood at point blank range (it basically penetrates the bark of a pine tree, then bounces off the wood, leaving an unimpressive dent). I doubt 5.56 or 7.62 ball would penetrate 6″ of wood. No way in Hell I’m believing an arrow fired by a bow wielded by a human going to penetrate 6″ of wood without proof, or a seriously gamed definition of “wood.”

    Whoever made that claim was probably lobbying for money.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    Heh. There are serious discrepancies between that claim and the notoriously propagandistic Wikipedia's account:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narv%C3%A1ez_expedition

    Of course, Wikipedia could be lying and have left out the bit about English long bows in Florida.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Svigor, people take mathematically impossible statements as truth because they don't want to do the math. If I hold a tape measure in my extended left hand and pull the tang back, I get a pull of 36". Now a much taller man might get 42" or a bit more, but not enough draw to launch an arrow with enough foot pounds to pierce a 2x4 at 100 yards, let alone a 6x6 at 200 yards. Now think of a bow shaft that is as thick as a man's arm, about the size of a baseball bat, and picture it having enough flex to draw it back 36" or 42". My brother used to shoot competitive archery. He used a compound bow that would allow 65 pounds of pull with about 30 pounds of effort. At 35 yards carbon arrows, absolutely true and straight, penetrate a standard target about 3 to 4 inches. NY State now allows deer hunting using cross bows. More foot pounds and more accuracy, no shaking of your arms as you hold a drawn arrow. Spaniards lost this battle for whatever reason but I doubt that a better bow did it.
    , @bored identity, @Bill B.
    This is the problem with iSteve - I have things to do but I have just spent three hours researching the Battle of Verneuil, the "second Agincourt".
    , @Whoever

    Whoever made that claim was probably lobbying for money.
     
    Cabeza de Vaca, did in La Relación published in 1542. A good translation, placed in historical context, can be found in Cyclone Covey's Adventures in the Unknown Interior of America, published in 1961.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    No way in Hell I’m believing an arrow fired by a bow wielded by a human going to penetrate 6″ of wood
     
    What kind of wood? Six inches of oak, and six inches of pine, would differ greatly in how deeply an arrow would penetrate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Svigor says:

    P.S., the people fighting the Indians for control of the Americas, do they sound like “immigrants”? Or are they better described as “colonists,” “settlers,” “pioneers,” or (gasp) “conquerors”?

    America is a Nation of Conquerors.

    Doesn’t that sound so much better?

    1) If the civilizations of the south, in the Americas, were conquered more easily than the less “urbanized” peoples of the north, does this tell us something about the weaknesses of civilized peoples generally?

    Yes, but uncivilized peoples have greater weaknesses. The Mongols essentially added nothing to civilization, and they simply faded away into the woodwork over time. They were replaced by more civilized people. Barbarians are all conquer, no build. And the fact that they’re always stealing what more civilized peoples build, and settling down to rule the more civilized peoples they’ve conquered (adopting their ways), shows that they value civilization over their own ways, too.

    But your point, that our civilization is decadent, corrupt, and in the process of being sneakily colonized, is well-taken.

    I was just saying this the other day; any civilization that is unwilling to write its constitution (small c) in blood is just a matter of time away from destruction.

    Where I live is somewhat unique in that the land was purchased peaceably from the local Indians by the Dutch, before being taken by the English.

    That’s not at all unique. The Europeans bought huge amounts of land from the natives. Altogether it probably rivals, if not exceeds, the amount taken by force.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    Yes, but uncivilized peoples have greater weaknesses. The Mongols essentially added nothing to civilization, and they simply faded away into the woodwork over time.
     
    Technology level is also a factor. Civilizations in what is now Latin America were essentially stone age. The Chinese were more advanced in overall technology, but in terms of military technology, they weren't that far ahead of the Mongols: they had bows and the Mongols had bows. When civilization has machine guns and the barbarians don't, it's a different story.

    Our weaknesses today aren't technological, but ideological.

    That’s not at all unique. The Europeans bought huge amounts of land from the natives. Altogether it probably rivals, if not exceeds, the amount taken by force.
     
    I'd be surprised if that's true, but I don't know. I suspect the ratio is more like that of Zionist land purchased versus taken.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Barbarians are all conquer, no build. And the fact that they’re always stealing what more civilized peoples build, and settling down to rule the more civilized peoples they’ve conquered (adopting their ways), shows that they value civilization over their own ways, too."

    You've basically just described Islam from ca.623-1453 AD. [Or 1682 AD, when the Turks were stopped at the gates of Vienna.]

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @bored identity
    bored identity's Favorite Injun:

    https://youtu.be/g85mGqB0dAc


    Just kiddin'.


    Let's Make Blankets Great Again!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @oh its just me too
    "… And many of those whose people were here from the beginning did fight Indians and some percent did marry into tribes."

    I am of scots-irish descent and my mother had these 'we have indian blood ' stories.. So did Johnny Cash's family along with being 'irish' (which was probably semi correct, in the folk memory they came from Ireland, they just weren't Irish).

    Well I did a 23andme - 98. north european, 100 european...I long suspected my mother's story was BS with her I think it was her 'conversion' from being a southern belle to being a 60s liberal. She had to find some way to not be a southern belle. the story she told - so and so married an indian princess... is pretty common among southern women to the point of being googable....

    My mother greatly enjoyed claiming oppositional ethnicities. (Oppositional to NYC’s Ellis Island schmaltz-ocracy anyway.)

    I”m reasonably confident that her claiming of lace-curtain pre-Ellis Island Irish ancestry (Yay IRA, boo National Review and Margaret Thatcher) and descent from William Henry Harrison’s family are accurate, since they’re based on records which exist and can actually be checked. (Although I haven’t checked.)

    But that wasn’t enough. The Harrison ancestor, who converted to Catholicism, had to have married a Delaware Indian girl to account for the family shutting him out. And the 15 year old boy who ran away from New York to fight in the Civil War simply MUST have fought for the South, since the family records that he died in the “Battle of the Wilderness”, the Southern name for the battle. (The Civil War pistol in the family safe deposit box does seem to be a CSA Navy sidearm.)

    So depending on the time of year, she (and therefore I) might be part-Indian, have Confederate ancestry, commiserate with American blacks about immigration, and have PResidential ancestry.

    Writing this down, it occurs to me that given her standards of evidence, the connection to President William Henry Harrison may be equally tenuous.

    EDIT: We also claimed WASP when negotiating with a Jewish real estate developer who wanted to buy our house, offering an even swap for “a place in a nice Italian neighborhood.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Did, what a nice term, and it was so true, "... a place in a nice Italian neighborhood."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. I read that the Indian uprising known as King Philip’s War was particularly lethal, with something like 10 percent of the white population of Rhode Island dying.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I read that the Indian uprising known as King Philip’s War was particularly lethal, with something like 10 percent of the white population of Rhode Island dying.
     
    King Philip's War

    The war was the single greatest calamity to occur in seventeenth century Puritan New England and is considered by many to be the deadliest war in the history of European settlement in North America in proportion to the population.[5] In the space of little more than a year, twelve of the region's towns were destroyed and many more damaged, the colony's economy was all but ruined, and its population was decimated, losing one-tenth of all men available for military service.[6]:656 [7] More than half of New England's towns were attacked by Indians.
     

    The war in southern New England largely ended with Metacomet's death. More than 1,000 colonists and 3,000 Indians had died.[1] More than half of all New England villages were attacked by Indian warriors, and many were completely destroyed
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Philip%27s_War
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. watson79 says:

    Bothe of Kit Carson’s wives were Indians. You don’t have to hate those you fight. S.C. Gwynne’s Empire of the Summer Moon is about the Comanche, a tribe that seems awfully close to the Mongols in how the operated and their skill in generating widespread panic. Prior to Samuel Colt’s wonderful invention, they were very hard to beat.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. America is the only place where in some instances the Indians could claim a draw, if not victory. The Seminole never officially surrendered to the U.S. And during the unfortunate Trail of Tears episode, the government flat out gave up trying to force out a small group of Cherokee who had holed up in the Smoky Mountains.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. @Otto the P
    A footnote to the excellent post: one reason (clearly not the only) for the Indian success against the white man from 1784 through Custer's slaughter was our old friend, the Second Amendment. A whole batch of westerns were made ("Man from Laramie" probably the best) that villified the "gun runner" who sold Winchesters to the braves. Well, yes, maybe, but on the other hand the braves were frequently better armed than the cavalrymen with repeaters; then as now, firepower rules. All the mythic resonance of the brave and the society that spawned him is directly related to the fact that, unlike the African braves, he had maximum guns, and we did not. The wonderful heritage of the red dog soldier is one benefit to 2A that liberals should love.
    Finally, it's got to happen sooner or later, but I keep waiting for a revisionist "pro gun-runner" western to arrive to hosannas from the elite press.

    . A whole batch of westerns were made (“Man from Laramie” probably the best) that villified the “gun runner” who sold Winchesters to the braves

    THAT tradition was started by our friends the Canadian British who intentionally sold them AFTER the revolution… one of the reasons for the war of 1812

    Read More
    • Replies: @Prolix
    Even in the accounts of the earliest Jamestown and Plymouth colonists there are complaints of dutchmen selling guns to the natives.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Dave Pinsen
    Good comment.

    More evidence in support of his thesis:

    - Indian-named U.S. military equipment, such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    - Indian-era military terms, such as Kit Carson scouts in Vietnam.

    - Indian sports team names.

    - Rambo being half-Indian.

    - The whole western movie genre.

    - Indians and quasi-Indians in other genres, like the Martians in the Martian Chronicles, space Indians in Star Trek TNG, etc.

    – Indian-named U.S. military equipment, such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    I wonder when the US army is going to be accused of cultural appropriation – like our sports teams have.

    my favorite though is the fact that on army unit (The rangers?) still carry tactical tomahawks, despite expert insistence there are more useful weapons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Richard

    despite expert insistence there are more useful weapons.
     
    But perhaps none quite so satisfying to bury into a target at 20 paces.
    , @Jack Hanson
    When I was in the "Tomahawk" Battalion, we were all issued tactical tomahawks. This was back in 06. Some guy in one of the other companies got a kill with one during a house clearing op.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Svigor says:

    It makes more sense to talk about the redeeming qualities of the Nazis, or the Soviets, or the Southern Planters, than it does about those of the American Indians or the Mongols. If 1) you’re on the right, and your sympathies are concentric, not leapfrogging, like leftists’ are, and 2) you correct for ability (e.g., Native Americans didn’t have the capacity to do something like the Gulag Archipelago or World War, so it makes no sense to credit them for not doing so).

    Read More
    • Agree: Frau Katze
    • Replies: @syonredux

    (e.g., Native Americans didn’t have the capacity to do something like the Gulag Archipelago or World War, so it makes no sense to credit them for not doing so).
     
    Primitives can sometimes rack up impressive body counts, though. For example, estimates on the total number of people killed by the Aztecs (war+human sacrifice) during the period 1440-1521 run to around 1.2 million.

    And the Zulus were responsible for over 1 million deaths in the 19th century:

    Mfecane (1818-1840), and the reign of Shaka (1816-1828) 1 500,000
    Eugene Walter, Terror and Resistance (1969) cites the following, but admits it might be lower:
    Henry Francis Flynn: more than 1,000,000 deaths caused by Shaka's wars.
    George Theal, History of South Africa (1915): 2,000,000
    The diary of Henry Francis Fynn, 1838, p.20: “The numbers whose death he occasioned have been left to conjecture, but exceed a million.”
    Major Charters, Royal Artillery, “Notices Of The Cape And Southern Africa, Since The Appointment, As Governor, Of Major-Gen. Sir Geo. Napier.” United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine, London: W. Clowes and Son, 1839, Part III, p.24: “Chaka may be termed the South African Attila; and it is estimated that not less than 1,000,000 human beings were destroyed by him"
    Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, “Shaka”, v.10. p.689 (“… left 2,000,000 dead in its wake.”)
    Donald R. Morris, The Washing of the Spears, p.60 ("At least a million people, and more likely two, died in a decade that virtually depopulated" the interior.)
    Hanson, Carnage and Culture, p. 313: "Shaka ... slaughtered 50,000 of his enemies in battle.... As many as 1 million native Africans had been killed and starved to death as a direct result of Shaka's imperial dreams."
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Sertorius says:

    In the Southern Colonies at least, British military men often professed more admiration for the warriors of “intact” tribes (e.g. Creek, Chickasaw, etc.) than they did for the white colonists who chafed under their authority as the decades of “Benign Neglect” came to an end. James Oglethorpe, for instance, once declared to a Creek delegation that “in my heart I am a red man,” and you get the feeling that James Grant, the future governor of Florida and then Scottish laird, would have rather hanged the white militia that he had attached to his regulars in the “Cherokee War” of 1760 than the warriors he was ostensibly leading his column against. Then of course there was the almost embarrassing man-crush (no-homo?) James Glen (governor of South Carolina) had for the dashing Creek “emperor” Malachi.

    As for the colonists themselves, interaction with Indians was pervasive–”Settlement Indians” (remnants of tribes that had been gutted by successive waves of Westo and Shawnee slave raiders) were an important part of the semi-feudal plantation economy, serving as hunters of game for the owners’ tables, as well as hunters of escaped slaves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  80. I don’t know how accurate 23 and Me is but it’s popped a lot of bubbles regarding Native American ancestry. There are several millennial white girls I know who claimed to be 1/8 Cherokee who were in tears to find that they were 99.6%-100% European. Now many of them cling for dear life to the <0.4% North African or whatever they got back from the results. Ties a lot into Steve's comment about the flight from white and how there is modern day cultural credibility about not being white, even if you are supposedly less than 1% non-white.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dahlia

    I don’t know how accurate 23 and Me is but it’s popped a lot of bubbles regarding Native American ancestry. There are several millennial white girls I know who claimed to be 1/8 Cherokee who were in tears to find that they were 99.6%-100% European. Now many of them cling for dear life to the <0.4% North African or whatever they got back from the results. Ties a lot into Steve's comment about the flight from white and how there is modern day cultural credibility about not being white, even if you are supposedly less than 1% non-white.

     

    So true about the bubbles!

    One big thing we've learned is how very little "ethnic" it takes to make a white person appear to be "not all white". For example, the swarthy white who had a great-great grandmother who's an Indian is likely no less than 97-99% white. I really think these errors mostly arose from the lack of appreciation of this fact.
    In another comment, I said my husband was descended from a tri-racial family. I don't know his DNA composition (we can guess based on other relatives), though I would be surprised if he's less than 97.5% white, yet, he has been asked his whole life "what all he is", especially from Asians (their white radar is incredible). Of course, his mother, and his mother's mother were asked that question even more and the "Indian ancestor" was whipped out for the explanation (we now know they were both, but more Black).
    , @Fiddlesticks
    Exhibit A being the insufferable Blake Lively.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/blake-lively-mocked-revealing-part-cherokee-article-1.2945358
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. The “captives” in the book The Captives of Abb’s Valley (can be found online for free)
    were ancestors of mine. I found it interesting that captives taken by the Indians were sold among them and other settlers. The captives in the book were sold twice, once to a Frenchman near Detroit and once to a “Tory”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  82. Altai says:
    @eah
    https://twitter.com/BrittPettibone/status/866007622314467328

    It’s interesting that at first black South Africans were copying the language, metaphysics and tactics of black American Twitter and SJWs with the various ‘Fallist’ campaigns but now it’s the reverse, taking down statues, mass renaming of street names are very South African things.

    The Rhodes Must Fall protests grew quickly as they were inspired by the mass of protests of no particular point in US universities but unlike in the US, black students were the majority. They had success of a kind and now they’re influencing black activism in the US. Twitter has weird effects on political philosophy.

    As always, American dominance of sociology underpins it all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    On the other hand, do any Indians brag about being part white? From the looks of many of them it would seem to be the case that they have some white ancestors. Do they value it in any way?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    anonymous, Shhhhhh, don't want to lose out on the casino benefits.
    , @Travis
    no, Indians do not admit being part white and most tribes are opposed to genetic testing (as most tribe leaders fear they will be exposed and being more european than Indian)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @oh its just me too
    "… And many of those whose people were here from the beginning did fight Indians and some percent did marry into tribes."

    I am of scots-irish descent and my mother had these 'we have indian blood ' stories.. So did Johnny Cash's family along with being 'irish' (which was probably semi correct, in the folk memory they came from Ireland, they just weren't Irish).

    Well I did a 23andme - 98. north european, 100 european...I long suspected my mother's story was BS with her I think it was her 'conversion' from being a southern belle to being a 60s liberal. She had to find some way to not be a southern belle. the story she told - so and so married an indian princess... is pretty common among southern women to the point of being googable....

    Your mom’s story lacks internal coherence. Southern belles came of the tidewater plantations, of English provenance (not for nothing is the University of Virginia’s mascot the cavalier…). These families staked out the fertile, productive, and (by the time civilian settlement began in earnest) relatively safe tidewater for their plantations and lived in related cities (Charleston, Savannah, etc.).

    The Scots-Irish generally arrived a little later and got the same welcome they had from the English for not being Anglican and from the Irish for not being Catholic: “Get on up to thr piedmont and the mountains where the lands are less productive and the Indians keep killing people; we’re full up around here.”

    These were the people who continued most of the fighting with Indians in Appalachia, its foothills, the Cumberland Plateau, etc. (until finally one of them, Jackson, pretty much fed up with the problems and having fairly decisively defeated them militarily, decided to relocate them en masse for their own good and Americans’). It was the proximity and interaction in those parts and times that led to occassional interbreeding. Even then, though, it was much rarer than is now popularly imagined, as everyone here notes.

    (Maybe your mom or you use the term “southern belle” a bit more loosely to simply mean she was a southern woman and not precisely from old money.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    When the Scots-Irish arrived in Pennsylvania, James Logan made a point of settling them on the Western frontier of the colony, where their warlike ways could be put to good use fighting Amerinds (Albion’s Seed, 633).Things were quite similar in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.The Puritan English strongly encouraged the Ulster folk to leave Boston and settle elsewhere (cf, for example, the aptly named Londonderry, NH).
    , @oh its just me too
    no incoherence. we're descended from first families of Virginia and scots irish dirt farmers. I had a two direct descendants fight in the Civil war. one was one of General Lee's field aides and another was a dirt farmer private.

    I use the term southern belle a little loosely yes, but I mean i grew up ( we lived in the north since my mom married into a 'good' wasp family from the northeast) with pictures of Civil war generals in our home, to my mom becoming a marxist pc/ uni teacher talking about white privilege and entirely disowning our southern heritage.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Njguy73 says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Good comment.

    More evidence in support of his thesis:

    - Indian-named U.S. military equipment, such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    - Indian-era military terms, such as Kit Carson scouts in Vietnam.

    - Indian sports team names.

    - Rambo being half-Indian.

    - The whole western movie genre.

    - Indians and quasi-Indians in other genres, like the Martians in the Martian Chronicles, space Indians in Star Trek TNG, etc.

    Two words: Billy. Jack. ‘Nuff said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @27 year old
    So what's the lesson for us? We need to kill a lot of bankers and college professors on our way down, and then in the future America they'll remember us with some respect?

    Bankers, college professors and bobos seem to have great respect for the ISIS inspired terrorists who occasionally massacre people within their urban bubble, so who knows what they’d think of such things? Who can even say there will be bobos, SJWs and college professors in the future? There will always be bankers, of course, but probably nothing like the ones we have now.

    On the other hand, the indigenous peoples of Europe will be remembered fondly and romanticised by their Afro-Muslim conquerors the way the Indians of North America are now by Whites. Euro-Muslims will entertain the idea that the green eyes or light brown hair of this or that person comes from their mixed Frangistani blood. Some might take these musings too far and embrace the pre-Islamic civilization of Europe. They’ll end up getting the same treatment that Zoroastrians and Yazidis get in their homelands.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. LCdr. Ernest E. Evans’ posthumous Medal of Honor citation:

    For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as commanding officer of the U.S.S. Johnston in action against major units of the enemy Japanese fleet during the battle off Samar on 25 October 1944. The first to lay a smokescreen and to open fire as an enemy task force, vastly superior in number, firepower and armor, rapidly approached. Comdr. Evans gallantly diverted the powerful blasts of hostile guns from the lightly armed and armored carriers under his protection, launching the first torpedo attack when the Johnston came under straddling Japanese shellfire. Undaunted by damage sustained under the terrific volume of fire, he unhesitatingly joined others of his group to provide fire support during subsequent torpedo attacks against the Japanese and, outshooting and outmaneuvering the enemy as he consistently interposed his vessel between the hostile fleet units and our carriers despite the crippling loss of engine power and communications with steering aft, shifted command to the fantail, shouted steering orders through an open hatch to men turning the rudder by hand and battled furiously until the Johnston, burning and shuddering from a mortal blow, lay dead in the water after 3 hours of fierce combat. Seriously wounded early in the engagement, Comdr. Evans, by his indomitable courage and brilliant professional skill, aided materially in turning back the enemy during a critical phase of the action. His valiant fighting spirit throughout this historic battle will venture as an inspiration to all who served with him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I wrote a term paper in 8th grade that ended with the Battle off Samar.
    , @MarkinPNW
    My grandfather was named Ernest F. Evans, wonder if they might have been cousins or otherwise related. Even though my grandfather had served in the Marines in the early '20's, at that time he was a middle-aged civilian painter with a growing family. My mother recorded in her teenage diary how on a Sunday family outing to the San Francisco Zoo there came a sudden announcement over the Zoo's loudspeaker system of a sudden attack on Pearl Harbor. Her father at that time was employed as a painter in the shipyards around Oakland, painting Liberty and Victory ships under construction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @syonredux

    But after the founding of the United States, were they as large a threat as disease or other Europeans or even other Americans? I doubt it. I’m skeptical it was even close.
     
    As I noted upthread, the Northwest Indian War (1785–1795) was the only time that the Amerinds really posed a significant threat to the US, and that was largely because they had the backing of the British . During the early post-Revolutionary period, the British seriously contemplated creating an Amerind puppet state in the Old Northwest. However, with the onset of the French Revolutionary Wars, the Brits, valuing peace with the Americans, ceased supplying aid.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Indian_War

    I take your points, but one mustn’t conflate an existential military threat to the U.S.A. and its military as such with threats to individuals and communities. It’s cold comfort to the thousands of pioneers slaughtered on the frontier as their homesteads and villages were razed by Indians to know that the folks back in Charleston and Boston (or even the closest garrison, even if it were only a few miles away) were safe as could be (no one can blame the Indians, mind you, speaking of existential threats: this was all part of the long war over who got to keep the continent at the end of it all…).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. I imagine modern Indians seem somewhat confused about how their lands were conquered because there was so little war involved in that conquest.
    Few laymen could name many U.S. v. Indian battles beyond Little Bighorn. So the public consciousness is supplied with a sense of the fighting capacity of the Indian men. That battle involved as few as 1500 combatants, perhaps as many as 3000 combatants. That is an example of a striking feature of the Indian War battles, namely, how limited they were in scope. Nothing approaching the scale of a Civil War battle or a Napoleonic battle. Which is nothing more than to say, the Europeans took these lands by a different means.
    So, even though the White conquest of the continent could be called a close-run thing at certain points, the military sorties and lonely battlefields are much less important than the total logistical victory of the White man; the dull, grinding, enervating tale of growing a population, securing and developing resources for it, and proving in the long run to be a better competitor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. @Dave Pinsen
    Plenty of stuff around here is named after Indian words too (e.g., Manhattan, Hackensack). That's another sign of respect for Indians.

    Plenty of stuff around here is named after Indian words too (e.g., Manhattan, Hackensack). That’s another sign of respect for Indians.

    Has anybody mentioned state names? Around half are of “native American” origin, if I recall corectly (plus Indiana!).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Good point.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    You all have got this Indian names thing ass backwards, I hate to say. Remember the Indians didn't really have the concept of owning land and property rights. That's a whole nother subject, but this relates in that most of the tribes of Indians (maybe all, I'm no historian, thogh I play one on unz) were named after the geographical features of their lands, for the most part rivers. There were no arbitrary pieces of property to be named. The Snoqualmies lived along the Snoqualmie, the Iroquois lived along the Iroquois, the Mohalk on the Mohalk, the Congarees on the Congaree, the Waxahatchiees on the Waxahatchee, and so on for thousands of tribes.

    This is what's pretty cool about getting all around this land, and I have been. You can notice the types of languages the Indians had in the area from the river names. In the Carolinas it's all "ee", like the Pee Dee, the Wateree, and the Congaree. In the Pacific NW it's "ish" on the end, like the Snohomish, the Skykomish, etc.

    Now the States named after Indians are not named directly after a tribe for respect, but after a river: Ohio, Missouri, Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Connecticut, (don't know about Massachusetts, but it sure sounds Indian - as an aside, this is one of only a couple of states after which the modern residents themselves are named*).

    Back to the rivers for a second: anywhere that the English name was slow in coming, with a settled population already, was likely to keep the Indian names for the rivers, and the States were named after the river boundaries, (i.e. Ohio) or rivers that the original territory-to-become-a-state surrounded (CT, MO, etc.).

    I really liked "whoever's" comment before I noticed this Geronimo post, as it's true that Americans have a gruding respect for the Indian warrior culture. Much respect has been lost since the Indians are mostly about reservations, casinos, and firewater nowadays, oh, except for th one squaw that made it to the US Senate. ;-}




    * Answer in next post - be the first to win a PeakStupidity yo-yo!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Cagey Beast says: • Website

    Hopefully some day our conquerors will romanticize our civilization when we’re all safely dead. There are some hopeful signs guys! Look, some of them are forming non-Whites only classical music groups even before we’re all dead!

    Europe’s first all non-white orchestra is changing the face of classical music

    http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/may-14-2017-the-sunday-edition-with-michael-enright-1.4110476/europe-s-first-all-non-white-orchestra-is-changing-the-face-of-classical-music-1.4110490

    This sort of stuff must be Viagra for Boomer cucks. Imagine how good it must feel for a self-hating White snob to get their chocolate and peanut butter together in one tasty treat like this. It almost makes up for Trump!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    In Kim Stanley Robinson's alternate history, The Years of Rice and Salt, in which 99% of Europe was wiped out by Black Death, an Arab musical genius faces resistance when he tries to invent classical music:
    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/848060216730144768
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Dr. X says:

    the Indians 7-foot long bows, as thick as a man’s arm, that could penetrate six inches of wood at 200 yards.

    I’d have to see that to believe it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Quite right. The only way to get a bow to shoot that far is to aim it up at a 45 degree angle. Which means that by the time it hits, it no longer has any velocity from the bow, but only as much as it picks up from gravity from the top of its arc.

    There is also of course the fact that their arrowheads were only stone or bone, which would be utterly incapable of penetrating so deeply.no matter how fast the arrow was moving.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    OT: Apparently Richard Spencer’s membership in an Alexandria gym was revoked (no reason given) after deranged Georgetown professor (((Christine Fair))) confronted him in the gym for being “a hateful, white supremacist who has no place in this century..much less our gym,” among other things.

    So, iSteve legal experts, wots the deal? Can a public accommodation be held legally liable for discrimination on the basis of a customer’s (non-venue expressed) political beliefs?

    Let not your heart be troubled: I jusg confirmed she has helfully committed genetic suicide so our children don’t have to put up with any of hers.

    The one ray of hope as the world turns is that all the right people continue killing themselves while those of us hoping to preserve our peoples and out civilisation create the future by actually reproducing.

    The question is whether this phenomenon will turn the tide quickly enough, since, sadly, the genetic suicide does not much extend beyond the self-loathing Europeans, so if the brown people inundate us in the meantime the game is up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. George says:

    “the American Indian earned respect and a place in our history ”

    Read Francis Parkman’s Oregon Trail, or watch ‘The Duke’ in the movie The Searchers. So I don’t think so. I do think Indian veneration goes in and out of fashion. Once most traces of Indian culture were eliminated from New England you start seeing them appear in artwork and poems. Veneration of American Indians coincides with the empty lands they once occupied being filled with European immigrants, so there might be some regrets there.

    The Song of Hiawatha

    http://www.hwlongfellow.org/poems_poem.php?pid=283

    Last of the Mohicans ect

    After WWII you do see the US military naming weapons after American Indians, oddly without modern complaints about cultural appropriation, or even misuse of trademarks. Anybody ever get written permission from the Apache to use their branding? Maybe using their name on weapons is the ultimate symbol of defeat? Sort of like wearing a necklace made of their bones.

    Tecumseh was actually respected by at least his elite contemporaries on the white side of the Indian wars. Are there any prominent American’s today with American Indian names? Geronimo Herbert Walker Bush, I don’t think so? Elite Whites name their kids Brooklyn not Seattle. Tecumseh actually does pull off almost inconceivable counterattack against American expansion.

    As far as Spanish go. It isn’t clear whites ever really tamed the local cultures, they just assimilated into it. Sort of like the way the Visigoths take over the Iberian peninsula and assimilate into the culture. If I remember right at times Mexican elites chose to overplay their ancient roots, having portraits made of them as Aztec grandees.

    Indian Country

    So much of US military culture is from early motion picture history it is hard to tell where a phrase might come from. Wikipedia suggests Indian Country starts as a British colonial legalism. The King grants you property from ____ to the start of Indian Country.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_country

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “the American Indian earned respect and a place in our history ”

    Read Francis Parkman’s Oregon Trail, or watch ‘The Duke’ in the movie The Searchers. So I don’t think so.
     
    Dunno about The Searchers, as Wayne is playing a deeply ambiguous character. Note how he functions as a kind of mirror image of the Amerinds that he fights. For example, he scalps an Indian, lives on the margins of civilization, and is a member of a defeated "nation" (the Confederacy) who refuses to surrender. Heck, it's even implied that he has slept with Amerind women. When he questions the Indian chief Scar as to how he learned to speak "American," Scar responds by asking how Wayne learned such good Comanche (Wayne knows that Scar's command of English comes from having a White wife).

    And John Ford often displayed great sympathy and respect for Amerinds. In Fort Apache, they are depicted as worthy adversaries, and Fonda's colonel dies because he badly underestimated them.And the Indian war in the film is blamed on the actions of a corrupt Indian agent.
    , @guest
    The Searchers is a bad example. There's a reason that once in particular, is a favorite of the liberal movie Establishment. Wayne is kind of a psycho and though he comes off much better than the villain, Scar, he's a sort anti-hero at best. At least until the end, when he picks up Natalie Wood and carries her away, after the movie played with expectations by making you think he might have killed her.
    , @Bill B.

    Maybe using their name on weapons is the ultimate symbol of defeat?
     
    Today the US Army fired several volleys of Social Justice Missiles and followed up with a barrage of Earnest Pamphlets. Several Hillarys were deployed and two Obamas fired as a retaliatory measure. A Clooney was dropped for pacification purposes and the enemy trenches were covered in Ashley Judd to silence remnants.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    OT: Apparently Richard Spencer’s membership in an Alexandria gym was revoked (no reason given) after deranged Georgetown professor (((Christine Fair))) confronted him in the gym for being “a hateful, white supremacist who has no place in this century..much less our gym,” among other things.

    So, iSteve legal experts, wots the deal? Can a public accommodation be held legally liable for discrimination on the basis of a customer’s (non-venue expressed) political beliefs?

    Yelling at Richard Spencer in person AND getting him kicked out of your social space must be the SJW equivalent of winning the World Series. They’d give her a ticker-tape parade if it wasn’t so patriarchal and didn’t require so much organizing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. A discussion on the settlement and conquest of the Americas wouldn’t be complete without population estimates:

    Using an estimate of approximately 37 million people in Mexico, Central and South America in 1492 (including 6 million in the Aztec Empire, 5-10 million in the Mayan States, 11 million in what is now Brazil, and 12 million in the Inca Empire), the lowest estimates give a death toll due from disease of 90% by the end of the 17th century (nine million people in 1650).[5] Latin America would match its 15th-century population early in the 19th century; it numbered 17 million in 1800, 30 million in 1850, 61 million in 1900, 105 million in 1930, 218 million in 1960, 361 million in 1980, and 563 million in 2005.[5] In the last three decades of the 16th century, the population of present-day Mexico dropped to about one million people.[5] The Maya population is today estimated at six million, which is about the same as at the end of the 15th century, according to some estimates.[5] In what is now Brazil, the indigenous population declined from a pre-Columbian high of an estimated four million to some 300,000.

