The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
“Indigenous Continent: the Epic Contest for North America"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

After a long period obsessing over African American history, a certain amount of attention is being reapplied to American Indian history, which is in a key way much more impressive: the Indians fought back for an incredible 275 years.

From the New York Times news section:

A Finnish Scholar Wants to Change How We See American History

In “Indigenous Continent,” Pekka Hamalainen aims to upend the nation’s grand narrative, putting Native people and Native power at the center.

By Jennifer Schuessler
Sept. 20, 2022

Americans may know the story of Crazy Horse, the Lakota warrior who led the rout of United States Army forces at Little Bighorn, or of Chief Joseph, the Nez Percé leader whose eloquent protest against his people’s forced removal to a reservation still echoes today.

But how many know the story of Po’pay, the Pueblo religious leader who led a revolt that drove the Spanish out of New Mexico in 1680? Or Opeka, a Shawnee sachem who shrewdly negotiated with the governor of Pennsylvania in 1710 to spare the lives of his people accused of killing colonists?

Their stories are among the many that appear in “Indigenous Continent: The Epic Contest for North America,” a sweeping new book by the Finnish historian Pekka Hamalainen….

“Indigenous Continent,” published on Tuesday by Liveright, aims to do nothing less than recast the story of Native American — and American — history, portraying Indigenous people not as victims but as powerful actors who profoundly shaped the course of events.

Hamalainen, a professor at the University of Oxford who has written acclaimed histories of the Comanche and the Lakota, is hardly the first scholar to argue against the trope of the “doomed” Indian, who inevitably falls victim to the onslaught of guns, germs and capitalism. But he takes the argument further.

The confrontation between European settlers and Indigenous America, he writes, “was a four-centuries-long war,” in which “Indians won as often as not.”

I doubt if palefaces in the past underestimated how much trouble the Indians were to subdue. For example, the Coen Brothers are a surprisingly reliable guide to how white Americans thought in earlier eras, and the Indian attack on the 1873 wagon train in the climactic segment of their Western anthology The Ballad of Buster Scruggs is terrifying.

“Indigenous Continent,” which comes with endorsements from some leading historians, aims to be a paradigm-busting book in the vein of best-sellers like “The 1619 Project,” from The New York Times Magazine, and David Graeber and David Wengrow’s “The Dawn of Everything.: A New History of Humanity.”

And for many readers, he said, “the most surprising revelation will be that the seemingly decisive conquest of the continent was anything but.”

… And behind the book lies another fraught question: Who should write the story of Native America, and how?

Presumably, Oxford feels freer to let a white man with no claim to Indian blood specialize in American Indian history than most American universities would in 2022?

… In a review in The Wall Street Journal, the historian Kathleen DuVal questioned Hamalainen’s framing of Indigenous history as “a grand story about Native men fighting European-American men,” while saying little about the way Native actions were embedded in kinship networks maintained by women.

In other words, the Finnish man’s history of American Indians is too masculine for the American woman’s tastes and interests. Of course, the American Indians tended to have extraordinarily masculine cultures.

 
Hide 221 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. In “Indigenous Continent,” Pekka Hamalainen aims to upend the nation’s grand narrative, putting Native people and Native power at the center.

    The trouble with “centering” all of these various groups is that they all can’t fit in the center together.

    Also, if people are more legitimate because they got here first, what does that tell us about the current invasions?

  2. Daniel H says:

    Po’pay

    From the name sounds like he was Corn Pop’s sidekick at that epic sitdown at the public swimming pool in Wilmington in the summer of ’61.

    • Replies: @Fluesterwitz
  3. Wilkey says:

    the Indians fought back for an incredible 275 years

    The Third Worlders are going to conquer Europe, Australia, and North America much, much faster than whites conquered Australia and North America from the natives. Births in the USA are already over 50% non-white, and Crazy Uncle Joe is bringing in 3 million legal and illegal immigrants a year. Canada’s annual immigration of ~430,000 – virtually all of if non-white – surpasses its total number of annual births (only ~360,000).

    Our leaders are batshit crazy.

    • Agree: bomag, Pastit
  4. Of course, the American Indians tended to have extraordinarily masculine cultures.

    If you gonna raid the smoke shop, you better bring the muscle.

    • Replies: @SMK
  5. In a lot of the tribes there were two parties:

    1.) The peace party, consisting of chiefs who’d been to Washington, D.C. The government took these chiefs on tours of gun factories, West Point, major cities, railroads, showed them hot-air balloons, etc. They understood that, eventually, the whites would win, so they always used diplomacy or nonviolent resistance.

    2.) The war party, consisting of younger warriors and marginalized leaders who had not been to Washington. These Indians saw only the whites on the frontier and dismissed them as nonentities who could be wiped out.

    The Indians in group #2 started wars, and almost always prevailed in the opening engagements. Then the Army would finally show up and, sometimes decades later, win.

    That at least is my impression.

  6. Native Americans aren’t in cities, and are more likely to be gun-toting, military-joining, culturally conservative patriots than the blacks that Jews fawn over. So they tend to disappoint in terms of Marxists attempts to “organize” them into revolts.

    Marxists turning to Native Americans is an old pattern.

    Following WW2 the Marxists had success with the black civil rights marches and the sexual revolution. However, when the backlash against them hit, in the late 60’s/early 70s they turned to Native American causes, and they didn’t get much headway. Sure, they got Johnny Cash to sing about Ira Hayes, and they came up with Little Big Man and revisionist Westerns, and they got a fake Indian to cry about litter on TV, but all in all they got nothing out of Native American causes like they wanted. No matter how hard they tried, Marxism didn’t take on the reservations.

    It seems we’re seeing the same pattern. The Marxists got a load of what they wanted with the Ferguson-Floyd riot years, but people are fleeing cities and talking “tough on crime” again, and with the Supreme Court’s 2nd Amendment ruling trying to disarm whitey to await his slaughter is unlikely. Meanwhile, the tranny/pedo movement has stalled as doctors and drug companies keep getting exposed as trying to make a buck off normal teenage malaise. So, again, having seen their winning causes peter out to resistance, they’re trying for Native Americans again for a new front to win on.

    As before, I think they will fail here. But who knows–maybe Lizzie Warren can convince them.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @bomag
    , @J1234
  7. The feminist scholar probably skips over the whole “female dominated” Iroquois massacres of other Indians who didn’t do what they wanted.

    • Agree: bomag
    • Replies: @mc23
  8. AceDeuce says:

    Let’s see:

    White Confederates:

    Formed a long-established society of their own which pre-dated 1776 by far. A society that, while admirable in several ways, was, at bottom, cruel, unfair, and violent. Some members unapologetically owned black slaves.

    Resenting the U.S. government’s interference, they sought separation from it. They fought viciously, and were soundly defeated.

    Modern history’s verdict: “Screw those losers. They tried to take on Uncle Sam and keep their weird, sick ways, and they got their asses handed to them. Put them in the garbage can of history and erase all traces of those traitors.”

    American Indians:

    Formed a long-established society of their own which pre-dated 1776 by far. A society that, while admirable in several ways, was, at bottom, cruel, unfair, and violent. Some members unapologetically owned black slaves.

    Resenting the U.S. government’s interference, they sought separation from it. They fought viciously, and were soundly defeated.

    Modern history’s verdict:

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  9. Custer died on land stolen by the Cheyenne and the Sioux from the Crow.

    Now what?

    P.S. I changed my email address and the error message is driving me crazy

    • Replies: @bomag
  10. Jubilee says:

    There were a number of war like tribes. There were also a number of peaceful tribes. More often than not, Euro American society succeeded in exploiting the conflict between different tribes. The Pima and Papago, for example, were extremely happy to cooperate with the US Army in rounding up the Apache.

    Anybody who doesn’t think the war like Indians were savage cruel vicious and violent is just frankly ignorant of history.

    All the first attempts at settlement along the eastern see board were checked by anti White genocides. How do people not know that? Good for this book for highlighting actual history.

  11. epebble says:
    @Wilkey

    … much, much faster …

    1776 + 275 = 2051, expected year of “flip”. There is some symmetry to that.

    Also 275 is an interesting number, negative 273 being the point at which everything in the universe stops and reaches absolute “death”. May be ~300 years is what is ordained by nature as the lifespan of a modern “empire”/Civilization.

    • Replies: @SFG
    , @Sam Malone
  12. Injun history is interesting. Nothing wrong with writing about that. Intellectuals have always admired the noble savages from a distance. While the settlers getting scalped on the ragged frontier have tended to be less enthusiastic fans.

    But at least these historians are wising up to the fact that if you want to sell books people prefer the war stories. Skip the B.S. about how the Red Man lived in harmony with nature and ate the whole Buffalo, or whatever.

    • Replies: @Anon
  13. Anonymous[410] • Disclaimer says:

    After a long period obsessing over African American history, a certain amount of attention is being reapplied to American Indian history, which is in a key way much more impressive: the Indians fought back for an incredible 275 years.

    I don’t see the basis for any comparison here. African-Americans were the beneficiaries of and participants in a conquest, or “immigration,” if you will. African-Americans had really nothing to “fight back” against apart from the Indians. The Indians were fighting against immigration.

    What the Indians could be compared to is American Whites. American Whites are now facing an invasion and conquest. The only difference is they aren’t fighting back.

  14. Anonymous[410] • Disclaimer says:
    @HammerJack

    Also, if people are more legitimate because they got here first, what does that tell us about the current invasions?

    Why don’t you come up with your own argument to defend your nation, rather than trying to dance within your enemy’s framework?

    • Replies: @bomag
  15. @HammerJack

    Also, if people are more legitimate because they got here first, what does that tell us about the current invasions?

    You beat me too it Hammer.

    The Native Indians are fine to beat on the white settler people–the ancestors of the deplorables. And for saying “not your land, you stole it!”

    But fundamentally, the moral claim of Native Indians is … being native!

    So this is very much not the story the “nation of immigrants”, “must have immigrants!”, “immigration the greatest thing ever!” Jews want to harp on. It is not some accident that blacks have been the narrative cudgel of choice–and Indians went out of fashion compared to 50 years ago. “Natives good, invaders bad” is not the narrative they want people thinking about.

    • Agree: Inverness
  16. @Wilkey

    Our leaders are batshit crazy.

    Our leaders are batshit evil.

  17. @Wilkey

    Our leaders are 🦇💩 crazy.

    But the craziest pay out the most in benefits. So they get reelected.

    • Agree: bomag
  18. Off Topic: Here’s an article with potential grist for the iSteve mill, including lots of facts and figures about the havoc wrought by BLM.

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/09/20/a-requiem-for-black-lives-matter/

    • Replies: @notsaying
  19. notsaying says:

    I am sure there’s lots Americans don’t know about Native Americans. This could be a very interesting book. I am willing to believe all kinds of things about our interactions that don’t match the conventional wisdom.

    But look: past a certain point in the mid-1800s, the outcome was not in doubt if we kept pushing West, which we did. There were just too many of us. Our technology improved; theirs did only when they upgraded what they had of ours.

    I realize while writing this that I do not know when we decided we were going to take the whole continent. Did we even announce that or did we just keep going West piecemeal: show up in new places, bring more whites in, fight, win, sign treaty that pushes them West and onto reservations over and over again?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States

  20. @HammerJack

    if people are more legitimate because they got here first, what does that tell us about the current invasions?

    The logic is that Guatemalans and Venezuelans, though not indigenous to, say, Texas, are still more indigenous than whites are. Even though historically, if Mayans or Aztecs had tried migrating to Texas, the Apaches would not have exactly rolled out the welcome mat.

  21. Anon[441] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    Skip the B.S. about how the Red Man lived in harmony with nature and ate the whole Buffalo, or whatever

    Huh? That’s not bullshit.

    Before the Europeans arrived, and even up until about 1850, North America was teeming wih over 50 million bufflo, widespread elk, bear and wolf populations, huge deer herds, various wild sheep species, tallgrass prarie for as far as the eye can see, and huge forests throughout the midwest and parts of Texas.

    By 1890, almost all of that had been destroyed. The buffalo were almost extinct, wolves, bears and elks (who used to stretch as far south as cenral Texas) wholl eliminated from most areas, deer populations destroyed, numerous species of wild sheep completely extinct, there is almost no tall grassland anymore, and most of the country de-treed, with re-forestation efforts not to succeed until roughly our time, and mostly in small exurban areas.

    It doesn’t take a very high IQ to be able to put 2 and 2 together and observe that this atrocity happened due to European immigrans, not Indians. Indians were living in harmony with nature. They left us a pristine continent to destroy in a mater of less than half a century, particularly Texas which seems to have been especially ravaged by the Anglo settlers.

  22. Anonymous[257] • Disclaimer says:

    In other words, the Finnish man’s history of American Indians is too masculine for the American woman’s tastes and interests. Of course, the American Indians tended to have extraordinarily masculine cultures.

    I remember in 2nd grade, we had a Thanksgiving Day thing where we dressed up and reenacted the first Thanksgiving. All the boys wanted to be the Indians because you got to wear these Indian warrior outfits and have warpaint. Whereas if you were a Pilgrim, you had to wear the stuffy full body black Pilgrim suit outfit with the big hat.

    From what I recall from elementary school, everything we learned about the Indians tended to be female oriented. It seemed like everything was about Indian domestic life – their homes, cooking, clothing, ornaments, etc. and the different arts and crafts projects you could have based on that e.g. making paper mache models of the different Indian houses, making Indian beads and shell jewelry, etc. that we would have to take home and have our parents do for us. None of the boys were interested in it. We wanted to play Cowboys and Indians or draw pictures of Indians fighting with bows and arrows and hunting.

  23. Speaking of indigenes, this return volley is fun:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1572145367512190978

    Slavery was ended via naked white supremacism.

  24. Moses says:

    OT – New iSteve-y story:

    \$250 million govt fraud perpetrated by Somalis in Minnesota. Yet only defendant name listed in national media reports is White woman, Aimee Bock. This story naming all defendants from local media:

    https://www.kttc.com/2022/09/20/four-rochester-residents-among-47-defendants-charged-250m-feeding-our-future-covid-19-fraud-scheme/

    Ms. Bock appears to be the only White listed among the 47 defendants. All the others Somali.

    Brown immigrants stepping in to do the mass gubmint fraud that Americans just won’t do. Our greatest strength.

  25. notsaying says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    It’s sad, isn’t it?

    If BLM is fading, something else has to take its place. Right now we have to have a top priority civil rights complaint or goal or movement for everybody to focus on and talk about.

    I see the newest thing this week in the Woke-Gender Identity world is the claim that eunuchs or wanna-be eunuchs have a separate gender identity and deserve medical care. This is the last thing I want to hear more about but maybe if people are forced to think and talk about it, more will realize how nutty some of this stuff is.

  26. @notsaying

    The outcome was probably not in doubt after King Phillip’s War (1675-1676), which pitted the English colonists and their Indian allies against the Wampanoag tribe, led by Metacomet (also known as King Phillip by the colonists). Metacomet realized that the only hope for the Indians in New England was to wipe out the colonists once and for all. He achieved a series of initial successes, rather similar to Pontiac’s rebellion in 1763, but the colonists decided that if there was any wiping out to do, they were going to be the wipers and not the wipees. Although the colonists suffered heavy losses, the consequences for the Wampanoags were catastrophic, and Metacomet was himself killed. After King Phillip’s War, there was no chance that the Indians could throw the colonists back into the sea, which they had done successfully against the Vikings in the 11th Century.