    While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus,[6] estimates range from a low of 2.1 million[7] to 7 million[8] people to a high of 18 million[9]
    The Aboriginal population of Canada during the late 15th century is estimated to have been between 200,000[10] and two million,[11] with a figure of 500,000 currently accepted by Canada’s Royal Commission on Aboriginal Health.[12] Repeated outbreaks of Old World infectious diseases such as influenza, measles and smallpox (to which they had no natural immunity), were the main cause of depopulation. This combined with other factors such as dispossession from European/Canadian settlements and numerous violent conflicts resulted in a forty- to eighty-percent aboriginal population decrease after contact.[10] For example, during the late 1630s, smallpox killed over half of the Wyandot (Huron), who controlled most of the early North American fur trade in what became Canada. They were reduced to fewer than 10,000 people.[13]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

    By comparison, small Europe had a fairly reliable population estimate of 90 million in 1500. With France, having 15 million and the Iberian peninsula 8.5 million.

    By the 14th century, the frontiers of settled cultivation had ceased to expand and internal colonization was coming to an end, but population levels remained high. Then a series of events — sometimes called the Crisis of the Late Middle Ages — collectively killed millions. Starting with the Great Famine in 1315 and the Black Death from 1348, the population of Europe fell abruptly. The period between 1348 and 1420 saw the heaviest loss. In parts of Germany, about 40% of the named inhabitants disappeared.[1] The population of Provence was reportedly halved and in some parts of Tuscany, 70% were lost during this period.[1]

    Historians have struggled to explain why so many died.[1] Some have questioned the long-standing theory that the decline in population was caused only by infectious disease (see further discussions at Black Death) and so historians have examined other social factors, as follows.

    A classic Malthusian argument has been put forward that Europe was overpopulated: even in good times it was barely able to feed its population.[1] Grain yields in the 14th century were between 2:1 and 7:1 (2:1 means for every seed planted, 2 are harvested.[1] Modern grain yields are 30:1 or more.)[1] Malnutrition developed gradually over decades, lowering resistance to disease, and competition for resources meant more warfare, and then finally crop yields were pushed down by the Little Ice Age.[1]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. Cagey Beast says: • Website

    Here in Canada we have the Métis:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9tis_in_Canada

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @Dave Pinsen
    His point was the fierceness and military effectiveness of American Indians versus elsewhere. Partly, that was due to our Indians being less civilized/centralized/urbanized than those in Latin America, which made them less vulnerable to being conquered in the same way; partly it was due to our Indians being better warriors; and party it was due to geography. Smallpox didn't become a factor until the late 19th Century, IIRC.

    This.

    The diseases struck the hunter-gatherers slowly because of the much lower population density, they were better warriors than any farming peoples because nomadic pastoralists and hunter-gatherers were always better suited to fighting than farmers, and lack of centralization and nomadic lifestyles meant it was very difficult to subdue them by striking their political centers.

    Read More
    • Agree: prole
    • Replies: @prole
    In Chile, the hunter-gather tribes were never completely defeated by the Spanish, continued to battle against Chileans until 1900. The Indian population of Chile was 1.5 million in 1500...750,000 by 1900 (not counting mestizos)..the entire pop of Chile was just under 3 million in 1900, when the US pop was 76 million with less than 500,000 Indians. If America had 20 million Indians in 1900 we would not have considered them with reverance..

    In 1500, in what is now the U.S. , the Indian pop was just about 3 million. By 1700 whites outnumbered Indians..less than 250,000 Indians lived the area of the 13 colonies when the English landed at Plymouth Rock....While in Mexico the Indian pop was closer to 25 million...

    The reason Americans have exalted Indians since 1900, they were always so rare and exotic in the United States...in Latin America they were abundant, poor, and thus not an seen as an exotic, heroic race.

    , @Discordiax
    FWIW, which isn't much, there's a school of thought with at least some evidence (see the book 1491) that North America supported a pretty significant population at more-or-less Sumerian levels of agriculture and civilization before Columbus.

    It works out the same, since by the time English settlers were on the scene, the plagues had wiped out those civilizations (or at least agricultural societies), and the groups/societies that survived/emerged were in wilderness-adapted hunter-gatherer mode. From Ozzie and Harriet to Mad Max in 100-150 years seems about right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Anonymous
    "despite no evidence"

    I hear this phrase a lot in discussion of this topic, but I think it is often used in a misguided way. The simple fact is that oral family tradition IS evidence. It may be defeasible evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.

    Many people chastise Elizabeth Warren for claiming to be Indian. Obviously, she is not more than a small fraction Indian, at most. But I see no reason to insist that it is absurd for her to claim to be 1/32 Indian. (I do find it utterly absurd for her to get a job at Harvard as a "Person of Color".) I genuinely believe that she thinks she has a well-grounded basis for claiming Indian ancestry, and I do not fault her reasoning. Of course, she might be wrong, but that is how life is. We can fault her for trying to claim some racial perks without faulting her for taking seriously her family history.

    Even if many "white" and "black" Americans are wrong in claiming Indian ancestry, many are right, even if they have no certificates of tribal membership or whatever.

    (I am fairly confident I am one of the white Americans who is right about it...)

    Steve tried to put me straight on this once in the past, but I remain convinced that Elizabeth Warren is 1/24th Indian. Ponder the possibility.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Steve tried to put me straight on this once in the past, but I remain convinced that Elizabeth Warren is 1/24th Indian. Ponder the possibility."

    If Elizabeth Warren had the blood of Pocahontas pumping through her heart she would have had a press conference and released her DNA ancestry in order to say F you to Donald J. Trump and the rest of the Conservatives on Fox News, The Drudge Report, Breitbart, Compound Media, The Rebel, Talk Radio, etc who all call her a Transracial fake Native American.

    , @Alden
    Her cheekbones probably came from the Viking invaders of Britian. She is a stereotypical Nordic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    OT: Apparently Richard Spencer’s membership in an Alexandria gym was revoked (no reason given) after deranged Georgetown professor (((Christine Fair))) confronted him in the gym for being “a hateful, white supremacist who has no place in this century..much less our gym,” among other things.

    So, iSteve legal experts, wots the deal? Can a public accommodation be held legally liable for discrimination on the basis of a customer’s (non-venue expressed) political beliefs?

    He might have stronger legal protections if he actually registered as a Nazi (see Skokie), but look out for Joliet Jake and Elroy. Otherwise, he has no case in modern America, precisely as a WM, he is not ever going to be a protected class.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    The taller Blues Brother was Elwood. Elroy was George Jetson's son.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @syonredux
    John Ford's Cavalry Trilogy:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBlg_BDkEAg

    Fort Apache is a terrific old movie. Henry Fonda steals the show as the humorless half crazy military officer.

    Gentlemen! I am not a martinet! As he proceeds to be a martinet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Fort Apache is a terrific old movie. Henry Fonda steals the show as the humorless half crazy military officer.

    Gentlemen! I am not a martinet! As he proceeds to be a martinet.
     
    Of the films in Ford's Cavalry Trilogy (Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Rio Grande), it's my favorite.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Anonymous
    "despite no evidence"

    I hear this phrase a lot in discussion of this topic, but I think it is often used in a misguided way. The simple fact is that oral family tradition IS evidence. It may be defeasible evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.

    Many people chastise Elizabeth Warren for claiming to be Indian. Obviously, she is not more than a small fraction Indian, at most. But I see no reason to insist that it is absurd for her to claim to be 1/32 Indian. (I do find it utterly absurd for her to get a job at Harvard as a "Person of Color".) I genuinely believe that she thinks she has a well-grounded basis for claiming Indian ancestry, and I do not fault her reasoning. Of course, she might be wrong, but that is how life is. We can fault her for trying to claim some racial perks without faulting her for taking seriously her family history.

    Even if many "white" and "black" Americans are wrong in claiming Indian ancestry, many are right, even if they have no certificates of tribal membership or whatever.

    (I am fairly confident I am one of the white Americans who is right about it...)

    “Even if many “white” and “black” Americans are wrong in claiming Indian ancestry, many are right, even if they have no certificates of tribal membership or whatever.”

    From what I have seen at 23andme, the vast majority of African Americans have at least small percentage of Indian blood, which is interesting because they seem a lot less likely to claim it than whites, who have much less evidence of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "From what I have seen at 23andme, the vast majority of African Americans have at least small percentage of Indian blood, which is interesting because they seem a lot less likely to claim it than whites, who have much less evidence of it."

    If that were true why did the vast majority of African American celebrities who went on Henry Louis Gates end up showing no Native American blood in their DNA ancestry. It was so funny watching the disappointed looks on their African American faces when they found out they actually have White ancestry and not Cherokee ancestry like their family members claimed they have.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Sid
    My grandfather (Greatest Generation) had dark hair and skin, loved the outdoors, and went through his genealogy thoroughly. He never found proof he had Native American blood, but loved indulging the possibility.

    Even core Americans can look like this if they have some Welsh blood (think of all the Joneses).

    Which is why Catherine Zeta-Jones could play “Elena Montero” in Zorro.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sid
    A lot of Celtic peoples have dark hair and skin. For example, there are the Black Irish, and the Picts were famous for being swarthy.

    The reason, I think, is that the original hunter-gatherers in Europe from the Paleolithic had dark hair and skin, but at times had light eyes. Modern Europeans got their light skin from Middle Eastern farmers. Eventually blond hair evolved and caught on like wild fire among Neolithic Europeans, but the parts of Europe were Celtic languages held on were fairly isolated, insulating them from a lot of gene flow. As such, the people of those places maintained a swarthy appearance longer than other parts of Northern Europe.
    , @Logan
    CZJ in that movie. Yowza!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Wilkey says:

    One key difference between Latin America and the United States is that people of partial Indian descent are everywhere in Latin America, and that makes the differences in intelligence, work ethic, criminality, etc. (and their genetic basis) far more obvious. That’s why denying Indian ancestry in Latin America is more akin to denying black ancestry in the United States. Most (all?) Indian Reservations are out in the boondocks. Most Americans can comfortably ignore the pathetic reality of how so many Indians live today. If there were an Indian Reservation in every major city so that more people witnessed that reality then a lot fewer people would be making bogus claims of Indian ancestry.

    My guess is that a lot of those claims began in the 1950s, with the popularity of movie and television Westerns. Probably not many people today are *inventing* new claims of Indian ancestry so much as repeating the claims that were invented by a family member 60 years ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Another Canadian
    Nice try, but not quite there. The trigger wasn't Gunsmoke, but the 1893 Dawes Commission. More than 250,000 persons applied for membership in the 5 Civilised Tribes and land allotments in Oklahoma. About 100,000 were approved, leaving 150,000 telling Indian tales for decades.
    , @Thea
    Yes, by some counts there are less than 2 million Native Americans.

    I used to work with a lot of people from a nearby Rez. They believe in the cult of higher Ed even more than middle class whites. They tell their kids that if only they would get a degree, their problems would be solved.

    Much more pleasant people than AAs for sure.

    , @Jefferson
    "One key difference between Latin America and the United States is that people of partial Indian descent are everywhere in Latin America, and that makes the differences in intelligence, work ethic, criminality, etc. (and their genetic basis) far more obvious."

    How many White Americans would want to claim to be part Amerindian if Non Hispanic Native Americans had a crime rate similar to the Indios in Mexico and Central America?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Anonymous
    "despite no evidence"

    I hear this phrase a lot in discussion of this topic, but I think it is often used in a misguided way. The simple fact is that oral family tradition IS evidence. It may be defeasible evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.

    Many people chastise Elizabeth Warren for claiming to be Indian. Obviously, she is not more than a small fraction Indian, at most. But I see no reason to insist that it is absurd for her to claim to be 1/32 Indian. (I do find it utterly absurd for her to get a job at Harvard as a "Person of Color".) I genuinely believe that she thinks she has a well-grounded basis for claiming Indian ancestry, and I do not fault her reasoning. Of course, she might be wrong, but that is how life is. We can fault her for trying to claim some racial perks without faulting her for taking seriously her family history.

    Even if many "white" and "black" Americans are wrong in claiming Indian ancestry, many are right, even if they have no certificates of tribal membership or whatever.

    (I am fairly confident I am one of the white Americans who is right about it...)

    Even if many “white” and “black” Americans are wrong in claiming Indian ancestry, many are right, even if they have no certificates of tribal membership or whatever.

    Meh. Steve already covered this. Native American admixture was just as microscopically small as black admixture in people identifying as white.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/

    Claiming exotic ancestry based on family lore kind of went out the window during this decade of 23andMe et al.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Wilkey
    One key difference between Latin America and the United States is that people of partial Indian descent are everywhere in Latin America, and that makes the differences in intelligence, work ethic, criminality, etc. (and their genetic basis) far more obvious. That's why denying Indian ancestry in Latin America is more akin to denying black ancestry in the United States. Most (all?) Indian Reservations are out in the boondocks. Most Americans can comfortably ignore the pathetic reality of how so many Indians live today. If there were an Indian Reservation in every major city so that more people witnessed that reality then a lot fewer people would be making bogus claims of Indian ancestry.

    My guess is that a lot of those claims began in the 1950s, with the popularity of movie and television Westerns. Probably not many people today are *inventing* new claims of Indian ancestry so much as repeating the claims that were invented by a family member 60 years ago.

    Nice try, but not quite there. The trigger wasn’t Gunsmoke, but the 1893 Dawes Commission. More than 250,000 persons applied for membership in the 5 Civilised Tribes and land allotments in Oklahoma. About 100,000 were approved, leaving 150,000 telling Indian tales for decades.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Dave Pinsen
    Good comment.

    More evidence in support of his thesis:

    - Indian-named U.S. military equipment, such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    - Indian-era military terms, such as Kit Carson scouts in Vietnam.

    - Indian sports team names.

    - Rambo being half-Indian.

    - The whole western movie genre.

    - Indians and quasi-Indians in other genres, like the Martians in the Martian Chronicles, space Indians in Star Trek TNG, etc.

    Second Infantry Division:

    http://2ida.org/patch/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. have done so since long before there was affirmative action or any official advantage to doing so

    Not true. While there were a few notable holdouts, 2.5x as many people tried to get on the Dawes Rolls (1898-1907) as were actually admitted. “He was TOO PROUD to sign up” is a common trope of stories like this where official tribal affiliation is lacking.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Rolls

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  109. Of course the elephant in the room vis a vis this piece is that it’s not actually about Indians, whom no one much cares about, and who don’t figure into the American cold civil war. It’s about American blacks, who by silent but obvious comparison with the Indians descend from people who did not, unlike their Haitian cousins, fight to the death to avoid slavery.

    The resultant toxic shame of the slave has poisoned American politics and life for generations.

    Reading some Atlantic piece responding to that Alex Tizon thing about how we’re not supposed to say “slaves” anymore, but rather “people who are enslaved”, because “slave” is an identity. More toxic shame. The ancients would have laughed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. @Another Canadian
    Like many Americans, you consider time zero as the Revolution. The revolution was catastrophic for the Indians. Prior, they were an existential threat to communities in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. Consider the evacuation of these areas to the Carolinas at the beginning of the 7 Years War after Braddock's defeat. Many family genealogies have "brick walls" at this point because ancestors were massacred or kidnapped at the hands of the Indians. Same thing in Virginia 1774-1781 with Lord Dunmore's War and the Revolution. An important outcome of the Revolution was putting an end to the Indians as an existential threat to entire communities.

    Like many Americans, you consider time zero as the Revolution.

    I did mention King Philip’s War in the post you’re responding to.

    But I would argue that in the pre-Revolutionary period you’re focused on – from the Seven Years’ War to the Revolution – American colonists were still far more concerned about the might of the European powers than they ever were about the Indians. I mean, how many Americans died in Lord Dunmore’s War? How many even participated?

    The Americans worried the Europeans might stir the Indians up, but they were not greatly feared as a military force in and of themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @27 year old
    So what's the lesson for us? We need to kill a lot of bankers and college professors on our way down, and then in the future America they'll remember us with some respect?

    Sounds good to me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @anonymous

    Indian-named U.S. military equipment, such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.
     
    I believe it is US Army tradition to name all of its helicopters with Indian names. Even the famous UH-1 "Huey" was officially known as the Iroquois. In fact there only a couple exceptions I can think of. The most famous of which is the Bell AH-1 Huey Cobra which I don't think ever had an Indian name.

    PS. When I was in the Army our battalion had Indian nicknames for each infantry company based upon its first letter. Alpha company was known as "Apache", Bravo was known as "Blackfeet" and Charlie was known as "Comanche". Collectively our battalion was called the "warrior" battalion by the brigade we were assigned to.

    The commenter who Steve quoted up there seems to be one of those sappy muscleheads, like Vin Diesel. When they happen to think of something slightly deep, they like it so much they consider it the most profound insight anyone in their generation has ever had.

    I’m far from an SJW, but the weird American and Australia/NZ affliction for naming things after the natives seems to be an overcompensation for being the two areas of European colonialism where the natives were most efficiently wiped out.

    Australia, NZ and the USA would be similar to Brazil today if they hadn’t ruthlessly cleaned out the natives before populating them with Europeans. This assertion should be pretty uncontroversial around these HBD-aware parts.

    When I see a New Zealand sports team perform the Hakka it strikes me as the most ugly form of cultural appropriation (again, I’m no SJW but that doesn’t mean all their ideas are stupid). First you massacre the natives. Then you feel guilty about it so you take over quirky but safe aspects of their culture and pretend like the real thing is still alive. The old Christian urge to repent writ large.

    It’s like the cultural equivalent of a zoo. You destroy the wild habitat of lions and tigers, then put a few specimens behind thick glass where your kids can laugh at them, and then feel so good about yourselves.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Polymath
    Nope, NZ and Australia, which you conflate, are quite different from each other. The Australian aborigines were helpless, the Maori were tough and maintained cultural continuity and a degree of respect from the whites that the aborigines never came close to.
    , @Jack Hanson
    "I'm not an SJW"

    The lady doth protest too much.
    , @anon

    The commenter who Steve quoted up there seems to be one of those sappy muscleheads, like Vin Diesel.
     
    For such an obnoxious comment, let's hope you have your facts right.

    Australia/NZ affliction for naming things after the natives seems to be an overcompensation for being the two areas of European colonialism where the natives were most efficiently wiped out.
     
    For someone who is not a sappy musclehead, you appear to have no clue about vast differences between treatment of natives in New zealand and Australia.
    New Zealand natives were treated very well. Universal suffrage for natives was even enacted before universal suffrage for whites. And the natives there mostly wiped themselves out.
    , @Anonymous
    Maori make up 15% of the NZ population. The haka is usually led by a Maori player. NZ fields a very successful all-Maori team in addition to the All Blacks. The Maori are proud of the role their hakas play in NZ culture, inordinately so.

    Sounds like a pretty shoddy genocide by any measure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. FredW says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    His point was the fierceness and military effectiveness of American Indians versus elsewhere. Partly, that was due to our Indians being less civilized/centralized/urbanized than those in Latin America, which made them less vulnerable to being conquered in the same way; partly it was due to our Indians being better warriors; and party it was due to geography. Smallpox didn't become a factor until the late 19th Century, IIRC.

    More precisely the native cultures had not developed even to a city state level. The “noble savage” mytholoy helps camouflage just how savage life on the frontier could be but today we don’t hear much about dead white children killed in Indian attackschool because it violates the narrative. Guess some kids had it coming since they chose their parents so poorly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Roderick Spode
    There was a fairly large (>40,000 + tenant farmers in the surrounding prairie) Indian city-state at one time in Illinois. It declined and fell on its own, becoming abandoned about 200 years before the Santa Maria, possibly helped along by massive floods.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia

    The important thing to remember is that by the time of colonization, pre-Colombian Americans were likely already experiencing a population ebb, enabling tribal scarcity-based cultures which self-limited their populations and had overlapping but distinct cultures. Many of them passionately hated one another in addition to Europeans, and it was not uncommon to see rival Indian tribes takes sides in imported European conflicts.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War

    Middle-school level history but worth remembering.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Yak-15 says:

    Kids today do not sit “Indian-style,” they sit “criss-cross applesauce.” The cultural Marxists are slowly chipping away at our history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  115. It’s interesting that no white would proudly say (well, until very recently) that he was part black, certainly if he actually had no black blood. If he did have black ancestors it would be something to be ashamed of and hidden. No old-stock Californian would boast that he was part Chinese — again, especially if he actually had no Chinese ancestry.

    Yeah, but this has more to do with race than history & culture. Many Indians (feathers) are not so racially distinct from whites in comparison with east Asians (not to speak of blacks/Africans …). Black ancestry is a taint, while Injun … not so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Yeah, but this has more to do with race than history & culture. Many Indians (feathers) are not so racially distinct from whites in comparison with east Asians"

    Amerindians are genetically racially closer to East Asians and Southeast Asians than they are to Whites. Hence why there is sometimes phenotype overlap between Amerindians and Asians but zero phenotype overlap between Amerindians and Whites. I have seen Amazonian Amerindians for example who look like they can pass for Cambodians and Filipinos.

    "Black ancestry is a taint, while Injun … not so."

    Injun is seen as a racial taint among White nationalists, hence why the White nationalist movement has a no Amerindians and no Mestizos allowed policy. In the White nationalist movement a part Injun White person is an oxymoron.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. FredW says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    I believe “Whoever” is a gal. And a Millennial (!) who is extremely knowledgeable about all sorts of interesting stuff, judging by her comment history.

    On topic, I visited Old Deerfield, MA last summer. There was quite a bit of harrowing action in the Connecticut River Valley back in the day:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bloody_Brook

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Deerfield

    Here’s a Romantic engraving depicting the Angel of Hadley.

    700 versus 80 is pretty good odds for the attackers. I’m surprised that the revisionist historians haven’t gotten the signs pulled down yet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. MikeJa says:

    Native Americans today are relatively few in number and are only recognized as a distinct minority when they are on isolated reservations. If white Americans had to put up with the sort of social dysfunction common on these reservations, there wouldn’t be nearly as many Indian myths.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    You see this a lot in Northern and Southern Arizona where a drunk Navajo or T'ohono O'odham will barge into a restaurant and start screaming for a drink at 11AM.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. prole says:
    @reiner Tor
    This.

    The diseases struck the hunter-gatherers slowly because of the much lower population density, they were better warriors than any farming peoples because nomadic pastoralists and hunter-gatherers were always better suited to fighting than farmers, and lack of centralization and nomadic lifestyles meant it was very difficult to subdue them by striking their political centers.

    In Chile, the hunter-gather tribes were never completely defeated by the Spanish, continued to battle against Chileans until 1900. The Indian population of Chile was 1.5 million in 1500…750,000 by 1900 (not counting mestizos)..the entire pop of Chile was just under 3 million in 1900, when the US pop was 76 million with less than 500,000 Indians. If America had 20 million Indians in 1900 we would not have considered them with reverance..

    In 1500, in what is now the U.S. , the Indian pop was just about 3 million. By 1700 whites outnumbered Indians..less than 250,000 Indians lived the area of the 13 colonies when the English landed at Plymouth Rock….While in Mexico the Indian pop was closer to 25 million…

    The reason Americans have exalted Indians since 1900, they were always so rare and exotic in the United States…in Latin America they were abundant, poor, and thus not an seen as an exotic, heroic race.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    In 1500, in what is now the U.S. , the Indian pop was just about 3 million. By 1700 whites outnumbered Indians..less than 250,000 Indians lived the area of the 13 colonies when the English landed at Plymouth Rock….While in Mexico the Indian pop was closer to 25 million…
     
    Some estimates:

    Coe, Snow and Benson, Atlas of Ancient America (1986)
    Total pre-Columbian population: 40M
    Mexico: Original population of 11M to 25M ("lower figure commands more support") fell to 1.25M (1625)
    Peru: Pop. fell from 9M (1533) to >500,000 (early 17th C)
    Brazil: Original population of 2.5M to 5.0M ("recent commentators favoring the higher") fell to 1M

    Massimo Livi-Bacci, Concise History of World Population History 2d (1996)
    Mexico: Population fell from 6.3M (1548) to 1.9M (1580) to 1M (1605)
    Peru: Pop. fell from 1.3M (1572) to 600,000 (1620)
    Canada: from 300,000 (ca. 1600) to < 100,000 (ca. 1800)
    USA: from 5M (1500) to 600,000 (ca. 1800)

    Skidmore & Smith, Modern Latin America (1997)
    Mexico: Population fell from 25M (1519) to 16.8M (1523) to 1.9M (1580) to 1M (1605)
    Peru: from 1.3M (1570, forty years after Conquest) to <600,000 (1620)

     


    United States, eradication of the American Indians (1775-1890) 350,000
    Russel Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival (1987)
    Overall decline
    From 600,000 (in 1800) to 250,000 (in 1890s)
    Indian Wars, from a 1894 report by US Census, cited by Thornton. Includes men, woman and children killed, 1775-1890:
    Individual conflicts:
    Whites: 5,000
    Indians: 8,500
    Wars under the gov't:
    Whites: 14,000
    Indians: 30-45,000
    TOTAL:
    Whites: 19,000
    Indians: 38,500 to 53,500

     

    For comparison, here's Australia:

    Australia (1788-1921) 240,000
    Mark Cocker, Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold (1998)
    Australian mainland
    Ongoing frontier war: 2,000-2,500 whites and 20,000 Aborignies KIA ("best guess", probably higher)
    General population decline: from 1M (1788) to 50,000 (ca. 1890) to 30,000 (1920s)
    Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee (1993)
    Decline of the Aborigines
    From 300,000 (in 1788) to 60,000 (in 1921)
    Extermination of the Tasmanians
    From 5,000 (in 1800) to 200 (in 1830) to 3 (in 1869) to none (1877)
    Clodfelter: 2,500 Eur. and 20,000 Aborigines k. in wars, 1840-1901
    Bill Bryson, In a Sunburned Country (2001): 20,000 Aborigines intentionally killed by whites.

     

    And New Zealand:

    New Zealand (1800s) 200,000
    Mark Cocker, Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold (1998)
    Maori pop: 240,000 (pre-contact) to 40,000 (1896)
    Clodfelter, Maori War (1860-72)
    UK, NZ: 700 k.
    Maori: 2,000
     
    , @reiner Tor
    I read somewhere that in the US, the Indians were idealized on the East Coast after they had disappeared. On the frontier, where they were still to be found, they were considered dangerous vermin to be eradicated. Incidentally, that was the view of Indians on the East Coast, too, until they disappeared... It's always easy to idealize something you never meet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. HA says:
    @guest
    Here in MN every damn thing is named after Indians, from bodies of water to gas stations to some frickin' stump in the woods. So I wouldn't put too much stock in the naming phenomenon.

    There is general recognition of the fighting spirit of the Red Man in U.S. culture, though. Especially in tv and movies.

    “There is general recognition of the fighting spirit of the Red Man.”

    Raiders — be they pirates or Comanches — were commonly fetishized by landlocked homesteaders. The hunter/gatherer lifestyle of some tribes was in many ways an improvement over the endless drudgery of sodbusting and sharecropping (at least until the buffalo was exterminated).

    That old anthropology chestnut about how the adoption of agriculture was a colossal mistake would not have seemed shocking to a settler gazing up from his plow to see raiding Comanche come and go. And as Gwynne pointed out in Empire of the Summer Moon, children kidnapped by Comanche tribes (even those who had seen their family members brutally murdered) fell deeply into Stockholm syndrome, so that even when they were “rescued”, they longed to return to life on the plains, whereas adopted/kidnapped Native American children often had a rougher time in adapting to the white man’s ways.

    (That being said, as Gwynne’s book makes clear, it was actually the introduction of the white man’s technology — specifically, the superweapon more commonly referred to as the “horse” — that transformed the Comanche from a tribe of runts kicked around by most everyone else, into the Mongols of the plains, who dispensed havoc not just to white men, but other tribes. As for Geronimo, his Apache tribe originated in Canada. It was the horse that allowed them to migrate into the Texas panhandle, and then the horse-obsessed Comanche that chased them out from the panhandle into New Mexico.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    HA, I found "Empire of the Summer Moon" last year at our library's book sale and read it in one day, a real page turner. Horrific torture and depravity for the most part, some children and women were kept as captives, sometimes ransomed, sometimes killed.
    , @guest
    That anthropological chestnut link was funny. In the comment section, one poster gets caught up on the need to call Eskimos "Inuits." Another poster reminds them that the article wasn't written in the Current Year. Back in '87, "Eskimo" was PC.

    This is the intellectual level at which they're operating.
    , @Logan
    The Apache and Navajo are indeed Athabascan speaking, with most of their relatives much farther north. But they were in the SW by probably sometime between 1200 and 1500, long befoe the horse.

    The Comanche, OTOH, really did move far south after they got the horse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @oh its just me too
    "… And many of those whose people were here from the beginning did fight Indians and some percent did marry into tribes."

    I am of scots-irish descent and my mother had these 'we have indian blood ' stories.. So did Johnny Cash's family along with being 'irish' (which was probably semi correct, in the folk memory they came from Ireland, they just weren't Irish).

    Well I did a 23andme - 98. north european, 100 european...I long suspected my mother's story was BS with her I think it was her 'conversion' from being a southern belle to being a 60s liberal. She had to find some way to not be a southern belle. the story she told - so and so married an indian princess... is pretty common among southern women to the point of being googable....

    It would be interesting to find out how much of the genetic composition of the population of French Canada (including Quebec and the western part of New Brunswick) is indigenous North American. It is my understanding that there was no small degree of intermarriage between French settlers in Canada and the native population–particularly in the 17th and 18th centuries. My wife’s ancestors on her mother’s side settled in Canada during the French-Indian War and according to family lore it was believed (though never substantiated) that at least some of her ancestors married natives. A 23andme might provide the answer (though I have heard that their results are of questionable accuracy).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    anonymous, My wife and I spent a day visiting historic Fort Niagara, a pre-revolutionary English fort, that sits at the mouth of the Niagara River and Lake Ontario. Our guide mentioned that the British soldiers were frequently held years past their terms of enlistment, so I would guess Indians maids became highly desirous. The Indians on either side of the river were most likely of the same tribes, and all members of the Iroquois federation.
    , @Anonymous
    We do know. It's negligible.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/the-genomic-heritage-of-french-canadians

    French Canadians have this myth of a society of total French-indigenous unity existing without division or prejudice before the racist Anglos took over. But that's what it is, a myth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. carol says:

    Meanwhile, my local paper included a supplement from the J-school, consisting of an agonizingly long and soul-draining thumbsucker (thank you Mickey Kaus) about the terrible state of Indian health (ie alcoholism and diabetes) and how we’re not doing enough to help these sovereign nations.

    We the people just love reading this stuff, not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  122. By 1800 the typical Native American in the Unite States was actually a mestizo, half European…while in Mexico the average Mexican was a mestizo by 1700. Very different demographics, because the English ca me as settlers with families, while the Spanish went to Mexico as invaders, mostly men who quickly impregnated indigenous women..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    So how did the North American Indians become mestizos? Were the British colonists sneaking out on their white wives at night?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @HA
    "There is general recognition of the fighting spirit of the Red Man."

    Raiders -- be they pirates or Comanches -- were commonly fetishized by landlocked homesteaders. The hunter/gatherer lifestyle of some tribes was in many ways an improvement over the endless drudgery of sodbusting and sharecropping (at least until the buffalo was exterminated).

    That old anthropology chestnut about how the adoption of agriculture was a colossal mistake would not have seemed shocking to a settler gazing up from his plow to see raiding Comanche come and go. And as Gwynne pointed out in Empire of the Summer Moon, children kidnapped by Comanche tribes (even those who had seen their family members brutally murdered) fell deeply into Stockholm syndrome, so that even when they were "rescued", they longed to return to life on the plains, whereas adopted/kidnapped Native American children often had a rougher time in adapting to the white man's ways.

    (That being said, as Gwynne's book makes clear, it was actually the introduction of the white man's technology -- specifically, the superweapon more commonly referred to as the "horse" -- that transformed the Comanche from a tribe of runts kicked around by most everyone else, into the Mongols of the plains, who dispensed havoc not just to white men, but other tribes. As for Geronimo, his Apache tribe originated in Canada. It was the horse that allowed them to migrate into the Texas panhandle, and then the horse-obsessed Comanche that chased them out from the panhandle into New Mexico.)

    HA, I found “Empire of the Summer Moon” last year at our library’s book sale and read it in one day, a real page turner. Horrific torture and depravity for the most part, some children and women were kept as captives, sometimes ransomed, sometimes killed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    "Horrific torture and depravity for the most part,..."

    But as the book points out, the barbaric lifestyles make for passionate fans.

    In modern times, it is the "care-free" thug-life of gang-banging (99 problems notwithstanding) that is likewise fetishized by the same chumps who in a previous generation might have secretly coveted the life of Geronimo or Blackbeard over and above a lifetime of hardscrabble farming/homesteading and toeing the civic line.

    And yet, in all these cases, these "primitive" Rousseauian lifestyles are actually a product of modernity (made possible by the introduction of the horse, or state-of-the-art naval technology, or the drug-trade).

    Likewise, the ISIS wannabes who similarly long for a war-raiding 7th-century lifestyle depend on modern day inventions like Facebook/Youtube and IED's to make it happen.

    , @Anonymous
    The reviews of the book on Amazon are hysterically funny. The SJWs have a virtual meltdown what with all the "racism" in the book. Filter for one star reviews, grab some popcorn and read a few.

    /Big Bill/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @reiner Tor
    This.

    The diseases struck the hunter-gatherers slowly because of the much lower population density, they were better warriors than any farming peoples because nomadic pastoralists and hunter-gatherers were always better suited to fighting than farmers, and lack of centralization and nomadic lifestyles meant it was very difficult to subdue them by striking their political centers.

    FWIW, which isn’t much, there’s a school of thought with at least some evidence (see the book 1491) that North America supported a pretty significant population at more-or-less Sumerian levels of agriculture and civilization before Columbus.

    It works out the same, since by the time English settlers were on the scene, the plagues had wiped out those civilizations (or at least agricultural societies), and the groups/societies that survived/emerged were in wilderness-adapted hunter-gatherer mode. From Ozzie and Harriet to Mad Max in 100-150 years seems about right.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Logan
    For Mesoamerica entirely correct. The population density was MUCH lower, even at its height, in what we normally think of as N. America, US and Canada.

    If you look at a map, of course, Mexico and Central America are obviously from a geographic POV North America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    OT: Apparently Richard Spencer’s membership in an Alexandria gym was revoked (no reason given) after deranged Georgetown professor (((Christine Fair))) confronted him in the gym for being “a hateful, white supremacist who has no place in this century..much less our gym,” among other things.

    So, iSteve legal experts, wots the deal? Can a public accommodation be held legally liable for discrimination on the basis of a customer’s (non-venue expressed) political beliefs?

    …who has no place in this century:

    “Damn it, Gym, I’m a doctor, not a– (beamed out)”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Then there was the disastrous Navaraez expedition into northern Florida in 1527 with 600 soldiers, where the Spanish crossbows were no match for the Indians 7-foot long bows, as thick as a man’s arm, that could penetrate six inches of wood at 200 yards. Only four Spaniards survived the catastrophe.

    Is this the expedition that person is talking about?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narv%C3%A1ez_expedition

    The date matches and the name is approximately the same but if it is Wikipedia seems to be lying again!

    Based on this: http://blogs.bu.edu/guidedhistory/historians-craft/michael-mell/

    More books about it have been written by Europeans than Native Americans!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  127. @Anonymous
    A quite interesting book from a few years ago is Blood and Thunder: The Epic Story of Kit Carson and the Conquest of the American West. (When I just checked the name on Amazon, it had 666 reviews.... take that as you wish!) Today elite opinion probably regards him as a sort of genocidaire, but there are very few Americans who have had a more respectful engagement with Indian culture.

    my husband is deep into that book right now and thoroughly enjoying it.

    I really liked Buffalo Bill’s biography of Kit Carson too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  129. @oh its just me too
    "… And many of those whose people were here from the beginning did fight Indians and some percent did marry into tribes."

    I am of scots-irish descent and my mother had these 'we have indian blood ' stories.. So did Johnny Cash's family along with being 'irish' (which was probably semi correct, in the folk memory they came from Ireland, they just weren't Irish).

    Well I did a 23andme - 98. north european, 100 european...I long suspected my mother's story was BS with her I think it was her 'conversion' from being a southern belle to being a 60s liberal. She had to find some way to not be a southern belle. the story she told - so and so married an indian princess... is pretty common among southern women to the point of being googable....

    I would be interested to see how many family stories of Indian ancestry debunked by 23andMe instead had unknown sub-Saharan ancestry.

    I get the feeling that, prior to the civil rights era, more than a few people dressed their mulatto grandmother up in Indian garb and called her a Cherokee princess.

    Read More
    • Replies: @oh its just me too
    more interesting is a lot of radical black activists are probably the descendants of confederate soldiers...

    i think the blood/race mixing pretty much flowed one way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    There is no public accommodation liability for viewpoint discrimination (unless the accommodation is provided by government).

    /Big Bill/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  131. HA says:
    @Buffalo Joe
    HA, I found "Empire of the Summer Moon" last year at our library's book sale and read it in one day, a real page turner. Horrific torture and depravity for the most part, some children and women were kept as captives, sometimes ransomed, sometimes killed.

    “Horrific torture and depravity for the most part,…”

    But as the book points out, the barbaric lifestyles make for passionate fans.

    In modern times, it is the “care-free” thug-life of gang-banging (99 problems notwithstanding) that is likewise fetishized by the same chumps who in a previous generation might have secretly coveted the life of Geronimo or Blackbeard over and above a lifetime of hardscrabble farming/homesteading and toeing the civic line.

    And yet, in all these cases, these “primitive” Rousseauian lifestyles are actually a product of modernity (made possible by the introduction of the horse, or state-of-the-art naval technology, or the drug-trade).

    Likewise, the ISIS wannabes who similarly long for a war-raiding 7th-century lifestyle depend on modern day inventions like Facebook/Youtube and IED’s to make it happen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    HA, Thank you, nice reply. Maybe we need some Rangers to mount up and take the streets, of let's say Chicago, back.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @anon
    http://www.whitewolfpack.com/2012/09/the-mohawks-who-built-manhattan-photos.html

    Some tribes found work to their liking.

    From New Yorker, 1949
    http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/j6075/edit/Mitchell.html

    Another perspective:

    One night when they were all drunk the Indians admitted they were scared fecal matter-less while iron hopping; they just didn't admit it because of the above-mentioned warrior ethic. (They didn't actually say "warrior ethic," of course; that was Freilich's take on it.) Freilich pointed out in his article that the Iroquois warrior tradition boiled down to going off with the boys to perform insane feats of bravery and generally raise hell, then coming home and boasting about your exploits. The warpath being no longer socially acceptable, steelwork was the next best thing.
     

    Buffalo Joe,
    you must’ve crossed paths with many Mohawks and others in the steel erection business. Please elaborate on experiences. Some of us marvel at, or maybe shake our heads at, the notion of walking along beams dozens of stories up, where gusts of wind or missteps could lead to disastrous falls or death. Seeing a row of guys sitting on a beam high in the air enjoying lunch represents such a different part of life that is far removed from the street.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    New Handle, Mohawk from Syracuse to way downstate, mostly Senecas around here. Most Senecas have English names, Spring, Hill, White, Green etc., Mohawks lots of French names, Mount Pleasant, Dubois, Dubeque etc. As with all jobs and trades some guys, white, red or whatever, are outstanding, some good, some mediocre. some not worthy of their book. My daughter gave me a framed copy of the photo of all the ironworkers astride a beam enjoying lunch, looks a bit photo shopped to me, but whatever. There are, IIRC, 11 guys in the photo. The NY Post asked their readers if they could recognize any of the workers. They got 44 different names for the 11 workers. Ok, years ago I was general foreman on a coal fired power plant, 80'-83'. Heavy steel, enormous cranes and whatever weather visited us off of Lake Ontario. Power plants don't have floors but elevations, as the elevations are never a standard height. This plant was about 35 "stories" high, but clear span from the top to ground in the cavity, where the boiler would hang. A father-son team of Seneca were sent to the job to bolt-up the structural points. They were from my local. I took the time to climb out on the iron where they were setting up on hanging platforms called "floats." I shook the father's hand and said how glad I was to see them. When I reached to shake the son's hand he offered me his left hand. Puzzled, I asked why? He removed his right glove and his index and middle finger were missing at the second joint....still had stitches!, lost them the week before in NYC on a derrick job. I told Bobby that I had a job for him on the ground hooking onto iron. He demurred. Didn't want to leave dad. Jimmy said it would all be good, so they stayed at the point, about 300 feet up. ironworkers, size 18 necks, size 5 hats.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Mr. Sailer wrote about our relations with Indians:

    http://takimag.com/article/tribal_counsel_steve_sailer#axzz4WyfaR6pZ

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  134. My paternal line 8x great grandfather fought in two Indian wars: King Philips War and King Williams War.

    He was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1705, in the midst of yet another Indian War – Queen Anne’s War.

    That year, the House unanimously passed the “Act for the Better Preventing of a Spurious and Mixt Issue” – the first anti-miscegenation law in New England (although miscegenation had been punished before).

    The law seems to have worked because, according to 23andme, my paternal grandfather, born some 220 years later, was 100 percent genetically British.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    That year, the House unanimously passed the “Act for the Better Preventing of a Spurious and Mixt Issue” – the first anti-miscegenation law in New England (although miscegenation had been punished before).

    The law seems to have worked because, according to 23andme, my paternal grandfather, born some 220 years later, was 100 percent genetically British.
     
    The real factor there is that the sex ratio in colonial New England was quite good. In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, it was nearly 50/50. Hence, English boys didn't have to marry Amerind women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Y’all better get ready for moar Indian Wars:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  136. @HA
    "Horrific torture and depravity for the most part,..."

    But as the book points out, the barbaric lifestyles make for passionate fans.

    In modern times, it is the "care-free" thug-life of gang-banging (99 problems notwithstanding) that is likewise fetishized by the same chumps who in a previous generation might have secretly coveted the life of Geronimo or Blackbeard over and above a lifetime of hardscrabble farming/homesteading and toeing the civic line.

    And yet, in all these cases, these "primitive" Rousseauian lifestyles are actually a product of modernity (made possible by the introduction of the horse, or state-of-the-art naval technology, or the drug-trade).

    Likewise, the ISIS wannabes who similarly long for a war-raiding 7th-century lifestyle depend on modern day inventions like Facebook/Youtube and IED's to make it happen.

    HA, Thank you, nice reply. Maybe we need some Rangers to mount up and take the streets, of let’s say Chicago, back.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. vinny says:

    That was a really fascinating comment though I do think it understates the relationship people in Latin America have with their native peoples. The Mexican flag, for instance, shows the Aztec founding myth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  138. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Buffalo Joe
    HA, I found "Empire of the Summer Moon" last year at our library's book sale and read it in one day, a real page turner. Horrific torture and depravity for the most part, some children and women were kept as captives, sometimes ransomed, sometimes killed.

    The reviews of the book on Amazon are hysterically funny. The SJWs have a virtual meltdown what with all the “racism” in the book. Filter for one star reviews, grab some popcorn and read a few.

    /Big Bill/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    anonymous, I have said this before but once again...on a continent rich in game, small and large,freshwater and saltwater and all the fish and seafood that goes with it, hundred of thousands of acres of grassland and woodland filled with nuts and berries and material for shelter or boat building. Where a five day walk would take you far from some one you didn't like or a longer walk would take you to a different climate, the Indians still found plenty of reasons to torment, harass, kidnap, torture and kill each other. I have a Seneca friend who still refers to Mohawks as "the savages." Indians hating Indians is whatever. Whites pointing out historical fact is racist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Thea says:
    @Wilkey
    One key difference between Latin America and the United States is that people of partial Indian descent are everywhere in Latin America, and that makes the differences in intelligence, work ethic, criminality, etc. (and their genetic basis) far more obvious. That's why denying Indian ancestry in Latin America is more akin to denying black ancestry in the United States. Most (all?) Indian Reservations are out in the boondocks. Most Americans can comfortably ignore the pathetic reality of how so many Indians live today. If there were an Indian Reservation in every major city so that more people witnessed that reality then a lot fewer people would be making bogus claims of Indian ancestry.

    My guess is that a lot of those claims began in the 1950s, with the popularity of movie and television Westerns. Probably not many people today are *inventing* new claims of Indian ancestry so much as repeating the claims that were invented by a family member 60 years ago.

    Yes, by some counts there are less than 2 million Native Americans.

    I used to work with a lot of people from a nearby Rez. They believe in the cult of higher Ed even more than middle class whites. They tell their kids that if only they would get a degree, their problems would be solved.

    Much more pleasant people than AAs for sure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Thea, I know lots of Native Americans and only one who has a professional degree, an attorney. Few follow HS with college, even though it is virtually free for them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. The mere possibility of possessing Amerindian ancestry signifies that you have some European ancestry of long standing in the Americas. The Robbie Robertson exception, as always, may be there too.

    When baby boomer Elizabeth Warren vainly draws attention to her prominent cheekbones by suggesting that she is of Native American ancestry, she is also drawing attention to the fact that her people came by wooden boat under sail power and they probably came in from either the mid-Atlantic colonies or the Southern ones. Warren greedily grabbed some career advancement advantage for herself by claiming some Native American blood ancestry she might not have.

    I used to think there was some Cherokee ancestry on my father’s side. I have seen pictures of my great grandmother. She had prominent cheekbones and forearms like Ted Hendricks, but that doesn’t mean she was part Native American.

    Remember, a significant portion of the American Empire’s ruling class has a very tenuous connection to the historic American nation. They are trying to sell us a fake America, so they can steal the real one. Any and all discussions of American history leaves them out of the loop for the most part.

    They have no ancestors who came from Britain. They have no ancestors who came to America in wooden ships under power of sail. They have no ancestors who settled or pioneered or fought in the American revolution. They are the ones falsely claiming that America is a “proposition nation” instead of an ancestral home for the European Christian people.

    Robbie Robertson Goes Back To Blood. His mother was of the Mohawk tribe. His father was from the tribe currently lodged in the ruling class of the American Empire:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  141. When I was in the Boy Scouts in the 1960s, the elite Scouts were the Order of the Arrow, modeled after Indians. I wonder if this is still true, or whether it’s changed to avoid cultural appropriation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    DH, when I was a kid, scouting was all about being like an Indian. Opps, cultural appropriation.
    , @gospace
    Order of the Arrow is referred to as the Boy Scout's Honor Society. And it's still around.

    Selection is different then for most groups. Prospective members of the Order of the Arrow are selected not by existing members, but by the troop at large from those that are eligible. In my troop it seems the Scouts do a pretty good job of not electing fellow Scouts who IMHO shouldn't be selected.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. I think there is also a conservative/patriotic reason for these claims – that people want to claim as deep a connection to America as possible. Even if you had ancestors who came over as early as 1607 or 1620, they were still latecomers compared to those who had been here thousands of years already. A claim of Indian ancestry gives you roots as deep as Europeans/Asians/Africans have on their continents.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I think there is also a conservative/patriotic reason for these claims – that people want to claim as deep a connection to America as possible.
     
    I’d say it’s a romantic reason rather than conservative/patriotic from a white perspective. Far more quiet cachet for a conservative white to trace ancestry to the Winthrop Fleet than to be part Nipmuc. Such a person would have pride in his or her English roots. After all, what is the significance of America? Its greatness and invention is due to whites, Anglos in particular.

    A claim of Indian ancestry gives you roots as deep as Europeans/Asians/Africans have on their continents.
     
    See Charles Pewitt’s comment above:

    When baby boomer Elizabeth Warren vainly draws attention to her prominent cheekbones by suggesting that she is of Native American ancestry, she is also drawing attention to the fact that her people came by wooden boat under sail power …
     
    , @Cagey Beast
    I think there is also a conservative/patriotic reason for these claims – that people want to claim as deep a connection to America as possible.

    I've thought this too. It probably developed in the century between roughly 1848 and 1948, as pop nationalism rose and fell in Europe. Even the Mexicans had their "cosmic race" myth to keep up with the Jones'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Jefferson says:
    @Sid
    My grandfather (Greatest Generation) had dark hair and skin, loved the outdoors, and went through his genealogy thoroughly. He never found proof he had Native American blood, but loved indulging the possibility.

    “My grandfather (Greatest Generation) had dark hair and skin, loved the outdoors, and went through his genealogy thoroughly. He never found proof he had Native American blood, but loved indulging the possibility.”

    I have dark hair too and no Amerindian DNA popped in my 23AndMe ancestry. Apparently dark hair is not an exclusive Amerindian trait. Apparently I inherited dark brown hair/black hair from a group of people called the Mediterraneans. Has anybody here ever heard of these people?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sid
    My family is NOT Mediterranean. Nary a drop. That's for damn sure.
    , @anon
    Indeed. My father born in Oklahoma (as were his parents) had jet black hair and a dark complexion (like his parents). His mother swore they were Black Irish. He claimed BS they were Indian and passing. Had a DNA test. Italian and Basque.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Sean says:

    So the American Indian earned respect and a place in our history that he does not have …

    Telling that ‘he”. I think it is similar to the way British eulogised Zulus as “models of manly beauty’… The physique of the men’,..‘is the perfection of manly strength and symmetry. Tall, muscular and well-knit … they irresistibly recall the sculptured attitudes of athlete”. But of course the Indian women, not regarded as the acme of feminine pulchritude, were the ones through who Americans inherited Indian ancestry. To me, many Americans who don’t claim it, look native American influenced. Sarah Palin for example.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "To me, many Americans who don’t claim it, look native American influenced. Sarah Palin for example."

    Sarah Palin doesn't look Native American influenced at all. She doesn't racially look like any of the women who work at the nearest local McDonald's from me, who all have Native American influenced phenotypes. The only difference is their Indigenous ancestry is from South of the border. But they are still all part of the Indigenous Americas.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @James Richard
    LCdr. Ernest E. Evans' posthumous Medal of Honor citation:

    For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as commanding officer of the U.S.S. Johnston in action against major units of the enemy Japanese fleet during the battle off Samar on 25 October 1944. The first to lay a smokescreen and to open fire as an enemy task force, vastly superior in number, firepower and armor, rapidly approached. Comdr. Evans gallantly diverted the powerful blasts of hostile guns from the lightly armed and armored carriers under his protection, launching the first torpedo attack when the Johnston came under straddling Japanese shellfire. Undaunted by damage sustained under the terrific volume of fire, he unhesitatingly joined others of his group to provide fire support during subsequent torpedo attacks against the Japanese and, outshooting and outmaneuvering the enemy as he consistently interposed his vessel between the hostile fleet units and our carriers despite the crippling loss of engine power and communications with steering aft, shifted command to the fantail, shouted steering orders through an open hatch to men turning the rudder by hand and battled furiously until the Johnston, burning and shuddering from a mortal blow, lay dead in the water after 3 hours of fierce combat. Seriously wounded early in the engagement, Comdr. Evans, by his indomitable courage and brilliant professional skill, aided materially in turning back the enemy during a critical phase of the action. His valiant fighting spirit throughout this historic battle will venture as an inspiration to all who served with him.
     

    I wrote a term paper in 8th grade that ended with the Battle off Samar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Richard
    Some of my colleague in arms in Vietnam were Indians. They didn't lack for bad-assedness in that war either.
    , @Frau Katze
    Please read my comment about the bug that exists at least for iPad. It's near the bottom.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. syonredux says:
    @George
    "the American Indian earned respect and a place in our history "

    Read Francis Parkman's Oregon Trail, or watch 'The Duke' in the movie The Searchers. So I don't think so. I do think Indian veneration goes in and out of fashion. Once most traces of Indian culture were eliminated from New England you start seeing them appear in artwork and poems. Veneration of American Indians coincides with the empty lands they once occupied being filled with European immigrants, so there might be some regrets there.

    The Song of Hiawatha
    http://www.hwlongfellow.org/poems_poem.php?pid=283

    Last of the Mohicans ect

    After WWII you do see the US military naming weapons after American Indians, oddly without modern complaints about cultural appropriation, or even misuse of trademarks. Anybody ever get written permission from the Apache to use their branding? Maybe using their name on weapons is the ultimate symbol of defeat? Sort of like wearing a necklace made of their bones.

    Tecumseh was actually respected by at least his elite contemporaries on the white side of the Indian wars. Are there any prominent American's today with American Indian names? Geronimo Herbert Walker Bush, I don't think so? Elite Whites name their kids Brooklyn not Seattle. Tecumseh actually does pull off almost inconceivable counterattack against American expansion.

    As far as Spanish go. It isn't clear whites ever really tamed the local cultures, they just assimilated into it. Sort of like the way the Visigoths take over the Iberian peninsula and assimilate into the culture. If I remember right at times Mexican elites chose to overplay their ancient roots, having portraits made of them as Aztec grandees.

    Indian Country

    So much of US military culture is from early motion picture history it is hard to tell where a phrase might come from. Wikipedia suggests Indian Country starts as a British colonial legalism. The King grants you property from ____ to the start of Indian Country.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_country

    “the American Indian earned respect and a place in our history ”

    Read Francis Parkman’s Oregon Trail, or watch ‘The Duke’ in the movie The Searchers. So I don’t think so.

    Dunno about The Searchers, as Wayne is playing a deeply ambiguous character. Note how he functions as a kind of mirror image of the Amerinds that he fights. For example, he scalps an Indian, lives on the margins of civilization, and is a member of a defeated “nation” (the Confederacy) who refuses to surrender. Heck, it’s even implied that he has slept with Amerind women. When he questions the Indian chief Scar as to how he learned to speak “American,” Scar responds by asking how Wayne learned such good Comanche (Wayne knows that Scar’s command of English comes from having a White wife).

    And John Ford often displayed great sympathy and respect for Amerinds. In Fort Apache, they are depicted as worthy adversaries, and Fonda’s colonel dies because he badly underestimated them.And the Indian war in the film is blamed on the actions of a corrupt Indian agent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. syonredux says:
    @Millennial
    My paternal line 8x great grandfather fought in two Indian wars: King Philips War and King Williams War.

    He was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1705, in the midst of yet another Indian War - Queen Anne's War.

    That year, the House unanimously passed the "Act for the Better Preventing of a Spurious and Mixt Issue" - the first anti-miscegenation law in New England (although miscegenation had been punished before).

    The law seems to have worked because, according to 23andme, my paternal grandfather, born some 220 years later, was 100 percent genetically British.

    That year, the House unanimously passed the “Act for the Better Preventing of a Spurious and Mixt Issue” – the first anti-miscegenation law in New England (although miscegenation had been punished before).

    The law seems to have worked because, according to 23andme, my paternal grandfather, born some 220 years later, was 100 percent genetically British.

    The real factor there is that the sex ratio in colonial New England was quite good. In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, it was nearly 50/50. Hence, English boys didn’t have to marry Amerind women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Jefferson says:
    @geronimo.pratt.and.whitney
    "Even if many “white” and “black” Americans are wrong in claiming Indian ancestry, many are right, even if they have no certificates of tribal membership or whatever."

    From what I have seen at 23andme, the vast majority of African Americans have at least small percentage of Indian blood, which is interesting because they seem a lot less likely to claim it than whites, who have much less evidence of it.

    “From what I have seen at 23andme, the vast majority of African Americans have at least small percentage of Indian blood, which is interesting because they seem a lot less likely to claim it than whites, who have much less evidence of it.”

    If that were true why did the vast majority of African American celebrities who went on Henry Louis Gates end up showing no Native American blood in their DNA ancestry. It was so funny watching the disappointed looks on their African American faces when they found out they actually have White ancestry and not Cherokee ancestry like their family members claimed they have.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Richard
    Dionne Warwick and Angela Bassett don't have the look they do because some of their ancestors were Welsh! LOL
    , @geronimo.pratt.and.whitney
    "If that were true why did the vast majority of African American celebrities who went on Henry Louis Gates end up showing no Native American blood in their DNA ancestry. "

    I've never seen that show. I've seen a good number of African American ancestry breakdowns at 23andme and almost all of them show at least a small percentage of Native. What test do they use on Gates' show?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Svigor

    Then there was the disastrous Navaraez expedition into northern Florida in 1527 with 600 soldiers, where the Spanish crossbows were no match for the Indians 7-foot long bows, as thick as a man’s arm, that could penetrate six inches of wood at 200 yards. Only four Spaniards survived the catastrophe.
     
    This is what I call an unreliable report. 9mm ball won't penetrate even 1" of wood at point blank range (it basically penetrates the bark of a pine tree, then bounces off the wood, leaving an unimpressive dent). I doubt 5.56 or 7.62 ball would penetrate 6" of wood. No way in Hell I'm believing an arrow fired by a bow wielded by a human going to penetrate 6" of wood without proof, or a seriously gamed definition of "wood."

    Whoever made that claim was probably lobbying for money.

    Heh. There are serious discrepancies between that claim and the notoriously propagandistic Wikipedia’s account:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narv%C3%A1ez_expedition

    Of course, Wikipedia could be lying and have left out the bit about English long bows in Florida.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANON
    Thanks for the "Wikipedia could be lying" thing. As this forum devolves into a back-and-forth of Wikipedia and YouTube citations, we'd do well to remember who's behind the scenes at those places, not to mention the infamous Hillary Clinton Editing Marathons.

    Try editing something in your own area of expertise, with appropriate citations of course. If you veer even slightly away from the Narrative, your edits will be "reverted" by an editor within 24 hours.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Jefferson says:
    @Wilkey
    One key difference between Latin America and the United States is that people of partial Indian descent are everywhere in Latin America, and that makes the differences in intelligence, work ethic, criminality, etc. (and their genetic basis) far more obvious. That's why denying Indian ancestry in Latin America is more akin to denying black ancestry in the United States. Most (all?) Indian Reservations are out in the boondocks. Most Americans can comfortably ignore the pathetic reality of how so many Indians live today. If there were an Indian Reservation in every major city so that more people witnessed that reality then a lot fewer people would be making bogus claims of Indian ancestry.

    My guess is that a lot of those claims began in the 1950s, with the popularity of movie and television Westerns. Probably not many people today are *inventing* new claims of Indian ancestry so much as repeating the claims that were invented by a family member 60 years ago.

    “One key difference between Latin America and the United States is that people of partial Indian descent are everywhere in Latin America, and that makes the differences in intelligence, work ethic, criminality, etc. (and their genetic basis) far more obvious.”

    How many White Americans would want to claim to be part Amerindian if Non Hispanic Native Americans had a crime rate similar to the Indios in Mexico and Central America?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. syonredux says:
    @prole
    In Chile, the hunter-gather tribes were never completely defeated by the Spanish, continued to battle against Chileans until 1900. The Indian population of Chile was 1.5 million in 1500...750,000 by 1900 (not counting mestizos)..the entire pop of Chile was just under 3 million in 1900, when the US pop was 76 million with less than 500,000 Indians. If America had 20 million Indians in 1900 we would not have considered them with reverance..

    In 1500, in what is now the U.S. , the Indian pop was just about 3 million. By 1700 whites outnumbered Indians..less than 250,000 Indians lived the area of the 13 colonies when the English landed at Plymouth Rock....While in Mexico the Indian pop was closer to 25 million...

    The reason Americans have exalted Indians since 1900, they were always so rare and exotic in the United States...in Latin America they were abundant, poor, and thus not an seen as an exotic, heroic race.

    In 1500, in what is now the U.S. , the Indian pop was just about 3 million. By 1700 whites outnumbered Indians..less than 250,000 Indians lived the area of the 13 colonies when the English landed at Plymouth Rock….While in Mexico the Indian pop was closer to 25 million…

    Some estimates:

    Coe, Snow and Benson, Atlas of Ancient America (1986)
    Total pre-Columbian population: 40M
    Mexico: Original population of 11M to 25M (“lower figure commands more support”) fell to 1.25M (1625)
    Peru: Pop. fell from 9M (1533) to >500,000 (early 17th C)
    Brazil: Original population of 2.5M to 5.0M (“recent commentators favoring the higher”) fell to 1M

    Massimo Livi-Bacci, Concise History of World Population History 2d (1996)
    Mexico: Population fell from 6.3M (1548) to 1.9M (1580) to 1M (1605)
    Peru: Pop. fell from 1.3M (1572) to 600,000 (1620)
    Canada: from 300,000 (ca. 1600) to < 100,000 (ca. 1800)
    USA: from 5M (1500) to 600,000 (ca. 1800)

    Skidmore & Smith, Modern Latin America (1997)
    Mexico: Population fell from 25M (1519) to 16.8M (1523) to 1.9M (1580) to 1M (1605)
    Peru: from 1.3M (1570, forty years after Conquest) to <600,000 (1620)

    United States, eradication of the American Indians (1775-1890) 350,000
    Russel Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival (1987)
    Overall decline
    From 600,000 (in 1800) to 250,000 (in 1890s)
    Indian Wars, from a 1894 report by US Census, cited by Thornton. Includes men, woman and children killed, 1775-1890:
    Individual conflicts:
    Whites: 5,000
    Indians: 8,500
    Wars under the gov’t:
    Whites: 14,000
    Indians: 30-45,000
    TOTAL:
    Whites: 19,000
    Indians: 38,500 to 53,500

    For comparison, here’s Australia:

    Australia (1788-1921) 240,000
    Mark Cocker, Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold (1998)
    Australian mainland
    Ongoing frontier war: 2,000-2,500 whites and 20,000 Aborignies KIA (“best guess”, probably higher)
    General population decline: from 1M (1788) to 50,000 (ca. 1890) to 30,000 (1920s)
    Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee (1993)
    Decline of the Aborigines
    From 300,000 (in 1788) to 60,000 (in 1921)
    Extermination of the Tasmanians
    From 5,000 (in 1800) to 200 (in 1830) to 3 (in 1869) to none (1877)
    Clodfelter: 2,500 Eur. and 20,000 Aborigines k. in wars, 1840-1901
    Bill Bryson, In a Sunburned Country (2001): 20,000 Aborigines intentionally killed by whites.

    And New Zealand:

    New Zealand (1800s) 200,000
    Mark Cocker, Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold (1998)
    Maori pop: 240,000 (pre-contact) to 40,000 (1896)
    Clodfelter, Maori War (1860-72)
    UK, NZ: 700 k.
    Maori: 2,000

    Read More
    • Replies: @Perspective
    Given the fact that Canada and the US combined had anywhere from 5 to 7 million Amerindians before contact (some high count estimates go up to 18 million), it would seem reasonable to describe this part of the continent as mostly empty. By comparison, the much smaller British Isles already had approx. 5 million people, France 15 million and the Iberian peninsula 8.5 million. While Europeans unintentionally (mostly, anyway) introduced old world diseases that devastated Amerindian populations, it was the Mongols who appeared to have intentionally spread the Bubonic Plague to Europeans at Crimea
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Sid says:
    @Jefferson
    "My grandfather (Greatest Generation) had dark hair and skin, loved the outdoors, and went through his genealogy thoroughly. He never found proof he had Native American blood, but loved indulging the possibility."