    After King Phillip’s War, the Indians only hope to contain the American colonists (independent after 1783) was an alliance with a European power, who could blockade the United States and provide troops and logistical support to Indian resistance. And that hope died at the end of the War of 1812, which was, at best, a military draw for the United States, but was a catastrophe for the Indians. After that, it was just a matter of time before the settler displaced the Indians. The Indians were, fundamentally, a Neolithic civilization confronting an industrial one. They might have been capabl of tactical successes, but their stratetic situation was hopeless.

    • Agree: Fluesterwitz, mc23
    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  27. Anon[253] • Disclaimer says:
    @notsaying

    But look: past a certain point in the mid-1800s, the outcome was not in doubt if we kept pushing West, which we did. There were just too many of us. Our technology improved; theirs did only when they upgraded what they had of ours.

    I realize while writing this that I do not know when we decided we were going to take the whole continent. Did we even announce that or did we just keep going West piecemeal:

    Similarly, nonwhites are taking the whole continent from Whites now.

  28. @Daniel H

    He was the one with the spinach.

  29. Another interesting one by the same writer is The Comanche Empire (2009), specifically his explanation of why the Spanish could not prevail in the Southwest (or Northwest as seen from Mexico).

  30. Coemgen says:
    @Anon

    “Equidae in North America ultimately became extinct, … Several studies have indicated humans probably arrived in Alaska at the same time or shortly before the local extinction of horses…” [source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_United_States#Extinction_and_return%5D

    Maybe it doesn’t take a “very high IQ” to put 2 and 2 together but it does take some brains to do so.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Anon
  31. @Anon

    The Indians just weren’t as good at killing stuff. It had nothing to do with their inherent virtue.

    • Thanks: Liza
    • Replies: @Anon
  32. sb says:

    Surely the extreme toxic masculinity of indigenous folk throughout the New World is sufficient reason to be grateful for their emasculation.

    I mean, can there be anything worse than toxic masculinity.

  33. Twinkie says:

    the Indians fought back for an incredible 275 years.

    Meh. That’s only when you aggregate a bewildering array of different tribes living in vastly different environmental conditions and historical circumstances.

  34. @Anon

    1. Up to half of the buffalo killed by hide hunters were killed by Indians. Lots of Indians were professional hunters and trappers when they could trade for European goods.
    2. Even before European settlement, Indians had high infant mortality rates.

    • Replies: @Anon
  35. Twinkie says:
    @Anon

    Indians were living in harmony with nature.

    This is silly. It wasn’t that the American Indians were some sort of New Age Gaia-lovers who intended to “live in harmony with nature” out of some earth-loving ideology. It’s rather that many Indian tribes were composed of hunter-gatherers who were forced to adapt to their environments, because not to do so would have meant the extinction of their tribes and bands. The Malthusian limitation dynamic is different for hunter-gatherers (or pastoralists) than it is for agriculturalists, but there is still a limitation dynamic. Those tribes that grew fat in the good weather years went extinct when there was extensive drought.

    Conflating backwardness with moral superiority is a peculiar conceit of the modern Westerner.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @megabar
    , @Anon
  36. anonymous[214] • Disclaimer says:

    There’s an interesting racialist idea promulgated by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez amongst others, saying that Latinos, given their typical ancestry of being partly native-American, are thus intrinsically a people ‘native’ to North America, unlike European-heritage whites … thus Latinos cannot be ‘illegal’, whereas Europeans (or Africans etc) overstaying visas are at the least non-indigenous

    Making USA Latino, is thus ‘giving it back to the natives’! So, the argument goes, USA whites should maybe consider going back to the lands of their European ancestors, if they don’t like being in the upcoming Latino-dominant USA

    Sometimes one sees the phrase ‘castizo futurism’, that it’s just time for whites to accept a Latino-centred America as natural, indigenous and correct … and to note that with a white-Latina marriage as is increasingly common and successful, the children become ‘American indigenous’ too

    • Replies: @SFG
    , @megabar
  37. Gordo says:

    But how many know the story of Po’pay, the Pueblo religious leader who led a revolt that drove the Spanish out of New Mexico in 1680? Or Opeka, a Shawnee sachem who shrewdly negotiated with the governor of Pennsylvania in 1710 to spare the lives of his people accused of killing colonists?

    And how many know the story of Kennewick Man?

    Anyway who cres about this stuff, I care about my people.

  38. ‘Empire of the Summer Moon” is good reading. Suffice it to say, I’m VERY glad Quanah Parker is not angry with me.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  39. @International Jew

    International Jew wrote to HammerJack:

    Even though historically, if Mayans or Aztecs had tried migrating to Texas, the Apaches would not have exactly rolled out the welcome mat.

    The problem the Left is going to have is that red-blooded American boys have long admired Amerindians.

    I don’t recall any trouble getting guys to play the Injuns when Sailer and I were kids and boys played “Cowboys and Indians.”

    The Amerindians were not Woke little wusses.

  40. @Anon

    Anon[441] wrote to Hypnotoad666:

    Indians were living in harmony with nature.

    One phrase: “New World Pleistocene megafauna, extinction of.”

    I am afraid the fossil record disagrees with you.

    • Agree: Twinkie, Pastit
    • Replies: @Anon
  41. @Cool Daddy Jimbo

    I’ve probably almost bought “Empire of the Summer Moon” at the book store three or four times. It’s like when walking around Blockbuster Video in the 1990s, I picked up “Weekend at Bernie’s” countless times but never quite ever checked it out.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  42. SFG says:
    @epebble

    John Glubb said something similar in ‘The Fate of Empires’. Even had stages that kind of fit.

    • Thanks: bomag, epebble
    • Replies: @epebble
  43. SFG says:
    @anonymous

    Castizo Futurism was Matt Forney’s idea of whites and Hispanics forming a coalition against blacks (and, implicitly, Jews if you read the essay, with jokes about Latino Nazis). I doubt AOC is a fan.

    I do think if you extended ‘white’ to, say, people with one quarter Amerindian blood (the original definition of ‘castizo’, I.e. the child of a mestizo and a ‘castellano’, a Spaniard), you’d probably keep a majority. Problem is the current affirmative action regime encourages them to identify as Hispanic for the AA goodies. Imagine if, say, the Irish had gotten set-asides in 1850. Bill O’Reilly would be speaking in a fake Irish accent and complaining about British supremacy.

  44. dearieme says:

    “the seemingly decisive conquest of the continent was anything but”: on the contrary it seems to have been entirely decisive. It’s true that the Injuns’ cousins are now successfully invading the US but that’s a rather different point, isn’t it?

    The tale of the Europeans in North America may end up being slightly reminiscent of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain. They took centuries to conquer the Romano-Britons. They then lost control in one afternoon in 1066 followed by a few years of mopping up.

    The contrast is that there weren’t many Normans anyway so eventually the descendants of the Anglo-Saxons did OK. There seem to be an awful lot of Hispanix invading the US though.

  45. G. Poulin says:
    @Anon

    On the other hand, the wooly mammoths are doing really well.

    • Replies: @Anon
  46. Arclight says:

    Native history is complicated by the various tribes and alliances they formed with Europeans, but it is clear that when violence occurred it was incredibly vicious and it’s amazing how many settlers decided to try living in relatively isolated areas far from any help. However, the outcome was never really in doubt given the far more advanced Europeans and disease depopulating large parts of the continent before any significant numbers of settlers arrived.

    The current condition of Natives is a shame however. No one really champions them and reservation life offers very little, with all of its problems well out of sight. In contrast America’s other population with legitimate historic grievances have only grown in numbers, wield outsized political influence, and inflict massive cultural and economic costs on everyone else in plain view while our elites frantically try to sweep it out of view in the media and discussions of public policy.

  47. megabar says:
    @Twinkie

    > It wasn’t that the American Indians were some sort of New Age Gaia-lovers who intended to “live in harmony with nature”

    In some way, intent is irrelevant. If the Indians couldn’t kill off too many buffalo without themselves dying, then they were living in harmony, whether or not they chose to. Much like a pack of wolves.

    Put another way, in a natural state, man is forced to live in harmony, and technology removes this constraint. Therefore, it is important to be aware of long-term, downstream consequences of technology. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

    One of the best solutions I’ve heard of is ownership of resources, and thus avoiding the tragedy of the commons. But still, it requires accurately recognizing the risks.

    This is a problem with modernism. The USA can, due to its economic/technological might, house and feed millions of immigrants for the short- to medium-term without much apparent problem. It can even put many of them to work and seemingly make them a productive addition. But what will the long-term consequences be? What are the actual risks?

    • Replies: @bomag
    , @Twinkie
  48. megabar says:
    @anonymous

    > Latinos, given their typical ancestry of being partly native-American, are thus intrinsically a people ‘native’ to North America, unlike European-heritage whites

    There is some truth to this, but so what? It’s sophistry to argue that “dibs” is a good way to distribute land and form society.

  49. AceDeuce says:

    Semi off topic:

    With all of the “evil While people/poor ‘Native American’ ” talk these days, I’m always amazed at the simultaneous acclaim and cuckworship of the so called “Buffalo Soldiers” of the 19th Century. At a time when monuments and statues of Whites are torn down, a plethora of monuments and statues have been raised to the Buffalo Soldiers over the past 40 years, (including an elaborate memorial at West Point), and they have been held up as a shining example of the wonderfulness of blacks.

    The Buffalo Soldiers were black soldiers, in many cases, recently freed slaves, who enlisted in the Army of their own free will after the Civil War, and were sent West to fight the Indians for Uncle Sam. The Indians gave them their nickname, it is said.

    Essentially, if one uses the “holy persons of color” template, they were persons of color who volunteered to work for the evil White Man to slaughter other people of color so the evil White Man could steal those other persons of colors’ land. Doesn’t sound all that heroic when it’s laid out like that. If the Whites in the story are considered scum, why not their willing minions?

    In World War II Europe, there were collaborators–people originally from countries that the Germans invaded–Poles, Czechs, Dutch, French, etc., who supported and cooperated with the Nazis against their own countrymen. They were and are reviled universally, hated even more than the Germans themselves.

    The black Buffalo Soldiers were basically the same thing. Where is the condemnation and erasure?

  50. Thea says:

    Don’t tell them what the “indigenous Americans” did with people already living here when they arrived.

    Or the tribes to one another.

    The Sioux claim the Black Hills as historically their sacred land. At least since they ethnically cleansed it’s earlier inhabitants whose name was lost to history.

  51. Unit472 says:

    I recently read that the Indians success at Little Big Horn was due, in large part, to their being equipped with Winchester repeating rifles. These were new state of the art guns and probably not cheap so its likely the Gold Rush into the Dakota Black Hills may have been set off with Sioux Indians showing up at trading posts with more than animal hides and horses to trade. Maybe some big gold nuggets that piqued the curiousity of whites as to where the Indians new wealth was coming from.

  52. Anon[100] • Disclaimer says:
    @Coemgen

    You do realize those humans weren’t the same people as modern Native Americans, and that extinction of local horses is generally attributed to the same climate change that allowed those humans to cross over in to Alaska, not hunting, right?

    Right, moron? Right … ?

    • Replies: @rebel yell
  53. @Steve Sailer

    Go get it from the library or on-line, if the you are so worried about being scalped by the publisher.* Peak Stupidity was so impressed with Empire of the Summer Moon, which is one big picture story and 2 smaller stories in one, that we wrote a 3-part review:

    Part 1 – – Part 2 – – and Part 3. Don’t worry about a spoiler – we all pretty much know what happened.

    Of course, the American Indians tended to have extraordinarily masculine cultures.

    This book was just about the Comanches. For them, that statement is on the money. Women were nothing but beasts of burden with benefits to the Comanches. The job of the men was simply to raid, kill, torture, and steal horses. (They were some of the best horsemen the world has ever seen.) I don’t kid here – those weren’t just a part of life – that WAS life to a Comanche, before the White man spoiled it all, dammit!
    .

    * I jest. I know that the problem is there’s too much else to read!

  54. Anon[100] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    Low verbal IQ is a peculiar conceit of the pig-nosed gook with blond hair on its arms from its GI ancestor. There was nothing in my post that said Indians were morally superior.

    However, Native Americans did in fact have a nature worshipping religion and their stewardship of nature is largely attributable to nature worship.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @Alden
    , @Sam Malone
  55. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @PhysicistDave

    One phrase: “New World Pleistocene megafauna, extinction of.”

    I am afraid the fossil record disagrees with you

    One phrase: “climate change and the late pleistocene immigrants weren’t the same people as modern Native Americans, racially or genetically”.

    You ought to check out that fossil record, maybe open up a genetic study if you could read one. Modern Native Americans are not the same, physically or genetically, as the first wave of migrants who entered America 15,000 years ago, who may or may not have been more related to pig-skinned Eurotrash MFing BUGS such as yourself.

    And I’ll say it again for your ignorant ass. Modern Native Americans lived in harmony with nature and never exterminated anything in their entire lives.

    • LOL: PhysicistDave
  56. Archie was a prophet; so was Meathead ….

  57. Anon[386] • Disclaimer says:
    @G. Poulin

    Man, I can tell a lot of you fools dropped out of high school.

    Paleo-Indians were not the same people as modern Native Americans. They were more similar to y’all’s Neanderthaloid ass.

    Actual Native Americans like we know them today weren’t a thing, physically or genetically, until about 9,000 years ago. The wooly mammoths died off due to climate change that facilitated the entry of the first known wave of humans in to the Americas, unlike in Europe where they really did go extinct due to overhunting.

    Man, I laugh at these pig-skinned haoles after how easy it is to make them pwn themselves. FYI, the people you’re accusing of killing the wooly mammoths are ironicallg the same people you probably think were European Solutreans. It just hasn’t occured to you, yet.

    Take a breather, go shoot some more toilets behind your trailer and come back when you’re ready to get pwned again.

    • LOL: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  58. slumber_j says:
    @For what it's worth

    The war party, consisting of younger warriors and marginalized leaders who had not been to Washington. These Indians saw only the whites on the frontier and dismissed them as nonentities who could be wiped out.

    Sounds about right.

    Here’s a passage about my great-great grandfather, whose surname I bear, and his dealings with the Indians while raising a family on the frontier in what became Waseca, MN. From Child’s History of Waseca County, Minnesota, by James E. Child (1905):

    Among Waseca county pioneers was [my ancestor], who, with his family, settled close to what then was the eastern border of the Winnebago Indian Reservation, in St. Mary in 1857]. […] Living near a populous Indian reservation offers a great field for the imagination of romantic boys. It didn’t require a curfew ordinance in those days to call the children in at night, and it is recorded that even men in those days kept good hours. Every age and time has its utilities. Now, the city parent reminds the young hopeful to look out for the policeman, but in those early days, to secure good order and early hours, a mother had but to speak of Indians. The old settler still recalls Indian days and tells the newcomer that men went to bed in those days not knowing whether they would “wake up dead or alive next morning.” The trials of the […] family were incidental to all early settlers in ante-railroad days; but the head of the family never lost faith in the productive future of the county.

  59. Cutter says:

    The U.S. Army doesn’t name all its helicopters after Amerindian tribes because it thinks they were a bunch of sorry-ass losers.

    They were legitimately hard men. America’s born out of almost three centuries of racial warfare.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  60. Anon[176] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    Wrong.

    Native Americans viewed themselves as stewards of the land and revered all lifeforms, including non-animal life.

    White people on the other hand made buffalo extermination a top priority, to get the land of the prarie for agricultural abuse and to build all those small towns that are now rotting and full of drug addicts. Truly the scourge of the Earth. White people to this day continue to pride themselves in wolf extermination, boasing about breaking what little in the way of laws they have enacted to protect these innocent creatures/sweet baby babies, with such odious slogans as “shoot, shovel, and shut up”.

    Time for you to wake up and realize that your race is the rape-baby descendant of Satan and that your fake prophet Jesus Christ is was too.

    You disgust me haole.

  61. Anon[231] • Disclaimer says:
    @Redneck farmer

    1. Up to half of the buffalo killed by hide hunters were killed by Indians. Lots of Indians were professional hunters and trappers when they could trade for European goods.

    There’s a lie. White hunters were chiefly responsible for the extermination of buffalo, particularly those ordered to exterminate them by the US government.

    2. Even before European settlement, Indians had high infant mortality rates.

    More pitiful Caucasian lies. Native Americans had lower infant mortality and also lower maternal mortality (Caucasian women can’t birth right, defective). What Indians had was higher adult mortality. And this has nothing to do with the extermination of buffalo carried out by a small number of Caucasian frontiersmen. Native Americans did not exterminate the buffalo because they were stewards of the land with a cultural tradition of protecting the +50 million buffalo that existed in this country, just 170 years ago.

    • LOL: Legba
  62. I think the way the old john Wayne movie The Searchers portrayed indians vs settlers is about right…and by the way, one of the greatest movies of all time

  63. BenjaminL says:

    A few years ago, Peter Cozzens wrote The Earth Is Weeping: The Epic Story of the Indian Wars for the American West, notable for being slightly less hateful antiwhite propaganda than Dee Brown’s canonical Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.

    The difference between the reviews of this book by Jared Taylor, and by Douglas Brinkley, is really striking. You can tell which one is Massaging the Narrative.

    https://www.amren.com/features/2021/03/american-settlers-meet-spartans/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/books/review/earth-is-weeping-peter-cozzens.html

    Meanwhile, from the present review:

    Native peoples and often dominated European settlers, in a kind of “reversed colonialism.”

    When “Lakota America” appeared in 2020, some Lakota scholars objected to that framing, saying it implied a moral equivalence with — or even a justification for — European conquest.

    Woke Academics cannot abide the idea that Native Colonialism might be in any way tainted with the existential evil of White Colonialism. Colonialism is Good when Natives colonize, and Bad when Whites colonize. Who. Whom.

  64. @AnotherDad

    Depends one perspective. Our rulers feel that a multi-everything society is better for their people. That’s not evil from their perspective.

    Now, why Steve thinks that it’s a great idea is more of a mystery.

  65. Ganderson says:
    @For what it's worth

    Seems about right- Larry McMurtry’s books are good on the Indians- they neither romanticize nor demonize the Indians. Brian Moore’s Black Robe (as well as the Bruce Beresford movie) is good as well.

    I always wonder, if the Indians had been able to set aside their traditional tribal rivalries (to put it mildly) and develop a sense of “Indian-ness”, they could have resisted the Europeans more sucesssfully.

  66. bomag says:
    @Anonymous

    Well, he did qualify it with “if”.

    And I suppose one should grapple with it, to the extent that land claims generally either come from primogeniture or conquest.

  67. bomag says:
    @R.G. Camara

    Generally agree.

    I’m wondering how the Woke’s removal of Indian names from sports teams/monuments fits in. Partly it is the usual fake care; but also looks to be clearing the decks for a more pure worship of Floyd et al, like the Taliban destroying all incorrect totems.

    • Replies: @Ripple Earthdevil
  68. bomag says:
    @interesting

    All three were encroaching on other tribes who were there earlier.

    The Crow allied with the US and got the place, which is quite nice for the area.

  69. Anonymous[364] • Disclaimer says:
    @AceDeuce

    A society that, while admirable in several ways, was, at bottom, cruel, unfair, and violent. Some members unapologetically owned black slaves.

    In point of fact, African-Americans benefited from so-called “slavery.” They enjoyed higher living standards than the median Frenchman, got to enjoy the fruits of the White man’s technology, religion, essential fairness, rule of law, and multiplied.

    • Replies: @AceDeuce
  70. Anonymous[364] • Disclaimer says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    After that, it was just a matter of time before the settler displaced the Indians. The Indians were, fundamentally, a Neolithic civilization confronting an industrial one. They might have been capabl of tactical successes, but their stratetic situation was hopeless.

    Is it now just a matter of time before nonwhites replace Whites on the North American landmass?

  71. epebble says:
    @SFG

    THE FATE OF EMPIRES and SEARCH FOR SURVIVAL by Sir John Glubb

    http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

    Another numerical curiosity:

    1492 + 275 = 1767

    1767 + 275 = 2042

    Stirs of change fill the bosoms of nations circa 300 years?

  72. @HammerJack

    Also, if people are more legitimate because they got here first, what does that tell us about the current invasions?

    Well, the natives didn’t take their replacement laying down. They fought back tooth and nail, not just against White soldiers but by slaughtering and massacring White settlers down to the last child. The article Steve links even triumphantly mentions the time a red leader “shrewdly” negotiated getting some of his men off the hook for murdering Whites. So perhaps Whites should return to tried and true methods to deal with their own replacement.

    • Agree: AceDeuce
  73. Pekka Hamalainen aims to upend the nation’s grand narrative…

    Somebody tell the idiot he’s only 60 years too late…

  74. Ralph L says:

    I learned an ancestor bought land in central NC in 1760 on Buffalo Creek, which I thought was a funny name for this far east. Turns out there were buffalo in the Piedmont when the white man arrived, so there must have been grassland, too. I’d assumed it was all forest, as much of it is now.

  75. bomag says:
    @megabar

    Good points, and we are in a kind of experiment: can modern tech sustain itself?

    Seems the continent was slated to be developed, so to harp on Europeans misses a larger point. Various Asians, Africans, and South Americans are happy to denounce YT as they pave and build condos in Yellowstone National Park.

  76. anon[183] • Disclaimer says:

    Not only did the Indians (feather not dot) fight like … savages – they also took and traded slaves, tortured and murdered their captives in cruel, painful ways.
    Stole land as they drove out rival Indian tribes.
    Tough people!

    Yep, OUR natives were bad- ass!! I say, “cool”!!!

  77. Kylie says:

    “I doubt if palefaces in the past underestimated how much trouble the Indians were to subdue.”

    Yes, right up to the fairly recent past (Boomers childhoods). In grade school, we learned about the great Indian chiefs and their tribes. My brother has a book of tales from the Old West, the Indians in it were downright scary.

    And John Ford in his moves never treated Indians as other than fearsome and worthy foes. He makes it clear in The Searchers that Ethan Edwards and Cicatrice are really two sides of the same coin.

  78. Liza says:
    @Anon

    That reverence for animals, would that include the practice of driving hundreds of bison off a cliff? What a great way to die.

    • Replies: @Anon
  79. mc23 says:
    @Redneck farmer

    The Iroquois had a matriarchal system of property but otherwise were male dominated
    .
    The Lenape Indians made a pact with the Iroquois for protection after they lost most of their land to settlers. The terms stated they would be the woman in the relationship. The pact collapsed. The Iroquois sent envoys to renegotiate. The envoys were told to leave before the Lenape turned them into women.

  80. @Cutter

    I don’t know if Piper was ahead of Army aviation on this or not, Cutter, but they’ve been around a long time:

    Cherokee
    Dakota
    Comanche
    Apache
    Aztec
    Navajo
    Seneca
    Cheyenne

    More generically, there’s:
    Warrior
    Chieftain (just a bigger Navajo)

  81. @Anon

    Nah, Indians were slobs. That was OK, then, though. It’s fine being a slob when you’re 5 million people in 3 million mi^2. Mother Earth can clean up for your asses. Learn more here.

    • Replies: @Liza
  82. I don’t think it was particularly hard for whites to settle the North American continent once they got a foothold on it. By the beginning of the 18th century, colonial Americans did not have large standing armies because the natives were never an existential military threat. The only times white Americans had to bolster their armed forces from the French and Indian War to the closing of the American frontier in 1890 was when they faced Europeans or other white Americans. The US military was famously small and unprofessional throughout the late 18th and entire 19th centuries except for the Civil War. Indians were like terrorists today. They were always a threat to make a splashy killing of very small groups of settlers, usually numbering no more than the low dozens, but not a realistic threat to any substantial white settlement or the US military.

    Even seeming exceptions like St Clair’s Defeat did not slow down U.S. settlement. At that early stage in US history, Americans could already afford such defeats in battle, but the native Americans could not, which explains why they effectively surrendered less than three years later after the Battle of Fallen Timbers despite losing few men. The demographic advantages for Americans over the natives of established settlements and high birth rates were already baked into the cake. Time would do the rest.

  83. BTW, the defeat of St Clair was gruesome. The natives even scalped women and young children who were trailing the US soldier formations in the rear.

  84. Twinkie says:
    @megabar

    In some way, intent is irrelevant. If the Indians couldn’t kill off too many buffalo without themselves dying, then they were living in harmony, whether or not they chose to. Much like a pack of wolves.

    You missed my point. There were Indians who expanded beyond the environment’s carrying capacity (when things were good). They died off when things got bad. What we are seeing of Indians is affected by “survivor bias.”

    • Replies: @megabar
  85. Twinkie says:
    @Anon

    Low verbal IQ is a peculiar conceit of the pig-nosed gook

    Such stupidity as yours is not a sign of a high verbal IQ.

    However, Native Americans did in fact have a nature worshipping religion and their stewardship of nature is largely attributable to nature worship.

    Almost all primitive people had nature worship, because they couldn’t conceive of anything beyond their own immediate environments. That had nothing to do with any alleged stewardship of nature, which is simply a New Age version of the Noble Savage fantasy.

    American Indians, esp. the HG types and even mobile, opportunistic agriculturalists, were perfectly capable of exhausting their own environments of natural resources, because often enough they could just move to on a fresh environment. However, when the climate turned dry or there were particularly bad spells of drought, countless of them died off. That’s not just the American Indians, that’s the story of all pre-irrigation human existence.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman, bomag
    • Replies: @Anon
  86. @Anon

    It is bullshit, and you show exactly why it is bullshit.

    Quite apart from the megafauna that the natives exterminated thousands of years before whites showed up on the continent, some modern scholars now speculate that the only reason bison were thriving in the late 18th century was because 1) the Indians practiced slash-and-burn techniques that reduced forestland, 2) Eurasian diseases, which raced ahead of their white European carriers, were decimating Native Americans in the interior of the continent even before whites showed up, and 3) horses were reintroduced to America and helped the natives who were not decimated to become mass killers of bison.

    The first allowed the grasslands that bison needed to become more widespread than it was naturally. The second would kill off many of the Native American hunters who kept the bison numbers in check. The third would make those surviving Indians more efficient killers of bison and horses would compete with bison as grazers of the grassland. When whites eventually showed up in the interior, bison were far more numerous and widespread than they had ever been, but this had nothing to do with natives being in harmony with nature.

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
  87. SMK says: • Website
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Indigenous males once had “extraordinarily masculine cultures.” So do inner-city black male criminals. but the stone-age savages were far more “extraordinarily masculine”: endless warfare, scalping, hideous mutilations, fiendish tortures, the sexual slavery and gang-rape of women and adolescent girls, cannibalism, all daily occurrences.

    In contrast, the Knoxville horror and Wichita massacre were comparatively rare, once in a decade, one could say even once in a century, atrocities, and the Carr Brothers and Lemaricus Davidon and the Knoxville savages didn’t eat their victims after abducting, gang-raping, torturing, mutilating, and murdering them.

  88. Muggles says:

    In other words, the Finnish man’s history of American Indians is too masculine for the American woman’s tastes and interests. Of course, the American Indians tended to have extraordinarily masculine cultures.

    Yes, American Indian tribes were all led by men. Though since being subdued onto reservations, some tribes have elected women as “chiefs” or tribal presidents. They were hunter-gatherers and organized along gender role norms. Agriculture was just beginning to replace that in a few places.

    Now, let’s have a clueless American historian write a critical account of Finnish history. How they were and are very mean to the Sami tribal reindeer herder people. And the Russians, how the Finns kept attacking them for really, no good reason.

    I’m sure this Finnish historian has thoroughly discussed the great number of inter-tribal wars which occurred over disputed hunting grounds, horse thieving (after the Euros brought them here), woman and child stealing, village burning, etc. Even now many tribes are not friendly with each other. Ask the Navajos about the Apaches. Or the Blackfeet about the Crows.

    Siberian American immigrants did pretty well in the Western Hemisphere, until the Euros finally showed up and stayed long enough for conquest. Aztec human sacrifices became a thing of the past.

    I wonder how the Russian conquest of existing Asian Siberian ancestors of the Western Hemisphere Siberian immigrants is handled by this Finnish historian? From accounts I have read, the ones that weren’t killed off outright by the Russians are mainly kept in an alcoholic stupor in small remote Russian villages. Communism and alcoholism nearly killed them all off. Still does.

    I think the ones who got to N. America should be grateful they did. And by and large treated fairly well after being bested by a technologically advanced invading population.

    This kind of “history” is just more White Guilt-ism being sold by the dishonest.

    • Replies: @Anon
  89. J1234 says:
    @R.G. Camara

    all in all they got nothing out of Native American causes like they wanted.

    Here’s the real reason the far left won’t take up the plight of the Indians on a large scale: There’s no way in hell that any American – left or right, young or old, black or white – will be giving his or her land back to the Indians, which should be the logical conclusion of any such movement (in a moral sense.) Of all of the insincere sermons that come out of the left, the “we stole the land from the Indians” sermon is the most insincere. Multiply the hypocrisy of the Martha’s Vineyard debacle times a million, and you have an idea of what the left would ultimately face by pursuing such a course of action, so they will avoid it at all costs.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  90. BosTex says:

    I always got the impression that we didn’t really hate the native Americans to death, but rather loved them to death via marriage and children, so that many natives just disappeared into the white population.

    Yes, a lot of wars, battles and strife, but if you look at the faces of a lot of white Americans you do see some Native American there. Same with some African Americans.

    I have noticed I can tell a European and a European American apart a good chunk of the time. Guessing may have to do with some Native American admixture (and obviously diet, Inter-European American, admixture, etc plays a part as well).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @PhysicistDave
  91. Alden says:
    @notsaying

    My opinion is that the founders planned to take all of the present continental USA from the beginning.

    One of the grievances against the British government was the treaties the British signed with the pro French and pro British tribes after the 7 years war; known in America as the French and Indian war.

    Those treaties promised the Indians the European/ American settlers would stay east if the Appalachian mountains. That was a major grievance for every class if White Americans. From TPTB to newly freed indentured servants who wanted cheap land of their own.

    Look at a map of USA. The French government and PTB knew what a treasure the Great Lakes Gulf of Mexico all connected by the Mississippi Missouri River with numerous east west tributary rivers. One of the best river transportation systems in the world. That’s why one of the first things the founders did was build the Erie Canal connecting the Hudson River and NYC harbor to Lake Erie. And via the rivers to the Gulf of Mexico.

    But France didn’t have enough desperately poor people willing to sign themselves up as indentured servants. So France never really settled Louisiana Territory about 35 percent of the USA.

    The Louisiana Purchase was one of the first things President Jefferson did. To get all that land west to the Rocky Mountains for America. And then he sent the Lewis and Clark expedition to claim everything to the Pacific coast except for Spanish territory which became American territory in the 1840s.

    At the same time the American army invaded and conquered Spanish Florida. At the time there was lots of talk that Cuba was really a natural part of USA territory. Being so near and having one of the great harbors of the world. And very very wealthy.

    Erie Canal Louisiana Purchase Lewis and Clark Expedition conquest of Florida proves the founders planned the expansion to present USA boundaries from the start.

    There were even plans to somehow conquer Canada. Franklin was involved in that.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @Anonymous
  92. Alden says:
    @Anon

    The Indians stewardship of nature is because there weren’t enough of them to cut down the forests farm all the land build large towns etc.