    I have dark hair too and no Amerindian DNA popped in my 23AndMe ancestry. Apparently dark hair is not an exclusive Amerindian trait. Apparently I inherited dark brown hair/black hair from a group of people called the Mediterraneans. Has anybody here ever heard of these people?

    My family is NOT Mediterranean. Nary a drop. That’s for damn sure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Steve Sailer
    I wrote a term paper in 8th grade that ended with the Battle off Samar.

    Some of my colleague in arms in Vietnam were Indians. They didn’t lack for bad-assedness in that war either.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. syonredux says:
    @antipater_1
    Fort Apache is a terrific old movie. Henry Fonda steals the show as the humorless half crazy military officer.

    Gentlemen! I am not a martinet! As he proceeds to be a martinet.

    Fort Apache is a terrific old movie. Henry Fonda steals the show as the humorless half crazy military officer.

    Gentlemen! I am not a martinet! As he proceeds to be a martinet.

    Of the films in Ford’s Cavalry Trilogy (Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Rio Grande), it’s my favorite.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Thea says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    OT: Apparently Richard Spencer’s membership in an Alexandria gym was revoked (no reason given) after deranged Georgetown professor (((Christine Fair))) confronted him in the gym for being “a hateful, white supremacist who has no place in this century..much less our gym,” among other things.

    So, iSteve legal experts, wots the deal? Can a public accommodation be held legally liable for discrimination on the basis of a customer’s (non-venue expressed) political beliefs?

    On a superficial level, Spencer is rather attractive and she is not. I wonder how angry that makes her remember the alpha pump and dumps of her youth.

    Or perhaps she has a very bitter divorce in her past.

    Antidepressant meds can do terrible things to a person.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Jefferson says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    It’s interesting that no white would proudly say (well, until very recently) that he was part black, certainly if he actually had no black blood. If he did have black ancestors it would be something to be ashamed of and hidden. No old-stock Californian would boast that he was part Chinese — again, especially if he actually had no Chinese ancestry.
     
    Yeah, but this has more to do with race than history & culture. Many Indians (feathers) are not so racially distinct from whites in comparison with east Asians (not to speak of blacks/Africans ...). Black ancestry is a taint, while Injun ... not so.

    “Yeah, but this has more to do with race than history & culture. Many Indians (feathers) are not so racially distinct from whites in comparison with east Asians”

    Amerindians are genetically racially closer to East Asians and Southeast Asians than they are to Whites. Hence why there is sometimes phenotype overlap between Amerindians and Asians but zero phenotype overlap between Amerindians and Whites. I have seen Amazonian Amerindians for example who look like they can pass for Cambodians and Filipinos.

    “Black ancestry is a taint, while Injun … not so.”

    Injun is seen as a racial taint among White nationalists, hence why the White nationalist movement has a no Amerindians and no Mestizos allowed policy. In the White nationalist movement a part Injun White person is an oxymoron.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Hence why there is sometimes phenotype overlap between Amerindians and Asians but zero phenotype overlap between Amerindians and Whites.
     
    I wouldn't say zero. Someone who is a quarter East Asian or Amerind and 75% European generally looks far more European than someone who is 25% Black and 75% European.

    “Black ancestry is a taint, while Injun … not so.”

    Injun is seen as a racial taint among White nationalists, hence why the White nationalist movement has a no Amerindians and no Mestizos allowed policy. In the White nationalist movement a part Injun White person is an oxymoron.
     
    Dunno. I've talked to White nationalists who freely admit to having Amerind ancestry. Of course, we are talking low levels (under 25%)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Chris Mallory
    The Comanche in Texas were a major threat up into the 1870's.

    The Comanche in Texas were a major threat up into the 1870′s.

    Only to isolated families and small settlements. There were only a few thousand Comanches in 1870 compared to over 800,000 Americans living in Texas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    The Comanche in Texas were a major threat up into the 1870′s.

    Only to isolated families and small settlements. There were only a few thousand Comanches in 1870 compared to over 800,000 Americans living in Texas.

     

    Their high-water mark was the Civil War.While the Texas Rangers and the US cavalry were otherwise occupied, the Comanches pushed back the frontier about 100 miles
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. syonredux says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy
    I read that the Indian uprising known as King Philip's War was particularly lethal, with something like 10 percent of the white population of Rhode Island dying.

    I read that the Indian uprising known as King Philip’s War was particularly lethal, with something like 10 percent of the white population of Rhode Island dying.

    King Philip’s War

    The war was the single greatest calamity to occur in seventeenth century Puritan New England and is considered by many to be the deadliest war in the history of European settlement in North America in proportion to the population.[5] In the space of little more than a year, twelve of the region’s towns were destroyed and many more damaged, the colony’s economy was all but ruined, and its population was decimated, losing one-tenth of all men available for military service.[6]:656 [7] More than half of New England’s towns were attacked by Indians.

    The war in southern New England largely ended with Metacomet’s death. More than 1,000 colonists and 3,000 Indians had died.[1] More than half of all New England villages were attacked by Indian warriors, and many were completely destroyed

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Philip%27s_War

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. guest says:
    @Randal
    This idea of a grudging (and becoming less grudging over time as actual threat recedes) respect for a competent defeated adversary is a commonplace, I think, at least of European culture if not of human nature in general. It was formalised in the British Empire with the notion of "martial races", in India and later less systematically in Africa.

    For great examples of the kind of thinking and attitudes involved, I think the Flashman books of George MacDonald Fraser would serve well.

    It signifies in reality, I think, an enemy who fights well and hard, yes, but also who is not really any great existential threat. The latter groups are more likely to be hated, despised and suppressed without any such pretence of respect. Modern theorists regard the martial race concept in India, in its application, as a tool for suppressing the real threats to British rule - the bulk of the Indian peoples - by using more marginal groups for the military.

    lots of white Americans, as you say, claim Indian ancestry even when they don’t have it
     
    Interesting that there are two concrete examples already in the comments here of such claims being refuted by modern genetic testing. I suspect that is likely to be a common occurrence as genetic testing becomes more commonplace.

    The first “great book” of Western Civilization, the Iliad, is a perfect example of this. The Greeks don’t come off very well. Achilles is a tantrum-thrower, Agamemnon is a selfish creep, Odysseus is a snake, Menelaus is a cad, Helen is the bitch that started it all.

    Except for Paris, who comes off as a pussy, the Trojans are all noble and respectable. Hector is truly heroic, Priam and Andromache are sympathetic, Aeneas is brave.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    The first “great book” of Western Civilization, the Iliad, is a perfect example of this. The Greeks don’t come off very well. Achilles is a tantrum-thrower, Agamemnon is a selfish creep, Odysseus is a snake, Menelaus is a cad, Helen is the bitch that started it all.

    Except for Paris, who comes off as a pussy, the Trojans are all noble and respectable. Hector is truly heroic, Priam and Andromache are sympathetic, Aeneas is brave.
     
    Achilles does get good character development, though. Note how he goes from desecrating the corpse of Hector to showing mercy on Priam when he comes to plead for his son's body.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @for-the-record

    Plenty of stuff around here is named after Indian words too (e.g., Manhattan, Hackensack). That’s another sign of respect for Indians.
     
    Has anybody mentioned state names? Around half are of "native American" origin, if I recall corectly (plus Indiana!).

    Good point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @oh its just me too

    – Indian-named U.S. military equipment, such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.
     
    I wonder when the US army is going to be accused of cultural appropriation - like our sports teams have.

    my favorite though is the fact that on army unit (The rangers?) still carry tactical tomahawks, despite expert insistence there are more useful weapons.

    despite expert insistence there are more useful weapons.

    But perhaps none quite so satisfying to bury into a target at 20 paces.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Jefferson
    "From what I have seen at 23andme, the vast majority of African Americans have at least small percentage of Indian blood, which is interesting because they seem a lot less likely to claim it than whites, who have much less evidence of it."

    If that were true why did the vast majority of African American celebrities who went on Henry Louis Gates end up showing no Native American blood in their DNA ancestry. It was so funny watching the disappointed looks on their African American faces when they found out they actually have White ancestry and not Cherokee ancestry like their family members claimed they have.

    Dionne Warwick and Angela Bassett don’t have the look they do because some of their ancestors were Welsh! LOL

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. guest says:
    @HA
    "There is general recognition of the fighting spirit of the Red Man."

    Raiders -- be they pirates or Comanches -- were commonly fetishized by landlocked homesteaders. The hunter/gatherer lifestyle of some tribes was in many ways an improvement over the endless drudgery of sodbusting and sharecropping (at least until the buffalo was exterminated).

    That old anthropology chestnut about how the adoption of agriculture was a colossal mistake would not have seemed shocking to a settler gazing up from his plow to see raiding Comanche come and go. And as Gwynne pointed out in Empire of the Summer Moon, children kidnapped by Comanche tribes (even those who had seen their family members brutally murdered) fell deeply into Stockholm syndrome, so that even when they were "rescued", they longed to return to life on the plains, whereas adopted/kidnapped Native American children often had a rougher time in adapting to the white man's ways.

    (That being said, as Gwynne's book makes clear, it was actually the introduction of the white man's technology -- specifically, the superweapon more commonly referred to as the "horse" -- that transformed the Comanche from a tribe of runts kicked around by most everyone else, into the Mongols of the plains, who dispensed havoc not just to white men, but other tribes. As for Geronimo, his Apache tribe originated in Canada. It was the horse that allowed them to migrate into the Texas panhandle, and then the horse-obsessed Comanche that chased them out from the panhandle into New Mexico.)

    That anthropological chestnut link was funny. In the comment section, one poster gets caught up on the need to call Eskimos “Inuits.” Another poster reminds them that the article wasn’t written in the Current Year. Back in ’87, “Eskimo” was PC.

    This is the intellectual level at which they’re operating.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Jefferson says:
    @The Alarmist
    Steve tried to put me straight on this once in the past, but I remain convinced that Elizabeth Warren is 1/24th Indian. Ponder the possibility.

    “Steve tried to put me straight on this once in the past, but I remain convinced that Elizabeth Warren is 1/24th Indian. Ponder the possibility.”

    If Elizabeth Warren had the blood of Pocahontas pumping through her heart she would have had a press conference and released her DNA ancestry in order to say F you to Donald J. Trump and the rest of the Conservatives on Fox News, The Drudge Report, Breitbart, Compound Media, The Rebel, Talk Radio, etc who all call her a Transracial fake Native American.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. guest says:
    @George
    "the American Indian earned respect and a place in our history "

    Read Francis Parkman's Oregon Trail, or watch 'The Duke' in the movie The Searchers. So I don't think so. I do think Indian veneration goes in and out of fashion. Once most traces of Indian culture were eliminated from New England you start seeing them appear in artwork and poems. Veneration of American Indians coincides with the empty lands they once occupied being filled with European immigrants, so there might be some regrets there.

    The Song of Hiawatha
    http://www.hwlongfellow.org/poems_poem.php?pid=283

    Last of the Mohicans ect

    After WWII you do see the US military naming weapons after American Indians, oddly without modern complaints about cultural appropriation, or even misuse of trademarks. Anybody ever get written permission from the Apache to use their branding? Maybe using their name on weapons is the ultimate symbol of defeat? Sort of like wearing a necklace made of their bones.

    Tecumseh was actually respected by at least his elite contemporaries on the white side of the Indian wars. Are there any prominent American's today with American Indian names? Geronimo Herbert Walker Bush, I don't think so? Elite Whites name their kids Brooklyn not Seattle. Tecumseh actually does pull off almost inconceivable counterattack against American expansion.

    As far as Spanish go. It isn't clear whites ever really tamed the local cultures, they just assimilated into it. Sort of like the way the Visigoths take over the Iberian peninsula and assimilate into the culture. If I remember right at times Mexican elites chose to overplay their ancient roots, having portraits made of them as Aztec grandees.

    Indian Country

    So much of US military culture is from early motion picture history it is hard to tell where a phrase might come from. Wikipedia suggests Indian Country starts as a British colonial legalism. The King grants you property from ____ to the start of Indian Country.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_country

    The Searchers is a bad example. There’s a reason that once in particular, is a favorite of the liberal movie Establishment. Wayne is kind of a psycho and though he comes off much better than the villain, Scar, he’s a sort anti-hero at best. At least until the end, when he picks up Natalie Wood and carries her away, after the movie played with expectations by making you think he might have killed her.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    The Searchers is a bad example. There’s a reason that once in particular, is a favorite of the liberal movie Establishment. Wayne is kind of a psycho and though he comes off much better than the villain, Scar, he’s a sort anti-hero at best. At least until the end, when he picks up Natalie Wood and carries her away, after the movie played with expectations by making you think he might have killed her.
     
    Yeah, as I noted upthread, Wayne plays a deeply ambiguous character in The Searchers. Note how he functions as a kind of mirror image of the Amerinds that he fights. For example, he scalps an Indian, lives on the margins of civilization, and is a member of a defeated “nation” (the Confederacy) who refuses to surrender. Heck, it’s even implied that he has slept with Amerind women. When he questions the Indian chief Scar as to how he learned to speak “American,” Scar responds by asking how Wayne learned such good Comanche (Wayne knows that Scar’s command of English comes from having a White wife).

    And John Ford often displayed great sympathy and respect for Amerinds. In Fort Apache, they are depicted as worthy adversaries, and Fonda’s colonel dies because he badly underestimated them.And the Indian war in the film is blamed on the actions of a corrupt Indian agent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. syonredux says:
    @Pincher Martin

    The Comanche in Texas were a major threat up into the 1870′s.
     
    Only to isolated families and small settlements. There were only a few thousand Comanches in 1870 compared to over 800,000 Americans living in Texas.

    The Comanche in Texas were a major threat up into the 1870′s.

    Only to isolated families and small settlements. There were only a few thousand Comanches in 1870 compared to over 800,000 Americans living in Texas.

    Their high-water mark was the Civil War.While the Texas Rangers and the US cavalry were otherwise occupied, the Comanches pushed back the frontier about 100 miles

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Jefferson says:

    If you are not often mistaken for Mexican or Filipino, you are not really Native American. Asian and Hispanic are the 2 most common ethnicities Non Hispanic Native Americans are mistaken for when they leave the reservations for life in the big cities like Los Angeles, New York City, Dallas, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Chicago, Boston, Phoenix, San Diego, Houston, Washington Dc, etc.

    Elizabeth Warren looks like she came straight out of Denmark. She looks neither Hispanic nor Asian, so she is not Native American.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  168. “…the Indians (sic) 7-foot long bows, as thick as a man’s arm, that could penetrate six inches of wood at 200 yards…”
    Of course this means to say that arrows loosed from such bows “could penetrate six inches of wood at 200 yards” but IMHO such a claim is not credible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  169. syonredux says:
    @Autochthon
    Your mom's story lacks internal coherence. Southern belles came of the tidewater plantations, of English provenance (not for nothing is the University of Virginia's mascot the cavalier...). These families staked out the fertile, productive, and (by the time civilian settlement began in earnest) relatively safe tidewater for their plantations and lived in related cities (Charleston, Savannah, etc.).

    The Scots-Irish generally arrived a little later and got the same welcome they had from the English for not being Anglican and from the Irish for not being Catholic: "Get on up to thr piedmont and the mountains where the lands are less productive and the Indians keep killing people; we're full up around here."

    These were the people who continued most of the fighting with Indians in Appalachia, its foothills, the Cumberland Plateau, etc. (until finally one of them, Jackson, pretty much fed up with the problems and having fairly decisively defeated them militarily, decided to relocate them en masse for their own good and Americans'). It was the proximity and interaction in those parts and times that led to occassional interbreeding. Even then, though, it was much rarer than is now popularly imagined, as everyone here notes.

    (Maybe your mom or you use the term "southern belle" a bit more loosely to simply mean she was a southern woman and not precisely from old money.)

    When the Scots-Irish arrived in Pennsylvania, James Logan made a point of settling them on the Western frontier of the colony, where their warlike ways could be put to good use fighting Amerinds (Albion’s Seed, 633).Things were quite similar in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.The Puritan English strongly encouraged the Ulster folk to leave Boston and settle elsewhere (cf, for example, the aptly named Londonderry, NH).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    these genetic tests do not work that well in detecting indian ancestry below 25 percent–here is a quote from one of the many websites discussing this topic: “These tests are great at detecting ancestry over 25% ”

    Now, most americans who do have some small bit of native american ancestry (such as me–I have seen a photo of my indian ancestor) have indian ancestors that lived in the 1800s or 1700s….so these small percentages –maybe 1 to 6 percent–are not usually showing up in the dna tests…that happens to be a much smaller percentage than 25% …so, no, these dna testing companies do not do a good job of detecting small percentages of certain ancestries.

    Futhermore, research will show you that distant racial heritage can just disappear from the test results. So, you can have indian ancestors from the 1700s and even 1800s and that will not show up on the test. Doesn’t mean you don’t have that ancestry. Again, the media is on one side of this issue. Guess which side.

    These dna testing companies are dependent on media publicity and so are quite politically correct….if you do a little research on this topic–and not just depend on what is written in the media–you will find out that these genetic tests sold to the public are based on a rubric designed by a panel of ‘experts’….politically correct experts…now, maybe you are already aware of this, but if these tests were to show that a large percentage of white americans had indian blood, that might upset The Narrative. I imagine you might be able to see that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Richard

    genetic tests do not work that well in detecting indian ancestry below 25 percent
     
    Bullshit.
    , @Millennial
    My 23andme test could detect .3 percent Finnish and 1.9 or so percent Broadly Southern European. Those were the most exotic results; everything else was NW Euro.

    The PC Narrative is better served by convincing whites that they are all partially African, Indian, etc, not by covering up admixture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @prole
    In Chile, the hunter-gather tribes were never completely defeated by the Spanish, continued to battle against Chileans until 1900. The Indian population of Chile was 1.5 million in 1500...750,000 by 1900 (not counting mestizos)..the entire pop of Chile was just under 3 million in 1900, when the US pop was 76 million with less than 500,000 Indians. If America had 20 million Indians in 1900 we would not have considered them with reverance..

    In 1500, in what is now the U.S. , the Indian pop was just about 3 million. By 1700 whites outnumbered Indians..less than 250,000 Indians lived the area of the 13 colonies when the English landed at Plymouth Rock....While in Mexico the Indian pop was closer to 25 million...

    The reason Americans have exalted Indians since 1900, they were always so rare and exotic in the United States...in Latin America they were abundant, poor, and thus not an seen as an exotic, heroic race.

    I read somewhere that in the US, the Indians were idealized on the East Coast after they had disappeared. On the frontier, where they were still to be found, they were considered dangerous vermin to be eradicated. Incidentally, that was the view of Indians on the East Coast, too, until they disappeared… It’s always easy to idealize something you never meet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    I call this the "Thoreau Effect"- wandering placidly in nature that has been recently cleared of the indigenous, as well as carnivores like wolves, cougars, and bear- and contemplating melancholic regrets.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. syonredux says:
    @guest
    The Searchers is a bad example. There's a reason that once in particular, is a favorite of the liberal movie Establishment. Wayne is kind of a psycho and though he comes off much better than the villain, Scar, he's a sort anti-hero at best. At least until the end, when he picks up Natalie Wood and carries her away, after the movie played with expectations by making you think he might have killed her.

    The Searchers is a bad example. There’s a reason that once in particular, is a favorite of the liberal movie Establishment. Wayne is kind of a psycho and though he comes off much better than the villain, Scar, he’s a sort anti-hero at best. At least until the end, when he picks up Natalie Wood and carries her away, after the movie played with expectations by making you think he might have killed her.

    Yeah, as I noted upthread, Wayne plays a deeply ambiguous character in The Searchers. Note how he functions as a kind of mirror image of the Amerinds that he fights. For example, he scalps an Indian, lives on the margins of civilization, and is a member of a defeated “nation” (the Confederacy) who refuses to surrender. Heck, it’s even implied that he has slept with Amerind women. When he questions the Indian chief Scar as to how he learned to speak “American,” Scar responds by asking how Wayne learned such good Comanche (Wayne knows that Scar’s command of English comes from having a White wife).

    And John Ford often displayed great sympathy and respect for Amerinds. In Fort Apache, they are depicted as worthy adversaries, and Fonda’s colonel dies because he badly underestimated them.And the Indian war in the film is blamed on the actions of a corrupt Indian agent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Bill B. says:
    @Otto the P
    A footnote to the excellent post: one reason (clearly not the only) for the Indian success against the white man from 1784 through Custer's slaughter was our old friend, the Second Amendment. A whole batch of westerns were made ("Man from Laramie" probably the best) that villified the "gun runner" who sold Winchesters to the braves. Well, yes, maybe, but on the other hand the braves were frequently better armed than the cavalrymen with repeaters; then as now, firepower rules. All the mythic resonance of the brave and the society that spawned him is directly related to the fact that, unlike the African braves, he had maximum guns, and we did not. The wonderful heritage of the red dog soldier is one benefit to 2A that liberals should love.
    Finally, it's got to happen sooner or later, but I keep waiting for a revisionist "pro gun-runner" western to arrive to hosannas from the elite press.

    “African braves” are not in fact very good at fighting modern or quasi-modern battles.

    (With one astonishing Zulu success.)

    Western armies in Africa are almost invariably successful in short term operations. EG the British army in Sierra Leone in 2000.

    On the other hand the red Indians have been outstandingly good at guerrilla and small group warfare. That is why they are overrepresented in the SEALs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Anonymous

    I see no reason to insist that it is absurd for her to claim to be 1/32 Indian
     
    Of course it is absurd. Consider this: 1/32 equates to about as much ancestry as the amount of Neanderthal ancestry in most Europeans. Neanderthals died off 30,000 years ago.

    Yet that small admixture is brought up as evidence for HBD often in comments on this site.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Nick Diaz says:

    No, the reality is that Anglo-Saxons were far less effective than Spaniards at crushing the Amerindians. Anglo-Saxons are pétit-bourgeoise people who excel as tradesman and to some degree as craftsmen. They are not warriors and win wars mostly with superior resource capacity and technology. Even compared to other European peoples, all civilized, Anglo-Saxons do not excel as warriors. During WWII, for instance, the German despite being outnumbered almost 3 to 1 and with the Wehrmacht in serious disarray, still pushed the Americans back during the Ardennes offensive.

    The fact is that Cortez, De Soto, etc, with a few hundred men crushed and conquered not one but two continents, bringing down several civilizations with them. I don’t think the Apaches and Sioux were more vicious and war-like than the Aztecs and Mayas, with their human heart-eating customs. In fact, the Incas of South America had a highly organized military with far superior military technology than the indians of North America, and the Spaniards still crushed them.

    The fact is that Spanish conquest of South and Central Americas was the single greatest display of manliness in the history of the Earth, even greater than Genghis Khan’s. Because Genghis Khan had an enormous army with hundreds of thousands of men. It was also greater than what the Romans accomplished because the numbers also enjoyed numerical parity with their opponents and took several centuries to build their empire; The Spaniards did it in a cuple of generations.

    Here is a BBC documentary on the “Conquistadores” and their unparalleled achievement:

    Anglo-Saxons excel as traders, merchants and crafstmen. They are not warriors. It’s just not their strength.

    Now, I know what many of you wil reply, that the British Empire ended up being larger than Spain’s and that makes me wrong. The difference is that the British conquered their empire when they had huge technological and resource superiority over their opponents. That is not the same as a few hundred men bringing down entire civilizations.

    Read More
    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @James Richard

    Anglo-Saxons do not excel as warriors. During WWII, for instance, the German despite being outnumbered almost 3 to 1 and with the Wehrmacht in serious disarray, still pushed the Americans back during the Ardennes offensive.
     
    Not outnumbered 3 to 1 at the point of their attack and the push lasted only a few weeks and resulted in high German casualties and the abandonment of their equipment. If anything it hastened the Allied occupation of the Ruhr.
    , @Anonymous
    "Now, I know what many of you wil reply, that the British Empire ended up being larger than Spain’s and that makes me wrong. The difference is that the British conquered their empire when they had huge technological and resource superiority over their opponents. That is not the same as a few hundred men bringing down entire civilizations."

    History would suggest your views of Anglo meakness compared to the Spanish, are way off-base. The Spanish (and Mexicans ruled by the Spanish with Spanish Generals and support) consistently lost in the New World when they came up against the British and British Americans, however, and lost lots of territory in the process.

    And take the Texan's victory in their battle for independence from Spanish Mexico. 25,000 Anglo-American settlers squaring off against a nation of 7 million, defeated the Mexican Army with Spanish leaders.
    , @Kyle a
    Conner McGregor would be in disagreement. How's your gardening and taco
    , @Anonymous Nephew
    "The trouble with our British lads is that they are not natural killers" - General Montgomery in WW2.
    , @yaqub the mad scientist
    Anglo-Saxons are pétit-bourgeoise people who excel as tradesman and to some degree as craftsmen.

    So said Napoleon before he got hammered by that "nation of shopkeepers".


    Anglo-Saxons are pétit-bourgeoise people who excel as tradesman and to some degree as craftsmen. They are not warriors and win wars mostly with superior resource capacity and technology.

    Hmmm, I wonder if we can think of the word for the quality that makes all of the above possible? It'll come to me eventually......

    They are not warriors.

    Paging Sam Houston....


    Honestly, though ND, props to Jorge Ramos' ancestors. You do have to give credit to a few village boys from Extremadura- virtually all the original batch of Conquistadors came from there- in subduing so much real estate.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Jefferson says:
    @Sean

    So the American Indian earned respect and a place in our history that he does not have ...
     
    Telling that 'he". I think it is similar to the way British eulogised Zulus as "models of manly beauty’... The physique of the men’,..‘is the perfection of manly strength and symmetry. Tall, muscular and well-knit … they irresistibly recall the sculptured attitudes of athlete". But of course the Indian women, not regarded as the acme of feminine pulchritude, were the ones through who Americans inherited Indian ancestry. To me, many Americans who don't claim it, look native American influenced. Sarah Palin for example.

    “To me, many Americans who don’t claim it, look native American influenced. Sarah Palin for example.”

    Sarah Palin doesn’t look Native American influenced at all. She doesn’t racially look like any of the women who work at the nearest local McDonald’s from me, who all have Native American influenced phenotypes. The only difference is their Indigenous ancestry is from South of the border. But they are still all part of the Indigenous Americas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. syonredux says:
    @guest
    The first "great book" of Western Civilization, the Iliad, is a perfect example of this. The Greeks don't come off very well. Achilles is a tantrum-thrower, Agamemnon is a selfish creep, Odysseus is a snake, Menelaus is a cad, Helen is the bitch that started it all.

    Except for Paris, who comes off as a pussy, the Trojans are all noble and respectable. Hector is truly heroic, Priam and Andromache are sympathetic, Aeneas is brave.

    The first “great book” of Western Civilization, the Iliad, is a perfect example of this. The Greeks don’t come off very well. Achilles is a tantrum-thrower, Agamemnon is a selfish creep, Odysseus is a snake, Menelaus is a cad, Helen is the bitch that started it all.

    Except for Paris, who comes off as a pussy, the Trojans are all noble and respectable. Hector is truly heroic, Priam and Andromache are sympathetic, Aeneas is brave.

    Achilles does get good character development, though. Note how he goes from desecrating the corpse of Hector to showing mercy on Priam when he comes to plead for his son’s body.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. syonredux says:
    @Jefferson
    "Yeah, but this has more to do with race than history & culture. Many Indians (feathers) are not so racially distinct from whites in comparison with east Asians"

    Amerindians are genetically racially closer to East Asians and Southeast Asians than they are to Whites. Hence why there is sometimes phenotype overlap between Amerindians and Asians but zero phenotype overlap between Amerindians and Whites. I have seen Amazonian Amerindians for example who look like they can pass for Cambodians and Filipinos.

    "Black ancestry is a taint, while Injun … not so."

    Injun is seen as a racial taint among White nationalists, hence why the White nationalist movement has a no Amerindians and no Mestizos allowed policy. In the White nationalist movement a part Injun White person is an oxymoron.

    Hence why there is sometimes phenotype overlap between Amerindians and Asians but zero phenotype overlap between Amerindians and Whites.

    I wouldn’t say zero. Someone who is a quarter East Asian or Amerind and 75% European generally looks far more European than someone who is 25% Black and 75% European.

    “Black ancestry is a taint, while Injun … not so.”

    Injun is seen as a racial taint among White nationalists, hence why the White nationalist movement has a no Amerindians and no Mestizos allowed policy. In the White nationalist movement a part Injun White person is an oxymoron.

    Dunno. I’ve talked to White nationalists who freely admit to having Amerind ancestry. Of course, we are talking low levels (under 25%)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Dunno. I’ve talked to White nationalists who freely admit to having Amerind ancestry. Of course, we are talking low levels (under 25%)"

    I have never heard of any White nationalist on Stormfront claim to be anything but 100 percent pure unmixed White.

    "I wouldn’t say zero. Someone who is a quarter East Asian or Amerind and 75% European generally looks far more European than someone who is 25% Black and 75% European."

    I am talking about there is zero phenotype overlap between pure Amerindians and White people.

    Also this woman is genetically 20 percent Sub Saharan African and she looks far more European than any pure Amerindian person.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47XTgjpYocw&t=9s

    , @Reg Cæsar

    Someone who is a quarter East Asian or Amerind and 75% European generally looks far more European than someone who is 25% Black and 75% European.
     
    I saw a musical duo this weekend that sported a Japanese surname. It was a father-son act, and the father looked half-Asian, or even less. The son didn't look remotely Asian, except for generic black hair.

    I couldn't stay long enough for a full analysis; not with their Styx and Neil Young covers. Time to get back in the pouring rain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Flip says:
    @David Allan coe
    By 1800 the typical Native American in the Unite States was actually a mestizo, half European...while in Mexico the average Mexican was a mestizo by 1700. Very different demographics, because the English ca me as settlers with families, while the Spanish went to Mexico as invaders, mostly men who quickly impregnated indigenous women..

    So how did the North American Indians become mestizos? Were the British colonists sneaking out on their white wives at night?

    Read More
    • Replies: @prole
    Although many settlers brought their wives, many single men did settle america....Pocahoots is but one example,...in addition many females died having babies. Thus leaving widowers who often mated with Indians...the Census of Indians taken in 1900 confirms it, most of the Indians were not full blooded according to the records...and DNA testing confirms most full blooded Indians are just 30% Indian.No member of the Cherokee tribe today has tested greater then 30% Amerindian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Any index of fierce Indian warriors should include the Nez Perce. Those dudes were worthy adversaries.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  181. syonredux says:
    @Svigor
    It makes more sense to talk about the redeeming qualities of the Nazis, or the Soviets, or the Southern Planters, than it does about those of the American Indians or the Mongols. If 1) you're on the right, and your sympathies are concentric, not leapfrogging, like leftists' are, and 2) you correct for ability (e.g., Native Americans didn't have the capacity to do something like the Gulag Archipelago or World War, so it makes no sense to credit them for not doing so).

    (e.g., Native Americans didn’t have the capacity to do something like the Gulag Archipelago or World War, so it makes no sense to credit them for not doing so).

    Primitives can sometimes rack up impressive body counts, though. For example, estimates on the total number of people killed by the Aztecs (war+human sacrifice) during the period 1440-1521 run to around 1.2 million.