    The LaSalle Joliet expedition. They paddled canoes from Canada to around Green Bay Wisconsin. Carried their canoes and supplies to the Fox River. Which led them to the Missouri. And they paddled south to the Gulf of Mexico.

    And from Green Bay Wisconsin to about 100 miles south of St Louis the explorers didn’t see a single Indian. Although they kept a sharp lookout and slept in their canoes on the river, not on land. For fear of attack. They landed in the afternoons to cook meals and explore looking for signs of Indian settlement. .

    Note Indians and many peoples all over the world live close to rivers for both food and transportation. Not a single Indian Till they were south of St Louis. About 550 600 miles. And every afternoon they looked for signs of Indian settlements .

  93. Anon[412] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    American Indians, esp. the HG types and even mobile, opportunistic agriculturalists, were perfectly capable of exhausting their own environments of natural resources, because often enough they could just move to on a fresh environment. However, when the climate turned dry or there were particularly bad spells of drought, countless of them died off.

    Wrong. You’re just making shit up. Indians never exhausted any resources and the continent was teeming with buffalo herds numbering in the tens of millions, which the Natives had actually promoted the growth of. Hge elk, caribou and moose populations elsewhere kept everyone fat well in to the 1800, even after the advent of firearms. These people were superior stewards od nature and the extinction or permanent reduction of size of wild game populations in this country has everytbing to do with white immorality and greed. The pristine beauty of the old America, on the other hand, owed itself greatly to the superior stewardship and environmental ethics of Native Americans, rooted in their religions, which is well documented and easy to learn about.

  94. Alden says:
    @Alden

    Correction LaSalle wasn’t part of the Joliet Marquette expedition. LaSalle made the same trip. He founded a French colony in Texas that failed. Most of them died.

  95. @International Jew

    Let’s assume the truth of your “more indigenous than Whites” argument. What about Arabs, Africans, Haitians, Afghanis, Middle Easterners? Where’s their angle? What do we owe them? Absolutely nothing, in my view.

    Here’s my idea. We should invade and seize Baja California. Ocean on one side, Sea of Cortez on the other. Great weather, contiguous to Southern California. Perfect weather Worth TRILLIONS. just continue to extend the American highway further south.

    If Mexico can send 40% of their population here, why can’t we seize their land as payment? Seize their oil fields too. Why the hell not? This would get the wealthy on our side, which is critical. Plus the real estate boys and their high-powered lawyers.

    One problem – the MAJOR one- for our side is the wealthy are against us, as they don’t suffer the consequences. As far as they’re concerned, we’re jealous of their maids and gardeners.

    Let’s change that. Martha’s Vineyard was a good start. Now, pass laws mandating school integration to private schools and gated communities. Move illegals into neighborhoods, section 8, and tell them they will be deported if they move out. If Diversity is so good, why shouldn’t our children benefit from it fully, instead of our grandchildren? Import 30 million a year!!

    Really rub their noses in it.

    Remember that poor girl, daughter of a billionaire, who got murdered in Memphis? Nothing against her, but her death is good for our movement. When the wealthy bleed as well, they might begin to realize what they are unleashing on the rest of us. When your back is against the wall, there’s nowhere to go except straight out towards your attacker.

    This is the Anders Breivik strategy.

    If you want to change the world without a mass movement behind you, first get rich. Nobody cares what the poor want.

    Finally, a joke.

    An American Indian, a Muslim, and a Cowboy are on a plane, flying over Montana. The pilot announces that they have a mechanical issue, and will have to make an unscheduled landing for repairs.

    So they land at a small airport. They are told to just hang around the terminal for a few hours while everything gets sorted out.

    So the three go outside, find a bench, and sit down. The Indian looks out at the tumbleweeds and the very distant hills, the Muslim just looks down and around, and the Cowboy props up his booted feet, put his hat over his face, crosses his arms, and begins to nap.

    Finally, the Indian speaks. He says “Look at all this land. This was all my people’s lands. Once we were many, now we are few. Once we were strong, now we are weak.”.

    The Muslim speaks next. He says, “Look at all this land. It was never my people’s land, but it will become my people’s land. Now we are few, soon we will be many! Now we are weak, we are becoming strong. When we are strong this will all be our land!”.

    The Cowboy then speaks from under his hat. He says:

    “That’s cuz we ain’t played Cowboys and Muslims yet!”

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
  96. Anon[412] • Disclaimer says:
    @Muggles

    but this had nothing to do with natives being in harmony with nature

    Yes it did, and in fact you made a semi-coherent effort to explain exactly wby in your post. Native Americans fostered the growth of buffalo through controlled, intellifently set grass fires (not "slash and burn agricukture") just like the EPA and other environmenfal bodies do today. White people are IMITATING the old red Indians today by prescribing controlled burns. This promotes the growth of wildlife as white people have now finally learned, and jow animal populations (as well as forests) are recovering due to the regenerative effects of practices such as this.

    Look, your inhuman ancestors even took pictures of their barbarity for you:

    Why is white history, ever since the invention of the camera, littered with images like that one? Doesit look familiar to you?
    This continent, in including tbe midwest, was absolutely teeming with trees even in the 1800s. It was the white man's demonic propensity for cutting trees down, not Indian prescribed burns, that had deforested America by the 20th century. The white man is the sworn enemy of wildlife. No other race, not even the detestible East Asians, have deforested at the rate which the Indo-European has done. Focus less on some Native American wildfires (that actually promoted forest growth) and more on the genocide-like wbite saw mills that depleted North America and Europe of trees in the 1800s.

    Native Americans were NOT responsible for the extermination of mammoths, horses, or any other large megafauna in America. The humans migrating to America at that time were not the same (genetically or pbysically) as modern Native Americans. And it is believed that it was largely climate change that was responsible for their demise, rather than hunting.

    This would be like pointing the finger modern white people for the extermination of mammoths and other megafauna in Europe in paleolithic times. But those weren't the same people as modern Europeans. But I’m going to do that anyway, since wbities don’t want play fair. So there, we're back to square one. If native Americans genocided large megafauna, so did whites. So what’s your point? You see where I'm going with this, fagbro? You got nothing..

    The conversation is about the behavior of Natice Americans and white people as they existed in this historical period. Those Native Americans were better land stewards and more environmentally conscious, while the white people were as unethical and deliberately destructive as it gets. That's why this country was largely a pristine wilderness in 1840, but looked like it had been nuked after 1900

  97. @Anon

    Anon[176] wrote to Hypnotoad666:

    White people to this day continue to pride themselves in wolf extermination, boasing about breaking what little in the way of laws they have enacted to protect these innocent creatures/sweet baby babies, with such odious slogans as “shoot, shovel, and shut up”.

    Okay, you had me going, I have to admit it — at first, I though you were serious.

    But describing wolves as “innocent creatures/sweet baby babies”!!!

    Okay, I get the joke.

    • Replies: @Anon
  98. Anon[412] • Disclaimer says:
    @PhysicistDave

    I am not joking with you. If you want to want to try and absolve yourself of white guilt like a wannabe psychopath by writing this off as a joke, fine. I figured you would do that. Shows where your moral compass points (the ground).

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  99. megabar says:
    @Twinkie

    > You missed my point. There were Indians who expanded beyond the environment’s carrying capacity (when things were good).

    It depends on how you look at it, I suppose. Boom/bust is a part of natural population cycles. My understanding is that insect populations, for example, naturally cycle, and I would consider Indian population growth/contraction to be on par with this. Generally, there’s negative feedback that prevents anything too extreme.

    But I think it’s non-contentious that technology expands the boom part of the cycle much beyond what nature would. In that sense, it is distinct, and will require human foresight to manage without catastrophe.

  100. Anonymous[103] • Disclaimer says:
    @For what it's worth

    What most impressed Indians who travelled to the east (and still more, to Europe) was just the sheer number of white people.

    The biggest gatherings of plains Indians would amount to what, a thousand people? Two thousand? Just a single busy street in one of the big eastern cities could contain that number of people.

  101. @notsaying

    The natural pattern then was that:

    1) Some new piece of land would be won by the colonials. This would then start a new growing economy.

    2) With the new local economy beginning to grow, there would be calls back to Europe encouraging more migrants. A new demand for more labor power would bring more European immigrants.

    3) At some point the economy would become saturated, and you would now have immigrants who were hoping to find a new patch of land which hadn’t been colonized yet. This would create renewed border tensions along the frontier.

    4) Eventually those border tensions would reach the point of starting a new war, regardless of who fired the first shot. When that occurred, the cycle would begin again until eventually the pacific coast was reached.

    No grand conspiracy, but just a logical pattern leading to recurring wars.

  102. @epebble

    I also didn’t get Steve’s reference to 275 years. If you count from say 1500 or so, when worlds really started colliding, that would only take you to 1775. And if you end the count around say 1885, when it was unequivocally clear the American Indians had been decisively defeated, that would only mean it began around 1610, though the violently conflicting interests of Europeans and indigenous peoples had already been underway for a quite some time.

  103. @Anon

    Anon[386] wrote to:

    G. PoulinPaleo-Indians were not the same people as modern Native Americans. They were more similar to y’all’s Neanderthaloid ass.

    Okay, so let me get this straight:

    Present-day Native Americans stole the whole continent from the original settlers, who were distant cousins of us Euro-Americans?

    So, when my ancestors landed at Plymouth Rock, they were just taking back land that the Amerindians had stolen from our Paleo-Indian cousins, right?

    You are being very helpful — I’m starting to feel really good about this.

    Down with the Amerindian imperialists who stole the continent from its original settlers!

  104. ‘… In a review in The Wall Street Journal, the historian Kathleen DuVal questioned Hamalainen’s framing of Indigenous history as “a grand story about Native men fighting European-American men,” while saying little about the way Native actions were embedded in kinship networks maintained by women.’

    Lol. That’s really pretty funny. Ms. DuVal may be missing a career as a comedienne.

  105. Actually, the awful truth is I’ve always been astonished at how trivial the butchers’ bill was in most of the Indian ‘Wars’ and how ineffectual the Indians seem to have been.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
  106. AceDeuce says:
    @Anonymous

    Uh, yeah. I agree. Wasn’t the point at all, but, uh, yeah.

  107. @Anon

    Proto-Indians seem to have exhausted North American of teeming mammoths, camels, horses, dire wolves, and sabertooth tigers shortly after they arrived in large numbers. Jared Diamond’s theory is North America was the Happiest Hunting Ground. Disease is another possibility but I don’t know of any evidence. Climate Change is often blamed, but its proponents don’t like to mention that the change was that the Ice Age was ending and the climate was getting nicer for megafauna.

    • Replies: @Anon
  108. @Alden

    That’s my alternative theory to my fellow amateur crank historian Nicole Hanna-Jones’ celebrated 1619 theory that 1776 was about black slaves: I think it was about Indian lands.

    • Replies: @Ralph L
  109. @Anon

    The pristine beauty of the old America, on the other hand, owed itself greatly to the superior stewardship and environmental ethics of Native Americans…

    The best environmental ethic the Native Americans introduced to North America was to never become productive enough and therefore numerous enough to be more than just another part of the landscape.

  110. @Anon

    This continent, in including tbe midwest, was absolutely teeming with trees even in the 1800s. It was the white man’s demonic propensity for cutting trees down, not Indian prescribed burns, that had deforested America by the 20th century.

    Horseshit. The idea of a pristine wilderness is a white man’s idea introduced by white US historians in the 19th century. The Native Americans greatly modified their landscape, including widespread clearing of forests. This was true despite their small numbers.

    As for that photo of buffalo skulls, think of the contribution to global warming by tens of millions of bison roaming the plains. You can thank us later.

    • Replies: @Anon
  111. @Alden

    Spanish explorers in the southeast reported lots of Indians.

    Maybe 20,000 lived at Cahokia in East St. Louis around 1300 building a giant mound, like a dirt pyramid. Then they weren’t there anymore by 1400.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  112. Anonymous[103] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Something bad also happened to the Maya around the same period. The Spanish found huge ruined cities with only a small population living there.

  113. @Anon

    You do realize those humans weren’t the same people as modern Native Americans,

    Oh my yes! Those awful earlier native americans who killed all the mega-fauna were totally out of harmony native americans, but the later native americans, no relation at all, were IN harmony and never hurt a fly. If only people read more history they would know about harmony!

  114. @Alden

    Any signs of Africans? Malt liquor bottles,condoms,etc?

    • LOL: Liza
  115. @Anonymous

    The cliff dwellers of the southwest also tended to disappear around 1300-1400. But Mesa Verde is a pretty marginal landscape to make a living: high, dry, cold.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
  116. @Anon

    “Native Americans were NOT responsible for the extermination of mammoths, horses, or any other large megafauna in America. The humans migrating to America at that time were not the same (genetically or pbysically) as modern Native Americans. And it is believed that it was largely climate change that was responsible for their demise, rather than hunting.”

    Yes, the Ice Ages were ending, so all the big beasts except the bison went extinct because Chicago was no longer under a mile thick coating of ice.

    • LOL: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Anon
  117. @Alden

    When Desoto went through eastern Arkansas he found many Indians, large towns, and much open country that had been cleared of trees for agriculture.
    The next Europeans to go there were the French a few hundred years later and they found almost no Indians, just a few Quapaw villages, and primordial trees and swamps covered the state.
    Disease had essentially eliminated the Arkansas Indians.

  118. @bomag

    They also got rid of Aunt Jemima, and were going after Uncle Ben, not sure where that’s at. So I guess benign black figures are incorrect totems too.

    • Replies: @bomag
  119. Pastit says:
    @Anon

    Indians use to drive entire herds of bison over cliffs to their death. Most of the dead bison were left to rot as they were too numerous to process. No, there was no “living in harmony”. They killed as much as they could with the weapons they had.

    • Replies: @Anon
  120. Twinkie says:
    @Anon

    I agree with another commenter who suggested this – we do need a “Cope” button.

  121. Anon[182] • Disclaimer says:
    @Liza

    Beats getting eaten alive by wolves. Reverence for nature is not congruent with the value of pain avoidance associated with soccer moms. Most Indian kills were humane.

    • Replies: @Liza
  122. Anon[182] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Yeah Steve that’s exactly what happened. Mammoths were dependent on an pleistocene foraging niche that required specific types of tundral biomes that were disrupted when the glacial period abruptly ended. They were also more sensitive to heat. The larger the animal, the less complex its foraging strategy, the less adaptable and more vulnerable to extinction. Natural law.

    https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/ice-age-heat-waves-might-have-killed-mammoths-says-study-50606

  123. Anonymous[408] • Disclaimer says:
    @BosTex

    I always got the impression that we didn’t really hate the native Americans to death, but rather loved them to death via marriage and children, so that many natives just disappeared into the white population.

    This is true.

  124. Anonymous[408] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alden

    My opinion is that the founders planned to take all of the present continental USA from the beginning.

    Citation needed.

    • Replies: @epebble
  125. Wielgus says:
    @Colin Wright

    Little Big Horn was an exception that proves the rule. Indians of different tribes gathering together in large numbers and actually cooperating. Custer may have been blind-sided by that alone. It could not last.

  126. Anon[377] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Proto-Indians seem to have exhausted North American of teeming mammoths, camels, horses, dire wolves, and sabertooth tigers shortly after they arrived in large numbers

    The probability of a tiny number of new immigrants doing this without firearms is nil. Even 300 years of horseback archery and guns couldn’t put a dent in the buffalo population – it just keot growing until the 1800s westward mass invasion wave of palefaces.

    Besides, paleo-Indians werent the same thing as modern Indians. It would be like comparing modern white people to the Cro Magnons, who also happened to live at a place and time when large megafauna went extinct. Even if the paleo-Indians had exterminated large megafauna, whites wouldn’t be gaining a mark on their moral scorecard, because ancient Europeans exterminated the same megafauna.

    I don’t see why you are so hesistant to avoid the inescapable truth that Amerindians were better land stewards, had better ecological ethics. Whites were ecology destroyers and felt justified by their adoptive God for it.

    The megafauna extinction was global… It is therefore related to global phenomena, not humans who were a small part of nature.

    Jared Diamond’s theory is North America was the Happiest Hunting Ground. Disease is another possibility but I don’t know of any evidence. Climate Change is often blamed, but its proponents don’t like to mention that the change was that the Ice Age was ending and the climate was getting nicer for megafauna.

    No it wasn’t, it was worse. Wooly mammoths and other large megafauna depended on very niche ecologies for their foraging, they could only work in boreal and tundral biomes with a lot of certain tree species. They were also extremely cold adapted and couldn’t evolve in time to cope with heat.

    Proto-Indians seem to have exhausted North American of teeming mammoths, camels, horses, dire wolves, and sabertooth tigers shortly after they arrived in large numbers. Jared Diamond’s theory is North America was the Happiest Hunting Ground. Disease is another possibility but I don’t know of any evidence. Climate Change is often blamed, but its proponents don’t like to mention that the change was that the Ice Age was ending and the climate was getting nicer for megafauna.

    https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/ice-age-heat-waves-might-have-killed-mammoths-says-study-50606

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  127. Liger says:
    @For what it's worth

    If the testimony of Charles A. Eastman (Ohiyesa) is anything to go by, a lot of American Indians never took the pale peril seriously until they were being put on reservations. Eastman’s people (woodland Sioux) saw the Ojibway as the real enemy. That was that. Paleface was a distraction.

  128. @BosTex

    BosTex wrote:

    I always got the impression that we didn’t really hate the native Americans to death, but rather loved them to death via marriage and children, so that many natives just disappeared into the white population.

    Yeah. My step-grandmother is one-eighth Amerindian.

    Does that make me a step-Indian?

    By the way, everyone in the family thought this was kinda cool, though not terribly important.

    In junior high, my lab partner was a girl who was, as I recall, half Amerindian. Nice girl, good student, popular with the guys.

    A lot of Virginians claim descent from Pocahontas.

    Euro-Americans do not despise Amerindians.

    • Replies: @BosTex
    , @Ralph L
  129. @Anon

    Anon[412] asked Muggles:

    Why is white history, ever since the invention of the camera, littered with images like that one?

    Because Amerindians did not have cameras back when they were slaughtering each other?

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
  130. Anon[377] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Wrong. America was just teeming with forests when whites arrived. It was whites who cut those forests down to build houses and ships that mostly rotted away. The Indians were just setting letting grassfires and brushfires that increased the animal population and stimulated tree and grass growth. They were intelligent prescribed burns set after rainfall that didn’t hurt trees. They never modified the landscape any more than lightning does. Landscape modification is stuff like uprooting entire grassland so it blows away and you plant potatoes, while the soil erodes at about 6 inches per year. Land modification is cutting down an entire forest like what happened in Illinois, and uproot the trees so you can grow corn. Land modification is removing trillions of metric tons of clay and limestone from river valleys to make bricks with. And killing almost all tallgrass prarie land to replace it with shortgrass and mesquite for cattle to graze on. Did you forget that those bison got replaced by horses and cattle? Your prophet is fake and I hate you.

  131. @Anonymous

    Anonymous wrote to Steve Sailer:

    Something bad also happened to the Maya around the same period. The Spanish found huge ruined cities with only a small population living there.

    Prior to the Industrial Revolution, cities tended to be centers from which priests and tyrants could suppress and exploit the peasantry.

    Often, the “decline” of such cities simply meant that the ordinary people had had enough and managed to rid themselves of their oppressors: take the Aztec monsters who ran Tenochtitlan — their fellow Mexicans were thrilled to be free of them.

    See Graeber and Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity, which the NYT reviewer refers to.

    To anyone who tries to tell us that the pre-Conquest inhabitants of the Americas were oh-so-wonderful, two words should suffice: the Aztecs.

  132. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pastit

    That’s absolutely nothing when there were over 50 million buffalo in the great plains, Sherlock.

    Do you understand how huge that is? There were more buffalo on the plains than there are people there today.

    Every Indian family could slaughter 50,000 buffalo in a cliff drive every year and it wouldn’t put a dent in the buffalo population. They’d keep growing every year because they had the numerical advantage and the breeding advantage. Did you forget about the existence of breeding and demographic momentum? Unlike modern white people, buffalo reproduced.

    Again they were no more impactful on buffalo than lightning strikes and tornado were. That’s why the buffalo population was 50 million and growing until whites showed up with the deliberate intent of slaughtering every buffalo with high-windage centerfire rifles. It’s amazing how the buffalo just vanished in 3 decades after the unholy trinity showed up.

    P..S. the buffalo hunts happened in late autumn and winter, city boy. The carcasses didn’t rot they were preserved by snow and even lakes where they could be stored under ice for a full year’s time.

  133. @Anon

    “Wooly mammoths and other large megafauna depended on very niche ecologies for their foraging, they could only work in boreal and tundral biomes with a lot of certain tree species. They were also extremely cold adapted and couldn’t evolve in time to cope with heat.”

    Then all they had to do when the Ice Ages ended was walk north. The Page Museum at the La Brea Tarpits says the climate of Los Angeles during the Ice Age was like that of the Monterey Peninsula 300 miles to the north is today. Couldn’t giant beasts walk 300 miles?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anonymous
  134. @Anon

    Anon[412] wrote to me:

    I am not joking with you. If you want to want to try and absolve yourself of white guilt like a wannabe psychopath by writing this off as a joke, fine.

    Okay, so you want to continue the joke — cool, I’ve got a few spare minutes.

    Now, as to this white guilt: I never did anything to any Amerindians. So why would I feel White guilt?

    As I said above, my step-grandmother is one-eighth Amerindian, and my lab partner in junior high was a very nice girls who was half Amerindian. I was never mean to either of them: indeed, I found their Amerindian background mildly interesting.

    Nope, I have not an ounce of White guilt. Not even a milligram. To be sure, I am more pink than white, in reality…

    Look, earlier you wrote about wolves:

    White people to this day continue to pride themselves in wolf extermination, boasing about breaking what little in the way of laws they have enacted to protect these innocent creatures/sweet baby babies, with such odious slogans as “shoot, shovel, and shut up”.

    No one describes wolves as ” innocent creatures/sweet baby babies” unless they are joking.

    Lots of ways to accurately describe wolves: impressive, fearsome, etc. But not that.

    No, you are joking.

    But, hey, I’ll play along — all in good fun, eh?

    You take care, little buddy!

    • Replies: @Anon
  135. @Anon

    Anon[377] wrote to Pincher Martin:

    The Indians were just setting letting grassfires and brushfires that increased the animal population and stimulated tree and grass growth. They were intelligent prescribed burns set after rainfall that didn’t hurt trees. They never modified the landscape any more than lightning does.

    Are you aware of the Mississippian Mound culture that Sailer referenced above?

    I grew up across the river from Cahokia where you can go and still see to this day how they modified the landscape. You ought to visit there.

    But, hey, now that you have pointed out that the Amerindians stole the whole continent from the original settlers who were kin to Europeans, I am feeling really good about having squashed the evil Amerindian land-stealing imperialists!

    (Yes, yes, everyone, I know this is all just a joke, but I am pretending to take this guy seriously, jut for fun.)

    • Replies: @Anon
  136. Anon[207] • Disclaimer says:
    @PhysicistDave

    That is not an example of modifying the landscape. Building a hill-like dirt mound in a small town doesn’t affect the biome or biodiversity. It’s a harmless artificial hill. The plough and the saw on the other hand have transformed this entire continent to the point of being unrecognizable, as has concrete.

    You’re really grasping for straws here. White America is truly ideologically bankrupt if this is the best defense hou can come up with for wrecking an entire continent. Man, if you thought those Jews were intellectually powerful, just wait until they put you on trial for wrecking this continent. No wonder the alt-right fears social justice so much… You know you ain’t got a leg to stand on in court.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  137. Anon[207] • Disclaimer says:
    @PhysicistDave

    No one describes wolves as ” innocent creatures/sweet baby babies” unless they are joking.

    Lots of ways to accurately describe wolves: impressive, fearsome, etc. But not that.

    Or unless they have actually interacted with wolves before.

    Wolves are timid, pitiful, adorable creatures. They’re not the scary, mighty animals your mom told you they were. Much like Native Americans weren’t the masculine, resisted white man, kill every buffalo in sight people that the comment section apparently thinks they were. In fact they were pretty much the opposite: considered effeminate by contemporary whites, had gender transitions, mostly went on to the reservations peaceably, killed a few buffalo ever winter but ate grasshoppers in summer, etc.

    Now a stray dog… There’s a fearsome creature. I’m way more afraid of stray dogs than the wolves at the sanctuary I volunteer at.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @Anonymous
  138. AceDeuce says:
    @Anon

    The conversation is about the behavior of Natice (sic) Americans and white people as they existed in this historical period. Those Native Americans were better land stewards and more environmentally conscious, while the white people were as unethical and deliberately destructive as it gets. That’s why this country was largely a pristine wilderness in 1840, but looked like it had been nuked after 1900

    You should boycott the Internet that we invented-just as a protest. Bye.

  139. Anon[717] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Then all they had to do when the Ice Ages ended was walk north. The Page Museum at the La Brea Tarpits says the climate of Los Angeles during the Ice Age was like that of the Monterey Peninsula 300 miles to the north is today. Couldn’t giant beasts walk 300 miles?

    Wooly mammoths did move north. Problem is, the tundra biome got ruined afterwards and all the really calorifically dense stuff these massive beasts needed to maintain bodyweight died out.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/140205-mammoth-grass-clover-food-ice-age

    The new DNA analysis of Arctic vegetation over the past 50,000 years, published in Nature by a team led by Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen, offers a new wrinkle on the climate-warming theory: The great beasts vanished because they weren’t getting enough of the right food. Some 10,000 years ago, the researchers found, the flowering, broad-leafed plants known as forbs—including sagebrush, yarrow, mums, and tansies—disappeared from Arctic steppes, which became more dominated by grasses. That vegetation change was “a likely key reason for the decline and extinction of many megafuana species,” Willerslev says, by email.

    Wooly mammoths were specialists, not generalists. They couldn’t just move to any old climate and eat any old food. Monterrey peninsula would kill a mammoth quicker than a bullet. They couldn’t thermoregulate in those temperatures and would be like a giant short circuited battery. It’s bad enough being a husky dog out there, now imagine a husky that’s got the surface area of a tiny house and weighs as much as some cars do.

    • Disagree: bomag
  140. @Anon

    What’s more fragile than an elephant?

  141. bomag says:
    @Ripple Earthdevil

    Yeah, I suppose they are too uncle Tom-ish.

    Similar to how we mainly hear about the radical Black intellectuals from the past. The more conciliatory ones are mentioned as not going far enough. Only glorious saints get worshiped.

  142. Google Queen Esther, Seneca Chief at Wyoming, Pennsylvania, July 1778. What a gal!

  143. @Anon

    In your many comments nature is always “pristine”, “teeming”, pure and virginal. Bad white man rapes her. I think you need to get a girlfriend.

    • LOL: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  144. GSR says:

    Too bad the “natives” never invented the wheel and more significanty, didn’t invent written language. I guess that’s why they should be more accurately known as Stone Age aboriginees.

  145. @Wilkey

    Our leaders are batshit crazy.

    William of Ockham would disagree.
    His razoring technique would point toward Evil.

  146. BosTex says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Thanks Dave.

    I always assumed that my mom had some Native American ancestry based on her appearance (more significant epicanthic eye folds than typical for Europeans, darker skin, hair and eyes, etc).

    She would always say: pretty sure that there has to be some Native American in the family tree.

    Did 23 and me: not a drop. 100% Mediterranean people for her.

    My dad is Swedish English Irish Scottish. Which is my appearance.

    True about native Americans relations to Euro Americans. Whenever we talked about native Americans, it was always with empathy and admiration.

  147. Liza says:
    @Anon

    Falling off the edge of a cliff with dozens or hundreds of others is not a quick kill.

    This is not about “reverence” for nature VS the value of pain avoidance associated with soccer moms. It is about (some) white people’s adulation of Indians and their inability to see that Indians, just like every other race, are flawed in myriad ways. It’s not just us who have the capacity for wickedness. Living close to nature, as paleo- or early neolithic peoples did, doesn’t make any cultural group a saint or even remotely able to identify with the suffering of others.

    I recall reading the opinion of a neuro psychologist (or psychiatrist?), a liberal writing for the humanist magazine, that early peoples took particular enjoyment in torture of others.

    • Replies: @Anon
  148. Liza says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Thanks for that link; I am filled with awe over Peak Stupidity. (I had to put that in italics or else you might think I admire peak stupidity.) The few entries I read had me rolling on the floor with laughter.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  149. Muggles says:
    @Anon

    FYI

    The sentence you excerpted to start your post wasn’t from mine. Don’t know where you got it.

    The rest of your post is of course, mostly nonsense.

  150. epebble says:
    @Anonymous

    Inaugural Address of James Knox Polk
    TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1845

    In the earlier stages of our national existence the opinion prevailed with some that our system of confederated States could not operate successfully over an extended territory, and serious objections have at different times been made to the enlargement of our boundaries. These objections were earnestly urged when we acquired Louisiana. Experience has shown that they were not well founded. The title of numerous Indian tribes to vast tracts of country has been extinguished; new States have been admitted into the Union; new Territories have been created and our jurisdiction and laws extended over them. As our population has expanded, the Union has been cemented and strengthened. AS our boundaries have been enlarged and our agricultural population has been spread over a large surface, our federative system has acquired additional strength and security. It may well be doubted whether it would not be in greater danger of overthrow if our present population were confined to the comparatively narrow limits of the original thirteen States than it is now that they are sparsely settled over a more expanded territory. It is confidently believed that our system may be safely extended to the utmost bounds of our territorial limits, and that as it shall be extended the bonds of our Union, so far from being weakened, will become stronger.

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/polk.asp

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  151. @Anon

    You’re so full of shit that your eyes are swimming in fecal matter. Mammoths and mastodons in North America were among a hugely diverse group of proboscideans evolved to all types of climates and foodstuffs. As a group they weren’t specialists, but generalists. They existed for more than a million years in North America (much longer elsewhere), including through several major climate changes, until disappearing soon after Homo sapiens showed up on the continent. They lingered much longer in areas (especially islands) where humans could not immediately hunt them.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @Anon
  152. @Anon

    America was just teeming with forests when whites arrived.

    America is teeming with forests today. Acreage of US forestland has been stable over the last century and accounts for nearly 10% of all the world’s forests. During that time, the US has added more than 200 million people to the country and yet still kept its forests stable and intact. That’s a record that the much smaller population of Native Americans simply cannot match during their “stewardship.” Per capita, they were much more destructive of the North American forestland than whites have been in the last century.

    They were intelligent prescribed burns set after rainfall that didn’t hurt trees.

    You’re such a clown. There was no set of slash-and-burn regulations for all Native Americans. Some tribes “managed” them, if we use the word manage in the broadest sense of the term. Other tribes just lit things up and left to go elsewhere, knowing that when they returned the environment would be more to their liking.

    They never modified the landscape any more than lightning does.

    “As Emily Russell (1983) has pointed out, ‘There is no strong evidence that Indians purposely burned large areas….The presence of Indians did, however, undoubtedly increase the frequency of fires above the low numbers caused by lightning.‘”

    • Replies: @Anon
  153. @Pincher Martin

    Mammoths and mastodons in North America were among a hugely diverse group of proboscideans evolved to all types of climates and foodstuffs.