    And the Zulus were responsible for over 1 million deaths in the 19th century:

    Mfecane (1818-1840), and the reign of Shaka (1816-1828) 1 500,000
    Eugene Walter, Terror and Resistance (1969) cites the following, but admits it might be lower:
    Henry Francis Flynn: more than 1,000,000 deaths caused by Shaka’s wars.
    George Theal, History of South Africa (1915): 2,000,000
    The diary of Henry Francis Fynn, 1838, p.20: “The numbers whose death he occasioned have been left to conjecture, but exceed a million.”
    Major Charters, Royal Artillery, “Notices Of The Cape And Southern Africa, Since The Appointment, As Governor, Of Major-Gen. Sir Geo. Napier.” United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine, London: W. Clowes and Son, 1839, Part III, p.24: “Chaka may be termed the South African Attila; and it is estimated that not less than 1,000,000 human beings were destroyed by him”
    Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, “Shaka”, v.10. p.689 (“… left 2,000,000 dead in its wake.”)
    Donald R. Morris, The Washing of the Spears, p.60 (“At least a million people, and more likely two, died in a decade that virtually depopulated” the interior.)
    Hanson, Carnage and Culture, p. 313: “Shaka … slaughtered 50,000 of his enemies in battle…. As many as 1 million native Africans had been killed and starved to death as a direct result of Shaka’s imperial dreams.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Bill B. says:
    @George
    "the American Indian earned respect and a place in our history "

    Read Francis Parkman's Oregon Trail, or watch 'The Duke' in the movie The Searchers. So I don't think so. I do think Indian veneration goes in and out of fashion. Once most traces of Indian culture were eliminated from New England you start seeing them appear in artwork and poems. Veneration of American Indians coincides with the empty lands they once occupied being filled with European immigrants, so there might be some regrets there.

    The Song of Hiawatha
    http://www.hwlongfellow.org/poems_poem.php?pid=283

    Last of the Mohicans ect

    After WWII you do see the US military naming weapons after American Indians, oddly without modern complaints about cultural appropriation, or even misuse of trademarks. Anybody ever get written permission from the Apache to use their branding? Maybe using their name on weapons is the ultimate symbol of defeat? Sort of like wearing a necklace made of their bones.

    Tecumseh was actually respected by at least his elite contemporaries on the white side of the Indian wars. Are there any prominent American's today with American Indian names? Geronimo Herbert Walker Bush, I don't think so? Elite Whites name their kids Brooklyn not Seattle. Tecumseh actually does pull off almost inconceivable counterattack against American expansion.

    As far as Spanish go. It isn't clear whites ever really tamed the local cultures, they just assimilated into it. Sort of like the way the Visigoths take over the Iberian peninsula and assimilate into the culture. If I remember right at times Mexican elites chose to overplay their ancient roots, having portraits made of them as Aztec grandees.

    Indian Country

    So much of US military culture is from early motion picture history it is hard to tell where a phrase might come from. Wikipedia suggests Indian Country starts as a British colonial legalism. The King grants you property from ____ to the start of Indian Country.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_country

    Maybe using their name on weapons is the ultimate symbol of defeat?

    Today the US Army fired several volleys of Social Justice Missiles and followed up with a barrage of Earnest Pamphlets. Several Hillarys were deployed and two Obamas fired as a retaliatory measure. A Clooney was dropped for pacification purposes and the enemy trenches were covered in Ashley Judd to silence remnants.

    Read More
    • LOL: James Richard
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    People who lived at the times when there were still Indians in circulation tended to have a very different picture of them than the wise hippie warrior, “noble savage” picture that has cropped up later about them. Much like the way whites who don’t live around blacks develop these noble fantasies of blacks, it seems once whites stopped living up close and personal with Indians, they started to romanticize their image.

    Interestingly Mark Twain who lived through the transition from realistic picture to romanticized image, and had this to say about them:

    http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/hns/indians/redman.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    People who live near the reservations have no respect for Indians. In those areas Indians are considered dangerous drunken drivers, brawlers and low level criminals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Jefferson says:
    @Daniil Adamov
    Latin America is not one country either. Their Indians are a very big deal as well, culturally, if generally for different reasons. Interestingly, Chile and Argentina, the whitest parts of Latin America, might be the most similar to the USA in this regard: they greatly valorise the Patagonian natives that put up such a long and fierce fight (especially if you compare them to the pushover Incas), even though few of them are really related to them.

    “Interestingly, Chile and Argentina, the whitest parts of Latin America, might be the most similar to the USA in this regard: they greatly valorise the Patagonian natives that put up such a long and fierce fight (especially if you compare them to the pushover Incas), even though few of them are really related to them.”

    Actually Chilenos and Argentinians are way more likely than White Americans to have some Indigenous ancestry in their family tree.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3142769/

    http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?135306-Racial-admixture-in-Chile-(-2014-study-)

    So when a Argentinian or a Chileno say they have some Indigenous ancestry in their family tree, they are most likely not lying and are not Transracial like Elizabeth Warren.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    What you say is entirely true of Chile, but a LOT less so of Argentina. Which is the most European country in the western hemisphere.

    Chileans assimilated their Indians, the Argentines during the same period made a determined and largely successful attempt to exterminate theirs. With the result they are only about 1.5%.

    Chile is about 10%.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert#Historical_controversy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @Svigor

    Then there was the disastrous Navaraez expedition into northern Florida in 1527 with 600 soldiers, where the Spanish crossbows were no match for the Indians 7-foot long bows, as thick as a man’s arm, that could penetrate six inches of wood at 200 yards. Only four Spaniards survived the catastrophe.
     
    This is what I call an unreliable report. 9mm ball won't penetrate even 1" of wood at point blank range (it basically penetrates the bark of a pine tree, then bounces off the wood, leaving an unimpressive dent). I doubt 5.56 or 7.62 ball would penetrate 6" of wood. No way in Hell I'm believing an arrow fired by a bow wielded by a human going to penetrate 6" of wood without proof, or a seriously gamed definition of "wood."

    Whoever made that claim was probably lobbying for money.

    Svigor, people take mathematically impossible statements as truth because they don’t want to do the math. If I hold a tape measure in my extended left hand and pull the tang back, I get a pull of 36″. Now a much taller man might get 42″ or a bit more, but not enough draw to launch an arrow with enough foot pounds to pierce a 2×4 at 100 yards, let alone a 6×6 at 200 yards. Now think of a bow shaft that is as thick as a man’s arm, about the size of a baseball bat, and picture it having enough flex to draw it back 36″ or 42″. My brother used to shoot competitive archery. He used a compound bow that would allow 65 pounds of pull with about 30 pounds of effort. At 35 yards carbon arrows, absolutely true and straight, penetrate a standard target about 3 to 4 inches. NY State now allows deer hunting using cross bows. More foot pounds and more accuracy, no shaking of your arms as you hold a drawn arrow. Spaniards lost this battle for whatever reason but I doubt that a better bow did it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    Highly doubt that Indian bows had that kind of power but English Yew bows of the period may well have had. Iirc the heaviest bow raised from the Mary Rose had a draw of approx. 200 lbs. No archer today can draw anywhere near that, but archers then trained all their lives from childhood on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @Discordiax
    My mother greatly enjoyed claiming oppositional ethnicities. (Oppositional to NYC's Ellis Island schmaltz-ocracy anyway.)

    I"m reasonably confident that her claiming of lace-curtain pre-Ellis Island Irish ancestry (Yay IRA, boo National Review and Margaret Thatcher) and descent from William Henry Harrison's family are accurate, since they're based on records which exist and can actually be checked. (Although I haven't checked.)

    But that wasn't enough. The Harrison ancestor, who converted to Catholicism, had to have married a Delaware Indian girl to account for the family shutting him out. And the 15 year old boy who ran away from New York to fight in the Civil War simply MUST have fought for the South, since the family records that he died in the "Battle of the Wilderness", the Southern name for the battle. (The Civil War pistol in the family safe deposit box does seem to be a CSA Navy sidearm.)

    So depending on the time of year, she (and therefore I) might be part-Indian, have Confederate ancestry, commiserate with American blacks about immigration, and have PResidential ancestry.

    Writing this down, it occurs to me that given her standards of evidence, the connection to President William Henry Harrison may be equally tenuous.

    EDIT: We also claimed WASP when negotiating with a Jewish real estate developer who wanted to buy our house, offering an even swap for "a place in a nice Italian neighborhood."

    Did, what a nice term, and it was so true, “… a place in a nice Italian neighborhood.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @anonymous
    On the other hand, do any Indians brag about being part white? From the looks of many of them it would seem to be the case that they have some white ancestors. Do they value it in any way?

    anonymous, Shhhhhh, don’t want to lose out on the casino benefits.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Spyder says:

    “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are,” Roosevelt said during a January 1886 speech in New York. “And I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  189. Dahlia says:
    @Random Dude on the Internet
    I don't know how accurate 23 and Me is but it's popped a lot of bubbles regarding Native American ancestry. There are several millennial white girls I know who claimed to be 1/8 Cherokee who were in tears to find that they were 99.6%-100% European. Now many of them cling for dear life to the <0.4% North African or whatever they got back from the results. Ties a lot into Steve's comment about the flight from white and how there is modern day cultural credibility about not being white, even if you are supposedly less than 1% non-white.

    I don’t know how accurate 23 and Me is but it’s popped a lot of bubbles regarding Native American ancestry. There are several millennial white girls I know who claimed to be 1/8 Cherokee who were in tears to find that they were 99.6%-100% European. Now many of them cling for dear life to the <0.4% North African or whatever they got back from the results. Ties a lot into Steve's comment about the flight from white and how there is modern day cultural credibility about not being white, even if you are supposedly less than 1% non-white.

    So true about the bubbles!

    One big thing we’ve learned is how very little “ethnic” it takes to make a white person appear to be “not all white”. For example, the swarthy white who had a great-great grandmother who’s an Indian is likely no less than 97-99% white. I really think these errors mostly arose from the lack of appreciation of this fact.
    In another comment, I said my husband was descended from a tri-racial family. I don’t know his DNA composition (we can guess based on other relatives), though I would be surprised if he’s less than 97.5% white, yet, he has been asked his whole life “what all he is”, especially from Asians (their white radar is incredible). Of course, his mother, and his mother’s mother were asked that question even more and the “Indian ancestor” was whipped out for the explanation (we now know they were both, but more Black).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fiddlesticks

    I don’t know his DNA composition (we can guess based on other relatives)
     
    sounds like a great birthday or anniversary gift for hubby! A test would be enlightening for him and his family, no more guesswork.
    , @Dana Thompson
    Remember, you have only half of your parents' DNA - otherwise, you'd have 200% of a normal genome. What you get with each succeeding generation is governed by a binomial or multinomial distribution, i.e. it's the flip of a coin. Thus it's impossible to refute distant ancestry of a particular type with a single autosomal test. A certain person who's third or fourth on my brother's list of 1250 closest relatives is absent from my list of 1250 (on 23andme). Thus your sibling could easily show interesting stuff that your own genome doesn't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Jefferson says:
    @syonredux

    Hence why there is sometimes phenotype overlap between Amerindians and Asians but zero phenotype overlap between Amerindians and Whites.
     
    I wouldn't say zero. Someone who is a quarter East Asian or Amerind and 75% European generally looks far more European than someone who is 25% Black and 75% European.

    “Black ancestry is a taint, while Injun … not so.”

    Injun is seen as a racial taint among White nationalists, hence why the White nationalist movement has a no Amerindians and no Mestizos allowed policy. In the White nationalist movement a part Injun White person is an oxymoron.
     
    Dunno. I've talked to White nationalists who freely admit to having Amerind ancestry. Of course, we are talking low levels (under 25%)

    “Dunno. I’ve talked to White nationalists who freely admit to having Amerind ancestry. Of course, we are talking low levels (under 25%)”

    I have never heard of any White nationalist on Stormfront claim to be anything but 100 percent pure unmixed White.

    “I wouldn’t say zero. Someone who is a quarter East Asian or Amerind and 75% European generally looks far more European than someone who is 25% Black and 75% European.”

    I am talking about there is zero phenotype overlap between pure Amerindians and White people.

    Also this woman is genetically 20 percent Sub Saharan African and she looks far more European than any pure Amerindian person.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “Dunno. I’ve talked to White nationalists who freely admit to having Amerind ancestry. Of course, we are talking low levels (under 25%)”

    I have never heard of any White nationalist on Stormfront claim to be anything but 100 percent pure unmixed White.
     
    Never been on STORMFRONT. Too infantile. I'm talking about personal conversations, one-on-one. That way you avoid virtue-signalling and purity-spirals.

    “I wouldn’t say zero. Someone who is a quarter East Asian or Amerind and 75% European generally looks far more European than someone who is 25% Black and 75% European.”

    I am talking about there is zero phenotype overlap between pure Amerindians and White people.
     
    Dunno. East Asians and Europeans overlap in terms of complexion, for example.

    Also this woman is genetically 20 percent Sub Saharan African and she looks far more European than any pure Amerindian person.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47XTgjpYocw&t=9s
     
    I didn't compare pure Amerinds to people who are 20% SSA; I compared people who are 25% Amerind and 75% European to people who are 25% SSA and 75% European. The former, in general, look far more European than the latter.
    , @HA
    "I have never heard of any White nationalist on Stormfront claim to be anything but 100 percent pure unmixed White."

    I don't know what goes on at Stormfront, but Asa Earl Carter, "a Ku Klux Klan organizer, a rabid segregationist" and speechwriter for George Wallace (coining the phrase "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!") reinvented himself (in Rachel Dolezal fashion) as a full-blooded Cherokee.

    http://www.npr.org/2012/04/20/151037079/the-artful-reinvention-of-klansman-asa-earl-carter
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Dave Pinsen
    Good comment.

    More evidence in support of his thesis:

    - Indian-named U.S. military equipment, such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    - Indian-era military terms, such as Kit Carson scouts in Vietnam.

    - Indian sports team names.

    - Rambo being half-Indian.

    - The whole western movie genre.

    - Indians and quasi-Indians in other genres, like the Martians in the Martian Chronicles, space Indians in Star Trek TNG, etc.

    Plus, the Indian good luck symbol:
    Patch of the 45th Infantry Division

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @bored identity
    bored identity's Favorite Injun:

    https://youtu.be/g85mGqB0dAc


    Just kiddin'.


    Let's Make Blankets Great Again!

    Hell that’s an old Chinamen story if I ain’t mistaken. Daoist I believe. The writers (gems probably) writing for that Swipple show were cultural appropriatin’. And well that Indian character speaks for itself doesn’t she? ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Anon
    these genetic tests do not work that well in detecting indian ancestry below 25 percent--here is a quote from one of the many websites discussing this topic: "These tests are great at detecting ancestry over 25% "

    Now, most americans who do have some small bit of native american ancestry (such as me--I have seen a photo of my indian ancestor) have indian ancestors that lived in the 1800s or 1700s....so these small percentages --maybe 1 to 6 percent--are not usually showing up in the dna tests...that happens to be a much smaller percentage than 25% ...so, no, these dna testing companies do not do a good job of detecting small percentages of certain ancestries.

    Futhermore, research will show you that distant racial heritage can just disappear from the test results. So, you can have indian ancestors from the 1700s and even 1800s and that will not show up on the test. Doesn't mean you don't have that ancestry. Again, the media is on one side of this issue. Guess which side.

    These dna testing companies are dependent on media publicity and so are quite politically correct....if you do a little research on this topic--and not just depend on what is written in the media--you will find out that these genetic tests sold to the public are based on a rubric designed by a panel of 'experts'....politically correct experts...now, maybe you are already aware of this, but if these tests were to show that a large percentage of white americans had indian blood, that might upset The Narrative. I imagine you might be able to see that.

    genetic tests do not work that well in detecting indian ancestry below 25 percent

    Bullshit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/11/24/ask-ancestry-anne-where-is-my-native-american-dna/

    Answer: The short answer is yes, the traces of Native American DNA in your test may be too small to detect. Let’s look at why.
    If your great-great-grandmother was ¼ Cherokee, then it was her grandparent that was 100% Native American. And that would be your 4th-great-grandparent. Now your great-great-grandmother would get 50% of her DNA from her mother and 50% from her father. To make this easy, let’s divide by 2 for every generation.
    So how much of your great-great-grandmother’s DNA are you likely to have? Probably around 1.5625%! And that may not be enough to detect Native American ethnicity.
     
    Typical isteve commentator....smh
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @anonymous
    It would be interesting to find out how much of the genetic composition of the population of French Canada (including Quebec and the western part of New Brunswick) is indigenous North American. It is my understanding that there was no small degree of intermarriage between French settlers in Canada and the native population--particularly in the 17th and 18th centuries. My wife's ancestors on her mother's side settled in Canada during the French-Indian War and according to family lore it was believed (though never substantiated) that at least some of her ancestors married natives. A 23andme might provide the answer (though I have heard that their results are of questionable accuracy).

    anonymous, My wife and I spent a day visiting historic Fort Niagara, a pre-revolutionary English fort, that sits at the mouth of the Niagara River and Lake Ontario. Our guide mentioned that the British soldiers were frequently held years past their terms of enlistment, so I would guess Indians maids became highly desirous. The Indians on either side of the river were most likely of the same tribes, and all members of the Iroquois federation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @Nick Diaz
    No, the reality is that Anglo-Saxons were far less effective than Spaniards at crushing the Amerindians. Anglo-Saxons are pétit-bourgeoise people who excel as tradesman and to some degree as craftsmen. They are not warriors and win wars mostly with superior resource capacity and technology. Even compared to other European peoples, all civilized, Anglo-Saxons do not excel as warriors. During WWII, for instance, the German despite being outnumbered almost 3 to 1 and with the Wehrmacht in serious disarray, still pushed the Americans back during the Ardennes offensive.

    The fact is that Cortez, De Soto, etc, with a few hundred men crushed and conquered not one but two continents, bringing down several civilizations with them. I don't think the Apaches and Sioux were more vicious and war-like than the Aztecs and Mayas, with their human heart-eating customs. In fact, the Incas of South America had a highly organized military with far superior military technology than the indians of North America, and the Spaniards still crushed them.

    The fact is that Spanish conquest of South and Central Americas was the single greatest display of manliness in the history of the Earth, even greater than Genghis Khan's. Because Genghis Khan had an enormous army with hundreds of thousands of men. It was also greater than what the Romans accomplished because the numbers also enjoyed numerical parity with their opponents and took several centuries to build their empire; The Spaniards did it in a cuple of generations.

    Here is a BBC documentary on the "Conquistadores" and their unparalleled achievement: https://youtu.be/i9cuy3teV0w

    Anglo-Saxons excel as traders, merchants and crafstmen. They are not warriors. It's just not their strength.

    Now, I know what many of you wil reply, that the British Empire ended up being larger than Spain's and that makes me wrong. The difference is that the British conquered their empire when they had huge technological and resource superiority over their opponents. That is not the same as a few hundred men bringing down entire civilizations.

    Anglo-Saxons do not excel as warriors. During WWII, for instance, the German despite being outnumbered almost 3 to 1 and with the Wehrmacht in serious disarray, still pushed the Americans back during the Ardennes offensive.

    Not outnumbered 3 to 1 at the point of their attack and the push lasted only a few weeks and resulted in high German casualties and the abandonment of their equipment. If anything it hastened the Allied occupation of the Ruhr.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
    The Germans were severely outnumbered almost 3 to 1 and yet still pushed back the Americans and inflicted heavy casualties. The point I was making is that, given the American superiority in men and resources, the Germans shouldn't have been able to push the Americans back *at all* . Of course the Germans would lose anyway, since at the beggining of the Ardennes offensive the Weharmacht was already beaten anyway and the Soviets and Americans had literally 100 X the resource capacity of Germany in 1944 and no matter what the Germans did their defeat was eminent anyway. Your point is redundant because Germany losing the war as a whole was inevitable, and in no way takes away from the fact that Germans were able to beat Americans when severely outnumbered in men in resources. Germans lost the war because they couoldn't beat the Allies 10 to 1, but they were still able to win battles where the Allies outnumbered them "only" 3 to 1. So, ceteres paribus, the Germans were better at war than Anglo-Saxons.

    Your point is invalid.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Sertorius says:

    I don’t doubt the particulars have to be taken with a grain of salt, but there’s no doubt that the Indians’ bows would drive an arrow through both chain mail and plate deep into both human and equine flesh. Ironically, however, it was the shallow-penetrating, frangible cane-tipped arrows that caused the Spaniards the most trouble–basically an “antipersonnel” round, the cane would splinter upon impact and leave an ugly, festering wound. That’s why the Spaniards eventually adopted the quilted cotton jackets that served the natives as armor in that part of the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  197. @Random Dude on the Internet
    I don't know how accurate 23 and Me is but it's popped a lot of bubbles regarding Native American ancestry. There are several millennial white girls I know who claimed to be 1/8 Cherokee who were in tears to find that they were 99.6%-100% European. Now many of them cling for dear life to the <0.4% North African or whatever they got back from the results. Ties a lot into Steve's comment about the flight from white and how there is modern day cultural credibility about not being white, even if you are supposedly less than 1% non-white.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. gospace says:
    @Hubbub
    I lost all my Cherokee Indian blood when I got my Ancestry DNA results. English and Scots. Oh, well, I'll never tell.

    My family had rumors. DNA confirmed they were rumors. Also rumors we were descended from a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Turns out that particular signer has no known living descendants. We are descended from his grandfather…. and it took me a long time to find that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @Dahlia

    I don’t know how accurate 23 and Me is but it’s popped a lot of bubbles regarding Native American ancestry. There are several millennial white girls I know who claimed to be 1/8 Cherokee who were in tears to find that they were 99.6%-100% European. Now many of them cling for dear life to the <0.4% North African or whatever they got back from the results. Ties a lot into Steve's comment about the flight from white and how there is modern day cultural credibility about not being white, even if you are supposedly less than 1% non-white.

     

    So true about the bubbles!

    One big thing we've learned is how very little "ethnic" it takes to make a white person appear to be "not all white". For example, the swarthy white who had a great-great grandmother who's an Indian is likely no less than 97-99% white. I really think these errors mostly arose from the lack of appreciation of this fact.
    In another comment, I said my husband was descended from a tri-racial family. I don't know his DNA composition (we can guess based on other relatives), though I would be surprised if he's less than 97.5% white, yet, he has been asked his whole life "what all he is", especially from Asians (their white radar is incredible). Of course, his mother, and his mother's mother were asked that question even more and the "Indian ancestor" was whipped out for the explanation (we now know they were both, but more Black).

    I don’t know his DNA composition (we can guess based on other relatives)

    sounds like a great birthday or anniversary gift for hubby! A test would be enlightening for him and his family, no more guesswork.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. By the way, the survivors of the Navarez expedition were actually three Spaniards and one African (enslaved but probably North African rather than sub-Saharan).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  201. @syonredux

    In 1500, in what is now the U.S. , the Indian pop was just about 3 million. By 1700 whites outnumbered Indians..less than 250,000 Indians lived the area of the 13 colonies when the English landed at Plymouth Rock….While in Mexico the Indian pop was closer to 25 million…
     
    Some estimates:

    Coe, Snow and Benson, Atlas of Ancient America (1986)
    Total pre-Columbian population: 40M
    Mexico: Original population of 11M to 25M ("lower figure commands more support") fell to 1.25M (1625)
    Peru: Pop. fell from 9M (1533) to >500,000 (early 17th C)
    Brazil: Original population of 2.5M to 5.0M ("recent commentators favoring the higher") fell to 1M

    Massimo Livi-Bacci, Concise History of World Population History 2d (1996)
    Mexico: Population fell from 6.3M (1548) to 1.9M (1580) to 1M (1605)
    Peru: Pop. fell from 1.3M (1572) to 600,000 (1620)
    Canada: from 300,000 (ca. 1600) to < 100,000 (ca. 1800)
    USA: from 5M (1500) to 600,000 (ca. 1800)

    Skidmore & Smith, Modern Latin America (1997)
    Mexico: Population fell from 25M (1519) to 16.8M (1523) to 1.9M (1580) to 1M (1605)
    Peru: from 1.3M (1570, forty years after Conquest) to <600,000 (1620)

     


    United States, eradication of the American Indians (1775-1890) 350,000
    Russel Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival (1987)
    Overall decline
    From 600,000 (in 1800) to 250,000 (in 1890s)
    Indian Wars, from a 1894 report by US Census, cited by Thornton. Includes men, woman and children killed, 1775-1890:
    Individual conflicts:
    Whites: 5,000
    Indians: 8,500
    Wars under the gov't:
    Whites: 14,000
    Indians: 30-45,000
    TOTAL:
    Whites: 19,000
    Indians: 38,500 to 53,500

     

    For comparison, here's Australia:

    Australia (1788-1921) 240,000
    Mark Cocker, Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold (1998)
    Australian mainland
    Ongoing frontier war: 2,000-2,500 whites and 20,000 Aborignies KIA ("best guess", probably higher)
    General population decline: from 1M (1788) to 50,000 (ca. 1890) to 30,000 (1920s)
    Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee (1993)
    Decline of the Aborigines
    From 300,000 (in 1788) to 60,000 (in 1921)
    Extermination of the Tasmanians
    From 5,000 (in 1800) to 200 (in 1830) to 3 (in 1869) to none (1877)
    Clodfelter: 2,500 Eur. and 20,000 Aborigines k. in wars, 1840-1901
    Bill Bryson, In a Sunburned Country (2001): 20,000 Aborigines intentionally killed by whites.

     

    And New Zealand:

    New Zealand (1800s) 200,000
    Mark Cocker, Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold (1998)
    Maori pop: 240,000 (pre-contact) to 40,000 (1896)
    Clodfelter, Maori War (1860-72)
    UK, NZ: 700 k.
    Maori: 2,000
     

    Given the fact that Canada and the US combined had anywhere from 5 to 7 million Amerindians before contact (some high count estimates go up to 18 million), it would seem reasonable to describe this part of the continent as mostly empty. By comparison, the much smaller British Isles already had approx. 5 million people, France 15 million and the Iberian peninsula 8.5 million. While Europeans unintentionally (mostly, anyway) introduced old world diseases that devastated Amerindian populations, it was the Mongols who appeared to have intentionally spread the Bubonic Plague to Europeans at Crimea

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Given the fact that Canada and the US combined had anywhere from 5 to 7 million Amerindians before contact (some high count estimates go up to 18 million)
     
    18 million for the population of what would be mainland Anglo America prior to 1500 is ludicrously high. Approx 5 million is far more plausible.

    For info on New World population estimates, I recommend:


    Numbers from Nowhere: The American Indian Contact Population Debate
    by David Henige

    In the past forty years an entirely new paradigm has developed regarding the contact population of the New World. Proponents of this new theory argue that the American Indian population in 1492 was ten, even twenty, times greater than previous estimates. In Numbers From Nowhere David Henige argues that the data on which these high counts are based are meager and often demonstrably wrong.

    Drawing on a wide variety of primary and secondary sources, Henige illustrates the use and abuse of numerical data throughout history. He shows that extrapolation of numbers is entirely subjective, however masked it may be by arithmetic, and he questions what constitutes valid evidence in historical and scientific scholarship.
     
    https://www.amazon.com/Numbers-Nowhere-American-Contact-Population/dp/080613044X
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @new handle
    Buffalo Joe,
    you must've crossed paths with many Mohawks and others in the steel erection business. Please elaborate on experiences. Some of us marvel at, or maybe shake our heads at, the notion of walking along beams dozens of stories up, where gusts of wind or missteps could lead to disastrous falls or death. Seeing a row of guys sitting on a beam high in the air enjoying lunch represents such a different part of life that is far removed from the street.

    New Handle, Mohawk from Syracuse to way downstate, mostly Senecas around here. Most Senecas have English names, Spring, Hill, White, Green etc., Mohawks lots of French names, Mount Pleasant, Dubois, Dubeque etc. As with all jobs and trades some guys, white, red or whatever, are outstanding, some good, some mediocre. some not worthy of their book. My daughter gave me a framed copy of the photo of all the ironworkers astride a beam enjoying lunch, looks a bit photo shopped to me, but whatever. There are, IIRC, 11 guys in the photo. The NY Post asked their readers if they could recognize any of the workers. They got 44 different names for the 11 workers. Ok, years ago I was general foreman on a coal fired power plant, 80′-83′. Heavy steel, enormous cranes and whatever weather visited us off of Lake Ontario. Power plants don’t have floors but elevations, as the elevations are never a standard height. This plant was about 35 “stories” high, but clear span from the top to ground in the cavity, where the boiler would hang. A father-son team of Seneca were sent to the job to bolt-up the structural points. They were from my local. I took the time to climb out on the iron where they were setting up on hanging platforms called “floats.” I shook the father’s hand and said how glad I was to see them. When I reached to shake the son’s hand he offered me his left hand. Puzzled, I asked why? He removed his right glove and his index and middle finger were missing at the second joint….still had stitches!, lost them the week before in NYC on a derrick job. I told Bobby that I had a job for him on the ground hooking onto iron. He demurred. Didn’t want to leave dad. Jimmy said it would all be good, so they stayed at the point, about 300 feet up. ironworkers, size 18 necks, size 5 hats.

    Read More
    • LOL: Jack Hanson
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Steve: Please get Ron to fix the comment feature “display all comments”.

    It appears after you select “this thread”. It used to display all comments starting at the comment where you selected “display all comments”. Now it starts you at top of the comments, at #1. You’re forced to scroll through dozens of comments to get back to where you were.

    This is significantly degrading my ability to read and understand the comments.

    Just go to Disqus if this can’t fixed or I’ll be a far less frequent reader. I’ve already stopped spending as much time here.

    I’m using an iPad, latest o/s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    No, no, Frauline, no Disqus! I think this is one of the best commenting systems around, no holds barred. I am using an ipad now and am just starting to get used to all the BS that entails. What you described is the least of my problems with this "time-saving" device. I just try to remember about where I left off.

    Disqus wants your information, they want to censor you, and everything is nested all to hell. I respectfully disagree with you on this one, except of course your asking for this particular problem to be fixed. Ron seems like a better computer guy than a deep thinker. I hope he doesn't see this - Ron, don't ban me bro!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. @Steve Sailer
    I wrote a term paper in 8th grade that ended with the Battle off Samar.

    Please read my comment about the bug that exists at least for iPad. It’s near the bottom.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @Anonymous
    The reviews of the book on Amazon are hysterically funny. The SJWs have a virtual meltdown what with all the "racism" in the book. Filter for one star reviews, grab some popcorn and read a few.

    /Big Bill/

    anonymous, I have said this before but once again…on a continent rich in game, small and large,freshwater and saltwater and all the fish and seafood that goes with it, hundred of thousands of acres of grassland and woodland filled with nuts and berries and material for shelter or boat building. Where a five day walk would take you far from some one you didn’t like or a longer walk would take you to a different climate, the Indians still found plenty of reasons to torment, harass, kidnap, torture and kill each other. I have a Seneca friend who still refers to Mohawks as “the savages.” Indians hating Indians is whatever. Whites pointing out historical fact is racist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    When Samuel Hearne travelled in totally unexplored (by Europeans) Northern Canada in the 1760s/70s, searching for copper and guided by an Indian, a party of Dene Indians attached itself to the expedition, and Hearne realised to his horror that it was a war-party, prepared to travel hundreds of miles on foot for the pleasure of killing Inuit.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Hearne#Exploration

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Falls_massacre
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. FArenheit says:

    Some time back I read the unabridged journal of Lewis and Clark. The recurring theme of their encounters with the Indians as the crossed from the Midwest or the Pacific was the pathetic shabbiness and rank malnutrition the continually encountered. AS opposed to being noble and dignified, they continually complained that the Indians were beggars and thieves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Formerly CARealist
    When they stayed with the Mandan Indians they commented that the women are perfect slaves to the men.

    Mark Twain said the same thing in the excerpt posted above.

    Where, oh where, are the feminists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. @Thea
    Yes, by some counts there are less than 2 million Native Americans.

    I used to work with a lot of people from a nearby Rez. They believe in the cult of higher Ed even more than middle class whites. They tell their kids that if only they would get a degree, their problems would be solved.

    Much more pleasant people than AAs for sure.

    Thea, I know lots of Native Americans and only one who has a professional degree, an attorney. Few follow HS with college, even though it is virtually free for them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. EriK says:

    Steve is having a field day on Twitter this afternoon. It’s really fun to watch.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  209. @Diversity Heretic
    When I was in the Boy Scouts in the 1960s, the elite Scouts were the Order of the Arrow, modeled after Indians. I wonder if this is still true, or whether it's changed to avoid cultural appropriation.