    “Foodstuffs” of course, being different types of vegetation, including (but certainly not limited to) different types of grasses.

    The point is that even within particular species of now extinct proboscideans in North America, there was huge variation in their diet. When taken as a whole, the various species & subspecies of mastodons, mammoths & gomphotheres ate many types of wood, leaves and grasses. So the idea that climate change wiped them *all* out within millennia of man’s arrival on the continent is too far-fetched to believe.

  154. Anonymous[387] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    If you are sincerely interested in this subject, may I recommend this oldie but goodie. I read it in high school. It’s 890 pages of scientific papers on the Quarternary extinctions, as the title says.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  155. Anon[297] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Not the ones living in the late pleistocene, you utter moron. Imagine how much time and finger pain you could have saved yourself just by knowing this simple fact. How about read the links I am posing, so you can learn it?

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  156. Anon[297] • Disclaimer says:
    @Liza

    Falling off the edge of a cliff with dozens or hundreds of others is not a quick kill.

    It is when you weigh a top-heavy 1000 pounds. Problem is, you’re an 88 poun soccer mom with an adderal addiction who sees everything from her own perspective, so you can’t realize that.

    This is not about “reverence” for nature VS the value of pain avoidance associated with soccer moms. It is about (some) white people’s adulation of Indians and their inability to see that Indians, just like every other race, are flawed in myriad ways. It’s not just us who have the capacity for wickedness. Living close to nature, as paleo- or early neolithic peoples did, doesn’t make any cultural group a saint or even remotely able to identify with the suffering of others.

    I recall reading the opinion of a neuro psychologist (or psychiatrist?), a liberal writing for the humanist magazine, that early peoples took particular enjoyment in torture of others.

    Nobody said anything about any of this. Modern white people started the biggest and most brutal wars in history (now threatening a third) and it all happened within the last 110 years.

    • Replies: @JackKennedy
  157. Anon[115] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    America is teeming with forests today. Acreage of US forestland has been stable over the last century and accounts for nearly 10% of all the world’s forests.

    And what you don’t understand is that the US had been largely deforested by 100 years ago.

    This country has way, way fewer trees than it did in 1780. Huge forests used to exist here, where there is now nothing but GMO cornfields and drug addicts.

    Also having 10% (actually 7.6%) of the world’s forests means nothing when much of the rest of the world was deforested as well. The US’s “forests” are mostly tree plantations owned by the lumber companies, they aren’t part of the biome and have very little diversit of wildlife, as seen here:

    https://www.fao.org/state-of-forests/en/

    The US doesn’t even make it in to the top 10 for tree species diversity, and that’s WITH invasive species. Even Mexico and Cbina have more tree species. The US’s “forests” are nothing but a man-managed agricultural crop intended to supply lumber for crappy houses and cardboard. What an insult to the natural world.

    During that time, the US has added more than 200 million people to the country and yet still kept its forests stable and intact. That’s a record that the much smaller population of Native Americans simply cannot match during their “stewardship.” Per capita, they were much more destructive of the North American forestland than whites have been in the last century.

    Good luck pulling a source for that one out of your ass. Remember, the deforestation happened in the 1800s. America today is unforested in comparison to 1780.

    You’re such a clown. There was no set of slash-and-burn regulations for all Native Americans. Some tribes “managed” them, if we use the word manage in the broadest sense of the term. Other tribes just lit things up and left to go elsewhere, knowing that when they returned the environment would be more to their liking.

    That is a dog faced lie. These fires were set with great care, only during certain climactic conditions, to minimize damage. The tradition never would have persisted if it had been done carelessly and ungainfully. Every tribe documented to have this tradition has shown the great care they took in setting these fires. It is no coincidence that the use of these fires never caused deforestation in pre-contact or early concact America. The deforestation begins clearly and rapidly as soon as large numbers of Europeans begin breaking in to this continent.

    “As Emily Russell (1983) has pointed out, ‘There is no strong evidence that Indians purposely burned large areas….The presence of Indians did, however, undoubtedly increase the frequency of fires above the low numbers caused by lightning.‘”

    This has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. I’m aware that Indians set more fire than lightning did. The point is that their fires were no more destructive than a lightninf fire. They could not uproot vegetation snd cause soil erosion through fire.

    Also you’re looking pretty desperate pulling up random quotes from some random bitch named “Emily Russell”, ca. 1983. Pretty sure the understanding of Native American stewardship evolved after that, because missy russell’s interpretation doesn’t seem to be the norm nowadays.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  158. @rebel yell

    ‘In your many comments nature is always “pristine”, “teeming”, pure and virginal. Bad white man rapes her. I think you need to get a girlfriend.’

    Either that or just try to live your life out there. I’m picturing dude about two years from now: back hoe, DDT, chain saw, traps…

    Ditto for the Indians, by the way. It was noticed long ago that there was an inverse relationship between proximity to the Noble Red Man and admiration of all his fine qualities. In any case, I’m skeptical that any meaningful generalization can be made about the inhabitants of an entire continent. The equivalent would be deciding that you can’t trust Persians — therefore you’re not going to do business with Irishmen.

  159. @Anon

    Your links are pop-science speculative shit based on a handful of samples, including ones in Eurasia, you dunderheaded moron.

    Do you really believe that with the geographic dispersion of mastodons and mammoths (and gomphotheres) across two large and partially connected continents in the Western Hemisphere with a wide variety of vegetation that this widespread extinction event can be reduced to narrow dietary specialization exacerbated by climate change? If you do, you’re dumber than I thought.

    • Replies: @Anon
  160. Anonymous[120] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Wolves and humans just don’t mix. One or the other has to go. As someone who likes wolves this makes me sad, but there it is.

  161. @Anon

    Wolves are timid, pitiful, adorable creatures. They’re not the scary, mighty animals your mom told you they were.

    I didn’t realize until this moment that you actually believe DANCES WITH WOLVES is a documentary.

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @Anon
  162. Anonymous[120] • Disclaimer says:

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

    This is what happens when rural people aren’t allowed to own guns. It could never happen in the U.S.

  163. Anon[140] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    All examples of early serial killers having their attacks blamed on wolves in the dark ages of law enforcement, in the backwaters of Eurasia.

    In the meantime you cant show a single example of wolves killing people nowadays. A stray dog is more likely to kill ya.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  164. @Anon

    And what you don’t understand is that the US had been largely deforested by 100 years ago.

    Not even close to true.

    This country has way, way fewer trees than it did in 1780.

    And it had millions of acres of fewer trees in 1780 than it did when Indians first settled the land.

    Huge forests used to exist here, where there is now nothing but GMO cornfields and drug addicts.

    In other words, food and Indian reservations. At least one is worth something.

    The US doesn’t even make it in to the top 10 for tree species diversity, and that’s WITH invasive species. Even Mexico and China have more tree species.

    Diversity is highly dependent on climate. Unlike Mexico and China, the continental US does not have tropical rain forests, which is the ecological niche holding (by far) the greatest diversity of biotic species. It’s not a coincidence that the highest tree diversity in the US is found in the moist humid climate of the southeastern US, which is about as close as we Americans get to rain forests on the continent.

    But lots of laughs at your suggestion that Mexico and China have been better stewards of the forests than the United States. Clearly, you’ve been to neither country.

    Good luck pulling a source for that one out of your ass.

    I know how to to do basic math. That’s better than a National Geographic source.

    That is a dog faced lie. These fires were set with great care, only during certain climactic conditions, to minimize damage.

    One of us is lying but it’s not me. You want readers here to believe that Native Americans were some combination of weatherman, fireman and forest manager. In a handful of cases that might’ve been true. But most natives didn’t clear millions of acres of forest land by being careful.

    It is no coincidence that the use of these fires never caused deforestation in pre-contact or early concact America.

    Wr0ng:

    “By the time that European explorers first arrived in North America, millions of acres of “natural” landscapes were already manipulated and maintained for human use.”

    Estimates of the pre-Columbian population in the territory which today comprises both the US and Canada are in the low millions, with 3 to 4 million being the most common estimate. So a population about half the size of the contemporary Bay Area was manipulating millions of acres of forestland on the continent with slash-and-burn practices that led to mass deforestation over time.

    This has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. I’m aware that Indians set more fire than lightning did. The point is that their fires were no more destructive than a lightninf fire. They could not uproot vegetation snd cause soil erosion through fire.

    All the contemporary sources disagree with you on that point. One of the reasons the midwestern prairies were so full of bison when European whites showed up was because the Native Americans expanded it. Even in places away for the prairie, like Yosemite Valley, where fires were frequently set by Indians in the careful manner you describe, the purpose was to prevent reforestation and promote certain beneficial plants.

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Hunsdon
  165. Anon[140] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Your links are pop-science speculative shit based on a handful of samples, including ones in Eurasia, you dunderheaded moron.

    Do you really believe that with the geographic dispersion of mastodons and mammoths (and gomphotheres) across two large and partially connected continents in the Western Hemisphere with a wide variety of vegetation that this widespread extinction event can be reduced to narrow dietary specialization exacerbated by climate change? If you do, you’re dumber than I thought.

    Pop science?

    Ok, now I know you’re just a pissed off redneck who didn’t graduate high school. Those “pop science” articles are documenting scientific studies. Look at the name of the man they interviewed, who co-authored the study. Eske Willerslev. Go look up “Eske Willerslev” on Google, you intellectualoy lazy piece of shit. He is one of the foremost archaeological and genetic authorities on the planet. You don’t know his name, but he shaped your views and discovered things that you believe in.

    I can’t stress enough how stupid you are. You’re sleepwalking through life. You have no idea what you’re talking about with regards to mammoths. Shut up and read Eske Willerslev’s paper and don’t you EVER respond to me again if you’re not going to quote his paper or a study of similiar academic standing. I do not give a fllllyyyiiinnngg fuck about your faulty predictions of ancient ecology.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  166. @Liza

    Thank you very much for the compliment, Liza! There are ~2,390 other posts. Sometimes, the humor comes, and other times not.

  167. Anon[377] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Not even close to true.

    Watch it and weep, slowpoke.

    And it had millions of acres of fewer trees in 1780 than it did when Indians first settled the land.

    Source: ass. This country had fewer trees 10,000 years ago than when whites arrived.

    Diversity is highly dependent on climate. Unlike Mexico and China, the continental US does not have tropical rain forests, which is the ecological niche holding (by far) the greatest diversity of biotic species. It’s not a coincidence that the highest tree diversity in the US is found in the moist humid climate of the southeastern US, which is about as close as we Americans get to rain forests on the continent.

    Yet southern florida and louisiana have less diversity than the great plains? Get a brain moron that little pocket of dicersity you see is an area with a ton of invasice species. Your chart shows the highest diversity in the eastern Carolinas which is in Appalachia which is nothing like a tropical rain forest. Learn how to read charts. The spot that has the hifhest and lowest values for diversity is not the most diverse.

    The real reason the US lacks diversity is because the only “forests” it has are commercial tree plantations.

    But lots of laughs at your suggestion that Mexico and China have been better stewards of the forests than the United States. Clearly, you’ve been to neither country.

    Actually I GREW UP in Mexico and have been to China! Way more forests and biodiversity in each country. Much less destructive and more intelligent, efficient agricultural methods as well.

    “By the time that European explorers first arrived in North America, millions of acres of “natural” landscapes were already manipulated and maintained for human use.”

    Estimates of the pre-Columbian population in the territory which today comprises both the US and Canada are in the low millions, with 3 to 4 million being the most common estimate. So a population about half the size of the contemporary Bay Area was manipulating millions of acres of forestland on the continent with slash-and-burn practices that led to mass deforestation over time

    There’s literally nothinf in your quote that says Indians deforested anything. That’s because you can’t find a single source that says they did, because they didn’t.

    Here, just look at who did the deforesting. Your own people made a chart:

    There were no Indians doing this in 1850. It was white men with axes and saws.

    All the contemporary sources disagree with you on that point.

    No they don’t. Show me a single source that says Indian wildfires ever caused roots to come out of the ground or the soil to erode. It never happened. Ignore fhe few trees killed by great plains and yosemite tribes and focus on the huge virgin forests clipped down by wbites in a matter of less than 100 years, which have never returned.

    Look up any geological survey map of any area in the lower 48 from the mid 1900s, and compare to images from the 2010s. You’ll be astounded at how many more trees there are today. This continent had been thoroughly de-treed by the 1900s. It was whites, not Indians, who are responsible for the actual ecological rape.

  168. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    In fact they were pretty much the opposite: considered effeminate by contemporary whites, had gender transitions

    What sort of gender transitions did they have?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  169. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @epebble

    That isn’t evidence that “the founders planned to take all of the present continental USA from the beginning.” If anything, it shows the opposite was the case.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @epebble
  170. @Anonymous

    In 1760, Ben Franklin was thinking hard about the two water routes into the North Central (e.g., where Chicago is now): the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi.

  171. Ralph L says:
    @Steve Sailer

    For his service in the F&I War, George Washington was granted large tracts of land in Ohio and Kentucky. Selling them in smaller pieces was what made him really rich, since Mount Vernon and Martha’s Tidewater land were exhausted by tobacco. Did the royal VA government award the land knowing the UK government wasn’t going to allow mass white settlement?

    Many big VA planters were horribly in debt to London merchants and thought they weren’t getting good deals with their agents.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  172. Ralph L says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Pocahontas had one child, one grandchild, and one great-grandchild. Perhaps our fertility problem isn’t terminal.

    The FFVs have long distinguished Red Bollings, descended from her grandchild Jane Rolfe Bolling, from White Bollings, from her husband’s second wife. Last century, “Blue” Bollings emerged whose descent claims were negated by DNA.

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Ralph L
  173. epebble says:
    @Anonymous

    The founders did not even know how far west the continent was till Lewis and Clark expedition saw Pacific Ocean in 1805. So, planning to take all of the continent “from the beginning” is like Alexander the Great wanting to conquer the world. Did he want to conquer Americas too?

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

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  174. @Anon

    Wooow … obviously, truly sucks to be YOU

    Otoh …. being Cherokee/Osage/Creek and from all my years of living with Shawnee, Pawnee, Comanche, Apache and Sioux Indians, I have learned one universal reality …. Fire water

    With the Indians, give them a bottle of firewater and everything is good

    Sad, but TRUE!!!!

  175. @Ralph L

    Reading Joseph Ellis on George Washington made me realize that until one thinks of the first American president as a real estate speculator in the same way most people think of him as a farmer, soldier and statesman, one can’t even begin to understand the man.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  176. @epebble

    Westward expansion was built into the country from the beginning. It explains in large part the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, and even the Civil War itself (since the expansion of slavery before 1860 was often even more contentious than the institution itself), as well as the numerous peaceful territorial acquisitions of the 19th century, of course, like the Louisiana Purchase. It also explains the diplomatic history of the US in the 19th century, from the Treaty of Ghent to the Monroe Doctrine.

    That much of the continent was still terra incognita to the Founders is beside the point. They knew that Indians lived on it, but that Europeans possessed or control that land when Americans did not.

    I have no problem with this ambitious territorial expansion by the early American Republic. The land would’ve been wasted on the natives, who were always going to be too few and too backwards to matter. But I also see no reason to sugarcoat what the US did. It consistently pursued an expansionist policy for the first 125 years of its existence. The US was less in competition with the natives at that time than it was with Great Britain, Spain, France, and Russia.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  177. @Anon

    Anon[207] wrote to me:

    That is not an example of modifying the landscape. Building a hill-like dirt mound in a small town doesn’t affect the biome or biodiversity. It’s a harmless artificial hill. The plough and the saw on the other hand have transformed this entire continent to the point of being unrecognizable, as has concrete.

    You have not been to Cahokia, eh?

    They were agriculturalists.

    The Mounds were not a “hill-like dirt mound.” These guys thought BIG.

    They altered the landscape.

    Now, as to concrete…….. I love concrete!

    If I had my way, I’d pave this country with concrete from San Francisco to New York, from Minneapolis to New Orleans.

    When Kathy Bates wrote, “Thine alabaster cities gleam, undimmed by human tears…” you think she really meant we’d build cities out of alabaster?

    No, of course not: that was just a poetic way of saying “concrete.”

    I mean, what is the point of reclaiming the Continent from the evil Amerindians who stole it from our Paleo-Indian cousins, as you so clearly explained to us, if we didn’t make it beautiful with stunningly beautiful concrete!

    From Hoover Dam to the Tenerife auditorium:

    all beautiful concrete!

    And of course concrete is made from naturally occurring substances: sand, gravel, alumina, silica, lime, iron oxide, and magnesium oxide.

    “From sea to shining sea!”

    • Replies: @Anon
  178. Anon[162] • Disclaimer says:
    @PhysicistDave

    The ploughless and rudimentary “agricultural” techniques like those from Cahokia do not have any meaningfuk environmental impact. Nor do their tiny artificial hills.

    Pay less attention to a tiny dirt mount and more to the continent-changing deforestation and tractor tilling of the white man. And also the disastrous climactic consequences of concrete production and the heat island effect caused by the filthy, hideous concrete.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  179. AndrewR says:
    @J1234

    Indeed.

    The red man is only brought up in order to bash the white man. But if anti-whites really cared about the red man then they would necessarily be against mass immigration, which continues to decrease the possibility of red tribes ever getting their lands and cultures back.

    We see a similar phenomenon with blacks. Few if any Democrat policies are actually good for blacks. To anti-whites, any collateral damage is acceptable as long as whited are harmed.

  180. @Anon

    I GREW UP in Mexico and have been to China! Way more forests and biodiversity in each country.

    I don’t know about Mexico, but, as for China, diversity maybe, trees, NO. 40 years of hard-core Communism and century of overpopulation had the forests denuded. The population burned wood for fuel, and they were running out. I’ve seen it myself – been there 11 times.

    They are doing much better now with this – it’s a can-do nation, and when they do something, it’s in a big way. However, it’s been a while, but when you use more than a tiny pack of napkins at a restaurant, you need to pay a few cents for more. Why? Because paper and wood have long been expensive due to the lack of trees.

    So, they just import timber from western Canada and the Pacific Northwest, build crap furniture with it, and ship it back across the ocean to sell to the West.

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Pincher Martin
  181. Anon[387] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    You’re full of dog shit. China has a comparable number of trees to the USA, despite half of China being extreme sand dune deserts like Gobi and Taklamakan that don’t really support trees.

    White people are just kryptonite to wildlife.

  182. Ralph L says:
    @Ralph L

    Pronoun trouble: that should be Jane’s husband’s second wife, not Poca’s hubby.

  183. Hunsdon says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Anon came awfully close to calling you a lying, dog-faced pony soldier!

    • LOL: Pincher Martin
  184. @Anon

    In the meantime you cant show a single example of wolves killing people nowadays.

    You mean like this:

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

    And this:

    https://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/12/alaska.animal.attack/index.html

    Neither case can be explained by rabies, either. They are cases of predation. There are countless other predatory attacks by wolves documented in Europe, Canada, India & the Middle East.

    A stray dog is more likely to kill ya.

    It’s also true that feral/stray dogs number in the millions in the US and that there are just a few thousand wolves in the lower 48, almost all of whom inhabit either protected uninhabited areas or rural locales where rates of gun ownership are high.

    Wolves are intelligent creatures. They are not mindless creatures like alligators which will attack anything that comes within striking distance that is small enough to eat. They generally shy away from men because they know men are dangerous. But when hungry or desperate or they just see a good opportunity they can’t pass up, they will prey on men.

    The case of Kenton Joel Carnegie is interesting because he wandered out by himself into a wilderness area of Canada despite being forewarned that it would be dangerous because of wolves. If more people did stupid shit like that, we would have a lot more cases of wolf predation.

    • Replies: @Anon
  185. @Anon

    Those “pop science” articles are documenting scientific studies.

    The underlying study is science (although not good science). The importance of the interpretation given to the study by National Geographic is speculative nonsense, but provided with warnings to the wary (which you avoided). You then made the article even more absurd by spinning it here for your own propaganda purposes.

    What did Willerslev’s team do? They looked at permafrost core samples spread out over 17 locations in Russia, Canada and Alaska. Those samples date back to 50K years ago. They found that certain flowering plants rather than grasses predominated in those environments they looked at.

    The team then looked at the stomach contents of 18 preserved samples of scat and stomach contents in various species. Those species were not just mammoths and not all of them (horses, reindeer, elk) were extinct. They discovered that those flowering plants were a large (but not exclusive) part of the megafauna’s diet.

    From this limited and tentative study, you leap to the grand conclusion that the megafauna died out in North America because they couldn’t get enough to eat.

    Your own article warns against this. Even National Geographic tried to pump the brakes on any grand conclusions because of the limited data and samples.

    “I think this is (a) preliminary conclusion,” says Sergey Zimov, director of Russia’s Northeast Science Station, who was not part of the study. He notes some overlap of the DNA results showing forbs flourishing after the Ice Age, and the limited number of prehistoric animal remains involved in the work.

    Another scientist weights in:

    There are dangers in making broad generalizations about herbivore diet,” says paleobotany expert Robert Crawford of Scotland’s University of St. Andrews. Forage conditions in winter and local conditions for fodder across the Ice Age Arctic have to be examined more closely in more studies, he suggests, before forbs would look like an answer to the mystery of the mammoth.

    Hear, hear.

    The notion that the decline in one type of flowering plant explains the disappearance of countless megafauna is absurd. We know for a fact that mammoths and mastodons have varied plant diets. They ate, in various contexts, twigs, roots, grasses, flowers, leaves, etc.

    Your own source tried to warn you about being a dope and you still couldn’t avoid it. Idiot.

    • Replies: @Anon
  186. Anon[213] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Your own link makes clear that it isn’t established whether or not Carnegie was killed by a bear or a wolf.

    Further investigations, however, cast doubts on the accepted theory that wolves were the culprit, despite the amount of evidence that seemed to indicate their responsibility. Bringing in noted carnivore biologist Paul Paquet, the investigation established only that Carnegie had been attacked and killed by a predatory animal, either by northern timber wolves or a black bear. However, it failed to establish a specific culprit, indicating that evidence for a wolf attack was largely circumstantial, and that some aspects of the incident more closely resembled a bear attack. Further evidence was confounded by search and recovery efforts.

    Again you have failed to produce any evidence at all.

    Also, since when is this impressive or fearsome? So far, you have suggested that wolves share neurobehavioral characteristics with child molestors, resorting to attacking Canadian men when the available supply of 5 year olds has diminished. What does that make you, if you find that impressive or fearsome? My money is on 5 year old but with enough steroids you might be able to pass for a Canadian man.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  187. Anon[213] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Unfortunately for you, multiple follow-up studies have been conducted on this subject, and all of them reproduced Willerslev’s findings (unsurprisingly).

    Here’s one:

    https://theecologist.org/2021/oct/21/mammoths-victim-climate-changes

    Climate change did the mammoths in. Not a bottlenecked population of hunter gatherers armed with throwing spears.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  188. Perhaps these indigenous people experts might spend a few pages on the “intro-indigenous” carnage, over the centuries. Alas, it was only fighting with white Europeans.

  189. @Anon

    We weren’t discussing old growth forests, which are a meaningless ecological category, but just forests. The forests of North America ceased to be virgin territory the moment first new Americans showed up and started killing and burning everything on the continent.

    Look at famous giant sequoia trees in California, for example. They are ancient trees which once had a wide range across the world. But that range was narrowed greatly by the end of the last Ice Age and they probably would’ve been even more restricted in range by the time European whites showed up in North America if Native Americans in the Sierra Nevadas hadn’t practiced slash-and-burn practices which, unintentionally, allowed the seeds of those giant fire-resistant trees to grow and prosper by eliminating the competition.

    Source: ass. This country had fewer trees 10,000 years ago than when whites arrived.

    I gave you the source. Even Wikipedia makes note of it.

    Yet southern florida and louisiana have less diversity than the great plains?

    Do you not know how to read? I just told you the opposite and provided you a map that showed tree diversity in the US southeast is greater than anywhere else in the continental United States.

    I also explained that climate rather than the history of settlement practices explains that diversity. Mexico, Brazil and China have more tree diversity because they contain tropical rainforests, which the US does not.

    Your chart shows the highest diversity in the eastern Carolinas which is in Appalachia which is nothing like a tropical rain forest.

    Eastern Carolinas? Do you not know how to read a map? The most diversity is in central Alabama, northern Florida and southern Georgia.

    And I didn’t say it was a tropical rain forest, you idiot. I said the climate of the southeastern United States most resembled one. It’s hot and humid there most of the year.

    Invasive species are all over the United States. But they only thrive in climates where they can take hold. Hot and humid climates are great incubators of diversity, with rain forests being the best.

    There’s literally nothinf in your quote that says Indians deforested anything.

    Then you don’t know how to read.

    “When first encountered by Europeans, many ecosystems were the result of repeated fires every one to three years, resulting in the replacement of forests with grassland or savanna, or opening up the forest by removing undergrowth.”

    Can that not be made any clearer to you? “Replacement of forests” is deforestation.

  190. @Anon

    Again you have failed to produce any evidence at all.

    * No bear tracks; plenty of wolf tracks.

    * Bears in the area hibernate during winter; wolves do not.

    * No bears sighted in area after killing; wolves sighted.

    * Other evidence mostly indicative of a wolf attack and not a bear attack.

    You just don’t know how to evaluate evidence, but then we knew that about you already.

    Also, since when is this impressive or fearsome? So far, you have suggested that wolves share neurobehavioral characteristics with child molestors, resorting to attacking Canadian men when the available supply of 5 year olds has diminished.

    Carnegie was a mature man, and the other victim (in Alaska) I cited was a mature woman.

    But, yes, wolves, like most predators, do tend to attack more vulnerable victims when given the option. That means smaller and weaker prey rather than larger and stronger prey. So it’s not really a surprise that many wolf attacks would be on children. They are easier to hunt, eat, and their carcasses are easier to drag from the killing scene.

    Wilderness areas even make a point of explaining to visitors that children will be primary targets if a predator like a mountain lion begins following a group.

    https://www.fs.usda.gov/visit/know-before-you-go/mountain-lions

    From the above source: “Keep children close to you. Animals seem especially drawn to children.”

    Did you not know that simple fact, nature man?

    But plenty of wolf victims have been adult men. Wolves are perfectly capable of killing a fully-grown healthy man even if he is not their preferred prey.

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

    • Replies: @Anon
  191. Anonymous[387] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    I notice there is another “387” posting. It’s not me. I don’t use profanity, and I don’t engage. Unz uses IP and email address to uniquely identify posters. Apparently that is not sufficient.

  192. @Anon

    You’ve gone from an over-the-top but still somewhat respectable National Geographic article that at least presented both sides (but which you didn’t read closely) to a far more ridiculous article which presents no new evidence but simply fleshes out the original claims based on the scant data first presented by Willerslev in the National geographic article.

  193. @Anon

    I’ve been all over China, from Tibet to Szechuan to Inner Mongolia to Guangxi to national parks like Huangshan and Jiuzhaigou. You have no idea what you are talking about.

    Diversity and forests in China are correlated with the lack of people in some small and disappearing habitats. Tibet, Szechuan and Yunnan, for example, have large areas with almost no people because, until recently, they have been almost impossible for most Chinese to reach. But even in those places, diversity is endangered and forests are now at risk.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141112132113.htm

    One rainforest in southern Yunnan, for example, has over 15% of China’s plant diversity and even larger percentages of China’s animal diversity. It is being destroyed.

  194. @Achmed E. Newman

    China does have diversity when one measures it in gross numbers, but it’s a fraudulent diversity. Look at this rainforest in Yunnan, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainforest_of_Xishuangbanna

    Xishuangbanna is included in the Indo-Burma biodiversity hotspots and contains over 5,000 species of vascular plants, comprising 16% of China’s total plant diversity.

    This rainforest entails also a very diverse fauna of birds, mammals, and reptiles, and amphibians, which represent 36%, 21%, and 14% of China’s biodiversity, respectively.

    Of course rainforests everywhere are hotbeds of diversity. The US doesn’t have a continental tropical rainforest like this, and Hawaii was too geographically isolated and small to develop such diversity on its own.

    But this Chinese rainforest which contains so much of China’s diversity is not even a quarter percent of China’s territory, and it is under threat.

    I’ve traveled all over China, and the only time I saw any kind of wild mammal was when I glimpsed what I think was a red panda in Jiuzhaigou national park in Szechuan Province. I can’t even remember seeing squirrels or chipmunks in the wilderness, although I’m sure they must be there. I’ve also never seen any kind of wild deer or other ungulate in China. Not once.

    Hell, I’ve seen deer and coyotes even in American cities.

    • Replies: @Anon
  195. Anon[270] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Of course you see deer in American cities. They’re the only place left where they can find food and water after Americans destroyed all the natural forests.

    Chinese deer stay where they belong. In wildlife.

  196. Anon[717] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    The official investigation conducted by Dr. Paul Paquet confirms that he was killed by a bear. Paquet is unwavering, and the individuals who conducted a private investigation were never there. It is no surprise that there were wolf tracks in the area, and the crime scene forensic investigation lasted two hours under hypothermic conditions. Carnegie didn’t die in the location where he was attacked by animals. I’m sticking with the official investigaion and not the anonymous guy on the internet.

    Go tell Paul Paquet he doesn’t know how to evaluate the evidence. He’ll you a little secret about homicide investigation: absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Especially in a freaking snowfield.

    Your list of wolf attacks is looking mighty sparse across a multiple century timespan…

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  197. Anonymous[120] • Disclaimer says:

    The writings of Valerius Geist are good on this topic.

    Avoid anything by Farley Mowat. He’s an example of what happens when liberals become enamored with animals instead of minorities.

    • Thanks: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  198. @Anon

    You’re such a laughable moron. The US is so overpopulated with deer that we would be doing them a favor by having mass huntings. There are over 25 million white-tailed deer in the US today compared to less than half-a-million in 1900.

    I traveled all over China and Tibet a little over a decade ago, including in several protected parks. I never saw a single deer, not even a dead one on the road.

    • Replies: @Anon
  199. @Anon

    The official investigation conducted by Dr. Paul Paquet confirms that he was killed by a bear.

    You clearly can’t read. From the link I provided earlier:

    The RCMP determined that Carnegie’s death was not the result of a homicide. The official Government of Saskatchewan investigation was headed by internationally renowned carnivore biologist and behavioral ecologist Dr. Paul Paquet and RCMP forensic anthropologist Dr. Ernest Walker, who oversaw Carnegie’s autopsy, which was performed by Dr. N. Brits in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. Brits stated that Carnegie’s injuries were consistent with those expected in a predatory animal attack. Paquet and Walker concluded that the only likely candidates were wolves and black bears, as coyotes, grizzly bears, and pumas were not known to frequent the Points North Landing area. The report, however, was equivocal as to which predator was responsible, noting that most of the evidence, all of which was circumstantial, was unavoidably confounded by search and recovery efforts.

    But while there was no definitive evidence, the circumstantial evidence, however, points to wolves.

    * Carnegie was killed in mid-Febuary. Black Bears hibernate in that area of Canada during the winter.

    * Wolf tracks, but no bear tracks, were found around the remains.

    * Wolves, but not black bears, were seen in the area in the month before and after the attack.

    * An Alaskan naturalist employed by the family to review the evidence concluded that it was consistent with a wolf attack, but not a bear attack.

    * The final official provincial coroner’s judgment reached by a six-member jury in 2007 concluded that Carnegie was killed by a wolf.

    “Now the truth is out there. The whole benign wolf theory was shot down and the jury’s findings were that our son was attacked and predated upon by wolves. These are dangerous animals.”

    https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/11/15/parents_find_peace_in_jurys_findings.html

    Your list of wolf attacks is looking mighty sparse across a multiple century timespan…

    Of course wolf attacks would be sparse in modern times. Until very recently, when men came upon wolves they hunted them down. Wolves currently inhabit only ten percent of their former range in the lower forty-eight and that’s after a significant rebound in their numbers. Hard to have wolf attacks without any wolves.

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Anon
  200. @Anonymous

    A very good article by Geist: “Wolves: When Ignorance was Bliss”

    https://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2009/09/01/wolves-when-ignorance-is-bliss/

    Nothing in my previous studies had prepared me for what I was to experience with wolves on Vancouver Island beginning in 1999. In my student days, in the late 1950s, wolves on Vancouver Island were so scarce that some thought they were extinct. In the early 1970s they reappeared and swept the island. The annual hunter-harvest of black-tailed deer dropped swiftly from about 25,000 to less than 3,000 today. There were incidents of wolves threatening people, and a colleague, treed by a pack, clammed up as nobody believed it. Wolves threatening people? Ridiculous!…

    Wolves had been seen in the neighborhood sitting and observing people; we know from captivity studies that wolves are observation learners. One male approached my wife, my brother-in-law and myself across a quarter-mile of open meadow and stood looking us over for a very long minute about 10 paces away before moving on into the forest. Along with my neighbors, I repeatedly saw wolves showing interest in humans.

    However, the worst incident happened about 350 yards from our house when the second misbehaving pack formed. On March 27th, 2007, our neighbors went in the morning to inspect their dairy cattle and pastures. Their old dog ran ahead of them. Just as they entered the forest five wolves attacked the dog. My neighbor grabbed a cedar branch and advanced on the wolves, which turned towards him snarling. His wife jumped into the caboose of their excavator that happened to be nearby. My neighbor’s energetic counter attack freed the dog, and intimidated all but one wolf that advanced on him snarling. However, he too withdrew, even if reluctantly. While my neighbor ran home to get a gun, his wife ran to us, shouting for me to get a rifle. We did not see the wolves, though they were sighted briefly in the evening, and a neighbor walking his dog had an encounter with two wolves about a mile away. He was able to chase them away. The following morning our neighbors took a rifle along during their inspection trip of their property. The wolf pack promptly went for them again and my neighbor shot the most aggressive one, a male weighing 74 lbs. I saw the neighbors’ cattle, spooked by a wolf, crash through fences while fleeing for the security of their barn. I found two of the three cattle killed and eaten by wolves; the third was severely injured about the genitals, udder and haunches and had to be put down. I saw the docked tails, slit ears and wounded hocks on the dairy cows. Our neighbor’s hired man saw from a barn a wolf attacking a heifer with a newborn calf. He raced out and put the calf on his quad. As he ran to the barn the wolf ran alongside, lunging at the calf – and right into the barn! A predator control officer was called and 13 wolves were removed within a mile of our house from the first, and four from the second misbehaving pack.

    That “tameness,” that “hanging around,” that increasing boldness and inquisitiveness, is the wolf’s way of exploring its potential prey, and the strength of its potential enemies. Coyotes targeting children in urban parks act in virtually the same manner. Two wolves in June 2000 severely injured a camper on Vargas Island just off the coast of Vancouver Island. These wolves became even tamer before the attack, as they nipped at the clothing of campers, licked their exposed skin and ate hotdogs from their hands. Our observations here suggested that wolves, attracted to habitations by the scarcity of prey, shift to dogs and livestock, but also increasingly, though cautiously, explore humans, before mounting a first, clumsy attack.

    He concludes:

    Then a review of the Russian wolf experiences by Professor Christian Stubbe in Germany vindicated Will Graves’ writing. In the meantime Italian and French historians published papers and books detailing how thousands of people had died in earlier centuries from wolf attacks. Some historians rightly asked the question, how did North American scientists ever conclude that wolves were harmless and no threat to people? We now know the answer: In the absence of personal experience or sound language competence, they chose to disregard, even ridicule, the accumulated experience of others from Russia, France, Italy, Germany, Finland, Greenland, Sweden, Iran, Kazakhstan, India, Afghanistan, Korea, and Japan.

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  201. @Pincher Martin

    Napoleon’s 1812 invasion of Russia disrupted Eastern European wolf control efforts. It took decades to get the wolves back under control.

    • Thanks: Pincher Martin
  202. @Anon

    Anon[162] wrote to me:

    And also the disastrous climactic consequences of concrete production and the heat island effect caused by the filthy, hideous concrete.

    Oh, yes — another wonderful thing about concrete: it contributes to pleasant global warming!

    During the Pleistocene, the planet was in a horrific deep freeze — much of it covered by ice that destroyed habitats over much of the planet. Maybe you heard of it — the Ice Age(s)?

    But we are helping the planet return to its normal state — nice, comfy, and pleasantly warm, sorts like during the Cretaceous. You’ve heard of the Cretaceous? T. rex, flowering plants, birds, and all that?

    Yes, the production of beautiful concrete does indeed help keep the ice at bay!

    See — you yourself keep coming up with great ideas about how wonderful concrete is!

  203. Anon[128] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    That’s not overpopulation. Stop using the peak of american ecocide as the standard.

    Deer species that dont have access to corn fields and exurbs are going extinct. Total deer population remains below what it was pre-contact.

    If it werent for soccer moms theyd be extinct by now.

    You’re just a damn liar. Deer hunting is a popular sport in northeast China and southerb China is teeming with them. China also retained several species that wenf nearly extinct in Europe, like ibex.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  204. Anon[128] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    More lies. Paquet’s report said bear not wolves. Your source is shit.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/bear-attack-more-likely-than-wolf-expert-tells-inquest-1.69192

    Every one of your bullet points is mistake and/or irrelevant.
    No wolf threaf in high-wolf areas like national parks.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  205. @Anon

    Little stubby bushes are not yet trees and don’t make forests. I’ve been there and gotten around.

  206. @Anon

    Where do you live, Anon? I’d ask you politely not to comment on things that you have no earthly idea about. Problem is, I’m not polite, so quit writing bullshit and wasting Americans’ time.

    Deer in America yearly cause 1.5 million car accidents, over a Billion dollars in damages to vehicles, 10,000 personal injuries (not counting the deer), and 150 deaths (not counting the deer).

    I know a guy who got injured pretty badly hitting a deer on his motorcycle out in the Western wilderness, I know 2 guys who’ve totaled cars (one was a classic early 1990s Mercedes – so I had to take him to get another off of ebay!), and I saw this deer jump into the lane next to me on the way across Montana – on westbound US-12 coming into Roundup. It was nighttime with light rain falling, and I’d driven 1,100 miles that day. That big deer told me it was time to quit for the day!

    In China, any deer that comes close to humans will find its way into 1,000 bowls of soup.

    • Replies: @Anon
  207. Anonymous[228] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    What sort of gender transitions did they (American Indians) have?

    I remember reading years ago that Plains Indians gave men who didn’t want to undergo puberty ceremonies and general conditioning to be a warrior could dress like the tribe’s women and take up women’s work. Presumably most men didn’t take that options.
    I would say that the option counts as a gender transition. As I understand it, no surgery was involved in the option.

  208. Anon[935] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Deer overpopulation isn’t defined by human sense of entitlement. If white people find that their lifestyle is being hampered by nature, maybe they should realize that their way of life is wrong; that they, not the natural world are the problem, and get out of here. The deer are obviously more desirable than the overbloated, chaotic, pointless society that whites and their illegal friends built.

  209. @Anon

    Well, there goes your first argument, that there aren’t many deer here. OK, so I was right on that one. Now, you say our way of life is wrong. What about the Chinese on that score? “Eat mor Panda?”

    • Replies: @Anon
  210. Anonymous[395] • Disclaimer says:

    These complaints of the nature “why are we shooting so many wolves when there are so few wolf attacks?” are similar to the clueless editorials we sometimes see in liberal newspapers asking “why are we locking up so many criminals when there’s so little crime?”

  211. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Actually, you bolstered my argument by demonstrating that there are too many white people in every square mile of this country, enabled by automobiles The deer population is down by about 10 million relative to pre-contact levels:

    As for Chinese, I’m aware of no animal extinctions taking place in that country from 1800-1910 despite having a much larger population and widespread hunting with firearms. So they have more eco-karma than whites to begin with. My money is on the Chinese…. P.s., why do you have to shift the conversation to the Chinese all the time? Feeling lonely?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @Liza
  212. @Anon

    How exactly does your source (of the graph data) know the deer population over that ancient history before wildlife managers? I think that graph was made up by you, because I don’t see a source.

    Chinese deer stay where they belong. In wildlife.

    That’s where the Chinese discussion started, if you could recall, Mr. President. But when it comes down to it, when you are overpopulated for centuries, the environment suffers greatly. Communism just ups it a bunch of notches.

    This is why a comparison between the 2 countries’ environments is worth looking at. America wins hands down.

    Now I’m not sure if I’m really conversing with Corvinus, who has tried to get me to reply a few time recently. He wasted my time 3 or 4 years ago, and that was enough. No mas! I wish Mr. Unz could somehow make the software keep the same Anon and Anonymous #’s.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  213. @Anon

    That’s not overpopulation. Stop using the peak of american ecocide as the standard.

    It is overpopulation. The US ecology now has 300+ million more people than it had pre-Columbian period, which means those tens of millions of deer are squeezed into much smaller areas than they once were.

    And stop using graphs from (gated) sources that pretend to know what deer populations were like in 1500, numbnuts.

    Deer species that dont have access to corn fields and exurbs are going extinct.

    There is only one isolated species of deer in the US in danger of going extinct. It’s found on small islands in the Florida Keys.

    What are most of the endangered deer species? You’re not going to like where they come from:

    1. Chinese water deer. (East Asia, especially China and Korea)

    2. Roe deer (Europe, but also Iran and Iraq)

    3. Blackbuck deer – aka Indian antelope (India and Nepal)

    4) Key deer (Florida Keys)

    5. Sika deer – some subspecies are doing fine, but the ones in China are all endangered.

    6. Musk deer (Siberia and Himalayan regions of Asia, including China)

    Source: https://www.ourendangeredworld.com/species/endangered-deer-species/

    In case you think I’m being selective, here is another source which lists seven endangered deer species in danger of going extinct.

    https://wildlifestart.com/endangered-deer-species-extinction/

    Not a single species in found in North America, but five are in Asia, including one in China.

    You’re just a damn liar.

    You just don’t want to hear the truth.

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

    * Père David’s deer (once believed extinct in the wild, but now 2,825 thrive in protected areas after *white Europeans* helped reintroduce them to their native China.)

    * Thorold’s deer (vulnerable – just 7,000 left in wild.)

    * Sika deer (China used to have the largest population in the world, but they have been reduced to less than one thousand. of the five subspecies in China, three – North China sika deer, Shanxi sika deer, and Manchurian sika deer – are all believed to be extinct. Only the South China sika deer and the Sichuan sika deer remain in China and their numbers are in the low hundreds.)

    * Indian hog deer (endangered in parts of Asia, but extirpated from its range in southern China.)

    * Eld’s deer (endangered in India and SE Asia, but nearly extinct in China, where only a small population may hang on on Hainan island, but is probably extirpated.)

    * Sichuan deer (a subspecies of elk which is rare and might be endangered, but is listed as data deficient).

    * Sambar (vulnerable)

    * Moose (small populations exist in Mongolia and northeastern China, but poaching has nearly extirpated them from those countries, but status in China not important since Moose exist in great numbers in nearby Russia.)

    * Hairy-fronted muntjac (endangered – only five to ten thousand still exist in southeastern China.)

    * White-bellied musk deer (endangered status, but China still issues some permits to hunt them.

    * Alpine musk deer (endangered)

    * Black musk deer (endangered – likely to soon go extinct)

    * Siberian musk deer (vulnerable – deer populations continue to decrease because of poaching.)

    * Anhui musk deer (endangered)

    * Dwarf musk deer (endangered)

    * Java mouse-deer (data deficient – once believed to inhabit parts of southern China, but probably;y extirpated from the country.)

    *****

    If you’re still here and counting, that makes for at least nine deer species and subspecies which are endangered in China – and I’m not even counting those species which used to be found in China, but have been extirpated from the country (or are extinct) and are now found only in neighboring countries.

    You simply have no clue what you are talking about. I’ve spent weeks traveling around China in private cars, including one week in Tibet where we often went off the beaten track, and I never saw a single wild deer. Not once.

  214. @Anon

    More lies.

    I gave you the source and quoted it accurately, and that source has its own sources backing up what I quoted. I’m not dishonest because you either don’t know how to read or are too lazy to do so.

    You, on the other hand, did lie by describing Walker and Paquet’s report as the final word on Carnegie’s death when the Saskatchewan Provincial Jury report was the final judgment.

    Your link is dead, by the way.

    No wolf threaf in high-wolf areas like national parks.

    Because park policy is to shoot any animal when it becomes a threat to humans. And once wolves leave national parks, they are often shot and trapped. This also keeps the park population of wolves wary of humans.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/experience/america/national-parks/2022/01/07/yellowstone-national-park-gray-wolves-killed/9128718002/

  215. @Anon

    Deer overpopulation isn’t defined by human sense of entitlement.

    Oh, but it is. You see, deer don’t know how to count, and therefore the idea of overpopulation on a continental scale is a human concept first defined by sophisticated westerners, who, you know, could actually count and track those numbers across time.

    As an unsophisticated non-westerner, you wouldn’t understand.

  216. @Achmed E. Newman

    How exactly does your source (of the graph data) know the deer population over that ancient history before wildlife managers? I think that graph was made up by you, because I don’t see a source.

    I looked for Anon’s source by searching for “deer population” images, finding the specific image he used, and then clicking on the link. All I could find was a gated source. I’m betting our anon friend doesn’t have a clue about the source’s methodology.

    I wish Mr. Unz could somehow make the software keep the same Anon and Anonymous #’s.

    Agreed. I don’t mind anonymous posters, but I do wish we could tell them apart.

    This is why a comparison between the 2 countries’ environments is worth looking at. America wins hands down.

    There’s no comparison. China has four times the US population on less arable land; Chinese culture has also historically valued the use of rare animals in traditional medicines, a practice which still continues to a lesser degree today; modern ecological management is still fairly new to China.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  217. Liza says:
    @Anon

    Maybe no extinctions in China, I don’t know for sure. However, that does not translate into basic decency, which you will not see demonstrated by their general treatment of domestic animals. I recall seeing a video of a chink burning a dog alive on a busy street (a live grilling for a tastier meal) and everyone just walking past like this was S.O.P.

    At least some of us here in Amerika try to bring about some awareness of the needs of domestic animals. I acknowledge that we do have quite some way to go. Some egg farmers are raising their hens in somewhat free range barns, and while this is not perfect, it shows that animal protectionists’ efforts are working – quite a few people are willing to pay way more for these cage free eggs. And it’s always white folks leading the way.

  218. Brutusale says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Wow, quoting George Washington McLintock!

  219. Anonymous[407] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Same with ‘Great Zimbabwe’ in southern Africa. It seems to have been abandoned in the early 1400s. Early explorers found large ruins but few people.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.