    DH, when I was a kid, scouting was all about being like an Indian. Opps, cultural appropriation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Gringo says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    I believe “Whoever” is a gal. And a Millennial (!) who is extremely knowledgeable about all sorts of interesting stuff, judging by her comment history.

    On topic, I visited Old Deerfield, MA last summer. There was quite a bit of harrowing action in the Connecticut River Valley back in the day:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bloody_Brook

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Deerfield

    Here’s a Romantic engraving depicting the Angel of Hadley.

    On topic, I visited Old Deerfield, MA last summer. There was quite a bit of harrowing action in the Connecticut River Valley back in the day.

    One consequence of growing up in New England was getting a dose of New England history that most parts of the country didn’t get. My 8th grade teacher read us this book for the first 20 minutes of the class day:The Boy Captive of Old Deerfield.

    On the morning of February 29, 1704, a French and Indian force invaded Deerfield, MA, the northwesternmost outpost of the colonial frontier. During the raid, 47 residents of Deerfield were killed and 112 were taken captive by Indian raiders who forced their captives to March north in grueling conditions to Canada.
    “The Boy Captive of Old Deerfield” tells the story of 10-year-old Stephen Williams, one of the 112 residents taken captive in the raid. Smith describes Stephen’s transition from a boy terrorized by all that has happened to him and to those he loves to a boy who, over time, begins to adapt to the Indian way of life. Come follow Stephen as he battles starvation, learns to hunt, escapes dangerous situations and more.

    A family in town had a famous ancestor from the same town who played a part in the Revolutionary War- enough of a part to have a statue at the state capitol. I found about the statue in recent years from the Internet. The family never said a word about the statue. That is an example of Yankee taciturnity.

    I never liked Cowboy and Indian movies all that much, though they were ubiquitous when I was growing up. Relatives of mine out west had small farms with cattle- and abut the only thing they seemed to have in common with the Cowboys in the movie were cowboy boots. A reason I couldn’t get all that hyped up about playing Cowboys and Indians was that I found it hard to view Indians as enemies, given that I had aunts who were 1/8th Indian, married to my mother’s brothers. It was also difficult to view Cowboys and Indians as enemies, as an uncle who ran some cattle was married to my aunt who was 1/8th Indian.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. gospace says:
    @FKA Max


    Copper was gold for the Virginia Indians. The Jamestown settlers kept alive during the difficult first years by trading German-made copper for food.
    [...]
    German woodworkers helped build a European-style house for Paramount Chief Powhatan in 1608 and lived in the same village as his daughter Pocahontas.
     
    - http://www.agas.us/GrasslBook2.htm

    The First Germans in America By Gary Carl Grassl
     
    - http://www.unz.com/gnxp/open-thread-10232016/#comment-1619904

    My ancestors lived in Powhatan VA in the 1600′s. And I have distant relatives with the same surname still living there. Some in ancestral houses from the early 1700′s. It’s really amazing the stories you can find using google…

    I doubt there’s a county in the United States that doesn’t have at least one town or major geographical feature that isn’t named after an Indian chief or tribe. Alas, no Indian blood as I said in another comment. Though I have traced other branches of the family that have Indian blood. And African blood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. @Anon
    these genetic tests do not work that well in detecting indian ancestry below 25 percent--here is a quote from one of the many websites discussing this topic: "These tests are great at detecting ancestry over 25% "

    Now, most americans who do have some small bit of native american ancestry (such as me--I have seen a photo of my indian ancestor) have indian ancestors that lived in the 1800s or 1700s....so these small percentages --maybe 1 to 6 percent--are not usually showing up in the dna tests...that happens to be a much smaller percentage than 25% ...so, no, these dna testing companies do not do a good job of detecting small percentages of certain ancestries.

    Futhermore, research will show you that distant racial heritage can just disappear from the test results. So, you can have indian ancestors from the 1700s and even 1800s and that will not show up on the test. Doesn't mean you don't have that ancestry. Again, the media is on one side of this issue. Guess which side.

    These dna testing companies are dependent on media publicity and so are quite politically correct....if you do a little research on this topic--and not just depend on what is written in the media--you will find out that these genetic tests sold to the public are based on a rubric designed by a panel of 'experts'....politically correct experts...now, maybe you are already aware of this, but if these tests were to show that a large percentage of white americans had indian blood, that might upset The Narrative. I imagine you might be able to see that.

    My 23andme test could detect .3 percent Finnish and 1.9 or so percent Broadly Southern European. Those were the most exotic results; everything else was NW Euro.

    The PC Narrative is better served by convincing whites that they are all partially African, Indian, etc, not by covering up admixture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Curle says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    OT: Apparently Richard Spencer’s membership in an Alexandria gym was revoked (no reason given) after deranged Georgetown professor (((Christine Fair))) confronted him in the gym for being “a hateful, white supremacist who has no place in this century..much less our gym,” among other things.

    So, iSteve legal experts, wots the deal? Can a public accommodation be held legally liable for discrimination on the basis of a customer’s (non-venue expressed) political beliefs?

    The background facts raise a distinct possibility that race was, in fact, the reason for revoking his membership. He should consider filing a claim and looking for evidence they’d previously booted black nationalists. If he can locate some Nation of Islam members who’ve kept their membership (if outed) he might have something to work with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. Mark Caplan says: • Website

    A long-observed fact of how Americans regarded Indians is that there was a sharp split: On the East Coast, Indians were viewed as noble, dignified, stoical, resourceful — a people of admirable qualities and character. Also, East Coasters didn’t happen to know many Indians personally. Out West, where whites encountered Indians routinely, Indians were seen as drunken, listless, lying, cheating, thieving semi-savages — Gypsies without fiddles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Schmoe
    In fairness, east coast Indians really are very different from plains Indians and others. Navajos and Apaches actually lived in fairly close proximity, yet were very different folks; shepherds and farmers vs. hunter gatherers. Cherokee were the five civilized tribes. The Commanches and Karankawas were not. Just as Chechens aren't Swedes, nor are Sioux like the Havasupai.
    , @James Richard
    Nonsense. In colonial New England and New York there was savage fighting. You are laying apocryphal modern sensibilities onto the historical record. Even the peaceful Delawares massacred the Dutch. There was fighting whenever whites started to appropriate Indian lands. It was just longer ago in the original 13 colonies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @reiner Tor
    I read somewhere that in the US, the Indians were idealized on the East Coast after they had disappeared. On the frontier, where they were still to be found, they were considered dangerous vermin to be eradicated. Incidentally, that was the view of Indians on the East Coast, too, until they disappeared... It's always easy to idealize something you never meet.

    I call this the “Thoreau Effect”- wandering placidly in nature that has been recently cleared of the indigenous, as well as carnivores like wolves, cougars, and bear- and contemplating melancholic regrets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    OT: Apparently Richard Spencer’s membership in an Alexandria gym was revoked (no reason given) after deranged Georgetown professor (((Christine Fair))) confronted him in the gym for being “a hateful, white supremacist who has no place in this century..much less our gym,” among other things.

    So, iSteve legal experts, wots the deal? Can a public accommodation be held legally liable for discrimination on the basis of a customer’s (non-venue expressed) political beliefs?

    The law is one thing; its administration quite another. In today’s USA, it’s all about the social status of your group, and not only are white males at the bottom, conscious (or “woke”) white males are the lowest of the low. (Of course, I use the terms differently from typical race agitators.)

    Simply imagine such a person as Richard Spencer (who is a bit of a clown, with a habit of shooting himself in the foot) in front of a jury in a large American city. That will tell you all you need to know about what’s left of his rights.

    This is why control of mass-media entertainment / propaganda is control of everything. They construct reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Richard

    I use the terms differently from typical race agitators.
     
    So you are what? An atypical race agitator?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. gospace says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    When I was in the Boy Scouts in the 1960s, the elite Scouts were the Order of the Arrow, modeled after Indians. I wonder if this is still true, or whether it's changed to avoid cultural appropriation.

    Order of the Arrow is referred to as the Boy Scout’s Honor Society. And it’s still around.

    Selection is different then for most groups. Prospective members of the Order of the Arrow are selected not by existing members, but by the troop at large from those that are eligible. In my troop it seems the Scouts do a pretty good job of not electing fellow Scouts who IMHO shouldn’t be selected.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. Curle says:
    @Randal
    This idea of a grudging (and becoming less grudging over time as actual threat recedes) respect for a competent defeated adversary is a commonplace, I think, at least of European culture if not of human nature in general. It was formalised in the British Empire with the notion of "martial races", in India and later less systematically in Africa.

    For great examples of the kind of thinking and attitudes involved, I think the Flashman books of George MacDonald Fraser would serve well.

    It signifies in reality, I think, an enemy who fights well and hard, yes, but also who is not really any great existential threat. The latter groups are more likely to be hated, despised and suppressed without any such pretence of respect. Modern theorists regard the martial race concept in India, in its application, as a tool for suppressing the real threats to British rule - the bulk of the Indian peoples - by using more marginal groups for the military.

    lots of white Americans, as you say, claim Indian ancestry even when they don’t have it
     
    Interesting that there are two concrete examples already in the comments here of such claims being refuted by modern genetic testing. I suspect that is likely to be a common occurrence as genetic testing becomes more commonplace.

    DNA tests aren’t necessarily going to pick up an Indian ancestor more than 5 generations back especially if there was no additional Indian DNA added to the mix in the interim.

    My father’s family is known for their dark features. They’ve been living in a small endogamous East TN community near an old British fort (and also on Juan Pardo’s route) since before the Revolution. They’ve imagined themselves part Indian. DNA results show inexplicably (given the conventional story that the Spanish left the Southern Highlands in 1567) high amounts of Spanish DNA. I’m guessing the Spanish presence north of FLA was longer and greater than we’ve been led to believe by historians of the past and that many of these part Indians are in fact part Spaniard.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. syonredux says:
    @Perspective
    Given the fact that Canada and the US combined had anywhere from 5 to 7 million Amerindians before contact (some high count estimates go up to 18 million), it would seem reasonable to describe this part of the continent as mostly empty. By comparison, the much smaller British Isles already had approx. 5 million people, France 15 million and the Iberian peninsula 8.5 million. While Europeans unintentionally (mostly, anyway) introduced old world diseases that devastated Amerindian populations, it was the Mongols who appeared to have intentionally spread the Bubonic Plague to Europeans at Crimea

    Given the fact that Canada and the US combined had anywhere from 5 to 7 million Amerindians before contact (some high count estimates go up to 18 million)

    18 million for the population of what would be mainland Anglo America prior to 1500 is ludicrously high. Approx 5 million is far more plausible.

    For info on New World population estimates, I recommend:

    Numbers from Nowhere: The American Indian Contact Population Debate
    by David Henige

    In the past forty years an entirely new paradigm has developed regarding the contact population of the New World. Proponents of this new theory argue that the American Indian population in 1492 was ten, even twenty, times greater than previous estimates. In Numbers From Nowhere David Henige argues that the data on which these high counts are based are meager and often demonstrably wrong.

    Drawing on a wide variety of primary and secondary sources, Henige illustrates the use and abuse of numerical data throughout history. He shows that extrapolation of numbers is entirely subjective, however masked it may be by arithmetic, and he questions what constitutes valid evidence in historical and scientific scholarship.

    https://www.amazon.com/Numbers-Nowhere-American-Contact-Population/dp/080613044X

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Sid says:
    @Fiddlesticks
    Even core Americans can look like this if they have some Welsh blood (think of all the Joneses).

    Which is why Catherine Zeta-Jones could play "Elena Montero" in Zorro.

    A lot of Celtic peoples have dark hair and skin. For example, there are the Black Irish, and the Picts were famous for being swarthy.

    The reason, I think, is that the original hunter-gatherers in Europe from the Paleolithic had dark hair and skin, but at times had light eyes. Modern Europeans got their light skin from Middle Eastern farmers. Eventually blond hair evolved and caught on like wild fire among Neolithic Europeans, but the parts of Europe were Celtic languages held on were fairly isolated, insulating them from a lot of gene flow. As such, the people of those places maintained a swarthy appearance longer than other parts of Northern Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    One of my college roommates was Bavarian and he had black hair and a dark complexion. I had a girlfriend who was Hungarian/Slovak and she had black hair and dark olive skin.
    , @Jefferson
    "The reason, I think, is that the original hunter-gatherers in Europe from the Paleolithic had dark hair and skin, but at times had light eyes. Modern Europeans got their light skin from Middle Eastern farmers."

    What bullshit story did you get this from that Europeans were more swarthy than Middle Easterners and Middle Easterners were more pasty pale than Europeans.

    So Europeans used to all look like the swarthy Turk Cenk Uygur while Middle Easterners used to all look like the borderline Albino blond WASP stand up comedian Jim Gaffigan. Talk about fictional fairytale.

    So why are the roles reversed today?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Svigor
    P.S., the people fighting the Indians for control of the Americas, do they sound like "immigrants"? Or are they better described as "colonists," "settlers," "pioneers," or (gasp) "conquerors"?

    America is a Nation of Conquerors.

    Doesn't that sound so much better?

    1) If the civilizations of the south, in the Americas, were conquered more easily than the less “urbanized” peoples of the north, does this tell us something about the weaknesses of civilized peoples generally?
     
    Yes, but uncivilized peoples have greater weaknesses. The Mongols essentially added nothing to civilization, and they simply faded away into the woodwork over time. They were replaced by more civilized people. Barbarians are all conquer, no build. And the fact that they're always stealing what more civilized peoples build, and settling down to rule the more civilized peoples they've conquered (adopting their ways), shows that they value civilization over their own ways, too.

    But your point, that our civilization is decadent, corrupt, and in the process of being sneakily colonized, is well-taken.

    I was just saying this the other day; any civilization that is unwilling to write its constitution (small c) in blood is just a matter of time away from destruction.

    Where I live is somewhat unique in that the land was purchased peaceably from the local Indians by the Dutch, before being taken by the English.
     
    That's not at all unique. The Europeans bought huge amounts of land from the natives. Altogether it probably rivals, if not exceeds, the amount taken by force.

    Yes, but uncivilized peoples have greater weaknesses. The Mongols essentially added nothing to civilization, and they simply faded away into the woodwork over time.

    Technology level is also a factor. Civilizations in what is now Latin America were essentially stone age. The Chinese were more advanced in overall technology, but in terms of military technology, they weren’t that far ahead of the Mongols: they had bows and the Mongols had bows. When civilization has machine guns and the barbarians don’t, it’s a different story.

    Our weaknesses today aren’t technological, but ideological.

    That’s not at all unique. The Europeans bought huge amounts of land from the natives. Altogether it probably rivals, if not exceeds, the amount taken by force.

    I’d be surprised if that’s true, but I don’t know. I suspect the ratio is more like that of Zionist land purchased versus taken.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. Svigor says:

    Primitives can sometimes rack up impressive body counts, though. For example, estimates on the total number of people killed by the Aztecs (war+human sacrifice) during the period 1440-1521 run to around 1.2 million.

    Yeah, no kidding. The Mongols are estimated to have killed between 7 and 9 percent of the world population. I’ve never heard another tally that comes anywhere near that.

    And don’t forget the Rwandan genocide, where the Hutus exceeded the death rate of the Holocaust, mostly using machetes.

    Now think of a bow shaft that is as thick as a man’s arm, about the size of a baseball bat, and picture it having enough flex to draw it back 36″ or 42″.

    Yeah but this was back in the day, before steroids. A man’s arm was like a twig. ;)

    Seriously though, people really like to think bows were more impressive weapons than they were. It wasn’t a quick way to die.

    P.S., what is a “standard target” made out of?

    Anglo-Saxons do not excel as warriors. During WWII, for instance, the German despite being outnumbered almost 3 to 1 and with the Wehrmacht in serious disarray, still pushed the Americans back during the Ardennes offensive.

    Lol, compared to Latinos, you mean? Yeah, actually, they kinda do. Using WWII era Germans as the minimum standard of military excellence is like using Isaac Newton as the minimum standard of intellectual excellence.

    And then there are all the Italians, Jews, and other non-Anglo-Saxons who were drafted into the US military…

    But don’t worry Nick, your people will always have La Violencia to boast about. Nobody outdoes Latinos at sheer savage butchery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
    "Lol, compared to Latinos, you mean? Yeah, actually, they kinda do.

    Uh...where did I even mention Latinos? Epic straw man. I was comparing the Spanish conquest of South and central Americas to the English conquest of North America. And speaking of Latinos, Che Guevara did beat the American forces that were supporting the Batista regime. In fact, America actively send Army Rangers not to mention supplied weapons, and Cstro still won. And in the late 1980's, the Medellín Cartel kicked the DEA's ass. There were over 2,000 DEA agents in Colombia with access to the same military weaponry as the American Military and they failed to do shit against Escobar. So, yeah, Latinos actually *are* pretty good at this whole war thing. Face it: Anglo-Saxons win wars due to superior resources and technology *only* . And even then, the technological and materially inferior opponent still beats them(Vietnam War).

    And who said I am Latino? Did you know I have dark green eyes and blond hair? Huh?

    "Using WWII era Germans as the minimum standard of military excellence is like using Isaac Newton as the minimum standard of intellectual excellence."

    Where have I stated that Germans in WWII were the "minimum" standard of military excellence? Another straw man. Your rebuttal is pointless because I never claimed only Germans were capable of beating Anglo-Saxons one-on-one. Let me use other examples, then. How about the American Military accomplishing nothing in 19 years in Afghanistan? Or the fact that after several years in Iraq Americans couldn't beat the insurgents and gave up and left? I mean, those are *certainly* not in the same league militarilly as the German Wehrmacht in WW2,. and yet they still kicked Anglo-Saxon ass. Germans are not needed to beat Anglo-Saxons. That is overkill. Iraqis, and Afghanis will do. I could also bring up the Vietcongs humiliating Anglo-Saxons during the Vietnam War, but I won't do that because, even though America enjoyed literally one thousand times the economic and industrial capacity of the Vietcongs, they outnumbered the Americans. Sure, losing to a tiny Third World country is still embarrassing for a superpower, but hey, at least Americans can use the excuse that the Vietcongs outnumbered them.

    "And then there are all the Italians, Jews, and other non-Anglo-Saxons who were drafted into the US military…"

    The American Military in WW2 was mostly Anglo-Saxon. The majority of white Americans back then were of British ancestry. The leadership was even more Anglo-Saxon. Your point is invalid.

    "But don’t worry Nick, your people will always have La Violencia to boast about. Nobody outdoes Latinos at sheer savage butchery."

    Thanks. I will take as a compliment. Who wants to be a pussy anyway? The fact is, most of the World laughs at the mild-mannered boring Anglo-Saxon, working his office job and taking orders from a female boss. At least Latinos can sleep at night sure that they are men. The same cannot be said about Anglo-Saxons. They are not sure if they are the man even in their own homes.

    , @Anonymous
    " Yeah, no kidding. The Mongols are estimated to have killed between 7 and 9 percent of the world population. I’ve never heard another tally that comes anywhere near that."

    -The 100 million from Communism might come in second. Its estimated that 5.5 billion died during the 20th Century. So Communists killed 1 out of every 55 people that died in the entire Century. 1 out of every 55 men, women and children, and it includes all deaths from all other causes- infant mortality, auto crashes, heart disease, cancer, World Wars, malaria, you name it. And usually, it was their own countrymen, their own flesh and blood. How dysfunctional is that for an ideology? Putting that into some real perspective should give pause to any naive Antifa waving a hammer and sickle, at least if they have any sense at all rattling around in their head.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. Surprisingly, my DNA results show a full-blooded Indian about 7or8 generations back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Why is that surprising?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. Polymath says:
    @Anonymous
    The commenter who Steve quoted up there seems to be one of those sappy muscleheads, like Vin Diesel. When they happen to think of something slightly deep, they like it so much they consider it the most profound insight anyone in their generation has ever had.

    I'm far from an SJW, but the weird American and Australia/NZ affliction for naming things after the natives seems to be an overcompensation for being the two areas of European colonialism where the natives were most efficiently wiped out.

    Australia, NZ and the USA would be similar to Brazil today if they hadn't ruthlessly cleaned out the natives before populating them with Europeans. This assertion should be pretty uncontroversial around these HBD-aware parts.

    When I see a New Zealand sports team perform the Hakka it strikes me as the most ugly form of cultural appropriation (again, I'm no SJW but that doesn't mean all their ideas are stupid). First you massacre the natives. Then you feel guilty about it so you take over quirky but safe aspects of their culture and pretend like the real thing is still alive. The old Christian urge to repent writ large.

    It's like the cultural equivalent of a zoo. You destroy the wild habitat of lions and tigers, then put a few specimens behind thick glass where your kids can laugh at them, and then feel so good about yourselves.

    Nope, NZ and Australia, which you conflate, are quite different from each other. The Australian aborigines were helpless, the Maori were tough and maintained cultural continuity and a degree of respect from the whites that the aborigines never came close to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @anonymous
    It would be interesting to find out how much of the genetic composition of the population of French Canada (including Quebec and the western part of New Brunswick) is indigenous North American. It is my understanding that there was no small degree of intermarriage between French settlers in Canada and the native population--particularly in the 17th and 18th centuries. My wife's ancestors on her mother's side settled in Canada during the French-Indian War and according to family lore it was believed (though never substantiated) that at least some of her ancestors married natives. A 23andme might provide the answer (though I have heard that their results are of questionable accuracy).

    We do know. It’s negligible.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/the-genomic-heritage-of-french-canadians

    French Canadians have this myth of a society of total French-indigenous unity existing without division or prejudice before the racist Anglos took over. But that’s what it is, a myth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. @Mark Caplan
    A long-observed fact of how Americans regarded Indians is that there was a sharp split: On the East Coast, Indians were viewed as noble, dignified, stoical, resourceful -- a people of admirable qualities and character. Also, East Coasters didn't happen to know many Indians personally. Out West, where whites encountered Indians routinely, Indians were seen as drunken, listless, lying, cheating, thieving semi-savages -- Gypsies without fiddles.

    In fairness, east coast Indians really are very different from plains Indians and others. Navajos and Apaches actually lived in fairly close proximity, yet were very different folks; shepherds and farmers vs. hunter gatherers. Cherokee were the five civilized tribes. The Commanches and Karankawas were not. Just as Chechens aren’t Swedes, nor are Sioux like the Havasupai.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Cagey Beast
    Hopefully some day our conquerors will romanticize our civilization when we're all safely dead. There are some hopeful signs guys! Look, some of them are forming non-Whites only classical music groups even before we're all dead!

    Europe's first all non-white orchestra is changing the face of classical music
    http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/may-14-2017-the-sunday-edition-with-michael-enright-1.4110476/europe-s-first-all-non-white-orchestra-is-changing-the-face-of-classical-music-1.4110490

    This sort of stuff must be Viagra for Boomer cucks. Imagine how good it must feel for a self-hating White snob to get their chocolate and peanut butter together in one tasty treat like this. It almost makes up for Trump!

    In Kim Stanley Robinson’s alternate history, The Years of Rice and Salt, in which 99% of Europe was wiped out by Black Death, an Arab musical genius faces resistance when he tries to invent classical music:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Thanks for the recommendation. I'd never heard of this author before but this looks interesting.
    , @Jim Don Bob
    I bought The Years of Rice and Salt after hearing it recommended here, and read a few chapters. I like alternate histories, but it didn't do much for me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @Peripatetic commenter
    Heh. There are serious discrepancies between that claim and the notoriously propagandistic Wikipedia's account:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narv%C3%A1ez_expedition

    Of course, Wikipedia could be lying and have left out the bit about English long bows in Florida.

    Thanks for the “Wikipedia could be lying” thing. As this forum devolves into a back-and-forth of Wikipedia and YouTube citations, we’d do well to remember who’s behind the scenes at those places, not to mention the infamous Hillary Clinton Editing Marathons.

    Try editing something in your own area of expertise, with appropriate citations of course. If you veer even slightly away from the Narrative, your edits will be “reverted” by an editor within 24 hours.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    There is an alternative:

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Special:RequestAccount

    I normally use Infogalactic links but I wanted to emphasize the ideological issues associated with Wikipedia.
    , @Old Palo Altan
    German wikipedia is very much better, at least on the subjects I tend to look at, which are broadly speaking all historical.
    French wiki strikes me as sketchy and superficial, while the Dutch, unsurprisingly, is similar to the German, with, perhaps, a bit more pizzazz.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. @oh its just me too
    "… And many of those whose people were here from the beginning did fight Indians and some percent did marry into tribes."

    I am of scots-irish descent and my mother had these 'we have indian blood ' stories.. So did Johnny Cash's family along with being 'irish' (which was probably semi correct, in the folk memory they came from Ireland, they just weren't Irish).

    Well I did a 23andme - 98. north european, 100 european...I long suspected my mother's story was BS with her I think it was her 'conversion' from being a southern belle to being a 60s liberal. She had to find some way to not be a southern belle. the story she told - so and so married an indian princess... is pretty common among southern women to the point of being googable....

    A test of the sort you took can only confirm a claim of Indian (or other) ancestry. It cannot disprove one.

    Over time, the contribution of DNA to you from any one ancestor may drop to zero. If we ignore the (small) effect of meiotic drive, the first mixed generation will have received just 50% of its DNA from the Indian ancestor.

    Six generations later (with no further Indian admixture) that figure would be down to 0.8%, before we account for the small effect of meiotic drive and the potentially large effect of differential fitness influence.

    If, on balance, the Indian genetic contribution to your ancestral line was selected against, and the Indian’s descendants with more Indian DNA had less reproductive success than those with less Indian DNA, the Indian ancestor’s genetic contribution to his descendants would be eliminated at a faster rate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Which I suppose raises the question of what relevance (beyond the truth or otherwise of family legends) there is to having an indian in your ancestry if his genetic contribution has disappeared over the intervening generations.....
    , @oh its just me too
    ben, my 23andme is 100% european, 98% northwest european and the rest was 'broadly' european. In other words, not a drop of injun
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. It’s off-topic, but I thought this article by Roger McGrath was particularly interesting:

    http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2017/June/41/6/magazine/article/10839553/

    Anymore, it’s as impermissible to say that anyone but blacks were enslaved, as it is to deny the One True Holocaust.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  231. @Jefferson
    "From what I have seen at 23andme, the vast majority of African Americans have at least small percentage of Indian blood, which is interesting because they seem a lot less likely to claim it than whites, who have much less evidence of it."

    If that were true why did the vast majority of African American celebrities who went on Henry Louis Gates end up showing no Native American blood in their DNA ancestry. It was so funny watching the disappointed looks on their African American faces when they found out they actually have White ancestry and not Cherokee ancestry like their family members claimed they have.

    “If that were true why did the vast majority of African American celebrities who went on Henry Louis Gates end up showing no Native American blood in their DNA ancestry. ”

    I’ve never seen that show. I’ve seen a good number of African American ancestry breakdowns at 23andme and almost all of them show at least a small percentage of Native. What test do they use on Gates’ show?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @James Richard

    genetic tests do not work that well in detecting indian ancestry below 25 percent
     
    Bullshit.

    https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/11/24/ask-ancestry-anne-where-is-my-native-american-dna/

    Answer: The short answer is yes, the traces of Native American DNA in your test may be too small to detect. Let’s look at why.
    If your great-great-grandmother was ¼ Cherokee, then it was her grandparent that was 100% Native American. And that would be your 4th-great-grandparent. Now your great-great-grandmother would get 50% of her DNA from her mother and 50% from her father. To make this easy, let’s divide by 2 for every generation.
    So how much of your great-great-grandmother’s DNA are you likely to have? Probably around 1.5625%! And that may not be enough to detect Native American ethnicity.

    Typical isteve commentator….smh

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    How did you get from

    Probably around 1.5625%! And that may not be enough to detect Native American ethnicity.
     
    to

    genetic tests do not work that well in detecting indian ancestry below 25 percent
     
    There is a big difference between those two statements. Especially when for the first example there is randomness involved and the true percentage might be less (which I suspect is the case they are actually referring to).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. Randal says:
    @ben tillman
    A test of the sort you took can only confirm a claim of Indian (or other) ancestry. It cannot disprove one.

    Over time, the contribution of DNA to you from any one ancestor may drop to zero. If we ignore the (small) effect of meiotic drive, the first mixed generation will have received just 50% of its DNA from the Indian ancestor.

    Six generations later (with no further Indian admixture) that figure would be down to 0.8%, before we account for the small effect of meiotic drive and the potentially large effect of differential fitness influence.

    If, on balance, the Indian genetic contribution to your ancestral line was selected against, and the Indian's descendants with more Indian DNA had less reproductive success than those with less Indian DNA, the Indian ancestor's genetic contribution to his descendants would be eliminated at a faster rate.

    Which I suppose raises the question of what relevance (beyond the truth or otherwise of family legends) there is to having an indian in your ancestry if his genetic contribution has disappeared over the intervening generations…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Which I suppose raises the question of what relevance (beyond the truth or otherwise of family legends) there is to having an indian in your ancestry if his genetic contribution has disappeared over the intervening generations…..
     
    That's a good question that is addressed a bit in the comments. I just wanted to point out that the conclusion that others of lying (or at least being mistaken) about Indian ancestry is unfounded.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. @Mark Caplan
    A long-observed fact of how Americans regarded Indians is that there was a sharp split: On the East Coast, Indians were viewed as noble, dignified, stoical, resourceful -- a people of admirable qualities and character. Also, East Coasters didn't happen to know many Indians personally. Out West, where whites encountered Indians routinely, Indians were seen as drunken, listless, lying, cheating, thieving semi-savages -- Gypsies without fiddles.

    Nonsense. In colonial New England and New York there was savage fighting. You are laying apocryphal modern sensibilities onto the historical record. Even the peaceful Delawares massacred the Dutch. There was fighting whenever whites started to appropriate Indian lands. It was just longer ago in the original 13 colonies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vendetta
    Plains Indians fought on horseback, East Coast Indians fought on foot.

    Made a world of difference not only in their military effectiveness on a tactical level but also in their ability to control territory.

    A foot tribe menaces a very limited radius home territory. A horse tribe can range and raid over hundreds of miles (or what would become multiple modern day states).

    On the East Coast, you had a rural/urban divide on how to deal with the Indian Question because sufficiently large towns on the coast essentially grew immune to raids.

    This divide lessens and lessens the further West you went because the towns of the interior were not as large or well-connected as those of the coast, and because they started running into horse tribes who could ride into town and be 200 miles away and untraceable a week later when the cavalry finally showed up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. @ANON
    The law is one thing; its administration quite another. In today's USA, it's all about the social status of your group, and not only are white males at the bottom, conscious (or "woke") white males are the lowest of the low. (Of course, I use the terms differently from typical race agitators.)

    Simply imagine such a person as Richard Spencer (who is a bit of a clown, with a habit of shooting himself in the foot) in front of a jury in a large American city. That will tell you all you need to know about what's left of his rights.

    This is why control of mass-media entertainment / propaganda is control of everything. They construct reality.

    I use the terms differently from typical race agitators.

    So you are what? An atypical race agitator?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. @Dahlia

    I don’t know how accurate 23 and Me is but it’s popped a lot of bubbles regarding Native American ancestry. There are several millennial white girls I know who claimed to be 1/8 Cherokee who were in tears to find that they were 99.6%-100% European. Now many of them cling for dear life to the <0.4% North African or whatever they got back from the results. Ties a lot into Steve's comment about the flight from white and how there is modern day cultural credibility about not being white, even if you are supposedly less than 1% non-white.

     

    So true about the bubbles!

    One big thing we've learned is how very little "ethnic" it takes to make a white person appear to be "not all white". For example, the swarthy white who had a great-great grandmother who's an Indian is likely no less than 97-99% white. I really think these errors mostly arose from the lack of appreciation of this fact.
    In another comment, I said my husband was descended from a tri-racial family. I don't know his DNA composition (we can guess based on other relatives), though I would be surprised if he's less than 97.5% white, yet, he has been asked his whole life "what all he is", especially from Asians (their white radar is incredible). Of course, his mother, and his mother's mother were asked that question even more and the "Indian ancestor" was whipped out for the explanation (we now know they were both, but more Black).

    Remember, you have only half of your parents’ DNA – otherwise, you’d have 200% of a normal genome. What you get with each succeeding generation is governed by a binomial or multinomial distribution, i.e. it’s the flip of a coin. Thus it’s impossible to refute distant ancestry of a particular type with a single autosomal test. A certain person who’s third or fourth on my brother’s list of 1250 closest relatives is absent from my list of 1250 (on 23andme). Thus your sibling could easily show interesting stuff that your own genome doesn’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. @Autochthon
    Your mom's story lacks internal coherence. Southern belles came of the tidewater plantations, of English provenance (not for nothing is the University of Virginia's mascot the cavalier...). These families staked out the fertile, productive, and (by the time civilian settlement began in earnest) relatively safe tidewater for their plantations and lived in related cities (Charleston, Savannah, etc.).

    The Scots-Irish generally arrived a little later and got the same welcome they had from the English for not being Anglican and from the Irish for not being Catholic: "Get on up to thr piedmont and the mountains where the lands are less productive and the Indians keep killing people; we're full up around here."

    These were the people who continued most of the fighting with Indians in Appalachia, its foothills, the Cumberland Plateau, etc. (until finally one of them, Jackson, pretty much fed up with the problems and having fairly decisively defeated them militarily, decided to relocate them en masse for their own good and Americans'). It was the proximity and interaction in those parts and times that led to occassional interbreeding. Even then, though, it was much rarer than is now popularly imagined, as everyone here notes.

    (Maybe your mom or you use the term "southern belle" a bit more loosely to simply mean she was a southern woman and not precisely from old money.)

    no incoherence. we’re descended from first families of Virginia and scots irish dirt farmers. I had a two direct descendants fight in the Civil war. one was one of General Lee’s field aides and another was a dirt farmer private.

    I use the term southern belle a little loosely yes, but I mean i grew up ( we lived in the north since my mom married into a ‘good’ wasp family from the northeast) with pictures of Civil war generals in our home, to my mom becoming a marxist pc/ uni teacher talking about white privilege and entirely disowning our southern heritage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. @ben tillman
    A test of the sort you took can only confirm a claim of Indian (or other) ancestry. It cannot disprove one.

    Over time, the contribution of DNA to you from any one ancestor may drop to zero. If we ignore the (small) effect of meiotic drive, the first mixed generation will have received just 50% of its DNA from the Indian ancestor.

    Six generations later (with no further Indian admixture) that figure would be down to 0.8%, before we account for the small effect of meiotic drive and the potentially large effect of differential fitness influence.

    If, on balance, the Indian genetic contribution to your ancestral line was selected against, and the Indian's descendants with more Indian DNA had less reproductive success than those with less Indian DNA, the Indian ancestor's genetic contribution to his descendants would be eliminated at a faster rate.

    ben, my 23andme is 100% european, 98% northwest european and the rest was ‘broadly’ european. In other words, not a drop of injun

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    ben, my 23andme is 100% european, 98% northwest european and the rest was ‘broadly’ european. In other words, not a drop of injun
     
    That means nothing.

    Re-read what I wrote, plus what I left out, which is that random chance could also wipe out an Indian ancestor's contribution to your DNA at a rate higher than 50% per generation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. syonredux says:
    @Jefferson
    "Dunno. I’ve talked to White nationalists who freely admit to having Amerind ancestry. Of course, we are talking low levels (under 25%)"

    I have never heard of any White nationalist on Stormfront claim to be anything but 100 percent pure unmixed White.

    "I wouldn’t say zero. Someone who is a quarter East Asian or Amerind and 75% European generally looks far more European than someone who is 25% Black and 75% European."

    I am talking about there is zero phenotype overlap between pure Amerindians and White people.

    Also this woman is genetically 20 percent Sub Saharan African and she looks far more European than any pure Amerindian person.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47XTgjpYocw&t=9s

    “Dunno. I’ve talked to White nationalists who freely admit to having Amerind ancestry. Of course, we are talking low levels (under 25%)”

    I have never heard of any White nationalist on Stormfront claim to be anything but 100 percent pure unmixed White.

    Never been on STORMFRONT. Too infantile. I’m talking about personal conversations, one-on-one. That way you avoid virtue-signalling and purity-spirals.

    “I wouldn’t say zero. Someone who is a quarter East Asian or Amerind and 75% European generally looks far more European than someone who is 25% Black and 75% European.”

    I am talking about there is zero phenotype overlap between pure Amerindians and White people.

    Dunno. East Asians and Europeans overlap in terms of complexion, for example.

    Also this woman is genetically 20 percent Sub Saharan African and she looks far more European than any pure Amerindian person.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47XTgjpYocw&t=9s

    I didn’t compare pure Amerinds to people who are 20% SSA; I compared people who are 25% Amerind and 75% European to people who are 25% SSA and 75% European. The former, in general, look far more European than the latter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. @Flinders Petrie
    I would be interested to see how many family stories of Indian ancestry debunked by 23andMe instead had unknown sub-Saharan ancestry.

    I get the feeling that, prior to the civil rights era, more than a few people dressed their mulatto grandmother up in Indian garb and called her a Cherokee princess.

    more interesting is a lot of radical black activists are probably the descendants of confederate soldiers…

    i think the blood/race mixing pretty much flowed one way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. Nick Diaz says:
    @James Richard

    Anglo-Saxons do not excel as warriors. During WWII, for instance, the German despite being outnumbered almost 3 to 1 and with the Wehrmacht in serious disarray, still pushed the Americans back during the Ardennes offensive.
     
    Not outnumbered 3 to 1 at the point of their attack and the push lasted only a few weeks and resulted in high German casualties and the abandonment of their equipment. If anything it hastened the Allied occupation of the Ruhr.

    The Germans were severely outnumbered almost 3 to 1 and yet still pushed back the Americans and inflicted heavy casualties. The point I was making is that, given the American superiority in men and resources, the Germans shouldn’t have been able to push the Americans back *at all* . Of course the Germans would lose anyway, since at the beggining of the Ardennes offensive the Weharmacht was already beaten anyway and the Soviets and Americans had literally 100 X the resource capacity of Germany in 1944 and no matter what the Germans did their defeat was eminent anyway. Your point is redundant because Germany losing the war as a whole was inevitable, and in no way takes away from the fact that Germans were able to beat Americans when severely outnumbered in men in resources. Germans lost the war because they couoldn’t beat the Allies 10 to 1, but they were still able to win battles where the Allies outnumbered them “only” 3 to 1. So, ceteres paribus, the Germans were better at war than Anglo-Saxons.

    Your point is invalid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Richard

    So, ceteres paribus, the Germans were better at war than Anglo-Saxons.
     
    But they weren't equal were they. The Germans declared war on America despite the fact that they had their hands full in Russia and Africa and we had twice their population. With strategic decisions like that they weren't very good at war at all.
    , @Dan Hayes
    Nick Diaz:

    Another example of German military prowess was their last-ditch Berlin battle holding off Soviet advances for an extraordinary amount of time - and mostly with underage combatants!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. donut says:

    in February 1909, Geronimo was thrown from his horse while riding home, and had to lie in the cold all night before a friend found him extremely ill.[38] He died of pneumonia on February 17, 1909, as a prisoner of the United States at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.[75] On his deathbed, he confessed to his nephew that he regretted his decision to surrender.[38] His last words were reported to be said to his nephew, “I should have never surrendered. I should have fought until I was the last man alive.”[76] He was buried at Fort Sill, Oklahoma in the Apache Indian Prisoner of War Cemetery.[58]

    He was drunk BTW. At 80 .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  243. @James Kabala
    I think there is also a conservative/patriotic reason for these claims - that people want to claim as deep a connection to America as possible. Even if you had ancestors who came over as early as 1607 or 1620, they were still latecomers compared to those who had been here thousands of years already. A claim of Indian ancestry gives you roots as deep as Europeans/Asians/Africans have on their continents.

    I think there is also a conservative/patriotic reason for these claims – that people want to claim as deep a connection to America as possible.

    I’d say it’s a romantic reason rather than conservative/patriotic from a white perspective. Far more quiet cachet for a conservative white to trace ancestry to the Winthrop Fleet than to be part Nipmuc. Such a person would have pride in his or her English roots. After all, what is the significance of America? Its greatness and invention is due to whites, Anglos in particular.

    A claim of Indian ancestry gives you roots as deep as Europeans/Asians/Africans have on their continents.

    See Charles Pewitt’s comment above:

    When baby boomer Elizabeth Warren vainly draws attention to her prominent cheekbones by suggesting that she is of Native American ancestry, she is also drawing attention to the fact that her people came by wooden boat under sail power …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. @FredW
    More precisely the native cultures had not developed even to a city state level. The "noble savage" mytholoy helps camouflage just how savage life on the frontier could be but today we don't hear much about dead white children killed in Indian attackschool because it violates the narrative. Guess some kids had it coming since they chose their parents so poorly.

    There was a fairly large (>40,000 + tenant farmers in the surrounding prairie) Indian city-state at one time in Illinois. It declined and fell on its own, becoming abandoned about 200 years before the Santa Maria, possibly helped along by massive floods.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia

    The important thing to remember is that by the time of colonization, pre-Colombian Americans were likely already experiencing a population ebb, enabling tribal scarcity-based cultures which self-limited their populations and had overlapping but distinct cultures. Many of them passionately hated one another in addition to Europeans, and it was not uncommon to see rival Indian tribes takes sides in imported European conflicts.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War

    Middle-school level history but worth remembering.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "It declined and fell on its own, becoming abandoned about 200 years before the Santa Maria, possibly helped along by massive floods."

    Okay, so maybe the reason American Indians in the Midwest didn't leave all that many tourist attraction ruin behind was that they flourished most on river bottoms with rich soil for growing corn. But they usually didn't have much in the way of stone near at hand, and what cities they had tended to get wiped out by floods.

    , @syonredux

    There was a fairly large (>40,000 + tenant farmers in the surrounding prairie) Indian city-state at one time in Illinois. It declined and fell on its own, becoming abandoned about 200 years before the Santa Maria, possibly helped along by massive floods.
     
    Quite a range on the population estimates:

    At the high point of its development, Cahokia was the largest urban center north of the great Mesoamerican cities in Mexico and Central America. Although it was home to only about 1,000 people before c. 1050, its population grew rapidly after that date. According to a 2007 study in Quaternary Science Reviews, "Between AD 1050 and 1100, Cahokia's population increased from between 1400 and 2800 people to between 10,200 and 15,300 people".[16] an estimate that applies only to a 1.8 km2 high density central occupation area.[17] Archaeologists estimate the city's population at between 6,000 and 40,000 at its peak,
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. Flip says:
    @Sid
    A lot of Celtic peoples have dark hair and skin. For example, there are the Black Irish, and the Picts were famous for being swarthy.

    The reason, I think, is that the original hunter-gatherers in Europe from the Paleolithic had dark hair and skin, but at times had light eyes. Modern Europeans got their light skin from Middle Eastern farmers. Eventually blond hair evolved and caught on like wild fire among Neolithic Europeans, but the parts of Europe were Celtic languages held on were fairly isolated, insulating them from a lot of gene flow. As such, the people of those places maintained a swarthy appearance longer than other parts of Northern Europe.

    One of my college roommates was Bavarian and he had black hair and a dark complexion. I had a girlfriend who was Hungarian/Slovak and she had black hair and dark olive skin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sid
    I once knew an ethnic Norwegian who had dark tan skin and black hair, and I knew a Turk with blond hair and bright blue eyes. That's variation for you.
    , @mts1
    Sounds like what was once referred to as the Alpine race. I'm guessing they're what's left of the Celts in the area after the Romans conquered. That's why you get some swarthy, hairy armed Welsh looking folk in Bavaria, Austria, Poland, and that area. I lived in Bavaria for a couple of years and, when I got there, expected to find the land of the Nordics only to wonder if I took a wrong turn at Albuquerque and ended up in Madrid. The guys with their black hair, stocky physiques, and big mustaches, most could've been put into a Mariachi band in a Hollywood film and you've thought they hired Mexicans for the part unless you were told these were Werners and Schmidts, and not a Velasquez or Rodriguez. But the ones who had office jobs and didn't camp in the sun were quite alabaster, and the ones who tanned didn't freckle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Nick Diaz
    No, the reality is that Anglo-Saxons were far less effective than Spaniards at crushing the Amerindians. Anglo-Saxons are pétit-bourgeoise people who excel as tradesman and to some degree as craftsmen. They are not warriors and win wars mostly with superior resource capacity and technology. Even compared to other European peoples, all civilized, Anglo-Saxons do not excel as warriors. During WWII, for instance, the German despite being outnumbered almost 3 to 1 and with the Wehrmacht in serious disarray, still pushed the Americans back during the Ardennes offensive.

    The fact is that Cortez, De Soto, etc, with a few hundred men crushed and conquered not one but two continents, bringing down several civilizations with them. I don't think the Apaches and Sioux were more vicious and war-like than the Aztecs and Mayas, with their human heart-eating customs. In fact, the Incas of South America had a highly organized military with far superior military technology than the indians of North America, and the Spaniards still crushed them.

    The fact is that Spanish conquest of South and Central Americas was the single greatest display of manliness in the history of the Earth, even greater than Genghis Khan's. Because Genghis Khan had an enormous army with hundreds of thousands of men. It was also greater than what the Romans accomplished because the numbers also enjoyed numerical parity with their opponents and took several centuries to build their empire; The Spaniards did it in a cuple of generations.

    Here is a BBC documentary on the "Conquistadores" and their unparalleled achievement: https://youtu.be/i9cuy3teV0w

    Anglo-Saxons excel as traders, merchants and crafstmen. They are not warriors. It's just not their strength.

    Now, I know what many of you wil reply, that the British Empire ended up being larger than Spain's and that makes me wrong. The difference is that the British conquered their empire when they had huge technological and resource superiority over their opponents. That is not the same as a few hundred men bringing down entire civilizations.

    “Now, I know what many of you wil reply, that the British Empire ended up being larger than Spain’s and that makes me wrong. The difference is that the British conquered their empire when they had huge technological and resource superiority over their opponents. That is not the same as a few hundred men bringing down entire civilizations.”

    History would suggest your views of Anglo meakness compared to the Spanish, are way off-base. The Spanish (and Mexicans ruled by the Spanish with Spanish Generals and support) consistently lost in the New World when they came up against the British and British Americans, however, and lost lots of territory in the process.

    And take the Texan’s victory in their battle for independence from Spanish Mexico. 25,000 Anglo-American settlers squaring off against a nation of 7 million, defeated the Mexican Army with Spanish leaders.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  247. Nick Diaz says:
    @Svigor

    Primitives can sometimes rack up impressive body counts, though. For example, estimates on the total number of people killed by the Aztecs (war+human sacrifice) during the period 1440-1521 run to around 1.2 million.
     
    Yeah, no kidding. The Mongols are estimated to have killed between 7 and 9 percent of the world population. I've never heard another tally that comes anywhere near that.

    And don't forget the Rwandan genocide, where the Hutus exceeded the death rate of the Holocaust, mostly using machetes.

    Now think of a bow shaft that is as thick as a man’s arm, about the size of a baseball bat, and picture it having enough flex to draw it back 36″ or 42″.
     
    Yeah but this was back in the day, before steroids. A man's arm was like a twig. ;)

    Seriously though, people really like to think bows were more impressive weapons than they were. It wasn't a quick way to die.

    P.S., what is a "standard target" made out of?

    Anglo-Saxons do not excel as warriors. During WWII, for instance, the German despite being outnumbered almost 3 to 1 and with the Wehrmacht in serious disarray, still pushed the Americans back during the Ardennes offensive.
     
    Lol, compared to Latinos, you mean? Yeah, actually, they kinda do. Using WWII era Germans as the minimum standard of military excellence is like using Isaac Newton as the minimum standard of intellectual excellence.

    And then there are all the Italians, Jews, and other non-Anglo-Saxons who were drafted into the US military...

    But don't worry Nick, your people will always have La Violencia to boast about. Nobody outdoes Latinos at sheer savage butchery.

    “Lol, compared to Latinos, you mean? Yeah, actually, they kinda do.

    Uh…where did I even mention Latinos? Epic straw man. I was comparing the Spanish conquest of South and central Americas to the English conquest of North America. And speaking of Latinos, Che Guevara did beat the American forces that were supporting the Batista regime. In fact, America actively send Army Rangers not to mention supplied weapons, and Cstro still won. And in the late 1980′s, the Medellín Cartel kicked the DEA’s ass. There were over 2,000 DEA agents in Colombia with access to the same military weaponry as the American Military and they failed to do shit against Escobar. So, yeah, Latinos actually *are* pretty good at this whole war thing. Face it: Anglo-Saxons win wars due to superior resources and technology *only* . And even then, the technological and materially inferior opponent still beats them(Vietnam War).

    And who said I am Latino? Did you know I have dark green eyes and blond hair? Huh?

    “Using WWII era Germans as the minimum standard of military excellence is like using Isaac Newton as the minimum standard of intellectual excellence.”

    Where have I stated that Germans in WWII were the “minimum” standard of military excellence? Another straw man. Your rebuttal is pointless because I never claimed only Germans were capable of beating Anglo-Saxons one-on-one. Let me use other examples, then. How about the American Military accomplishing nothing in 19 years in Afghanistan? Or the fact that after several years in Iraq Americans couldn’t beat the insurgents and gave up and left? I mean, those are *certainly* not in the same league militarilly as the German Wehrmacht in WW2,. and yet they still kicked Anglo-Saxon ass. Germans are not needed to beat Anglo-Saxons. That is overkill. Iraqis, and Afghanis will do. I could also bring up the Vietcongs humiliating Anglo-Saxons during the Vietnam War, but I won’t do that because, even though America enjoyed literally one thousand times the economic and industrial capacity of the Vietcongs, they outnumbered the Americans. Sure, losing to a tiny Third World country is still embarrassing for a superpower, but hey, at least Americans can use the excuse that the Vietcongs outnumbered them.

    “And then there are all the Italians, Jews, and other non-Anglo-Saxons who were drafted into the US military…”

    The American Military in WW2 was mostly Anglo-Saxon. The majority of white Americans back then were of British ancestry. The leadership was even more Anglo-Saxon. Your point is invalid.

    “But don’t worry Nick, your people will always have La Violencia to boast about. Nobody outdoes Latinos at sheer savage butchery.”

    Thanks. I will take as a compliment. Who wants to be a pussy anyway? The fact is, most of the World laughs at the mild-mannered boring Anglo-Saxon, working his office job and taking orders from a female boss. At least Latinos can sleep at night sure that they are men. The same cannot be said about Anglo-Saxons. They are not sure if they are the man even in their own homes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "Thanks. I will take as a compliment. Who wants to be a pussy anyway? The fact is, most of the World laughs at the mild-mannered boring Anglo-Saxon, working his office job and taking orders from a female boss. At least Latinos can sleep at night sure that they are men. The same cannot be said about Anglo-Saxons. They are not sure if they are the man even in their own homes."

    Don't know about that. I've worked in places with plenty of Latinos around, and what I see are usually short, squat guys who deferentially bow their head slightly and call me 'sir' every time we pass one other. Hardly what you'd call an Alpha-male. And they're usually married to a short, squat, barrel-shaped wife. And usually, the 'Mexican power couple' are living off the food stamps from the sweat of that terrible office working Anglo. Call that masculine? A man who can't provide for his own family is no man in my book.
    , @Kyle a
    We've accomplished much the last 17 years doing battle in that region. We've killed millions of Muslims, destroyed governments and countries and got mucho oil in the process. That's how superior peoples do it now. Don't need to take any land and import your own people now to colonize. You occupy from a far and drop a big arse bomb on em to keep em in check. Winning.
    , @Pincher Martin

    In fact, America actively send Army Rangers not to mention supplied weapons, and Cstro still won. And in the late 1980′s, the Medellín Cartel kicked the DEA’s ass.
     
    Lots of laughs. You've been smoking as much dope as the inspiration for your moniker.

    Had the US the inclination or desire to use even a small portion of its military might back then, Castro and the Medellín Cartel would've both been distant memories.

    But neither was in the top ten, and for the Medellín Cartel probably not in the top one hundred, among its military priorities at the time.

    Try not to be such a laughable idiot if it's possible.

    , @anonymous

    Who wants to be a pussy anyway? The fact is, most of the World laughs at the mild-mannered boring Anglo-Saxon, working his office job and taking orders from a female boss.
     
    You're a self-confessed homosexual. So where have you done any mano-a-mano fighting since you're so concerned with toughness? At a gay bathhouse?
    , @Opinionator
    Aren't Anglo-Saxons from Prussia, birthplace of the best German warriors?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @James Kabala
    I think there is also a conservative/patriotic reason for these claims - that people want to claim as deep a connection to America as possible. Even if you had ancestors who came over as early as 1607 or 1620, they were still latecomers compared to those who had been here thousands of years already. A claim of Indian ancestry gives you roots as deep as Europeans/Asians/Africans have on their continents.

    I think there is also a conservative/patriotic reason for these claims – that people want to claim as deep a connection to America as possible.

    I’ve thought this too. It probably developed in the century between roughly 1848 and 1948, as pop nationalism rose and fell in Europe. Even the Mexicans had their “cosmic race” myth to keep up with the Jones’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  249. Hubbub says:
    @eah
    https://twitter.com/BrittPettibone/status/866007622314467328

    Once a society gives in to questionable demands, the demands begin to pile up until the society has no foothold. As one could tell from the beginning of the Second Reconstruction with only Blacks Lives Mattering the demands, this time, would know no end. The demands will continue until we have no white society left, or the majority of whites get the balls to say ‘enough!’ There is no White monument that cannot be destroyed by simply playing the racism card.

    But like most bigoted groups, we can wait for the BLM to begin to devour its own, just as the Liberal Left is beginning to do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  250. When an American sports team calls itself the “Braves” or the “Redskins” it is a mark of respect for Native Americans – although in recent years SJWs have suggested the opposite.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  251. @oh its just me too
    "… And many of those whose people were here from the beginning did fight Indians and some percent did marry into tribes."

    I am of scots-irish descent and my mother had these 'we have indian blood ' stories.. So did Johnny Cash's family along with being 'irish' (which was probably semi correct, in the folk memory they came from Ireland, they just weren't Irish).

    Well I did a 23andme - 98. north european, 100 european...I long suspected my mother's story was BS with her I think it was her 'conversion' from being a southern belle to being a 60s liberal. She had to find some way to not be a southern belle. the story she told - so and so married an indian princess... is pretty common among southern women to the point of being googable....

    the story she told – so and so married an indian princess… is pretty common among southern women to the point of being googable….

    When you consider that Pocahontas’s dad alone had 149 wives, it would seem impossible for an Indian not to have some royal blood.

    Same goes in Africa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  252. @syonredux

    Hence why there is sometimes phenotype overlap between Amerindians and Asians but zero phenotype overlap between Amerindians and Whites.
     
    I wouldn't say zero. Someone who is a quarter East Asian or Amerind and 75% European generally looks far more European than someone who is 25% Black and 75% European.

    “Black ancestry is a taint, while Injun … not so.”

    Injun is seen as a racial taint among White nationalists, hence why the White nationalist movement has a no Amerindians and no Mestizos allowed policy. In the White nationalist movement a part Injun White person is an oxymoron.
     
    Dunno. I've talked to White nationalists who freely admit to having Amerind ancestry. Of course, we are talking low levels (under 25%)

    Someone who is a quarter East Asian or Amerind and 75% European generally looks far more European than someone who is 25% Black and 75% European.

    I saw a musical duo this weekend that sported a Japanese surname. It was a father-son act, and the father looked half-Asian, or even less. The son didn’t look remotely Asian, except for generic black hair.

    I couldn’t stay long enough for a full analysis; not with their Styx and Neil Young covers. Time to get back in the pouring rain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  253. @Roderick Spode
    There was a fairly large (>40,000 + tenant farmers in the surrounding prairie) Indian city-state at one time in Illinois. It declined and fell on its own, becoming abandoned about 200 years before the Santa Maria, possibly helped along by massive floods.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia

    The important thing to remember is that by the time of colonization, pre-Colombian Americans were likely already experiencing a population ebb, enabling tribal scarcity-based cultures which self-limited their populations and had overlapping but distinct cultures. Many of them passionately hated one another in addition to Europeans, and it was not uncommon to see rival Indian tribes takes sides in imported European conflicts.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War

    Middle-school level history but worth remembering.

    “It declined and fell on its own, becoming abandoned about 200 years before the Santa Maria, possibly helped along by massive floods.”

    Okay, so maybe the reason American Indians in the Midwest didn’t leave all that many tourist attraction ruin behind was that they flourished most on river bottoms with rich soil for growing corn. But they usually didn’t have much in the way of stone near at hand, and what cities they had tended to get wiped out by floods.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    . But they usually didn’t have much in the way of stone near at hand, and what cities they had tended to get wiped out by floods.

    Grew up near a couple of these.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  254. @guest
    Superunknown was a very suicide-y album. I never paid great attention to Soundgarden lyrics, because they always seemed vague and mostly about snakes. But Superunknown I've listened to a billion times, and its depression has seeped into me.

    That song, The Day I Tried to Live, is relatively upbeat. But I get an existentialist vibe from it (nothing matters, so why not make the best of it!), and one must never believe existentialist when they appear happy.

    Head Down tells you to love your life, but you gotta keep your head down, and if you smile they'll slap it off your face.

    Like Suicide, it's safe to say, is at least partly about suicide.

    Mailman I've heard is about "going postal," but all I get from the lyrics is about "heading for the bottom" and riding it all the way.

    Then there's the self-explanatory Let Me Drown and Fell on Black Days.

    The most famous track, Black Hole Sun, I always took as a call for the End of the World. Everyone would die if our sun turned into a black hole, obviously.

    “Black Hole Sun” is some kind of musical inversion of George Harrison’s “Here Comes the Sun,” right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kyle a
    This seems more like David Carradine than Robin Williams after hearing some of his wife comments.
    , @James Kabala
    Wikipedia claims Cornell was actually inspired by mishearing a newscaster. (I can't think of any normal phrase that would sound like "Black Hole Sun," but I guess if you are half-paying attention anything can sound like anything.)

    I always respected Cornell for criticizing MTV's Rock the Vote. He did an ad for it but said he eventually realized it was a pro-Clinton movement masquerading as non-partisan. I wondered if I had misremembered or imagined this, but no, the guy who put the clip on YouTube refers to it as well:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dreBvk26gRA
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  255. @Steve Sailer
    "It declined and fell on its own, becoming abandoned about 200 years before the Santa Maria, possibly helped along by massive floods."

    Okay, so maybe the reason American Indians in the Midwest didn't leave all that many tourist attraction ruin behind was that they flourished most on river bottoms with rich soil for growing corn. But they usually didn't have much in the way of stone near at hand, and what cities they had tended to get wiped out by floods.

    . But they usually didn’t have much in the way of stone near at hand, and what cities they had tended to get wiped out by floods.

    Grew up near a couple of these.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  256. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Nick Diaz
    "Lol, compared to Latinos, you mean? Yeah, actually, they kinda do.

    Uh...where did I even mention Latinos? Epic straw man. I was comparing the Spanish conquest of South and central Americas to the English conquest of North America. And speaking of Latinos, Che Guevara did beat the American forces that were supporting the Batista regime. In fact, America actively send Army Rangers not to mention supplied weapons, and Cstro still won. And in the late 1980's, the Medellín Cartel kicked the DEA's ass. There were over 2,000 DEA agents in Colombia with access to the same military weaponry as the American Military and they failed to do shit against Escobar. So, yeah, Latinos actually *are* pretty good at this whole war thing. Face it: Anglo-Saxons win wars due to superior resources and technology *only* . And even then, the technological and materially inferior opponent still beats them(Vietnam War).

    And who said I am Latino? Did you know I have dark green eyes and blond hair? Huh?

    "Using WWII era Germans as the minimum standard of military excellence is like using Isaac Newton as the minimum standard of intellectual excellence."

    Where have I stated that Germans in WWII were the "minimum" standard of military excellence? Another straw man. Your rebuttal is pointless because I never claimed only Germans were capable of beating Anglo-Saxons one-on-one. Let me use other examples, then. How about the American Military accomplishing nothing in 19 years in Afghanistan? Or the fact that after several years in Iraq Americans couldn't beat the insurgents and gave up and left? I mean, those are *certainly* not in the same league militarilly as the German Wehrmacht in WW2,. and yet they still kicked Anglo-Saxon ass. Germans are not needed to beat Anglo-Saxons. That is overkill. Iraqis, and Afghanis will do. I could also bring up the Vietcongs humiliating Anglo-Saxons during the Vietnam War, but I won't do that because, even though America enjoyed literally one thousand times the economic and industrial capacity of the Vietcongs, they outnumbered the Americans. Sure, losing to a tiny Third World country is still embarrassing for a superpower, but hey, at least Americans can use the excuse that the Vietcongs outnumbered them.

    "And then there are all the Italians, Jews, and other non-Anglo-Saxons who were drafted into the US military…"

    The American Military in WW2 was mostly Anglo-Saxon. The majority of white Americans back then were of British ancestry. The leadership was even more Anglo-Saxon. Your point is invalid.

    "But don’t worry Nick, your people will always have La Violencia to boast about. Nobody outdoes Latinos at sheer savage butchery."

    Thanks. I will take as a compliment. Who wants to be a pussy anyway? The fact is, most of the World laughs at the mild-mannered boring Anglo-Saxon, working his office job and taking orders from a female boss. At least Latinos can sleep at night sure that they are men. The same cannot be said about Anglo-Saxons. They are not sure if they are the man even in their own homes.

    “Thanks. I will take as a compliment. Who wants to be a pussy anyway? The fact is, most of the World laughs at the mild-mannered boring Anglo-Saxon, working his office job and taking orders from a female boss. At least Latinos can sleep at night sure that they are men. The same cannot be said about Anglo-Saxons. They are not sure if they are the man even in their own homes.”

    Don’t know about that. I’ve worked in places with plenty of Latinos around, and what I see are usually short, squat guys who deferentially bow their head slightly and call me ‘sir’ every time we pass one other. Hardly what you’d call an Alpha-male. And they’re usually married to a short, squat, barrel-shaped wife. And usually, the ‘Mexican power couple’ are living off the food stamps from the sweat of that terrible office working Anglo. Call that masculine? A man who can’t provide for his own family is no man in my book.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The short obese Latino Indians may be subservient in the workplace. They may live off food stamps and government housing. But when they get home they become super macho men beating their short obese barrel shaped women. They never marry their women because their women have must claim to be the single mothers of bastards to qualify for the food stamps, government housing and welfare that supports the entire Hispanic community in the US.

    They are no different from the blacks who live off their women and children's welfare.
    , @Nick Diaz
    What a pathetic comment. Being an alpha male has to do with power, and not necessarilçy the ability of killing people on-on-one. The reason why they bow to you is because you have more money than they do, because you are protected by American law which enforces the power of your money, and because other men(the police) would punish them if they tried to simply take stuff from you. Put you inside a jail cell with Latinos, and you will become their woman. Alpha Maleness depends on many different things as well as the environment you're in. And finally, I doubt very, very much that you are married to a hot wife. Guys like you usually end up with the scrapes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  257. Jivilov says:

    Yes. The “Indians” adapted quickly to Western weapons, sometimes even to tactics, even though their favorites were raids and ambuscades. It would’ve been interesting to see what would’ve happened if the tribesmen hadn’t been so susceptible to Eurasian pathogens, which in the end decided their fate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  258. Escher says:

    Related to a previous post:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39986215

    All the slave owners are coming out of the closet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  259. syonredux says:
    @Roderick Spode
    There was a fairly large (>40,000 + tenant farmers in the surrounding prairie) Indian city-state at one time in Illinois. It declined and fell on its own, becoming abandoned about 200 years before the Santa Maria, possibly helped along by massive floods.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia

    The important thing to remember is that by the time of colonization, pre-Colombian Americans were likely already experiencing a population ebb, enabling tribal scarcity-based cultures which self-limited their populations and had overlapping but distinct cultures. Many of them passionately hated one another in addition to Europeans, and it was not uncommon to see rival Indian tribes takes sides in imported European conflicts.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War

    Middle-school level history but worth remembering.

    There was a fairly large (>40,000 + tenant farmers in the surrounding prairie) Indian city-state at one time in Illinois. It declined and fell on its own, becoming abandoned about 200 years before the Santa Maria, possibly helped along by massive floods.

    Quite a range on the population estimates:

    At the high point of its development, Cahokia was the largest urban center north of the great Mesoamerican cities in Mexico and Central America. Although it was home to only about 1,000 people before c. 1050, its population grew rapidly after that date. According to a 2007 study in Quaternary Science Reviews, “Between AD 1050 and 1100, Cahokia’s population increased from between 1400 and 2800 people to between 10,200 and 15,300 people”.[16] an estimate that applies only to a 1.8 km2 high density central occupation area.[17] Archaeologists estimate the city’s population at between 6,000 and 40,000 at its peak,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  260. Svigor says:

    Uh…where did I even mention Latinos? Epic straw man. I was comparing the Spanish conquest of South and central Americas to the English conquest of North America.

    Obviously you didn’t draw your people into the comparison, because their military history is practically nonexistent. I wouldn’t expect you to want it mentioned.

    As for the Spanish, they had their moments, but they’re second fiddles to the Brits, the French, Germans, Russians, etc.

    The Spanish victory over the Aztecs was mostly psychological, not military. Because the people they conquered were aching to overthrow the cruelest regime in history. It was nothing, compared to what the Britons had to do in North America.

    And who said I am Latino? Did you know I have dark green eyes and blond hair? Huh?

    Sounds like you have some issues to work through…

    TL;DR-ed the rest of your shrill rant.

    It’s always disappointing when people ignore Latinos’ real historical accomplishments, like producing the most evil culture in history, the Aztecs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The Aztecs were Indians and the race that conquered them were European Spanish with the help of the Aztec's enemy, the Mayans and other tribes.

    Latino is no longer PC. This year the correct term is still Hispanic although who knows what it will be next year.
    , @syonredux

    The Spanish victory over the Aztecs was mostly psychological, not military. Because the people they conquered were aching to overthrow the cruelest regime in history.
     
    Yep. Two main factors in the Spanish Conquest of the Aztecs:

    1. They had no trouble finding Amerind allies who wanted to throw off the Aztec yoke.

    2. Smallpox


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_smallpox_in_Mexico
    , @Nick Diaz
    "Obviously you didn’t draw your people into the comparison, because their military history is practically nonexistent. I wouldn’t expect you to want it mentioned."

    My people? You have no idea who I am, kid. Stay put. And Latinos don't need many military achievements since they already have enough land to fit almost 3 Unites States inside it. The purpose of war is to conquer territory. They already have lots of it, hence military achievements are not needed. You're not smart.

    "As for the Spanish, they had their moments, but they’re second fiddles to the Brits, the French, Germans, Russians, etc."

    Spain's empire was the largest in the World for two centuries. Sure, Britain surpassed it, but more individual nations speak Spanish than English. As for the French and Germans, they had as many defeats as victories, which explains why their territories remained stable. Their colonial empire were much smaller than Spain's, too.

    "The Spanish victory over the Aztecs was mostly psychological, not military. Because the people they conquered were aching to overthrow the cruelest regime in history. It was nothing, compared to what the Britons had to do in North America."

    Laughable argument. Funny that the Spanish were able to make allies, while the Anglo-Saxon was not. The Pawnees and the Sioux, for instance, also ruled cruelly over other tribes. And yet, unlike the Spaniards, they formed no successful alliances with tribes that were subjugated by others.

    And how is the accomplishment of Britain greater? They beat a bunch of primitives. Spain beat not one, not two, but three advnaced and organized indian societies. No comparison.

    "Sounds like you have some issues to work through…"

    Not really. You do. The reason why I brought it up is only because I am constantly accused of being Latinoi. I couldn't care less either way. But, to you, somehow calling someone brown or Latino is supposed to be a derogatory remark. So who has issues? Stare in a mirror.

    "TL;DR-ed the rest of your shrill rant."

    You are a pretty shrill individual. It takes one to know one, I guess.

    "It’s always disappointing when people ignore Latinos’ real historical accomplishments, like producing the most evil culture in history, the Aztecs"

    Nah, the Anglo-Saxon got them beat. I mean, selling Opium to Chinese kids, enslaving 10 X more black people than the Spaniards did, forcing other countries to open their markets at gun point, stealing almost all the gold, silver and diamonds of Africa, etc. When it comes to evil, the Anglo-Saxon is unmatched.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  261. I’ve always found Geronimo to be a pretty interesting guy. Growing up in the mountains rather than in the plains gave him and his band- if you’re into geography affecting culture- quite a hillbillyish character. By all accounts he was a swaggaring, loudmouthed braggart who was pretty sharpwitted (he learned Spanish and English well enough to communicate) who vacillated between his native religion and being a kind of Reformed Church minister after his capture- mirroring his tendency to dress like an Anglo-American dude other times more traditionally, even before he was captured. (The CS Fly photographs are worth looking at as the only photos of a tribe’s warriors armed before surrender. Unlike some tribes, Apaches seemed to have no suspicions about being photographed. )

    Geronimo’s drinking didn’t come from the Spanish or Anglos. Apache and other southwestern tribes had been making tiswin long before European contact.

    Him and two dozen warriors holding out for two decades in the mountains was pretty impressive. Gen George Crook said, “Each man was a general to himself.” I doubt too many could handle moving for hundreds of miles at a time between the Salt River Canyon and the Sierra Madres in a few days. I don’t know if the legend is true of teenage boy rite of passage of having to run twenty miles or so through the mountain desert with nothing but a mouthful of water and having to have some of the water still in the mouth when they reached the next encampment, but they must have been hearty people.

    Geronimo’s autobiography -embelleshed or not- is a good read, too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  262. Svigor says:

    I’d be surprised if that’s true, but I don’t know. I suspect the ratio is more like that of Zionist land purchased versus taken.

    I suppose how one defines things is a big factor; the US got a vast tracts of land by purchasing them from other European powers that had acquired them by various means, conquest very much included. If you count land purchased from European powers that acquired it by conquest as land the US acquired by conquest, you’re going to get a dramatically different tally than if you count it as land the US purchased.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  263. Kyle a says:
    @Nick Diaz
    No, the reality is that Anglo-Saxons were far less effective than Spaniards at crushing the Amerindians. Anglo-Saxons are pétit-bourgeoise people who excel as tradesman and to some degree as craftsmen. They are not warriors and win wars mostly with superior resource capacity and technology. Even compared to other European peoples, all civilized, Anglo-Saxons do not excel as warriors. During WWII, for instance, the German despite being outnumbered almost 3 to 1 and with the Wehrmacht in serious disarray, still pushed the Americans back during the Ardennes offensive.

    The fact is that Cortez, De Soto, etc, with a few hundred men crushed and conquered not one but two continents, bringing down several civilizations with them. I don't think the Apaches and Sioux were more vicious and war-like than the Aztecs and Mayas, with their human heart-eating customs. In fact, the Incas of South America had a highly organized military with far superior military technology than the indians of North America, and the Spaniards still crushed them.

    The fact is that Spanish conquest of South and Central Americas was the single greatest display of manliness in the history of the Earth, even greater than Genghis Khan's. Because Genghis Khan had an enormous army with hundreds of thousands of men. It was also greater than what the Romans accomplished because the numbers also enjoyed numerical parity with their opponents and took several centuries to build their empire; The Spaniards did it in a cuple of generations.

    Here is a BBC documentary on the "Conquistadores" and their unparalleled achievement: https://youtu.be/i9cuy3teV0w

    Anglo-Saxons excel as traders, merchants and crafstmen. They are not warriors. It's just not their strength.

    Now, I know what many of you wil reply, that the British Empire ended up being larger than Spain's and that makes me wrong. The difference is that the British conquered their empire when they had huge technological and resource superiority over their opponents. That is not the same as a few hundred men bringing down entire civilizations.

    Conner McGregor would be in disagreement. How’s your gardening and taco

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  264. HA says:
    @Jefferson
    "Dunno. I’ve talked to White nationalists who freely admit to having Amerind ancestry. Of course, we are talking low levels (under 25%)"

    I have never heard of any White nationalist on Stormfront claim to be anything but 100 percent pure unmixed White.

    "I wouldn’t say zero. Someone who is a quarter East Asian or Amerind and 75% European generally looks far more European than someone who is 25% Black and 75% European."

    I am talking about there is zero phenotype overlap between pure Amerindians and White people.

    Also this woman is genetically 20 percent Sub Saharan African and she looks far more European than any pure Amerindian person.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47XTgjpYocw&t=9s

    “I have never heard of any White nationalist on Stormfront claim to be anything but 100 percent pure unmixed White.”

    I don’t know what goes on at Stormfront, but Asa Earl Carter, “a Ku Klux Klan organizer, a rabid segregationist” and speechwriter for George Wallace (coining the phrase “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!”) reinvented himself (in Rachel Dolezal fashion) as a full-blooded Cherokee.

    http://www.npr.org/2012/04/20/151037079/the-artful-reinvention-of-klansman-asa-earl-carter

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  265. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Svigor

    Primitives can sometimes rack up impressive body counts, though. For example, estimates on the total number of people killed by the Aztecs (war+human sacrifice) during the period 1440-1521 run to around 1.2 million.
     
    Yeah, no kidding. The Mongols are estimated to have killed between 7 and 9 percent of the world population. I've never heard another tally that comes anywhere near that.

    And don't forget the Rwandan genocide, where the Hutus exceeded the death rate of the Holocaust, mostly using machetes.

    Now think of a bow shaft that is as thick as a man’s arm, about the size of a baseball bat, and picture it having enough flex to draw it back 36″ or 42″.
     
    Yeah but this was back in the day, before steroids. A man's arm was like a twig. ;)

    Seriously though, people really like to think bows were more impressive weapons than they were. It wasn't a quick way to die.

    P.S., what is a "standard target" made out of?

    Anglo-Saxons do not excel as warriors. During WWII, for instance, the German despite being outnumbered almost 3 to 1 and with the Wehrmacht in serious disarray, still pushed the Americans back during the Ardennes offensive.
     
    Lol, compared to Latinos, you mean? Yeah, actually, they kinda do. Using WWII era Germans as the minimum standard of military excellence is like using Isaac Newton as the minimum standard of intellectual excellence.

    And then there are all the Italians, Jews, and other non-Anglo-Saxons who were drafted into the US military...

    But don't worry Nick, your people will always have La Violencia to boast about. Nobody outdoes Latinos at sheer savage butchery.

    ” Yeah, no kidding. The Mongols are estimated to have killed between 7 and 9 percent of the world population. I’ve never heard another tally that comes anywhere near that.”

    -The 100 million from Communism might come in second. Its estimated that 5.5 billion died during the 20th Century. So Communists killed 1 out of every 55 people that died in the entire Century. 1 out of every 55 men, women and children, and it includes all deaths from all other causes- infant mortality, auto crashes, heart disease, cancer, World Wars, malaria, you name it. And usually, it was their own countrymen, their own flesh and blood. How dysfunctional is that for an ideology? Putting that into some real perspective should give pause to any naive Antifa waving a hammer and sickle, at least if they have any sense at all rattling around in their head.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Some historians/environmentalists claim that the Mongols killed so many that hundreds of thousands of miles in Central and Western Asia were so de populated that the land went back to forest and prairie. Their massacres of the people and destruction of Syria and what is now Iraq is well documented
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  266. Kyle a says:
    @Nick Diaz
    "Lol, compared to Latinos, you mean? Yeah, actually, they kinda do.

    Uh...where did I even mention Latinos? Epic straw man. I was comparing the Spanish conquest of South and central Americas to the English conquest of North America. And speaking of Latinos, Che Guevara did beat the American forces that were supporting the Batista regime. In fact, America actively send Army Rangers not to mention supplied weapons, and Cstro still won. And in the late 1980's, the Medellín Cartel kicked the DEA's ass. There were over 2,000 DEA agents in Colombia with access to the same military weaponry as the American Military and they failed to do shit against Escobar. So, yeah, Latinos actually *are* pretty good at this whole war thing. Face it: Anglo-Saxons win wars due to superior resources and technology *only* . And even then, the technological and materially inferior opponent still beats them(Vietnam War).

    And who said I am Latino? Did you know I have dark green eyes and blond hair? Huh?

    "Using WWII era Germans as the minimum standard of military excellence is like using Isaac Newton as the minimum standard of intellectual excellence."

    Where have I stated that Germans in WWII were the "minimum" standard of military excellence? Another straw man. Your rebuttal is pointless because I never claimed only Germans were capable of beating Anglo-Saxons one-on-one. Let me use other examples, then. How about the American Military accomplishing nothing in 19 years in Afghanistan? Or the fact that after several years in Iraq Americans couldn't beat the insurgents and gave up and left? I mean, those are *certainly* not in the same league militarilly as the German Wehrmacht in WW2,. and yet they still kicked Anglo-Saxon ass. Germans are not needed to beat Anglo-Saxons. That is overkill. Iraqis, and Afghanis will do. I could also bring up the Vietcongs humiliating Anglo-Saxons during the Vietnam War, but I won't do that because, even though America enjoyed literally one thousand times the economic and industrial capacity of the Vietcongs, they outnumbered the Americans. Sure, losing to a tiny Third World country is still embarrassing for a superpower, but hey, at least Americans can use the excuse that the Vietcongs outnumbered them.

    "And then there are all the Italians, Jews, and other non-Anglo-Saxons who were drafted into the US military…"

    The American Military in WW2 was mostly Anglo-Saxon. The majority of white Americans back then were of British ancestry. The leadership was even more Anglo-Saxon. Your point is invalid.

    "But don’t worry Nick, your people will always have La Violencia to boast about. Nobody outdoes Latinos at sheer savage butchery."

    Thanks. I will take as a compliment. Who wants to be a pussy anyway? The fact is, most of the World laughs at the mild-mannered boring Anglo-Saxon, working his office job and taking orders from a female boss. At least Latinos can sleep at night sure that they are men. The same cannot be said about Anglo-Saxons. They are not sure if they are the man even in their own homes.

    We’ve accomplished much the last 17 years doing battle in that region. We’ve killed millions of Muslims, destroyed governments and countries and got mucho oil in the process. That’s how superior peoples do it now. Don’t need to take any land and import your own people now to colonize. You occupy from a far and drop a big arse bomb on em to keep em in check. Winning.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  267. Kyle a says:
    @Steve Sailer
    "Black Hole Sun" is some kind of musical inversion of George Harrison's "Here Comes the Sun," right?

    This seems more like David Carradine than Robin Williams after hearing some of his wife comments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  268. @Nick Diaz
    "Lol, compared to Latinos, you mean? Yeah, actually, they kinda do.

    Uh...where did I even mention Latinos? Epic straw man. I was comparing the Spanish conquest of South and central Americas to the English conquest of North America. And speaking of Latinos, Che Guevara did beat the American forces that were supporting the Batista regime. In fact, America actively send Army Rangers not to mention supplied weapons, and Cstro still won. And in the late 1980's, the Medellín Cartel kicked the DEA's ass. There were over 2,000 DEA agents in Colombia with access to the same military weaponry as the American Military and they failed to do shit against Escobar. So, yeah, Latinos actually *are* pretty good at this whole war thing. Face it: Anglo-Saxons win wars due to superior resources and technology *only* . And even then, the technological and materially inferior opponent still beats them(Vietnam War).

    And who said I am Latino? Did you know I have dark green eyes and blond hair? Huh?

    "Using WWII era Germans as the minimum standard of military excellence is like using Isaac Newton as the minimum standard of intellectual excellence."

    Where have I stated that Germans in WWII were the "minimum" standard of military excellence? Another straw man. Your rebuttal is pointless because I never claimed only Germans were capable of beating Anglo-Saxons one-on-one. Let me use other examples, then. How about the American Military accomplishing nothing in 19 years in Afghanistan? Or the fact that after several years in Iraq Americans couldn't beat the insurgents and gave up and left? I mean, those are *certainly* not in the same league militarilly as the German Wehrmacht in WW2,. and yet they still kicked Anglo-Saxon ass. Germans are not needed to beat Anglo-Saxons. That is overkill. Iraqis, and Afghanis will do. I could also bring up the Vietcongs humiliating Anglo-Saxons during the Vietnam War, but I won't do that because, even though America enjoyed literally one thousand times the economic and industrial capacity of the Vietcongs, they outnumbered the Americans. Sure, losing to a tiny Third World country is still embarrassing for a superpower, but hey, at least Americans can use the excuse that the Vietcongs outnumbered them.

    "And then there are all the Italians, Jews, and other non-Anglo-Saxons who were drafted into the US military…"

    The American Military in WW2 was mostly Anglo-Saxon. The majority of white Americans back then were of British ancestry. The leadership was even more Anglo-Saxon. Your point is invalid.

    "But don’t worry Nick, your people will always have La Violencia to boast about. Nobody outdoes Latinos at sheer savage butchery."

    Thanks. I will take as a compliment. Who wants to be a pussy anyway? The fact is, most of the World laughs at the mild-mannered boring Anglo-Saxon, working his office job and taking orders from a female boss. At least Latinos can sleep at night sure that they are men. The same cannot be said about Anglo-Saxons. They are not sure if they are the man even in their own homes.

    In fact, America actively send Army Rangers not to mention supplied weapons, and Cstro still won. And in the late 1980′s, the Medellín Cartel kicked the DEA’s ass.

    Lots of laughs. You’ve been smoking as much dope as the inspiration for your moniker.

    Had the US the inclination or desire to use even a small portion of its military might back then, Castro and the Medellín Cartel would’ve both been distant memories.

    But neither was in the top ten, and for the Medellín Cartel probably not in the top one hundred, among its military priorities at the time.

    Try not to be such a laughable idiot if it’s possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
    "Had the US the inclination or desire to use even a small portion of its military might back then, Castro and the Medellín Cartel would’ve both been distant memories."

    Wrong. Reagan delcared war on drugs, and made the erradication of the cocaine epidemic the number #1 priority of his government. I mean, are you aware that the U.S government spent over a *trillion* Dollçars trying to eradicate cocaine in the 1990's alone? Your point is invalid.

    "But neither was in the top ten, and for the Medellín Cartel probably not in the top one hundred, among its military priorities at the time."

    Winning the Vietnam War was the #1 priority of America at that time, and America still failed. A bunch of of Vietcongs with armament no better than what the Cartels had humiliated the American Military. See how easy it is to prove you wrong?

    "Try not to be such a laughable idiot if it’s possible. Wrong."

    What's up with the posters in this blog being obsessed with being intelligent and calling others idiot? You are not intelligent. I easily prove you wrong. Your lack of wit is only matched by your inappropriate arrogance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  269. Jefferson says:

    After watching this music video who wouldn’t want to be Native American.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  270. @ANON
    Thanks for the "Wikipedia could be lying" thing. As this forum devolves into a back-and-forth of Wikipedia and YouTube citations, we'd do well to remember who's behind the scenes at those places, not to mention the infamous Hillary Clinton Editing Marathons.

    Try editing something in your own area of expertise, with appropriate citations of course. If you veer even slightly away from the Narrative, your edits will be "reverted" by an editor within 24 hours.

    There is an alternative:

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Special:RequestAccount

    I normally use Infogalactic links but I wanted to emphasize the ideological issues associated with Wikipedia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  271. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Nick Diaz
    "Lol, compared to Latinos, you mean? Yeah, actually, they kinda do.

    Uh...where did I even mention Latinos? Epic straw man. I was comparing the Spanish conquest of South and central Americas to the English conquest of North America. And speaking of Latinos, Che Guevara did beat the American forces that were supporting the Batista regime. In fact, America actively send Army Rangers not to mention supplied weapons, and Cstro still won. And in the late 1980's, the Medellín Cartel kicked the DEA's ass. There were over 2,000 DEA agents in Colombia with access to the same military weaponry as the American Military and they failed to do shit against Escobar. So, yeah, Latinos actually *are* pretty good at this whole war thing. Face it: Anglo-Saxons win wars due to superior resources and technology *only* . And even then, the technological and materially inferior opponent still beats them(Vietnam War).

    And who said I am Latino? Did you know I have dark green eyes and blond hair? Huh?

    "Using WWII era Germans as the minimum standard of military excellence is like using Isaac Newton as the minimum standard of intellectual excellence."

    Where have I stated that Germans in WWII were the "minimum" standard of military excellence? Another straw man. Your rebuttal is pointless because I never claimed only Germans were capable of beating Anglo-Saxons one-on-one. Let me use other examples, then. How about the American Military accomplishing nothing in 19 years in Afghanistan? Or the fact that after several years in Iraq Americans couldn't beat the insurgents and gave up and left? I mean, those are *certainly* not in the same league militarilly as the German Wehrmacht in WW2,. and yet they still kicked Anglo-Saxon ass. Germans are not needed to beat Anglo-Saxons. That is overkill. Iraqis, and Afghanis will do. I could also bring up the Vietcongs humiliating Anglo-Saxons during the Vietnam War, but I won't do that because, even though America enjoyed literally one thousand times the economic and industrial capacity of the Vietcongs, they outnumbered the Americans. Sure, losing to a tiny Third World country is still embarrassing for a superpower, but hey, at least Americans can use the excuse that the Vietcongs outnumbered them.

    "And then there are all the Italians, Jews, and other non-Anglo-Saxons who were drafted into the US military…"

    The American Military in WW2 was mostly Anglo-Saxon. The majority of white Americans back then were of British ancestry. The leadership was even more Anglo-Saxon. Your point is invalid.

    "But don’t worry Nick, your people will always have La Violencia to boast about. Nobody outdoes Latinos at sheer savage butchery."

    Thanks. I will take as a compliment. Who wants to be a pussy anyway? The fact is, most of the World laughs at the mild-mannered boring Anglo-Saxon, working his office job and taking orders from a female boss. At least Latinos can sleep at night sure that they are men. The same cannot be said about Anglo-Saxons. They are not sure if they are the man even in their own homes.

    Who wants to be a pussy anyway? The fact is, most of the World laughs at the mild-mannered boring Anglo-Saxon, working his office job and taking orders from a female boss.

    You’re a self-confessed homosexual. So where have you done any mano-a-mano fighting since you’re so concerned with toughness? At a gay bathhouse?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
    I think you're confusing me with your dad. Epic projection, kid. And trust me: I would beat you in a fight with one hand tied behind my back. And I am not being fecetious at all. Boy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  272. @Nick Diaz
    The Germans were severely outnumbered almost 3 to 1 and yet still pushed back the Americans and inflicted heavy casualties. The point I was making is that, given the American superiority in men and resources, the Germans shouldn't have been able to push the Americans back *at all* . Of course the Germans would lose anyway, since at the beggining of the Ardennes offensive the Weharmacht was already beaten anyway and the Soviets and Americans had literally 100 X the resource capacity of Germany in 1944 and no matter what the Germans did their defeat was eminent anyway. Your point is redundant because Germany losing the war as a whole was inevitable, and in no way takes away from the fact that Germans were able to beat Americans when severely outnumbered in men in resources. Germans lost the war because they couoldn't beat the Allies 10 to 1, but they were still able to win battles where the Allies outnumbered them "only" 3 to 1. So, ceteres paribus, the Germans were better at war than Anglo-Saxons.

    Your point is invalid.

    So, ceteres paribus, the Germans were better at war than Anglo-Saxons.

    But they weren’t equal were they. The Germans declared war on America despite the fact that they had their hands full in Russia and Africa and we had twice their population. With strategic decisions like that they weren’t very good at war at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    What makes it even worse is that 25 years before they lost WW1 precisely because they tried to fight Russia in the N East and Italy and France in the south and Britian and America invading from the west.
    , @Old Palo Altan
    The decision to declare war on the USA was Hitler's alone.
    It drove the General Staff to despair, and, if there was ever a time when they ought to have put him out of the way, it was then.
    , @Nick Diaz
    I was obviously refering to the individual skills and bravery of soldiers, as well as sprit de corps. Leaderships is a different story. The Romans were better than the Carthagineans at war, and yet with Hannibal they almost decimated Rome.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  273. Jefferson says:
    @Sid
    A lot of Celtic peoples have dark hair and skin. For example, there are the Black Irish, and the Picts were famous for being swarthy.

    The reason, I think, is that the original hunter-gatherers in Europe from the Paleolithic had dark hair and skin, but at times had light eyes. Modern Europeans got their light skin from Middle Eastern farmers. Eventually blond hair evolved and caught on like wild fire among Neolithic Europeans, but the parts of Europe were Celtic languages held on were fairly isolated, insulating them from a lot of gene flow. As such, the people of those places maintained a swarthy appearance longer than other parts of Northern Europe.

    “The reason, I think, is that the original hunter-gatherers in Europe from the Paleolithic had dark hair and skin, but at times had light eyes. Modern Europeans got their light skin from Middle Eastern farmers.”

    What bullshit story did you get this from that Europeans were more swarthy than Middle Easterners and Middle Easterners were more pasty pale than Europeans.

    So Europeans used to all look like the swarthy Turk Cenk Uygur while Middle Easterners used to all look like the borderline Albino blond WASP stand up comedian Jim Gaffigan. Talk about fictional fairytale.

    So why are the roles reversed today?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/european-hunter-gatherers-blue-eyes-and-dark-skin/
    , @Dave
    Jefferson should get a grip and do some research on the latest genomic studies which show exactly what Sid has described.
    Razib Khan used to post links to many significant studies like this when he posted at Unz. You can dip into his archives and enlighten yourself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  274. MarkinPNW says:
    @James Richard
    LCdr. Ernest E. Evans' posthumous Medal of Honor citation:

    For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as commanding officer of the U.S.S. Johnston in action against major units of the enemy Japanese fleet during the battle off Samar on 25 October 1944. The first to lay a smokescreen and to open fire as an enemy task force, vastly superior in number, firepower and armor, rapidly approached. Comdr. Evans gallantly diverted the powerful blasts of hostile guns from the lightly armed and armored carriers under his protection, launching the first torpedo attack when the Johnston came under straddling Japanese shellfire. Undaunted by damage sustained under the terrific volume of fire, he unhesitatingly joined others of his group to provide fire support during subsequent torpedo attacks against the Japanese and, outshooting and outmaneuvering the enemy as he consistently interposed his vessel between the hostile fleet units and our carriers despite the crippling loss of engine power and communications with steering aft, shifted command to the fantail, shouted steering orders through an open hatch to men turning the rudder by hand and battled furiously until the Johnston, burning and shuddering from a mortal blow, lay dead in the water after 3 hours of fierce combat. Seriously wounded early in the engagement, Comdr. Evans, by his indomitable courage and brilliant professional skill, aided materially in turning back the enemy during a critical phase of the action. His valiant fighting spirit throughout this historic battle will venture as an inspiration to all who served with him.
     

    My grandfather was named Ernest F. Evans, wonder if they might have been cousins or otherwise related. Even though my grandfather had served in the Marines in the early ’20′s, at that time he was a middle-aged civilian painter with a growing family. My mother recorded in her teenage diary how on a Sunday family outing to the San Francisco Zoo there came a sudden announcement over the Zoo’s loudspeaker system of a sudden attack on Pearl Harbor. Her father at that time was employed as a painter in the shipyards around Oakland, painting Liberty and Victory ships under construction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Richard
    LCdr. Evans was part Cherokee and Creek and born in 1906 in Oklahoma if that is any help.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_E._Evans
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  275. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “Then there was the disastrous Navaraez expedition into northern Florida in 1527 with 600 soldiers, where the Spanish crossbows were no match for the Indians 7-foot long bows… Only four Spaniards survived the catastrophe.”

    This paragraph is rather misleading, it makes it sound like there was one battle. There were numerous small fights and the expedition essentially got destroyed and shipwrecked twice by hurricanes (the second time destroying 5 large boats they had built). It took years for their numbers to dwindle. The survivors slowly headed west, knowing there were Spanish outposts on the Pacific at near their latitude (and having no idea how wide North America was).

    After 8 years, near the Pacific coast (Gulf of California), their were only 4 survivors. These were rescued by Spanish looking for Indians to enslave, somewhat as they had hoped. Three of the 4 survivors were the first Europeans to cross North America (and document it); the third was an African slave, presumably the first African to do so.

    In their last years of the crossing, they had apparently evolved some sort of travelling parade cult and medicine show that enabled their passage.

    If you’ve never seen the movie, “Cabeza de Vaca”, check it out, though, sure, it’s just a movie.

    Narváez expedition:

    “The Narváez expedition was a Spanish journey of exploration started in 1527… Some 300 were assigned to explore Florida… they numbered 80 by late 1528…

    …The survivors… were the first known Europeans and Africans to see the Mississippi River, and cross the Gulf of Mexico and Texas…

    …They were subject to attacks by American Indians, and suffered from disease and severe lack of food…

    …Only four of the original party survived the next eight years to encounter Spanish slave catchers in Sinaloa in 1536…

    …the first written account of North America…”

    Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca

    Map of their route:

    Expedition Cabeza de Vaca Karte

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  276. @Foreign Expert
    Surprisingly, my DNA results show a full-blooded Indian about 7or8 generations back.

    Why is that surprising?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Foreign Expert
    My family is from Massachusetts and Maine and has no stories of Indian ancestors.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  277. @Pincher Martin
    I love this comment. It's well-written and intellectually provocative in the best sense of the word.

    But I think it greatly exaggerates the military effectiveness of the Native Americans in what is today the United States. The U.S. didn't have much of a military for the Indian Wars because it didn't need a large military for the Indian Wars.

    The Native Americans were certainly a threat to American settlers, and as King Philip's War shows, they were very dangerous when the numbers and weapons were closer to even.

    But after the founding of the United States, were they as large a threat as disease or other Europeans or even other Americans? I doubt it. I'm skeptical it was even close.

    "Whoever" also loads up on the experience of the Spanish in what is today the American Southeast, but why would that affect how American Anglos later viewed the Natives?

    Again, great comment. I just think it stretches the facts to fit the perception.

    Indigenous Americans tended to think tactically, not strategically. They were good fighters, but had no idea what they were getting into against Americans/Texans/Europeans, who sought to completely defeat an enemy, and wouldn’t be satisfied by just winning a battle or two.

    The Comanche, for example, initially treated the Texans like any other Indian tribe. If they saw an advantage, like an isolated Texas ranch, they would raid, take their stuff, kill their men, rape their women, and sometimes steal their children to increase Comanche numbers. This was business as usual for the Comanche. They expected the Texans to respond like the Apaches would have, maybe counter attack with a raid of their own to get even, but nothing more. Instead the Texans, and later the Americans, attempted to completely defeat them. They were quite surprised at the relentless pursuit and had no answer for it. The slaughter of Buffalo for their skins was encouraged by the American government, because this was the Comanche’s commissary. They were completely incapable of surviving in significant numbers without it. This was a strategic move that the Comanche were unable to anticipate, because they really knew very little about us.

    And that’s why they never stood a chance.

    Read More
    • Agree: Buffalo Joe
    • Replies: @Vendetta
    Red Cloud was the Sioux war chief who had the exclusive honor of actually winning a favorable peace treaty from the US government after a disastrous campaign by the US cavalry.

    After the war he was taken to see Washington DC and was overawed by the sight of more people there than he had ever seen in his life (and on being told there were dozens of cities this size, not just the one).

    After that black-pilling experience he essentially retired and never led another war against the US.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter