The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Were the "First Nations" of the New World Actually Second?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow 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

In Canada, Native Americans are called First Nations. But what if American Indians were neither native to the New World nor first?

Or what if they were first in North America but second in South America?

“Who We Are: #6 The Americas
Posted on April 12, 2018 by gcochran9

… Back to the new world. This picture was nice and simple, but there was a fly in the ointment. Isn’t there always? A Brazilian anthropologist, Walter Neves, had studied a number of old skeletons in Brazil that looked different. The most famous of these was Luzia Woman, about 11.500 years old. Neves and others thought that she ( and other similar skeletons) looked more like Australo-Melanesians than Amerindians. Reich is dismissive of Neves’ scientific credentials – ” If I don’ know it, it’s not knowledge” – but Neves was on to something important. One of Reich’s students, Pontus Skoglund, looked more closely at native American genetic data to look for traces of a different ancestral group. He found them. Parenthetically, I’ve heard that other people had seen something weird in those Amazonian genetic samples even earlier, but seem to have thought it was too weird to publish

Some populations of Brazilian Indians were genetically closer to Australasians than to other world populations – the general group that Neves and other anthropologists had said the old Brazilian skeletons resembled. The population with the greatest affinity were the Andaman islanders, short dark people that live on islands between India and Burma.

Several of the Amazonian tribes they looked at had this admixture, at a few-percent level: the Surui, Karitiana, and Xavante. It has since been found in some other groups in or near the Amazonian basin.

Some obvious attempts at an explanation don’t work. That genetic trace isn’t from Polynesians – not a good genetic match, and the admixture is old, while the Polynesian expansion into the Pacific is recent.

The pattern of the populations that don’t have this pseudo-Andamanese admixture is illuminating. You don’t see it in the eastern branch of Amerindians, You don’t see it most of the current southern branch ( i.e. central America and South America west of the Andes). You don’t see it in ancient members of the southern branch (The Clovis-complex Anzick-1 skeleton from Montana, about 12.6k years old). You don’t see it in a Beringian that was left behind in Alaska (about 11k years old).

How can you see it in Brazil if it wasn’t already there in Beringia? Or in the early expansion out of Beringia? Or in Central America?

Because these pseudo-Andamanese were there first, before the Amerindians ever got south of the glaciers. And were then seriously stomped by Amerindians, as has happened so often in prehistory.

 
Hide 138 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. North American Indians, never having invented a wheel, needed to wait for the white man so that their casinos could have roulette tables and slot machines with numbered wheels. South American Indians didn’t realize the value in miles of coastal beaches. They should be happy the white man “discovered ” their continents.

    • Replies: @Silva
    @Buffalo Joe

    They didn't realize the value of beaches so much that they were still expanding and at war over them when the Portuguese arrived. (I do think they wouldn't take long to lose either way, but the fact that the Portuguese could ally with some against others did speed things up.)

    , @Father O'Hara
    @Buffalo Joe

    Those SA Indians females, whatever their origins, really didn't look all that exciting strolling the beaches of Rio in their bikinis. Of course the Injuns couldn't really say anything about it,as these were the only women they had. But they often went on the SmokeNet(their version of the Internet) and complained about their women being short,squat and fat. "If only I could go to Eastern Europe--if such a place may someday exist--I would get a good woman!"

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

  2. Ya know, it’s almost as if human history is one wave after another, taking over.

    No one has any claim to a homeland except those who are there and can keep it. There is no argument, moral or otherwise, against the white man having what he has now. Everyone before him came and took. If he does not hold on, others will come and take.

    = We Are Who We Are =

    ====== and ======

    === We Got Here ===

    That Is All That Matters

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Buzz Mohawk

    That's a pretty dumb argument as you speed down suicide lane.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Olorin

    , @J.Ross
    @Buzz Mohawk

    This is the only argument. Everything prettier owes its existence to this foundation. We can picture a pedant reading Taras Bulba's opening episode, where the young Cossack fights like hell whether he particularly understands what the fight is about or not, and disapproving on "common sense" reasonableness grounds. The guy who stops to worry about looking reasonable is not passing on his genes.

    , @dfordoom
    @Buzz Mohawk


    No one has any claim to a homeland except those who are there and can keep it.
     
    At this point in time that pretty much means accepting that very soon the white man won't have any homeland. Whites don't seem to be genetically fitted for survival. We may be an evolutionary dead end. No people in all of history have been so determined on self-destruction.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @silviosilver
    @Buzz Mohawk


    No one has any claim to a homeland except those who are there and can keep it.
     
    That's obviously a sensible 'natural law' way to look at it.

    I think, though, that human beings who are willing to be reasonable could probably come up with some sort of global compact whose centerpiece is an agreement that it's just wrong to invade and demographically displace a people from their homeland. This would have clearly favorable consequences for immigration restriction (and maybe even reversal, in some cases). Considering the portents of 'the world's most important graph', the need for such a compact has never been more pressing.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton

    , @silviosilver
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Ya know, it’s almost as if human history is one wave after another, taking over.
     
    Going slightly OT, it really bugs me to hear talk of 'First Nations' when referring to the Indians and Aborigines of N. America and Australia. First at what exactly? They weren't 'nations' in any sense that social scientists accept, and to the extent they were, they were hardly the first at it. So the claim has to be they were the first Canadians and first Australians, which is simply daft, because those peoples had no conception of living in 'Canada' or 'Australia' (and probably had no idea of the extent of the land mass they lived on), and much less of being 'Canadian' or 'Australian', and their various tribes hardly saw each other as fellow nationals. It's obviously just a ruse to make white people feel even guiltier than they already do. It's not even the undeserved benefits they exact in this manner that bugs me; it's that it makes whites doubt and disregard the validity of their status as the founding and sustaining people of those countries.
  3. Anonymous[204] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Ya know, it's almost as if human history is one wave after another, taking over.

    No one has any claim to a homeland except those who are there and can keep it. There is no argument, moral or otherwise, against the white man having what he has now. Everyone before him came and took. If he does not hold on, others will come and take.

    = We Are Who We Are =

    ====== and ======

    === We Got Here ===

    That Is All That Matters

    Replies: @Anonymous, @J.Ross, @dfordoom, @silviosilver, @silviosilver

    That’s a pretty dumb argument as you speed down suicide lane.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Anonymous

    It is not an argument. It is a statement of how nature works.

    If you want to keep your homeland, you have to prevent others from taking it. We are speeding down suicide lane because we are allowing others to climb into the driver's seat.

    , @Olorin
    @Anonymous

    It's not an argument, it's a statement of biological fact.

    Someone asked Benjamin Franklin what he would call the system of government the Founding Fathers and their families and friends established in the New World in the late 1700s.

    He replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."

    Everyone before him came and took. If he does not hold on, others will come and take.
     

    Recognizing this isn't suicide. It is downstream from the first recognition of the first cell(s) that developed systems that later evolved into the mammalian immune system.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3805090/

    This is life on earth.

    When your immune system rallies to fight off this year's influenza strain, that isn't suicide. Quite the opposite.

    Waking up from the conditioning that keeps the national immune system from functioning properly is like figuring out the signalling mechanisms of a virus that let it creep into our cells and turn them into factories for its own use.

    We figure out how that works...then we come up with ways to make the invasion stop. But at no time is there stasis. Coming, taking, and holding are life's primary drives.

  4. I always thought it was interesting how multiple civilizations arose between Mexico and Peru with fairly complex societies, engineering and metallurgy, yet North America’s natives (with a few exceptions) really didn’t advance all that far.

    • Replies: @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro
    @Arclight

    The Amerindian population in the present day United State was just 2 million people , while in Mexico they had over 15 million amerindians, and the population of the Incan Empire was about 12 million people with another 10 million in Brazil...

    Replies: @Lot, @ThirdWorldSteveReader

    , @Thomm
    @Arclight

    Yes. But note that the same was true of Eurasia 1000 years prior to that (i.e. 500 AD).

    Northern Europe and Russia were the last parts of Eurasia to form civilizations.

    https://youtu.be/ymI5Uv5cGU4?t=479.

    Western Europe then shot ahead at great speed.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Thirdeye, @Anonymous, @Charles Pewitt

    , @Lars Porsena
    @Arclight

    Did the central or south american cultures have metallurgy? They had gold for decoration, but did they have metal tools or weapons?

    Some of the north american indian groups around the great lakes did have copper tools and weapons a long a time ago but apparently stopped making them.

    https://www.mpm.edu/research-collections/anthropology/online-collections-research/old-copper-culture

    The article mentions the Phoenician theory but calls it racist, because it's based on the assumption the indians were too primitive to make metal tools. But apparently there is some genetic evidence suggesting it, as crazy as it seems. There is a haplogroup among a small number of indians that is only shared with groups in the middle east.

    Replies: @Arclight, @gcochran, @backup

    , @Anon
    @Arclight

    North American Indians didn't have to advance to survive. They had huge herds of buffalo available to them as a food source that Mexicans and South Americans did not. We have historical records that indicate that buffalo used to roam as far east as Kentucky. When all you have to do to survive is hunt occasionally, eat, and lay around, why should you make any advances? There are men in the modern US today who would be happy to live a life like that.

    Advances are the product of a struggle to survive.

    Replies: @Half Canadian, @Neil Templeton, @Diversity Heretic, @Logan, @anon

    , @syonredux
    @Arclight


    I always thought it was interesting how multiple civilizations arose between Mexico and Peru with fairly complex societies, engineering and metallurgy, yet North America’s natives (with a few exceptions) really didn’t advance all that far.
     
    Mexico and Central America are part of North America....

    Replies: @Thirdeye, @Perspective, @Logan

    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    @Arclight

    The North American climate was much harsher, so agriculture developed much later. IQ isn’t the only factor in the development of agriculture (which is the springboard to civilization). The Northern Europeans, high IQ and all, developed civilization much later than the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern people did.

    Replies: @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro, @Bliss

    , @AnotherDad
    @Arclight


    I always thought it was interesting how multiple civilizations arose between Mexico and Peru with fairly complex societies, engineering and metallurgy, yet North America’s natives (with a few exceptions) really didn’t advance all that far.
     
    Actually they were doing fine. Corn (maize) cultivation had seeped up north. The Mississippian culture was quite reasonable for a stone-age civilization. Make an analogy to northern Europe when the Mediterranean had just entered the Bronze age.

    Ballpark--Aztecs in Bronze Age, no one with iron--you'd put these folks at three to four thousand years behind the West at contact. But ...

    I'd speculate--along the lines of Jared Diamond (ignoring all his PC puffery)--that the big thing holding them back was failure to domesticate a decent draft animal. They needed to domesticate a buffalo and breed something like an ox. Without that they really were stuck in a rut of relying on only human labor, and the scale of agricultural society was limited.

    It would have been very interesting to see this experiment play out without the horse. The horse is a huge asset, but it also enabled barbarians to continually be swooping in and over running civilization--until stopped by the age of gunpowder. It would have been interesting to see the path of development in the Americas without it.

    Replies: @prosa123

  5. @Arclight
    I always thought it was interesting how multiple civilizations arose between Mexico and Peru with fairly complex societies, engineering and metallurgy, yet North America's natives (with a few exceptions) really didn't advance all that far.

    Replies: @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro, @Thomm, @Lars Porsena, @Anon, @syonredux, @Hapalong Cassidy, @AnotherDad

    The Amerindian population in the present day United State was just 2 million people , while in Mexico they had over 15 million amerindians, and the population of the Incan Empire was about 12 million people with another 10 million in Brazil…

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro

    Still doesn't answer the bigger question. California has a perfect climate and soil for some forms of agriculture, similar to the Mediterranean where civilization arose and supported large ancient populations. Yet the California tribes were completely stone age and very sparse on the ground, while the Mexican tribes were building giant painted pyramids, had 1000 mile trade networks, and developed writing and calendars.

    Replies: @Polynikes, @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro, @Hapalong Cassidy, @International Jew, @AnotherDad

    , @ThirdWorldSteveReader
    @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro

    The amerinds were notoriously backwards in Brazil, though, even when compared to their brethen in North America.

  6. @Arclight
    I always thought it was interesting how multiple civilizations arose between Mexico and Peru with fairly complex societies, engineering and metallurgy, yet North America's natives (with a few exceptions) really didn't advance all that far.

    Replies: @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro, @Thomm, @Lars Porsena, @Anon, @syonredux, @Hapalong Cassidy, @AnotherDad

    Yes. But note that the same was true of Eurasia 1000 years prior to that (i.e. 500 AD).

    Northern Europe and Russia were the last parts of Eurasia to form civilizations.

    https://youtu.be/ymI5Uv5cGU4?t=479.

    Western Europe then shot ahead at great speed.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    @Thomm

    Western Europe then shot ahead at great speed.


    It's impressive that an island off the coast of a peninsula(Europe) of the Eurasian land mass managed to create the British Empire.

    The Angles, Danes, Saxons, Scandinavians, Celts and other Brits kept expanding their reach till they damn near had the Oceans and the major important coastal points all to themselves.

    The Dutch, the French, the Spaniards and the Swedes had their moments too.

    Replies: @Thirdeye, @TheJester

    , @Thirdeye
    @Thomm

    Mostly through the spread of Aegean-derived civilization.

    , @Anonymous
    @Thomm

    Except Northern Germans and Eastern Slavs in 500 AD, had metalurgy, complex tribal society, know about horses (although horses were not verry useful in Scandinavia) , chariots even some cities... That wouldput them on pair with Inkas in 1500.

    Replies: @ThirdWorldSteveReader, @Thomm

    , @Charles Pewitt
    @Thomm


    Western Europe then shot ahead at great speed.

     

    How Scandinavian were the Normans? Many of the troops that went over to England in 1066 under William the Conqueror were French, Bretons, Flemings, and other continental Europeans.

    The internet lists a lot of the surnames for people who have Norman ancestry and a lot of them are French or French place names.

    Was George Washington a descendant of Scandinavians by way of Normandy or was he a Breton, Fleming or something else. A lot of people with old stocker Southern ancestry have Norman ancestry, much more so than old stocker New Englanders, who have mostly Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

    Replies: @BB753, @syonredux

  7. @Buzz Mohawk
    Ya know, it's almost as if human history is one wave after another, taking over.

    No one has any claim to a homeland except those who are there and can keep it. There is no argument, moral or otherwise, against the white man having what he has now. Everyone before him came and took. If he does not hold on, others will come and take.

    = We Are Who We Are =

    ====== and ======

    === We Got Here ===

    That Is All That Matters

    Replies: @Anonymous, @J.Ross, @dfordoom, @silviosilver, @silviosilver

    This is the only argument. Everything prettier owes its existence to this foundation. We can picture a pedant reading Taras Bulba’s opening episode, where the young Cossack fights like hell whether he particularly understands what the fight is about or not, and disapproving on “common sense” reasonableness grounds. The guy who stops to worry about looking reasonable is not passing on his genes.

  8. On an obscure stretch of the Amazon, a pleasure boat of vulgar American tourists pass by. One of the tourists tosses a bag of rubbish into the flowing water. On the bank, Kevin Hart, dressed as an Andaman Islander, turns to the camera, and a single tear rolls down his face.

    • LOL: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    @TelfoedJohn

    LOL

    I remember that commercial.

    , @Rosamond Vincy
    @TelfoedJohn

    The icing on the cake: The actor in that commercial was Italian. He specialized in playing Hollywood Indians.

    Replies: @anonymous

  9. @Arclight
    I always thought it was interesting how multiple civilizations arose between Mexico and Peru with fairly complex societies, engineering and metallurgy, yet North America's natives (with a few exceptions) really didn't advance all that far.

    Replies: @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro, @Thomm, @Lars Porsena, @Anon, @syonredux, @Hapalong Cassidy, @AnotherDad

    Did the central or south american cultures have metallurgy? They had gold for decoration, but did they have metal tools or weapons?

    Some of the north american indian groups around the great lakes did have copper tools and weapons a long a time ago but apparently stopped making them.

    https://www.mpm.edu/research-collections/anthropology/online-collections-research/old-copper-culture

    The article mentions the Phoenician theory but calls it racist, because it’s based on the assumption the indians were too primitive to make metal tools. But apparently there is some genetic evidence suggesting it, as crazy as it seems. There is a haplogroup among a small number of indians that is only shared with groups in the middle east.

    • Replies: @Arclight
    @Lars Porsena

    The Incas made plates, cups, and things like that from gold and silver, but my understanding is that they didn't have much in the way of harder metals to make more useful things necessary to advance civilization.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Disordered, @gcochran

    , @gcochran
    @Lars Porsena

    "There is a haplogroup among a small number of indians that is only shared with groups in the middle east."

    No, there isn't.

    Replies: @backup, @Red Pill Angel, @Lars Porsena

    , @backup
    @Lars Porsena


    There is a haplogroup among a small number of indians that is only shared with groups in the middle east.
     
    If you refer to haplogroup X2, Indians have X2a and X2g, which is also restricted to American Indians. The age of X2, the root from which both originated, is ~21.000 years old, so both X2a and X2g probably have formed in America.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276663/pdf/main.pdf
  10. Anon[304] • Disclaimer says:
    @Arclight
    I always thought it was interesting how multiple civilizations arose between Mexico and Peru with fairly complex societies, engineering and metallurgy, yet North America's natives (with a few exceptions) really didn't advance all that far.

    Replies: @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro, @Thomm, @Lars Porsena, @Anon, @syonredux, @Hapalong Cassidy, @AnotherDad

    North American Indians didn’t have to advance to survive. They had huge herds of buffalo available to them as a food source that Mexicans and South Americans did not. We have historical records that indicate that buffalo used to roam as far east as Kentucky. When all you have to do to survive is hunt occasionally, eat, and lay around, why should you make any advances? There are men in the modern US today who would be happy to live a life like that.

    Advances are the product of a struggle to survive.

    • Replies: @Half Canadian
    @Anon

    That's partly true. The natives in the North Eastern area were growing corn by 1400, and other crops (squash, beans, anything else?). There is some evidence of trade routes.
    But this all collapsed after Europeans arrived. Disease, most likely, was the cause.

    Replies: @Lars Porsena, @james wilson

    , @Neil Templeton
    @Anon

    "There are men in the modern US today who would be happy to live a life like that."

    I'm one of them.

    , @Diversity Heretic
    @Anon

    I don't think American bison are all that easy to kill with bows and arrows and in the absence of horses. I also suspect it's fairly hazardous. Finally, following migrating herds doesn't give a tribe much of a chance to settle down and develop technology such as metallurgy.

    , @Logan
    @Anon

    Actually, buffalo ranged into Florida, Mexico and New York state.

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

    However, there is considerable evidence that their numbers, pre-1492, were not what they were in 1800, that the massive population may have been a side effect of the ecological disruption created by the great disease-caused reduction of the human population in North America.

    , @anon
    @Anon


    When all you have to do to survive is hunt occasionally, eat, and lay around, why should you make any advances? There are men in the modern US today who would be happy to live a life like that.
     
    Count me in!
  11. @Anonymous
    @Buzz Mohawk

    That's a pretty dumb argument as you speed down suicide lane.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Olorin

    It is not an argument. It is a statement of how nature works.

    If you want to keep your homeland, you have to prevent others from taking it. We are speeding down suicide lane because we are allowing others to climb into the driver’s seat.

  12. It has been obvious for some time that Andaman Islanders or their near relatives made it to South America long before the current inhabitants. Now, as Greg Cochran points out, the case is all but irrefutable…

    Given the location of the Andaman Islands, the story of how they got there must be astonishing.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @pyrrhus

    Think of the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean as a modern refuge for an early population that spread out far beyond the Andaman Islands.

    Replies: @Flip, @Autochthon, @RichardTaylor, @backup, @candid_observer, @Bliss

  13. @pyrrhus
    It has been obvious for some time that Andaman Islanders or their near relatives made it to South America long before the current inhabitants. Now, as Greg Cochran points out, the case is all but irrefutable...

    Given the location of the Andaman Islands, the story of how they got there must be astonishing.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Think of the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean as a modern refuge for an early population that spread out far beyond the Andaman Islands.

    • Agree: JMcG
    • Replies: @Flip
    @Steve Sailer

    Indonesians made it to Madagascar and the Polynesians settled widely, so ancient sea voyages were possible.

    , @Autochthon
    @Steve Sailer

    Right; a diaspora from the Andaman Islands and whatever astonishing story that intimates is not the idea, if the population was huge and widespread but destroyed unto oblivion all over whatever wide range it had by later peoples such that today the only genetic survivors at all are in the Andaman Islands and the Amazon Basin). If the Denisovans had a different history, their genes might well survive today in only the Altay Mountains and Borneo (or Nunavut, or whatever...), but it wouldn't be an especially unusual tale: just more of the common march of people across the planet over millennia and the waves of continuing genocides as these waves encounter each other – it doesn't mean, e.g., some guy once sailed an outrigger from the Andaman Islands to the mouth of the Amazon River or any such extraordinary thing....

    , @RichardTaylor
    @Steve Sailer

    I believe the sea level was about 300 feet lower 12,000 years ago. If true, then perhaps more island hopping was possible in those days, making the trip from the Andaman Islands at least a bit more feasible.

    Replies: @Thirdeye

    , @backup
    @Steve Sailer

    Tianyuan is a 40.000 year old sample from the neighbourhood of Peking. It has the same affinity to Suruii and Karitiana as was found in the Andamans and Australasians.

    , @candid_observer
    @Steve Sailer

    Yeah, there seem to be a number of small vestigial populations across the world who take the jobs the immigrants won't do.

    , @Bliss
    @Steve Sailer

    The Andaman Islanders are also related to the Ancient Ancestral South Indians (AASI) of Reich’s recent book. These people must have been the greatest ocean voyagers in history until the 16th century.

    Replies: @Red Pill Angel

  14. Some possible evidence for another archaic human in the Andaman gene pool, not the usual Denisovan and Neanderthal: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Andaman-tribes-may-have-a-new-human-ancestor/articleshow/53407632.cms

    Perhaps this ancient population was the first in Asia and the Americas, before being replaced by other folks. Time to hand back a few continents to the guys on North Sentinel Island.

  15. It appears that the northern extremes of North America underwent a new (but historically silent) invasion of Asian peoples circa 1100 – 1500. They came from Siberia; today they are generically called the Inuit. There is unmistakable evidence that they interacted with the Viking communities in Greenland. Indeed, they may have had a role in their disappearance as well as the disappearance of remnants of the earlier Dorset Culture.

    Does this mean that anyone who can prove they have genes from the Dorset Culture or the Viking settlements in Greenland that preceded the Inuit can claim reparations from the United States, Canada, or Denmark?

    “The Thule or proto-Inuit were the ancestors of all modern Inuit. They developed in coastal Alaska by 1000 and expanded eastwards across Canada, reaching Greenland by the 13th century. In the process, they replaced people of the earlier Dorset culture that had previously inhabited the region.”

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

    No, that can’t be right! I know this to be true:

    Amerindians were a tranquil people who were at peace with nature, the environment, and the Great Spirit. They enthusiastically shared their food to help neighboring tribes through harsh winters. All things considered, for them, it was a “Roussarian” paradise on the banks of a lush brook … until the White Man arrived, sold them whiskey, gave them horses and rifles, and turned them against each other.

    Amerindians languished until an unknown Amerindian discovered the “casino”. The rest is history, as the Amerindian population of the United States, especially, found the resources to return to a tranquil, languid, casino-based existence beside the lush brook … as was their historic legacy.

    Yet, I’ve heard it said, “Damn the White Man! Beware, next, they’ll steal our casinos, too!”

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @TheJester


    Amerindians were a tranquil people who were at peace with nature,...
     
    Yes, and they always kept the place clean, or maybe not.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @TheJester

    It sounds as if it was indeed a paradise for the Dorset people - until the Inuit/Eskimos turned up with weapons.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/dorset-dna-genes-trace-tale-arctics-long-gone-hobbits-n191156


    The Thule people had developed advanced bows and arrows, whale-hunting tools and dogsleds — technologies in which the Dorset were deficient. The Thule also favored a military-style discipline that might have contrasted with the Dorset culture's simpler ways.

    "This meeting between these two peoples would have been a very stark meeting," Fitzhugh said, "between people with very conservative, beautiful stone technology and beautiful artwork and so on, but socially and economically, they were just no match for this onslaught from this Thule machine. ... They were, in a sense, sitting ducks."
     
    , @IHTG
    @TheJester

    Inuits are actually not legally classified as "First Nations" in Canada.

  16. @TelfoedJohn
    On an obscure stretch of the Amazon, a pleasure boat of vulgar American tourists pass by. One of the tourists tosses a bag of rubbish into the flowing water. On the bank, Kevin Hart, dressed as an Andaman Islander, turns to the camera, and a single tear rolls down his face.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Rosamond Vincy

    LOL

    I remember that commercial.

  17. @Anon
    @Arclight

    North American Indians didn't have to advance to survive. They had huge herds of buffalo available to them as a food source that Mexicans and South Americans did not. We have historical records that indicate that buffalo used to roam as far east as Kentucky. When all you have to do to survive is hunt occasionally, eat, and lay around, why should you make any advances? There are men in the modern US today who would be happy to live a life like that.

    Advances are the product of a struggle to survive.

    Replies: @Half Canadian, @Neil Templeton, @Diversity Heretic, @Logan, @anon

    That’s partly true. The natives in the North Eastern area were growing corn by 1400, and other crops (squash, beans, anything else?). There is some evidence of trade routes.
    But this all collapsed after Europeans arrived. Disease, most likely, was the cause.

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    @Half Canadian

    Corn. Or maize. Corn, beans and squash were the '3 sisters' that were farmed by many many different types of indians all over the continent, at least amongst those who farmed.

    As for trade, most of the nomadic buffalo hunting plains indians really were nomadic, even before horses. They ranged all over the continent. If you study the history of where any of the plains tribes come from, they basically all come from all over the place. They would range from Washington and up in Canada all the way to Kentucky and Mississippi. And when I say they would range, I don't mean over centuries I mean they would routinely get up and move to the other side of the continent on a long road trip, for various reasons sometimes if they were defeated in war, and where familiar with the geography of the whole continent. Most of them have their histories all over the place. Some of them have traditional histories that had them raiding as far south as the Aztec in Mexico. They had holy sites all over the place and might go to those to observe religious ceremonies or to talk with other peoples or far away cousins, they would make pilgrimages half way or all the way across the country. If they had good lands and no stiff competition they might stay in a range for a while, enough to be semi-nomadic or something, maybe even some farming, but if the situation changed, environmental or with competition, they might leave and go someplace completely different, and they might stay on the move for a long time.

    Various other groups of north american indians were not nomadic and would build settlements and towns engage in farming or fishing. An example would be all the pueblo groups, pueblo is a spanish word basically meaning 'village' so they used it to describe any settled groups, usually in the southwest in or near Spanish territories, in Texas, OK, MS, NM, NV, CO and maybe a few others. Many of these groups would make villages with brick buildings made out of dirt or stone and others would, like Petra in Jordan, carve villages into the side of cliffs in box canyons. Some of these groups were quite the settlement builders but they were in the south, somewhat near the aztec groups who were also. There were clans in the north that were settled too, though I'm not aware of brick towns.

    The nomads would trade meat and foreign goods to the settled indians as they traveled around making sometimes circuits around the country. They would trade the pueblo meat for corn, beans and squash, and would trade tools and clothes and craftworks made by the settled people from Mexico basically all the way up into Canada and back, from the Gulf of Mexico to Hudson Bay, and the nomads made made some of their own craftworks too.

    The plains indians had a semi-universal form of international sign language, that they would use to signal and trade with each other when they couldn't speak each other's language.

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

    , @james wilson
    @Half Canadian

    No, it all collapsed before Europeans arrived. They were winging it. Lacking written language, that's all you can do.

  18. @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro
    @Arclight

    The Amerindian population in the present day United State was just 2 million people , while in Mexico they had over 15 million amerindians, and the population of the Incan Empire was about 12 million people with another 10 million in Brazil...

    Replies: @Lot, @ThirdWorldSteveReader

    Still doesn’t answer the bigger question. California has a perfect climate and soil for some forms of agriculture, similar to the Mediterranean where civilization arose and supported large ancient populations. Yet the California tribes were completely stone age and very sparse on the ground, while the Mexican tribes were building giant painted pyramids, had 1000 mile trade networks, and developed writing and calendars.

    • Replies: @Polynikes
    @Lot

    The land is so nice it makes you stupid. Look at white Europeans: here only a few centuries and already too dumb to maintain.

    , @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro
    @Lot

    The entire Amerindian population of California was just 150,000 to 250,000 people before the Spanish arrived. With such a small population spread out among hundreds of tribes, why would they have any need for sophisticated agriculture ? While in Mexico they had 12 million Aztecs living off corn and human sacrifices...

    It is surprising that so few Indians lived in California, when over 15 million lived in Mexico. Maybe the indigenous in California kept close vigilance on their territory to keep out the Indians from Mexico.

    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    @Lot

    Without more modern irrigation techniques, only Northern California near the coast would have been suitable for agriculture. And maybe that climate was too perfect. Northern California has a climate similar to Tasmania, and look what happened to the people that ended up there.

    , @International Jew
    @Lot

    All true. But let's not be so impressed with pyramids, ok? A pyramid is just a bit harder to "build", than making a pile of stones.

    Replies: @Pat Boyle

    , @AnotherDad
    @Lot


    California has a perfect climate and soil for some forms of agriculture, similar to the Mediterranean where civilization arose and supported large ancient populations.
     
    Lot, you're confusing "nice Mediterranean climate" for suburbanites to enjoy when they emerge from their cubicles, with "perfect for agriculture".

    https://www.bing.com/search?q=fresno+annual+rainfall&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=fresno+annual+rainfall&sc=5-22&sk=&cvid=59D900B9262543B5931278D85D42814A

    California's big agricultural output depends entirely on irrigation. (Feel free to compare to Athens or Rome.)

    Sometime while you're out driving around look at what the native, undisturbed California vegetation looks like.

    We have a word for California's climate ... "desert".
  19. I have long thought that the Clovis theory — the idea that there were no people in the Americans before the end of the last ice age, and then they spread at the speed of light down to South America — was completely flawed. There have been plenty of artifacts in both North and South America tens of millennia BEFORE Clovis.

    The more current idea is there were numerous waves of peoples over a period of tens of thousands of years. People migrated, people conquered, people mixed. It continues to this day.

    I am an almost entirely white member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. A lot of the traditional Cherokee crafts had a very Meso-American style, similar to Mayan. One hypothesis by white anthropologists was that the crafts came by trade routes.

    The traditional Cherokee stories were that the Cherokee are a mix of two very different tribes. One tribe came from the north, where they left after being kicked out by the rest of the Iroquois Confederation. In fact, the Cherokee language is an Iroquoian language, and the traditional Cherokee government was an Iroquoian style of government.

    The second, smaller, tribe supposedly came from the south, probably modern day Mexico. This would explain why the Cherokee pottery, etc. looks so darn Mexican.

    The Cherokee believed the pottery style spread by migrations, NOT by trade. Anyone who disagrees is obviously a white racist pig 🙂

    • Replies: @gcochran
    @Paleo Liberal

    "There have been plenty of artifacts in both North and South America tens of millennia BEFORE Clovis. "

    Tens of millennia? No. Not one, so far.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

  20. @Thomm
    @Arclight

    Yes. But note that the same was true of Eurasia 1000 years prior to that (i.e. 500 AD).

    Northern Europe and Russia were the last parts of Eurasia to form civilizations.

    https://youtu.be/ymI5Uv5cGU4?t=479.

    Western Europe then shot ahead at great speed.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Thirdeye, @Anonymous, @Charles Pewitt

    Western Europe then shot ahead at great speed.

    It’s impressive that an island off the coast of a peninsula(Europe) of the Eurasian land mass managed to create the British Empire.

    The Angles, Danes, Saxons, Scandinavians, Celts and other Brits kept expanding their reach till they damn near had the Oceans and the major important coastal points all to themselves.

    The Dutch, the French, the Spaniards and the Swedes had their moments too.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    @Charles Pewitt

    Refugia bounded by water and deserts were what allowed the early ancestors of European civilization to develop (Egypt, Mesopotamia, Crete). With the invention of superior watercraft, the coast was transformed from a protective barrier to a means of projecting economic and military power (Greece, Rome, Scandinavia, Renaissance Europe, Japan, USA). So the stage was set for the Brits, with security of their home waters unchallenged after the defeat of the Spanish Armada, to spread their influence behind their mastery of the maritime arts and trades (the Spanish relied on mighty but tactically impaired craft and stagnated technologically). Sea trade undermined the land trade based economy of the Middle East. Projection of military power into interior regions away from ports remained a problem, as Russia demonstrated to the world repeatedly.

    The entry of rail transport into the equation fostered the development of continental power (Germany) which challenged the economic and military primacy of sea power for the first time in the modern imperial era. "The Pivot of History" was mainly about that development, although it did not take into account the economic and military implications of air power or the scale of land transport required to bring continental power to fruition (as demonstrated by the Russo-Japanese War that shortly followed its publication). It also did not consider that the world financial power that arose in the van of sea power had no interest in fostering continental-scale infrastructure that could shift the balance. The Chinese-financed One Belt - One Road project could deliver that scenario over a century after it was foreseen.

    , @TheJester
    @Charles Pewitt

    By the end of the 19th Century, Great Britain ruled the waves. France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands needed permission from the British to keep and communicate with the remnants of their sea-based empires. Britain had veto power over everything that moved on the world's oceans.

    The United States has usurped that role as the British Empire imploded into a quaint "outdoor museum". The United States also inherited the same imperial organization. The British Foreign Office (the Establishment) ignored Parliament and the Prime Minister and conducted foreign policy as it saw fit. The CIA (the Deep State) has picked up the mantle of imperial reach and control for the United States. It ignores Congress and the President and conducts foreign policy as it sees fit.

    As Allen Dulles said, the State Department is responsible for foreign relations with "friendly" nations ... and the CIA is responsible for foreign relations with "unfriendly" nations. It seems that there are more of the latter than the former these days.

  21. In North America there are skeletons of several different races that predate modern indigenous North Americans. The mound builders of the eastern US were distinctly different from any of the subgroups of peoples who were here when Europeans arrived.

    Some of the earlier people were much bigger than modern humans, too. The “giants” skeletal remains and artifacts have been found all across what is now the continental US.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Twodees Partain


    Some of the earlier people were much bigger than modern humans, too. The “giants” skeletal remains and artifacts have been found all across what is now the continental US.
     
    What exactly do you mean by "much bigger than modern humans?"

    The mound builders of the eastern US were distinctly different from any of the subgroups of peoples who were here when Europeans arrived.
     
    Dunno. The Mississippian culture was encountered by de Soto....and the Natchez persisted into the 18th century....

    Replies: @Disordered, @gcochran

    , @J.Ross
    @Twodees Partain

    ... do you have a link that does not also talk about Saturn being a dying star that fostered our early development in a purple haze until the Sun pulled us out? I mean tiny pockets of surviving vegetarian giant redheaded Cro-Mags makes sense up to a point (as does Saturn, it elegantly explains a massive amount of folkloric stuff) but the real scientists don't buy it.

    Replies: @Twodees Partain

  22. @Arclight
    I always thought it was interesting how multiple civilizations arose between Mexico and Peru with fairly complex societies, engineering and metallurgy, yet North America's natives (with a few exceptions) really didn't advance all that far.

    Replies: @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro, @Thomm, @Lars Porsena, @Anon, @syonredux, @Hapalong Cassidy, @AnotherDad

    I always thought it was interesting how multiple civilizations arose between Mexico and Peru with fairly complex societies, engineering and metallurgy, yet North America’s natives (with a few exceptions) really didn’t advance all that far.

    Mexico and Central America are part of North America….

    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    @syonredux


    Mexico and Central America are part of North America….
     
    Not in the anthropological sense. The Sonoran Desert that formed around 7000 years B.P. became a formidable barrier for migrating populations. The North Eurasian-Beringian descendants came to dominate the gene pool north of it while the Australoid descendants remained dominant south of it.
    , @Perspective
    @syonredux

    The advance civilizations in the Americas seemed to have happened mostly (but not exclusively) between two narrow bands of 15 and 20 degrees north of the equator, and 13 - 15 degrees south of the equator on plateau land.

    , @Logan
    @syonredux

    I agree. Geographically it is blindingly obvious that the North American continent extends to Panama. Yet the exclusion of Mexico and Central America from the continent is probably the most common usage.

  23. If I am not mistaken, I believe that Penon Woman III (which is considered “proto-caucasoid”) is still older than this find:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/03/oldest.skull/index.html

  24. @Twodees Partain
    In North America there are skeletons of several different races that predate modern indigenous North Americans. The mound builders of the eastern US were distinctly different from any of the subgroups of peoples who were here when Europeans arrived.

    Some of the earlier people were much bigger than modern humans, too. The "giants" skeletal remains and artifacts have been found all across what is now the continental US.

    Replies: @syonredux, @J.Ross

    Some of the earlier people were much bigger than modern humans, too. The “giants” skeletal remains and artifacts have been found all across what is now the continental US.

    What exactly do you mean by “much bigger than modern humans?”

    The mound builders of the eastern US were distinctly different from any of the subgroups of peoples who were here when Europeans arrived.

    Dunno. The Mississippian culture was encountered by de Soto….and the Natchez persisted into the 18th century….

    • Replies: @Disordered
    @syonredux

    Early hominids and earlier homo sapiens seem taller. Up to a foot taller. Some say it's due to them primarily eating meat. Given that Northern Amerindians were buffalo lovers, makes sense. (Contrast that to the shorter Andean Amerinds, made shorter of course by grueling mitas, obrajes, and encomiendas).

    As for the Mississippian culture, Natchez, or mound builders, are they all one and the same? Sincere question, I guess he thinks they aren't. Or, at any rate, maybe he refers to the lost colony having spread some white genes on eastern Amerindians?

    Replies: @syonredux

    , @gcochran
    @syonredux

    He mean's he's nuts.

  25. My dad used to tell me that he thought northern Europeans originally came from North America. I have no idea how he got the idea, but since the genetic studies started coming out showing pretty strong affinities between modern northern Europeans and Amerindians I started wondering whether he might be on to something. Maybe the mammoth hunter culture was truly circumpolar, and our ancestors headed west from Beringia before settling in Central Aisa, and then eventually overrunning Europe in the Bronze Age Replacement.

    • Replies: @Silva
    @Bill P

    Current evidence seems to be that a Southern Siberian population that was part West Eurasian and part East Eurasian was the main ancestor of Amerindians.

  26. @Steve Sailer
    @pyrrhus

    Think of the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean as a modern refuge for an early population that spread out far beyond the Andaman Islands.

    Replies: @Flip, @Autochthon, @RichardTaylor, @backup, @candid_observer, @Bliss

    Indonesians made it to Madagascar and the Polynesians settled widely, so ancient sea voyages were possible.

  27. @Twodees Partain
    In North America there are skeletons of several different races that predate modern indigenous North Americans. The mound builders of the eastern US were distinctly different from any of the subgroups of peoples who were here when Europeans arrived.

    Some of the earlier people were much bigger than modern humans, too. The "giants" skeletal remains and artifacts have been found all across what is now the continental US.

    Replies: @syonredux, @J.Ross

    … do you have a link that does not also talk about Saturn being a dying star that fostered our early development in a purple haze until the Sun pulled us out? I mean tiny pockets of surviving vegetarian giant redheaded Cro-Mags makes sense up to a point (as does Saturn, it elegantly explains a massive amount of folkloric stuff) but the real scientists don’t buy it.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    @J.Ross

    Here's a page with some old newspaper articles about skeletons of giants found in the US:

    http://www.sydhav.no/giants/newspapers.htm

    I don't really know anything about Saturn being a dying star in connection with giants, but I'll assume you're just trying to be snarky. Your reference to vegetarian Cro-Magnons is also an attempt at snark as well, I suppose, to go with your usual know-it-all iSteve postings.

    Another page has similar references:

    http://www.jasoncolavito.com/newspaper-accounts-of-giants.html

    I've been reading articles on this subject for years, but haven't bookmarked many links. You should be able to find plenty of your "real scientists" who have debunked the idea.

  28. @Lars Porsena
    @Arclight

    Did the central or south american cultures have metallurgy? They had gold for decoration, but did they have metal tools or weapons?

    Some of the north american indian groups around the great lakes did have copper tools and weapons a long a time ago but apparently stopped making them.

    https://www.mpm.edu/research-collections/anthropology/online-collections-research/old-copper-culture

    The article mentions the Phoenician theory but calls it racist, because it's based on the assumption the indians were too primitive to make metal tools. But apparently there is some genetic evidence suggesting it, as crazy as it seems. There is a haplogroup among a small number of indians that is only shared with groups in the middle east.

    Replies: @Arclight, @gcochran, @backup

    The Incas made plates, cups, and things like that from gold and silver, but my understanding is that they didn’t have much in the way of harder metals to make more useful things necessary to advance civilization.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Arclight

    They did a lot with textiles and fibers, in a humid environment, which sucks for later scholars.

    , @Disordered
    @Arclight

    Not to mention, they thought of precious metals as a material and not bullion.

    Chile does have a lot of copper now. Yet it was a hinterland even during colonial times, specially as settlers had to fend off the fierce mapuches.

    That said, the question perhaps has to do with both Northern and Cono Sur Amerindians having much larger amounts of cattle available and lesser irrigation, ergo remaining hunter gatherer. The Incas and Aztecs were on the other hand classic Bronze age agricultural empires, while Mayans formed a more loose coalition of trading cities (which is why they lasted less). Lest we forget, there were no cows, chickens, pigs, etc - therefore Amerindians either ate corn, fish, or monkey (huge oversimplification, but you get my point). Since large-scale agriculture (specially single staple crops like corn or potato) requires some planning, it also requires a larger state than the mere buffalo herding bands under a chief or fishing communes under a cacique developed in certain places (even then, the Aztecs and Incas were very much feudal in that they let local caciques run things, as long as they kept the tribute coming to the local representative).

    Still, fair point about California. Perhaps the southern part was deemed too dry and the northern part too wooded, therefore the middle wasn't exploited much? One can't underestimate the power that Western irrigation and deforestation have had to make land livable. Amerindian populations usually are at their most basic in woodlands/jungle, therefore it's easier for those populations to have had disappeared if they existed, or moved out into the prairie to hunt.

    Furthermore, the Age of Discovery caught the Amerindians just as they had entered some important centuries of political development. The loss of life due to disease, the conquest itself and every single factor related to it, and the fact that their culture was sooo behind (and their descendants including mestizos like me should acknowledge it and move on) means that we can only speculate on a lot.

    Replies: @BB753

    , @gcochran
    @Arclight

    Bronze, tin and arsenical.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  29. Can anyone recommend some good books on this subject?

  30. @Arclight
    @Lars Porsena

    The Incas made plates, cups, and things like that from gold and silver, but my understanding is that they didn't have much in the way of harder metals to make more useful things necessary to advance civilization.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Disordered, @gcochran

    They did a lot with textiles and fibers, in a humid environment, which sucks for later scholars.

  31. @Lot
    @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro

    Still doesn't answer the bigger question. California has a perfect climate and soil for some forms of agriculture, similar to the Mediterranean where civilization arose and supported large ancient populations. Yet the California tribes were completely stone age and very sparse on the ground, while the Mexican tribes were building giant painted pyramids, had 1000 mile trade networks, and developed writing and calendars.

    Replies: @Polynikes, @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro, @Hapalong Cassidy, @International Jew, @AnotherDad

    The land is so nice it makes you stupid. Look at white Europeans: here only a few centuries and already too dumb to maintain.

  32. In Canada, Native Americans are called First Nations

    “First Nations” – Is the most azz kissing name for indigenous, ever? Even the Canadian Indians are embarrassed, except that such infantile talk translates into more wampum somehow, someway. And casinos, bingo halls, smoke shops etc.. http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/trouble-at-the-smoke-shack-tax-free-native-cigarettes-a-big-business-in-ontario-and-quebec-are-now-a-problem-for-western-provinces-too/

  33. anon[315] • Disclaimer says:

    Yeah, as I read the book I chuckled. Not only were they not first, but they probably killed off the people there before them, or at least their males. (But their languages didn’t have words for war.)

    They can keep their ancient bones from being analyzed for a while, but the truth will out.

    Also, the book talked about techniques in the works to use ancient DNA to estimate population at various times in the past. This is a very sensitive area, apparently. And the next big thing will be dealing with bones < 4,000 years old, apparently. And causes of death by disease or otherwise can be determined in many cases, as they did with the black death in three different Eurasian populations.

    Also, the DNA can be used to show that bones are not ancestors of current tribes, which means that their legal right to stop analysis can be gotten around.

    In the end some billionaire benefactor will set up something whereby tribes can trade bones for money in the form of research grants or the like, and then the resistance will crumble.

  34. @Lot
    @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro

    Still doesn't answer the bigger question. California has a perfect climate and soil for some forms of agriculture, similar to the Mediterranean where civilization arose and supported large ancient populations. Yet the California tribes were completely stone age and very sparse on the ground, while the Mexican tribes were building giant painted pyramids, had 1000 mile trade networks, and developed writing and calendars.

    Replies: @Polynikes, @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro, @Hapalong Cassidy, @International Jew, @AnotherDad

    The entire Amerindian population of California was just 150,000 to 250,000 people before the Spanish arrived. With such a small population spread out among hundreds of tribes, why would they have any need for sophisticated agriculture ? While in Mexico they had 12 million Aztecs living off corn and human sacrifices…

    It is surprising that so few Indians lived in California, when over 15 million lived in Mexico. Maybe the indigenous in California kept close vigilance on their territory to keep out the Indians from Mexico.

  35. @syonredux
    @Arclight


    I always thought it was interesting how multiple civilizations arose between Mexico and Peru with fairly complex societies, engineering and metallurgy, yet North America’s natives (with a few exceptions) really didn’t advance all that far.
     
    Mexico and Central America are part of North America....

    Replies: @Thirdeye, @Perspective, @Logan

    Mexico and Central America are part of North America….

    Not in the anthropological sense. The Sonoran Desert that formed around 7000 years B.P. became a formidable barrier for migrating populations. The North Eurasian-Beringian descendants came to dominate the gene pool north of it while the Australoid descendants remained dominant south of it.

  36. Haha. Canada’s ‘First Nations’ are completely cucked. They have no opinions on mass colonization in the present, because the Marxist institutions have manipulated them into becoming a controlled, mainstream opposition.

    They are allowed to claim racial reparations from whites for past wrongs, but not to step outside the tent and criticize modern immigration.

  37. We are all descended from conquerors and the conquered. So back off with the claims that I owe you reparations for something somebody who looks like me did to somebody who looks like you, 200 years ago. Stand on your own merits and quit whining.

  38. @syonredux
    @Arclight


    I always thought it was interesting how multiple civilizations arose between Mexico and Peru with fairly complex societies, engineering and metallurgy, yet North America’s natives (with a few exceptions) really didn’t advance all that far.
     
    Mexico and Central America are part of North America....

    Replies: @Thirdeye, @Perspective, @Logan

    The advance civilizations in the Americas seemed to have happened mostly (but not exclusively) between two narrow bands of 15 and 20 degrees north of the equator, and 13 – 15 degrees south of the equator on plateau land.

  39. @Arclight
    @Lars Porsena

    The Incas made plates, cups, and things like that from gold and silver, but my understanding is that they didn't have much in the way of harder metals to make more useful things necessary to advance civilization.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Disordered, @gcochran

    Not to mention, they thought of precious metals as a material and not bullion.

    Chile does have a lot of copper now. Yet it was a hinterland even during colonial times, specially as settlers had to fend off the fierce mapuches.

    That said, the question perhaps has to do with both Northern and Cono Sur Amerindians having much larger amounts of cattle available and lesser irrigation, ergo remaining hunter gatherer. The Incas and Aztecs were on the other hand classic Bronze age agricultural empires, while Mayans formed a more loose coalition of trading cities (which is why they lasted less). Lest we forget, there were no cows, chickens, pigs, etc – therefore Amerindians either ate corn, fish, or monkey (huge oversimplification, but you get my point). Since large-scale agriculture (specially single staple crops like corn or potato) requires some planning, it also requires a larger state than the mere buffalo herding bands under a chief or fishing communes under a cacique developed in certain places (even then, the Aztecs and Incas were very much feudal in that they let local caciques run things, as long as they kept the tribute coming to the local representative).

    Still, fair point about California. Perhaps the southern part was deemed too dry and the northern part too wooded, therefore the middle wasn’t exploited much? One can’t underestimate the power that Western irrigation and deforestation have had to make land livable. Amerindian populations usually are at their most basic in woodlands/jungle, therefore it’s easier for those populations to have had disappeared if they existed, or moved out into the prairie to hunt.

    Furthermore, the Age of Discovery caught the Amerindians just as they had entered some important centuries of political development. The loss of life due to disease, the conquest itself and every single factor related to it, and the fact that their culture was sooo behind (and their descendants including mestizos like me should acknowledge it and move on) means that we can only speculate on a lot.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @Disordered

    I never understood why the Aztecs built Tenochtitlan in the middle of a lake. It probably wasn't very healthy to live there surrounded by still waters and mosquitoes, even without Old World diseases to worry about.

    Replies: @syonredux, @J.Ross

  40. Kennewick Man killed by red men for being white

  41. @Thomm
    @Arclight

    Yes. But note that the same was true of Eurasia 1000 years prior to that (i.e. 500 AD).

    Northern Europe and Russia were the last parts of Eurasia to form civilizations.

    https://youtu.be/ymI5Uv5cGU4?t=479.

    Western Europe then shot ahead at great speed.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Thirdeye, @Anonymous, @Charles Pewitt

    Mostly through the spread of Aegean-derived civilization.

  42. Save Ferris Kennewick Man!. (Just now the Injuns got him and buried him again.)

    In September 2014, Dr. Douglas Owsley, Smithsonian physical anthropologist and one of the plaintiffs in the case, shared his morphology based findings that indicated that the skeleton was not of Native American affinity, and may have been more closely related to circumpacific groups such as the Ainu and Polynesians.

    In June 2015, University of Copenhagen geneticist Dr. Eske Willerslev and colleagues released findings in the scientific journal “Nature” after sequencing the genome of Kennewick Man. The team compared DNA extracted from a hand bone to worldwide genomic data, including the Ainu and Polynesians. They found that The Ancient One is more closely related to modern Native Americans than any other living population.

    He was ~ 8,500 years old and found in 1996 in a shallow part of the Columbia river in E. Washington. He’d been in the Burke Museum, at the N. end of the Univ. of Washington campus for some time to allow research.

    Early on, the 1st Nations wanted to use the Indian burial rights laws to get this skeleton buried right away to make sure they were still 1st and not 2nd or 3rd Nations. They’ll always be Injuns to me.

  43. @TheJester
    It appears that the northern extremes of North America underwent a new (but historically silent) invasion of Asian peoples circa 1100 - 1500. They came from Siberia; today they are generically called the Inuit. There is unmistakable evidence that they interacted with the Viking communities in Greenland. Indeed, they may have had a role in their disappearance as well as the disappearance of remnants of the earlier Dorset Culture.

    Does this mean that anyone who can prove they have genes from the Dorset Culture or the Viking settlements in Greenland that preceded the Inuit can claim reparations from the United States, Canada, or Denmark?

    "The Thule or proto-Inuit were the ancestors of all modern Inuit. They developed in coastal Alaska by 1000 and expanded eastwards across Canada, reaching Greenland by the 13th century. In the process, they replaced people of the earlier Dorset culture that had previously inhabited the region."
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_people

    No, that can't be right! I know this to be true:

    Amerindians were a tranquil people who were at peace with nature, the environment, and the Great Spirit. They enthusiastically shared their food to help neighboring tribes through harsh winters. All things considered, for them, it was a "Roussarian" paradise on the banks of a lush brook ... until the White Man arrived, sold them whiskey, gave them horses and rifles, and turned them against each other.

    Amerindians languished until an unknown Amerindian discovered the "casino". The rest is history, as the Amerindian population of the United States, especially, found the resources to return to a tranquil, languid, casino-based existence beside the lush brook ... as was their historic legacy.

    Yet, I've heard it said, "Damn the White Man! Beware, next, they'll steal our casinos, too!"

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @YetAnotherAnon, @IHTG

    Amerindians were a tranquil people who were at peace with nature,…

    Yes, and they always kept the place clean, or maybe not.

  44. @Arclight
    I always thought it was interesting how multiple civilizations arose between Mexico and Peru with fairly complex societies, engineering and metallurgy, yet North America's natives (with a few exceptions) really didn't advance all that far.

    Replies: @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro, @Thomm, @Lars Porsena, @Anon, @syonredux, @Hapalong Cassidy, @AnotherDad

    The North American climate was much harsher, so agriculture developed much later. IQ isn’t the only factor in the development of agriculture (which is the springboard to civilization). The Northern Europeans, high IQ and all, developed civilization much later than the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern people did.

    • Replies: @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro
    @Hapalong Cassidy

    Good point . There was also less need to develop agriculture , since they had plenty of wild game, deer , birds, fish, bison...the population size was also much smaller here than in Mexico.

    , @Bliss
    @Hapalong Cassidy


    The Northern Europeans, high IQ and all, developed civilization much later than the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern people did.
     
    More like they had civilization imposed on them by the Romans.
  45. @syonredux
    @Twodees Partain


    Some of the earlier people were much bigger than modern humans, too. The “giants” skeletal remains and artifacts have been found all across what is now the continental US.
     
    What exactly do you mean by "much bigger than modern humans?"

    The mound builders of the eastern US were distinctly different from any of the subgroups of peoples who were here when Europeans arrived.
     
    Dunno. The Mississippian culture was encountered by de Soto....and the Natchez persisted into the 18th century....

    Replies: @Disordered, @gcochran

    Early hominids and earlier homo sapiens seem taller. Up to a foot taller. Some say it’s due to them primarily eating meat. Given that Northern Amerindians were buffalo lovers, makes sense. (Contrast that to the shorter Andean Amerinds, made shorter of course by grueling mitas, obrajes, and encomiendas).

    As for the Mississippian culture, Natchez, or mound builders, are they all one and the same? Sincere question, I guess he thinks they aren’t. Or, at any rate, maybe he refers to the lost colony having spread some white genes on eastern Amerindians?

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Disordered


    As for the Mississippian culture, Natchez, or mound builders, are they all one and the same? Sincere question, I guess he thinks they aren’t.
     
    Various Amerind cultures built mounds. The Mississippian culture (of which the Natchez are a descendant) built mounds:




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

    Early hominids and earlier homo sapiens seem taller. Up to a foot taller. Some say it’s due to them primarily eating meat. Given that Northern Amerindians were buffalo lovers, makes sense. (Contrast that to the shorter Andean Amerinds, made shorter of course by grueling mitas, obrajes, and encomiendas).
     
    Yeah, but here's his quote:

    Some of the earlier people were much bigger than modern humans, too. The “giants” skeletal remains and artifacts have been found all across what is now the continental US.

     

    "Much bigger than modern humans." I don't think that he's talking about meat-eating HGs being taller than agriculturalists....
  46. @Half Canadian
    @Anon

    That's partly true. The natives in the North Eastern area were growing corn by 1400, and other crops (squash, beans, anything else?). There is some evidence of trade routes.
    But this all collapsed after Europeans arrived. Disease, most likely, was the cause.

    Replies: @Lars Porsena, @james wilson

    Corn. Or maize. Corn, beans and squash were the ‘3 sisters’ that were farmed by many many different types of indians all over the continent, at least amongst those who farmed.

    As for trade, most of the nomadic buffalo hunting plains indians really were nomadic, even before horses. They ranged all over the continent. If you study the history of where any of the plains tribes come from, they basically all come from all over the place. They would range from Washington and up in Canada all the way to Kentucky and Mississippi. And when I say they would range, I don’t mean over centuries I mean they would routinely get up and move to the other side of the continent on a long road trip, for various reasons sometimes if they were defeated in war, and where familiar with the geography of the whole continent. Most of them have their histories all over the place. Some of them have traditional histories that had them raiding as far south as the Aztec in Mexico. They had holy sites all over the place and might go to those to observe religious ceremonies or to talk with other peoples or far away cousins, they would make pilgrimages half way or all the way across the country. If they had good lands and no stiff competition they might stay in a range for a while, enough to be semi-nomadic or something, maybe even some farming, but if the situation changed, environmental or with competition, they might leave and go someplace completely different, and they might stay on the move for a long time.

    Various other groups of north american indians were not nomadic and would build settlements and towns engage in farming or fishing. An example would be all the pueblo groups, pueblo is a spanish word basically meaning ‘village’ so they used it to describe any settled groups, usually in the southwest in or near Spanish territories, in Texas, OK, MS, NM, NV, CO and maybe a few others. Many of these groups would make villages with brick buildings made out of dirt or stone and others would, like Petra in Jordan, carve villages into the side of cliffs in box canyons. Some of these groups were quite the settlement builders but they were in the south, somewhat near the aztec groups who were also. There were clans in the north that were settled too, though I’m not aware of brick towns.

    The nomads would trade meat and foreign goods to the settled indians as they traveled around making sometimes circuits around the country. They would trade the pueblo meat for corn, beans and squash, and would trade tools and clothes and craftworks made by the settled people from Mexico basically all the way up into Canada and back, from the Gulf of Mexico to Hudson Bay, and the nomads made made some of their own craftworks too.

    The plains indians had a semi-universal form of international sign language, that they would use to signal and trade with each other when they couldn’t speak each other’s language.

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

  47. @Lot
    @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro

    Still doesn't answer the bigger question. California has a perfect climate and soil for some forms of agriculture, similar to the Mediterranean where civilization arose and supported large ancient populations. Yet the California tribes were completely stone age and very sparse on the ground, while the Mexican tribes were building giant painted pyramids, had 1000 mile trade networks, and developed writing and calendars.

    Replies: @Polynikes, @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro, @Hapalong Cassidy, @International Jew, @AnotherDad

    Without more modern irrigation techniques, only Northern California near the coast would have been suitable for agriculture. And maybe that climate was too perfect. Northern California has a climate similar to Tasmania, and look what happened to the people that ended up there.

    • Agree: Autochthon
  48. Australo-Melanesians

    Melanesian Choir singing was used to great effect in The Thin Red Line.

  49. A Brazilian anthropologist, Walter Neves, had studied a number of old skeletons in Brazil that looked different

    Crystal Skulls???

  50. @Anon
    @Arclight

    North American Indians didn't have to advance to survive. They had huge herds of buffalo available to them as a food source that Mexicans and South Americans did not. We have historical records that indicate that buffalo used to roam as far east as Kentucky. When all you have to do to survive is hunt occasionally, eat, and lay around, why should you make any advances? There are men in the modern US today who would be happy to live a life like that.

    Advances are the product of a struggle to survive.

    Replies: @Half Canadian, @Neil Templeton, @Diversity Heretic, @Logan, @anon

    “There are men in the modern US today who would be happy to live a life like that.”

    I’m one of them.

  51. Reading now in that part of Reich’s book, there is a section titled “Mistrust of Western Science” that describes American Indian tribal resistance to genetic research.

    They’ve been dicked around so many times before that they have just turned away in some cases.

    The beautiful Navajo Reservation is home to a big group of Indians, many still living in traditional hogans. Four decades ago, it was a cool place for this wandering white man to backpack, camp and hitchhike around in. It was a place where he could literally step into another world.

    The tribal government there has passed its Moratorium on Genetic Research, which includes this quaint statement:

    “Human genome testing is strictly prohibited by the Tribe. Navajos were created by Changing Woman; therefore we know where they came from.”

    Well, that settles it then.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Yes. The Navajo say to the rest of us: We own this. Fuck off. And BTW, enjoy your changing women!

    , @Charles Pewitt
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Steve Sailer Needs A Hoxha Round Cement Bunker In His Backyard:

    https://twitter.com/HPhotographed/status/939242180723527682

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

  52. @Buzz Mohawk
    Reading now in that part of Reich's book, there is a section titled "Mistrust of Western Science" that describes American Indian tribal resistance to genetic research.

    They've been dicked around so many times before that they have just turned away in some cases.

    The beautiful Navajo Reservation is home to a big group of Indians, many still living in traditional hogans. Four decades ago, it was a cool place for this wandering white man to backpack, camp and hitchhike around in. It was a place where he could literally step into another world.

    The tribal government there has passed its Moratorium on Genetic Research, which includes this quaint statement:

    "Human genome testing is strictly prohibited by the Tribe. Navajos were created by Changing Woman; therefore we know where they came from."
     
    Well, that settles it then.

    http://fineartamerica.com/images-medium-5/navajo-female-hogan-in-monument-valley-navajo-tribal-park-ruth-hager.jpg

    Replies: @Neil Templeton, @Charles Pewitt

    Yes. The Navajo say to the rest of us: We own this. Fuck off. And BTW, enjoy your changing women!

  53. @Buzz Mohawk
    Ya know, it's almost as if human history is one wave after another, taking over.

    No one has any claim to a homeland except those who are there and can keep it. There is no argument, moral or otherwise, against the white man having what he has now. Everyone before him came and took. If he does not hold on, others will come and take.

    = We Are Who We Are =

    ====== and ======

    === We Got Here ===

    That Is All That Matters

    Replies: @Anonymous, @J.Ross, @dfordoom, @silviosilver, @silviosilver

    No one has any claim to a homeland except those who are there and can keep it.

    At this point in time that pretty much means accepting that very soon the white man won’t have any homeland. Whites don’t seem to be genetically fitted for survival. We may be an evolutionary dead end. No people in all of history have been so determined on self-destruction.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @dfordoom

    "At this point in time that pretty much means accepting that very soon the white man won’t have any homeland. Whites don’t seem to be genetically fitted for survival. We may be an evolutionary dead end. No people in all of history have been so determined on self-destruction."

    Of course whites have a homeland. There are hundreds of millions of white people. We are perpetuating our race. We are genetically suited to thrive. We are not destroying ourselves.

    I will take your statements to be based on ignorance.

  54. Q. How many genders are there?

    A. As many as the commissars decide

    Whenever you’re in doubt, remember the correct answer, whatever the Commissars decide. You’re concerned about First being Second when every right thinker knows that 2+2=5.

  55. Anonymous[326] • Disclaimer says:

    What if the indios of the Americas weren’t first or second but rather the racially mixed rump survivors of the third, fourth, or nth groups classifiable as civilized on those lands?

    The similarities between Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations and the remnants of civilizations in Central and South America can not be coincidence.

    In the 1960s and 1970s, the ‘ancient astronauts’ theories were popular because they fit the paradigm of The Future people believed. Now, it seems more and more likely that the naysayers-the people who believe that manned interstellar or intergalactic spaceflight is impossible, that nothing ever really will go between Point A and B faster than the speed of light, that Star Trek is not ever to really be in terms of its core technologies-are probably right, the more logical explanation is that much more sophisticated societies predated the indios discovered by Cortez and Pizarro.

    Years ago, I taunted Mormon apologists with Frank Zindler’s famous question regarding the Hill Cumorah tale. How do you lose a steel mill?

    Good question, Mr. Zindler. Damn good question.

    http://nowscape.com/mormon/zindler1.htm

    Answer: Ask the old Polish residents of “The Bush” And “Hegewisch” in South Chicago.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Chicago,_Chicago#US_Steel_South_Works_Site_redevelopment

    From the old St. Michael’s Church, a steelworker could walk to the plant. The church, originally intended as a minor basilica, is still there. Plant is gone. They chopped it down and fed it to itself until only the open hearth was left, then they blasted that down and hauled it out. A civilization in decline tore itself down for scrap, just as the indios had done for centuries and were still doing when the Spaniards landed.

    Imagine Detroit or Chicago covered in ice or volcanic ash tomorrow and discovered by archaeologists ten thousand years hence. Would they believe any of the stories of 1950s American manufacturing to have been feasible based on what they’d find?

  56. @Steve Sailer
    @pyrrhus

    Think of the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean as a modern refuge for an early population that spread out far beyond the Andaman Islands.

    Replies: @Flip, @Autochthon, @RichardTaylor, @backup, @candid_observer, @Bliss

    Right; a diaspora from the Andaman Islands and whatever astonishing story that intimates is not the idea, if the population was huge and widespread but destroyed unto oblivion all over whatever wide range it had by later peoples such that today the only genetic survivors at all are in the Andaman Islands and the Amazon Basin). If the Denisovans had a different history, their genes might well survive today in only the Altay Mountains and Borneo (or Nunavut, or whatever…), but it wouldn’t be an especially unusual tale: just more of the common march of people across the planet over millennia and the waves of continuing genocides as these waves encounter each other – it doesn’t mean, e.g., some guy once sailed an outrigger from the Andaman Islands to the mouth of the Amazon River or any such extraordinary thing….

  57. Several of the Amazonian tribes they looked at had this admixture, at a few-percent level: the Surui, Karitiana, and Xavante. It has since been found in some other groups in or near the Amazonian basin.

    Some obvious attempts at an explanation don’t work. That genetic trace isn’t from Polynesians – not a good genetic match, and the admixture is old, while the Polynesian expansion into the Pacific is recent.

    Old admixture, maybe from Southeast Asia or Oceania? Hmmmmmm…What are the chances that there may have been (gasp!) two or maybe even more Edens?

  58. A lot of people were ‘here’ first (retarded smiley-face with a wink)

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2016/04/26/boners-for-beringia/

    (noting the Oxford defines ‘boner’ as a stupid mistake)

  59. @Lars Porsena
    @Arclight

    Did the central or south american cultures have metallurgy? They had gold for decoration, but did they have metal tools or weapons?

    Some of the north american indian groups around the great lakes did have copper tools and weapons a long a time ago but apparently stopped making them.

    https://www.mpm.edu/research-collections/anthropology/online-collections-research/old-copper-culture

    The article mentions the Phoenician theory but calls it racist, because it's based on the assumption the indians were too primitive to make metal tools. But apparently there is some genetic evidence suggesting it, as crazy as it seems. There is a haplogroup among a small number of indians that is only shared with groups in the middle east.

    Replies: @Arclight, @gcochran, @backup

    “There is a haplogroup among a small number of indians that is only shared with groups in the middle east.”

    No, there isn’t.

    • Replies: @backup
    @gcochran

    I think he refers to mtDNA X. The Druze have a lot of it, and there is a native Indian subclade.

    , @Red Pill Angel
    @gcochran

    Perhaps Lars was thinking about haplotype X and got confused.

    , @Lars Porsena
    @gcochran

    I don't really know enough about DNA to say honestly. I've heard that from other people who seemed to know more.

  60. @Paleo Liberal
    I have long thought that the Clovis theory -- the idea that there were no people in the Americans before the end of the last ice age, and then they spread at the speed of light down to South America -- was completely flawed. There have been plenty of artifacts in both North and South America tens of millennia BEFORE Clovis.

    The more current idea is there were numerous waves of peoples over a period of tens of thousands of years. People migrated, people conquered, people mixed. It continues to this day.

    I am an almost entirely white member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. A lot of the traditional Cherokee crafts had a very Meso-American style, similar to Mayan. One hypothesis by white anthropologists was that the crafts came by trade routes.

    The traditional Cherokee stories were that the Cherokee are a mix of two very different tribes. One tribe came from the north, where they left after being kicked out by the rest of the Iroquois Confederation. In fact, the Cherokee language is an Iroquoian language, and the traditional Cherokee government was an Iroquoian style of government.

    The second, smaller, tribe supposedly came from the south, probably modern day Mexico. This would explain why the Cherokee pottery, etc. looks so darn Mexican.

    The Cherokee believed the pottery style spread by migrations, NOT by trade. Anyone who disagrees is obviously a white racist pig :-)

    Replies: @gcochran

    “There have been plenty of artifacts in both North and South America tens of millennia BEFORE Clovis. ”

    Tens of millennia? No. Not one, so far.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    @gcochran

    I amend that. There is ONE site where it shows that people could'vc been in North America as early as 130,000 years BP, and Monte Verde was somewhere between 18,500 and 33,000 years BP. So that makes two sites tens of thousands of years before Clovis, possibly.


    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/mastodons-americas-peopling-migrations-archaeology-science/

    And there are plenty of sites that show people in North America at least 2500 years before Clovis, and even earlier in Monte Verde in South America.

  61. @Arclight
    @Lars Porsena

    The Incas made plates, cups, and things like that from gold and silver, but my understanding is that they didn't have much in the way of harder metals to make more useful things necessary to advance civilization.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Disordered, @gcochran

    Bronze, tin and arsenical.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @gcochran

    What’s the earliest evidence for Amerind population in New England?

    I had a professor long ago who suspected that the folks encountered by the Mayflower migrants were themselves somewhat recent arrivals. He thought the lack of any very old monuments was indicative of recent arrival (maybe a couple of hundred years pre-Mayflower).

    Replies: @Sunbeam, @syonredux

  62. @syonredux
    @Twodees Partain


    Some of the earlier people were much bigger than modern humans, too. The “giants” skeletal remains and artifacts have been found all across what is now the continental US.
     
    What exactly do you mean by "much bigger than modern humans?"

    The mound builders of the eastern US were distinctly different from any of the subgroups of peoples who were here when Europeans arrived.
     
    Dunno. The Mississippian culture was encountered by de Soto....and the Natchez persisted into the 18th century....

    Replies: @Disordered, @gcochran

    He mean’s he’s nuts.

    • LOL: JMcG
  63. Anonymous [AKA "Dream FC"] says:
    @Thomm
    @Arclight

    Yes. But note that the same was true of Eurasia 1000 years prior to that (i.e. 500 AD).

    Northern Europe and Russia were the last parts of Eurasia to form civilizations.

    https://youtu.be/ymI5Uv5cGU4?t=479.

    Western Europe then shot ahead at great speed.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Thirdeye, @Anonymous, @Charles Pewitt

    Except Northern Germans and Eastern Slavs in 500 AD, had metalurgy, complex tribal society, know about horses (although horses were not verry useful in Scandinavia) , chariots even some cities… That wouldput them on pair with Inkas in 1500.

    • Replies: @ThirdWorldSteveReader
    @Anonymous

    Writing (runes or Latin script) would put them ahead of the Incas of 1550AD.

    , @Thomm
    @Anonymous

    We are not comparing Eurasia to the Americas. We are comparing the North-South divides in both entities separately.

  64. @Buzz Mohawk
    Ya know, it's almost as if human history is one wave after another, taking over.

    No one has any claim to a homeland except those who are there and can keep it. There is no argument, moral or otherwise, against the white man having what he has now. Everyone before him came and took. If he does not hold on, others will come and take.

    = We Are Who We Are =

    ====== and ======

    === We Got Here ===

    That Is All That Matters

    Replies: @Anonymous, @J.Ross, @dfordoom, @silviosilver, @silviosilver

    No one has any claim to a homeland except those who are there and can keep it.

    That’s obviously a sensible ‘natural law’ way to look at it.

    I think, though, that human beings who are willing to be reasonable could probably come up with some sort of global compact whose centerpiece is an agreement that it’s just wrong to invade and demographically displace a people from their homeland. This would have clearly favorable consequences for immigration restriction (and maybe even reversal, in some cases). Considering the portents of ‘the world’s most important graph’, the need for such a compact has never been more pressing.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    @silviosilver

    Likely there have been many thousands of such compacts over the years, all forgotten when opportunity displaces obligation.

  65. @Buzz Mohawk
    Ya know, it's almost as if human history is one wave after another, taking over.

    No one has any claim to a homeland except those who are there and can keep it. There is no argument, moral or otherwise, against the white man having what he has now. Everyone before him came and took. If he does not hold on, others will come and take.

    = We Are Who We Are =

    ====== and ======

    === We Got Here ===

    That Is All That Matters

    Replies: @Anonymous, @J.Ross, @dfordoom, @silviosilver, @silviosilver

    Ya know, it’s almost as if human history is one wave after another, taking over.

    Going slightly OT, it really bugs me to hear talk of ‘First Nations’ when referring to the Indians and Aborigines of N. America and Australia. First at what exactly? They weren’t ‘nations’ in any sense that social scientists accept, and to the extent they were, they were hardly the first at it. So the claim has to be they were the first Canadians and first Australians, which is simply daft, because those peoples had no conception of living in ‘Canada’ or ‘Australia’ (and probably had no idea of the extent of the land mass they lived on), and much less of being ‘Canadian’ or ‘Australian’, and their various tribes hardly saw each other as fellow nationals. It’s obviously just a ruse to make white people feel even guiltier than they already do. It’s not even the undeserved benefits they exact in this manner that bugs me; it’s that it makes whites doubt and disregard the validity of their status as the founding and sustaining people of those countries.

  66. @TheJester
    It appears that the northern extremes of North America underwent a new (but historically silent) invasion of Asian peoples circa 1100 - 1500. They came from Siberia; today they are generically called the Inuit. There is unmistakable evidence that they interacted with the Viking communities in Greenland. Indeed, they may have had a role in their disappearance as well as the disappearance of remnants of the earlier Dorset Culture.

    Does this mean that anyone who can prove they have genes from the Dorset Culture or the Viking settlements in Greenland that preceded the Inuit can claim reparations from the United States, Canada, or Denmark?

    "The Thule or proto-Inuit were the ancestors of all modern Inuit. They developed in coastal Alaska by 1000 and expanded eastwards across Canada, reaching Greenland by the 13th century. In the process, they replaced people of the earlier Dorset culture that had previously inhabited the region."
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_people

    No, that can't be right! I know this to be true:

    Amerindians were a tranquil people who were at peace with nature, the environment, and the Great Spirit. They enthusiastically shared their food to help neighboring tribes through harsh winters. All things considered, for them, it was a "Roussarian" paradise on the banks of a lush brook ... until the White Man arrived, sold them whiskey, gave them horses and rifles, and turned them against each other.

    Amerindians languished until an unknown Amerindian discovered the "casino". The rest is history, as the Amerindian population of the United States, especially, found the resources to return to a tranquil, languid, casino-based existence beside the lush brook ... as was their historic legacy.

    Yet, I've heard it said, "Damn the White Man! Beware, next, they'll steal our casinos, too!"

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @YetAnotherAnon, @IHTG

    It sounds as if it was indeed a paradise for the Dorset people – until the Inuit/Eskimos turned up with weapons.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/dorset-dna-genes-trace-tale-arctics-long-gone-hobbits-n191156

    The Thule people had developed advanced bows and arrows, whale-hunting tools and dogsleds — technologies in which the Dorset were deficient. The Thule also favored a military-style discipline that might have contrasted with the Dorset culture’s simpler ways.

    “This meeting between these two peoples would have been a very stark meeting,” Fitzhugh said, “between people with very conservative, beautiful stone technology and beautiful artwork and so on, but socially and economically, they were just no match for this onslaught from this Thule machine. … They were, in a sense, sitting ducks.”

  67. Anonymous[817] • Disclaimer says:

    The really fascinating thing about this ‘genetic archaeology’ is how it is uncovering facts about the deep, distant unknown and unknowable prehistoric past which hitherto could only be described as fantastical.

    Such is the nature of profound breakthroughs in hard science.

  68. @Half Canadian
    @Anon

    That's partly true. The natives in the North Eastern area were growing corn by 1400, and other crops (squash, beans, anything else?). There is some evidence of trade routes.
    But this all collapsed after Europeans arrived. Disease, most likely, was the cause.

    Replies: @Lars Porsena, @james wilson

    No, it all collapsed before Europeans arrived. They were winging it. Lacking written language, that’s all you can do.

  69. @Anon
    @Arclight

    North American Indians didn't have to advance to survive. They had huge herds of buffalo available to them as a food source that Mexicans and South Americans did not. We have historical records that indicate that buffalo used to roam as far east as Kentucky. When all you have to do to survive is hunt occasionally, eat, and lay around, why should you make any advances? There are men in the modern US today who would be happy to live a life like that.

    Advances are the product of a struggle to survive.

    Replies: @Half Canadian, @Neil Templeton, @Diversity Heretic, @Logan, @anon

    I don’t think American bison are all that easy to kill with bows and arrows and in the absence of horses. I also suspect it’s fairly hazardous. Finally, following migrating herds doesn’t give a tribe much of a chance to settle down and develop technology such as metallurgy.

  70. @TheJester
    It appears that the northern extremes of North America underwent a new (but historically silent) invasion of Asian peoples circa 1100 - 1500. They came from Siberia; today they are generically called the Inuit. There is unmistakable evidence that they interacted with the Viking communities in Greenland. Indeed, they may have had a role in their disappearance as well as the disappearance of remnants of the earlier Dorset Culture.

    Does this mean that anyone who can prove they have genes from the Dorset Culture or the Viking settlements in Greenland that preceded the Inuit can claim reparations from the United States, Canada, or Denmark?

    "The Thule or proto-Inuit were the ancestors of all modern Inuit. They developed in coastal Alaska by 1000 and expanded eastwards across Canada, reaching Greenland by the 13th century. In the process, they replaced people of the earlier Dorset culture that had previously inhabited the region."
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_people

    No, that can't be right! I know this to be true:

    Amerindians were a tranquil people who were at peace with nature, the environment, and the Great Spirit. They enthusiastically shared their food to help neighboring tribes through harsh winters. All things considered, for them, it was a "Roussarian" paradise on the banks of a lush brook ... until the White Man arrived, sold them whiskey, gave them horses and rifles, and turned them against each other.

    Amerindians languished until an unknown Amerindian discovered the "casino". The rest is history, as the Amerindian population of the United States, especially, found the resources to return to a tranquil, languid, casino-based existence beside the lush brook ... as was their historic legacy.

    Yet, I've heard it said, "Damn the White Man! Beware, next, they'll steal our casinos, too!"

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @YetAnotherAnon, @IHTG

    Inuits are actually not legally classified as “First Nations” in Canada.

  71. @Anon
    @Arclight

    North American Indians didn't have to advance to survive. They had huge herds of buffalo available to them as a food source that Mexicans and South Americans did not. We have historical records that indicate that buffalo used to roam as far east as Kentucky. When all you have to do to survive is hunt occasionally, eat, and lay around, why should you make any advances? There are men in the modern US today who would be happy to live a life like that.

    Advances are the product of a struggle to survive.

    Replies: @Half Canadian, @Neil Templeton, @Diversity Heretic, @Logan, @anon

    Actually, buffalo ranged into Florida, Mexico and New York state.

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

    However, there is considerable evidence that their numbers, pre-1492, were not what they were in 1800, that the massive population may have been a side effect of the ecological disruption created by the great disease-caused reduction of the human population in North America.

  72. @syonredux
    @Arclight


    I always thought it was interesting how multiple civilizations arose between Mexico and Peru with fairly complex societies, engineering and metallurgy, yet North America’s natives (with a few exceptions) really didn’t advance all that far.
     
    Mexico and Central America are part of North America....

    Replies: @Thirdeye, @Perspective, @Logan

    I agree. Geographically it is blindingly obvious that the North American continent extends to Panama. Yet the exclusion of Mexico and Central America from the continent is probably the most common usage.

  73. @Steve Sailer
    @pyrrhus

    Think of the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean as a modern refuge for an early population that spread out far beyond the Andaman Islands.

    Replies: @Flip, @Autochthon, @RichardTaylor, @backup, @candid_observer, @Bliss

    I believe the sea level was about 300 feet lower 12,000 years ago. If true, then perhaps more island hopping was possible in those days, making the trip from the Andaman Islands at least a bit more feasible.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    @RichardTaylor

    It definitely was, and even lower for most of the preceding 100,000 years. An emerged land mass ("Sundaland") occupied most of present-day Indonesia. Marine fishing cultures had developed in that area by 40,000 years BP. It's not difficult to conceive of the Andaman population as an isolate of an ancient population that contributed to admixtures in the circumpacific region.

  74. Eagle Eye says:

    It seems that many American Indian tribes themselves have myths indicating that they moved to their traditional homelands from ELSEWHERE. These Indian tribes don’t seem to worry much about such ancient stories, just as British aristocrats doesn’t don’t really want to go back to Normandy full-time – 1066 was a long time ago.

    Only ONE tribe is truly terrified of these ancient migration stories – Leftoid college anthropologists and the associated socio-something studies priesthood break into night sweats at the thought that maybe, just maybe, American Indians might not have lived in their traditional homelands continuously for the past 12,000 years.

    P.S.: American Indian tribes recognized by the U.S. Government are properly and proudly known as “Indians.”

  75. Anonymous [AKA "Yen"] says:
    @gcochran
    @Arclight

    Bronze, tin and arsenical.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    What’s the earliest evidence for Amerind population in New England?

    I had a professor long ago who suspected that the folks encountered by the Mayflower migrants were themselves somewhat recent arrivals. He thought the lack of any very old monuments was indicative of recent arrival (maybe a couple of hundred years pre-Mayflower).

    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    @Anonymous

    "I had a professor long ago who suspected that the folks encountered by the Mayflower migrants were themselves somewhat recent arrivals. He thought the lack of any very old monuments was indicative of recent arrival (maybe a couple of hundred years pre-Mayflower)."

    Interesting idea. Should be simple enough to check for as well. Has it ever been done?

    I'd imagine an archaeologist should be able to put himself into the head of a group of people he is studying, extinct or not, and identify likely spots they would have camped in, built villages, or farmed.

    Even if development in New England happened in the "Sweet Spots," there should be some places to dig and find artifacts from say 600 AD - assuming the theory you posted were wrong.

    Heck, shouldn't this have been done a long time ago? Archaeology used to be considered kind of cool and interesting. If these things existed shouldn't a museum have an exhibit called "Pottery fragments and semi-extant vase from strata identified as 600 AD, along the Charles River?"

    , @syonredux
    @Anonymous

    There was a mass die-off in coastal New England prior to the arrival of the Pilgrims (1620) and the Puritans (1630s):


    In the winter of 1620, the Mayflower happened to dock at an abandoned village. It had been known in the local Wampanoag language as Patuxet. Pilgrims rejoiced; the land “hath been planted with corn three or four years ago, and there is a very sweet brook runs under the hillside.” In fact, the French explorer Samuel de Champlain had observed what would become Plymouth harbor 15 years earlier and drew a map of native homes surrounded by fields of corn.

    Where had all the people gone? As the Pilgrims thanked God for their luck, they were unaware that the previous tenants had died of a gruesome infectious disease.
     

    In the spring of 1621, the Pilgrims finally met their surviving neighbors. If the colonists thought God was good for guiding them to pretilled land and a sweet brook, they were even more thankful when the first Native American strolled into their midst, smiling and saying in English, “Welcome!” According to Pilgrim-era writings, he told them straight away that the previous villagers “died of an extraordinary plague.” A few days later, Tisquantum arrived. Called Squanto by Pilgrims, he was born in Patuxet, abducted by Englishman Thomas Hunt in 1614, and missed out on the epidemic that killed his entire village. During his years in captivity, he’d learned English, and he was now attached to a nearby branch of the Wampanoag.
     

    The Pilgrim leader William Bradford was already aware of the death toll from “Indean fever.” His scouts had ventured inland and noted “sculs and bones were found in many places lying still above ground, where their houses and dwellings had been; a very sad spectackle to behould.” It’s estimated as many as nine out of 10 coastal Indians were killed in the epidemic between 1616 and 1619.
     
    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/11/leptospirosis_and_pilgrims_the_wampanoag_may_have_been_killed_off_by_an.html

    Replies: @Travis

  76. @gcochran
    @Lars Porsena

    "There is a haplogroup among a small number of indians that is only shared with groups in the middle east."

    No, there isn't.

    Replies: @backup, @Red Pill Angel, @Lars Porsena

    I think he refers to mtDNA X. The Druze have a lot of it, and there is a native Indian subclade.

  77. @Buzz Mohawk
    Reading now in that part of Reich's book, there is a section titled "Mistrust of Western Science" that describes American Indian tribal resistance to genetic research.

    They've been dicked around so many times before that they have just turned away in some cases.

    The beautiful Navajo Reservation is home to a big group of Indians, many still living in traditional hogans. Four decades ago, it was a cool place for this wandering white man to backpack, camp and hitchhike around in. It was a place where he could literally step into another world.

    The tribal government there has passed its Moratorium on Genetic Research, which includes this quaint statement:

    "Human genome testing is strictly prohibited by the Tribe. Navajos were created by Changing Woman; therefore we know where they came from."
     
    Well, that settles it then.

    http://fineartamerica.com/images-medium-5/navajo-female-hogan-in-monument-valley-navajo-tribal-park-ruth-hager.jpg

    Replies: @Neil Templeton, @Charles Pewitt

    Steve Sailer Needs A Hoxha Round Cement Bunker In His Backyard:

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Charles Pewitt


    Steve Sailer Needs A Hoxha Round Cement Bunker In His Backyard
     
    Sailer already has one. It was built by his late pet rabbit.
  78. @Steve Sailer
    @pyrrhus

    Think of the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean as a modern refuge for an early population that spread out far beyond the Andaman Islands.

    Replies: @Flip, @Autochthon, @RichardTaylor, @backup, @candid_observer, @Bliss

    Tianyuan is a 40.000 year old sample from the neighbourhood of Peking. It has the same affinity to Suruii and Karitiana as was found in the Andamans and Australasians.

  79. @Lars Porsena
    @Arclight

    Did the central or south american cultures have metallurgy? They had gold for decoration, but did they have metal tools or weapons?

    Some of the north american indian groups around the great lakes did have copper tools and weapons a long a time ago but apparently stopped making them.

    https://www.mpm.edu/research-collections/anthropology/online-collections-research/old-copper-culture

    The article mentions the Phoenician theory but calls it racist, because it's based on the assumption the indians were too primitive to make metal tools. But apparently there is some genetic evidence suggesting it, as crazy as it seems. There is a haplogroup among a small number of indians that is only shared with groups in the middle east.

    Replies: @Arclight, @gcochran, @backup

    There is a haplogroup among a small number of indians that is only shared with groups in the middle east.

    If you refer to haplogroup X2, Indians have X2a and X2g, which is also restricted to American Indians. The age of X2, the root from which both originated, is ~21.000 years old, so both X2a and X2g probably have formed in America.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276663/pdf/main.pdf

  80. @Steve Sailer
    @pyrrhus

    Think of the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean as a modern refuge for an early population that spread out far beyond the Andaman Islands.

    Replies: @Flip, @Autochthon, @RichardTaylor, @backup, @candid_observer, @Bliss

    Yeah, there seem to be a number of small vestigial populations across the world who take the jobs the immigrants won’t do.

  81. @Thomm
    @Arclight

    Yes. But note that the same was true of Eurasia 1000 years prior to that (i.e. 500 AD).

    Northern Europe and Russia were the last parts of Eurasia to form civilizations.

    https://youtu.be/ymI5Uv5cGU4?t=479.

    Western Europe then shot ahead at great speed.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Thirdeye, @Anonymous, @Charles Pewitt

    Western Europe then shot ahead at great speed.

    How Scandinavian were the Normans? Many of the troops that went over to England in 1066 under William the Conqueror were French, Bretons, Flemings, and other continental Europeans.

    The internet lists a lot of the surnames for people who have Norman ancestry and a lot of them are French or French place names.

    Was George Washington a descendant of Scandinavians by way of Normandy or was he a Breton, Fleming or something else. A lot of people with old stocker Southern ancestry have Norman ancestry, much more so than old stocker New Englanders, who have mostly Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @Charles Pewitt

    "How Scandinavian were the Normans?"

    In Normandy, probably less than 50% even then. (Normans in the strict sense, not the whole continental army).

    , @syonredux
    @Charles Pewitt


    . A lot of people with old stocker Southern ancestry have Norman ancestry, much more so than old stocker New Englanders, who have mostly Anglo-Saxon ancestry.
     
    Tend to doubt that. The Norman Conquest did not have any kind of real impact in terms of ancestry in the British Isles.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt

  82. @Anon
    @Arclight

    North American Indians didn't have to advance to survive. They had huge herds of buffalo available to them as a food source that Mexicans and South Americans did not. We have historical records that indicate that buffalo used to roam as far east as Kentucky. When all you have to do to survive is hunt occasionally, eat, and lay around, why should you make any advances? There are men in the modern US today who would be happy to live a life like that.

    Advances are the product of a struggle to survive.

    Replies: @Half Canadian, @Neil Templeton, @Diversity Heretic, @Logan, @anon

    When all you have to do to survive is hunt occasionally, eat, and lay around, why should you make any advances? There are men in the modern US today who would be happy to live a life like that.

    Count me in!

  83. This is all very nice, but in the Current Year, race trumps firstness. So yes, Injuns own America because they got here first. But Frenchmen’s claim to France doesn’t come ahead of the Malians’, just because they got to Europe first.

    • Replies: @sabril
    @International Jew

    For most people, firstness is just a convenient argument which is trotted out when it supports their position; ignored when it is not. What's interesting is that there is typically no conscious thought in the process.

    I'm reminded of the fight over the watering hole in 2001 A Space Odyssey. Probably disputes like that took place millions of times over man's evolutionary history and by this point we are evolved to be very good at convincing ourselves that we have a claim (and usually a superior claim) to resource we desire.

  84. Anonymous[987] • Disclaimer says:

    Is this surprising? I thought the scientific debate was about determining whether the Amerindians were the second or the third identifiable wave. Also, determining whether any of the pre-humans (Neanderthal or half-Neanderthal particularly, or maybe a seperate third branch of Neanderthals) made it to North America before being wiped out. But even if they did, would they even count as a wave of ‘people’ getting wiped out by the Amerindians or their predecessors? You have to draw a line somewhere in ancient pre-history between moving into an occupied area and wiping out ‘people’ or moving into a pristine area and hunting the existing ‘animals’.

  85. @Lot
    @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro

    Still doesn't answer the bigger question. California has a perfect climate and soil for some forms of agriculture, similar to the Mediterranean where civilization arose and supported large ancient populations. Yet the California tribes were completely stone age and very sparse on the ground, while the Mexican tribes were building giant painted pyramids, had 1000 mile trade networks, and developed writing and calendars.

    Replies: @Polynikes, @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro, @Hapalong Cassidy, @International Jew, @AnotherDad

    All true. But let’s not be so impressed with pyramids, ok? A pyramid is just a bit harder to “build”, than making a pile of stones.

    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    @International Jew

    Yes it's true. A pyramid was popular with early people everywhere because it was so easy to build and is self supporting. A typical pyramid creates a staircase as it's built. A simple vertical wall for a fortress or keep is much harder to create and inherently less stable.

  86. @Buffalo Joe
    North American Indians, never having invented a wheel, needed to wait for the white man so that their casinos could have roulette tables and slot machines with numbered wheels. South American Indians didn't realize the value in miles of coastal beaches. They should be happy the white man "discovered " their continents.

    Replies: @Silva, @Father O'Hara

    They didn’t realize the value of beaches so much that they were still expanding and at war over them when the Portuguese arrived. (I do think they wouldn’t take long to lose either way, but the fact that the Portuguese could ally with some against others did speed things up.)

  87. anonymous[106] • Disclaimer says:

    As to North America, whether “Native American” or “First Nation” NEITHER are “native” to North America.

    As to South America I pass in silence other than to muse that G. Cochran seems to be suggesting, implicitly, that Heyerdahl’s theory that South America was settled by Polynesians doesn’t cut it genetically. I would be interested, though, in knowing what he means by “recent” as in “Polynesian expansion into the Pacific is RECENT” (emphasis mine).

    • Replies: @Silva
    @anonymous

    "As to North America, whether “Native American” or “First Nation” NEITHER are “native” to North America."

    What do you consider "native"?

    Replies: @anonymous

  88. @Bill P
    My dad used to tell me that he thought northern Europeans originally came from North America. I have no idea how he got the idea, but since the genetic studies started coming out showing pretty strong affinities between modern northern Europeans and Amerindians I started wondering whether he might be on to something. Maybe the mammoth hunter culture was truly circumpolar, and our ancestors headed west from Beringia before settling in Central Aisa, and then eventually overrunning Europe in the Bronze Age Replacement.

    Replies: @Silva

    Current evidence seems to be that a Southern Siberian population that was part West Eurasian and part East Eurasian was the main ancestor of Amerindians.

  89. @Steve Sailer
    @pyrrhus

    Think of the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean as a modern refuge for an early population that spread out far beyond the Andaman Islands.

    Replies: @Flip, @Autochthon, @RichardTaylor, @backup, @candid_observer, @Bliss

    The Andaman Islanders are also related to the Ancient Ancestral South Indians (AASI) of Reich’s recent book. These people must have been the greatest ocean voyagers in history until the 16th century.

    • Replies: @Red Pill Angel
    @Bliss

    The Andamanese are fascinating little people, the blackest on Earth. When the world is too much with me, I watch Youtube videos of the little fellows shooting their teeny but deadly accurate arrows at anthropologists in boats. They still practice public sexual relations as conflict resolution, initiated by women, when approached by intruders. It is also interesting to track things like female steatopygia, which occurs among the Andamanese, and also among the otherwise unrelated Congo pygmies. The Congo pygmies also employ water percussion in their music, a peculiarity they share with some tribes of New Guinea, all if which might suggest a once much larger population of wee black peoples in the Pacific, and maybe even connections to Homo floresiensis.

    Replies: @BB753, @Rosamond Vincy

  90. @Anonymous
    @Buzz Mohawk

    That's a pretty dumb argument as you speed down suicide lane.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Olorin

    It’s not an argument, it’s a statement of biological fact.

    Someone asked Benjamin Franklin what he would call the system of government the Founding Fathers and their families and friends established in the New World in the late 1700s.

    He replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

    Everyone before him came and took. If he does not hold on, others will come and take.

    Recognizing this isn’t suicide. It is downstream from the first recognition of the first cell(s) that developed systems that later evolved into the mammalian immune system.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3805090/

    This is life on earth.

    When your immune system rallies to fight off this year’s influenza strain, that isn’t suicide. Quite the opposite.

    Waking up from the conditioning that keeps the national immune system from functioning properly is like figuring out the signalling mechanisms of a virus that let it creep into our cells and turn them into factories for its own use.

    We figure out how that works…then we come up with ways to make the invasion stop. But at no time is there stasis. Coming, taking, and holding are life’s primary drives.

  91. @anonymous
    As to North America, whether "Native American" or "First Nation" NEITHER are "native" to North America.

    As to South America I pass in silence other than to muse that G. Cochran seems to be suggesting, implicitly, that Heyerdahl's theory that South America was settled by Polynesians doesn't cut it genetically. I would be interested, though, in knowing what he means by "recent" as in "Polynesian expansion into the Pacific is RECENT" (emphasis mine).

    Replies: @Silva

    “As to North America, whether “Native American” or “First Nation” NEITHER are “native” to North America.”

    What do you consider “native”?

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Silva

    As in "not originating" (in this case in North America). As you indicated in another post they, like the white settlers who displaced them, migrated from elsewhere on the globe (in this case what is termed "the Eurasian landmass"). The term "Native American", like its sister term "African-American" is a covenient shorthand which carries far more political than scientific weight.

  92. @Disordered
    @Arclight

    Not to mention, they thought of precious metals as a material and not bullion.

    Chile does have a lot of copper now. Yet it was a hinterland even during colonial times, specially as settlers had to fend off the fierce mapuches.

    That said, the question perhaps has to do with both Northern and Cono Sur Amerindians having much larger amounts of cattle available and lesser irrigation, ergo remaining hunter gatherer. The Incas and Aztecs were on the other hand classic Bronze age agricultural empires, while Mayans formed a more loose coalition of trading cities (which is why they lasted less). Lest we forget, there were no cows, chickens, pigs, etc - therefore Amerindians either ate corn, fish, or monkey (huge oversimplification, but you get my point). Since large-scale agriculture (specially single staple crops like corn or potato) requires some planning, it also requires a larger state than the mere buffalo herding bands under a chief or fishing communes under a cacique developed in certain places (even then, the Aztecs and Incas were very much feudal in that they let local caciques run things, as long as they kept the tribute coming to the local representative).

    Still, fair point about California. Perhaps the southern part was deemed too dry and the northern part too wooded, therefore the middle wasn't exploited much? One can't underestimate the power that Western irrigation and deforestation have had to make land livable. Amerindian populations usually are at their most basic in woodlands/jungle, therefore it's easier for those populations to have had disappeared if they existed, or moved out into the prairie to hunt.

    Furthermore, the Age of Discovery caught the Amerindians just as they had entered some important centuries of political development. The loss of life due to disease, the conquest itself and every single factor related to it, and the fact that their culture was sooo behind (and their descendants including mestizos like me should acknowledge it and move on) means that we can only speculate on a lot.

    Replies: @BB753

    I never understood why the Aztecs built Tenochtitlan in the middle of a lake. It probably wasn’t very healthy to live there surrounded by still waters and mosquitoes, even without Old World diseases to worry about.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @BB753


    It probably wasn’t very healthy to live there surrounded by still waters and mosquitoes, even without Old World diseases to worry about.
     
    Dunno. No yellow fever. No malaria....

    Replies: @J.Ross, @gcochran

    , @J.Ross
    @BB753

    Setting aside the standard explanation which you have surely heard, the first thing I thought of when I learned that was the old Irish crannog or bog-island. Apparently it's easier, or maybe more intuitive at a certain level of engineering, to start with the moat and then add the castle.

  93. @Charles Pewitt
    @Thomm


    Western Europe then shot ahead at great speed.

     

    How Scandinavian were the Normans? Many of the troops that went over to England in 1066 under William the Conqueror were French, Bretons, Flemings, and other continental Europeans.

    The internet lists a lot of the surnames for people who have Norman ancestry and a lot of them are French or French place names.

    Was George Washington a descendant of Scandinavians by way of Normandy or was he a Breton, Fleming or something else. A lot of people with old stocker Southern ancestry have Norman ancestry, much more so than old stocker New Englanders, who have mostly Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

    Replies: @BB753, @syonredux

    “How Scandinavian were the Normans?”

    In Normandy, probably less than 50% even then. (Normans in the strict sense, not the whole continental army).

  94. @International Jew
    This is all very nice, but in the Current Year, race trumps firstness. So yes, Injuns own America because they got here first. But Frenchmen's claim to France doesn't come ahead of the Malians', just because they got to Europe first.

    Replies: @sabril

    For most people, firstness is just a convenient argument which is trotted out when it supports their position; ignored when it is not. What’s interesting is that there is typically no conscious thought in the process.

    I’m reminded of the fight over the watering hole in 2001 A Space Odyssey. Probably disputes like that took place millions of times over man’s evolutionary history and by this point we are evolved to be very good at convincing ourselves that we have a claim (and usually a superior claim) to resource we desire.

  95. They would more appropriately be named Immediately Previous Nations.

  96. @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro
    @Arclight

    The Amerindian population in the present day United State was just 2 million people , while in Mexico they had over 15 million amerindians, and the population of the Incan Empire was about 12 million people with another 10 million in Brazil...

    Replies: @Lot, @ThirdWorldSteveReader

    The amerinds were notoriously backwards in Brazil, though, even when compared to their brethen in North America.

  97. @Anonymous
    @Thomm

    Except Northern Germans and Eastern Slavs in 500 AD, had metalurgy, complex tribal society, know about horses (although horses were not verry useful in Scandinavia) , chariots even some cities... That wouldput them on pair with Inkas in 1500.

    Replies: @ThirdWorldSteveReader, @Thomm

    Writing (runes or Latin script) would put them ahead of the Incas of 1550AD.

  98. @Anonymous
    @gcochran

    What’s the earliest evidence for Amerind population in New England?

    I had a professor long ago who suspected that the folks encountered by the Mayflower migrants were themselves somewhat recent arrivals. He thought the lack of any very old monuments was indicative of recent arrival (maybe a couple of hundred years pre-Mayflower).

    Replies: @Sunbeam, @syonredux

    “I had a professor long ago who suspected that the folks encountered by the Mayflower migrants were themselves somewhat recent arrivals. He thought the lack of any very old monuments was indicative of recent arrival (maybe a couple of hundred years pre-Mayflower).”

    Interesting idea. Should be simple enough to check for as well. Has it ever been done?

    I’d imagine an archaeologist should be able to put himself into the head of a group of people he is studying, extinct or not, and identify likely spots they would have camped in, built villages, or farmed.

    Even if development in New England happened in the “Sweet Spots,” there should be some places to dig and find artifacts from say 600 AD – assuming the theory you posted were wrong.

    Heck, shouldn’t this have been done a long time ago? Archaeology used to be considered kind of cool and interesting. If these things existed shouldn’t a museum have an exhibit called “Pottery fragments and semi-extant vase from strata identified as 600 AD, along the Charles River?”

  99. @gcochran
    @Paleo Liberal

    "There have been plenty of artifacts in both North and South America tens of millennia BEFORE Clovis. "

    Tens of millennia? No. Not one, so far.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    I amend that. There is ONE site where it shows that people could’vc been in North America as early as 130,000 years BP, and Monte Verde was somewhere between 18,500 and 33,000 years BP. So that makes two sites tens of thousands of years before Clovis, possibly.

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/mastodons-americas-peopling-migrations-archaeology-science/

    And there are plenty of sites that show people in North America at least 2500 years before Clovis, and even earlier in Monte Verde in South America.

  100. @gcochran
    @Lars Porsena

    "There is a haplogroup among a small number of indians that is only shared with groups in the middle east."

    No, there isn't.

    Replies: @backup, @Red Pill Angel, @Lars Porsena

    Perhaps Lars was thinking about haplotype X and got confused.

  101. @Hapalong Cassidy
    @Arclight

    The North American climate was much harsher, so agriculture developed much later. IQ isn’t the only factor in the development of agriculture (which is the springboard to civilization). The Northern Europeans, high IQ and all, developed civilization much later than the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern people did.

    Replies: @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro, @Bliss

    Good point . There was also less need to develop agriculture , since they had plenty of wild game, deer , birds, fish, bison…the population size was also much smaller here than in Mexico.

  102. @gcochran
    @Lars Porsena

    "There is a haplogroup among a small number of indians that is only shared with groups in the middle east."

    No, there isn't.

    Replies: @backup, @Red Pill Angel, @Lars Porsena

    I don’t really know enough about DNA to say honestly. I’ve heard that from other people who seemed to know more.

  103. @Bliss
    @Steve Sailer

    The Andaman Islanders are also related to the Ancient Ancestral South Indians (AASI) of Reich’s recent book. These people must have been the greatest ocean voyagers in history until the 16th century.

    Replies: @Red Pill Angel

    The Andamanese are fascinating little people, the blackest on Earth. When the world is too much with me, I watch Youtube videos of the little fellows shooting their teeny but deadly accurate arrows at anthropologists in boats. They still practice public sexual relations as conflict resolution, initiated by women, when approached by intruders. It is also interesting to track things like female steatopygia, which occurs among the Andamanese, and also among the otherwise unrelated Congo pygmies. The Congo pygmies also employ water percussion in their music, a peculiarity they share with some tribes of New Guinea, all if which might suggest a once much larger population of wee black peoples in the Pacific, and maybe even connections to Homo floresiensis.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @Red Pill Angel

    "They still practice public sexual relations as conflict resolution, initiated by women, when approached by intruders."

    I'd never heard of that peculiar conflict resolution practice, which is pure genious. Perhaps I'll mention it during the next meeting with Human Resources.
    When did this practice become obsolete?

    , @Rosamond Vincy
    @Red Pill Angel

    "It is also interesting to track things like female steatopygia."


    Could this explain the Kardashians?

    Nothing else can.

    Except surgery, of course.

  104. @Charles Pewitt
    @Thomm

    Western Europe then shot ahead at great speed.


    It's impressive that an island off the coast of a peninsula(Europe) of the Eurasian land mass managed to create the British Empire.

    The Angles, Danes, Saxons, Scandinavians, Celts and other Brits kept expanding their reach till they damn near had the Oceans and the major important coastal points all to themselves.

    The Dutch, the French, the Spaniards and the Swedes had their moments too.

    Replies: @Thirdeye, @TheJester

    Refugia bounded by water and deserts were what allowed the early ancestors of European civilization to develop (Egypt, Mesopotamia, Crete). With the invention of superior watercraft, the coast was transformed from a protective barrier to a means of projecting economic and military power (Greece, Rome, Scandinavia, Renaissance Europe, Japan, USA). So the stage was set for the Brits, with security of their home waters unchallenged after the defeat of the Spanish Armada, to spread their influence behind their mastery of the maritime arts and trades (the Spanish relied on mighty but tactically impaired craft and stagnated technologically). Sea trade undermined the land trade based economy of the Middle East. Projection of military power into interior regions away from ports remained a problem, as Russia demonstrated to the world repeatedly.

    The entry of rail transport into the equation fostered the development of continental power (Germany) which challenged the economic and military primacy of sea power for the first time in the modern imperial era. “The Pivot of History” was mainly about that development, although it did not take into account the economic and military implications of air power or the scale of land transport required to bring continental power to fruition (as demonstrated by the Russo-Japanese War that shortly followed its publication). It also did not consider that the world financial power that arose in the van of sea power had no interest in fostering continental-scale infrastructure that could shift the balance. The Chinese-financed One Belt – One Road project could deliver that scenario over a century after it was foreseen.

  105. @RichardTaylor
    @Steve Sailer

    I believe the sea level was about 300 feet lower 12,000 years ago. If true, then perhaps more island hopping was possible in those days, making the trip from the Andaman Islands at least a bit more feasible.

    Replies: @Thirdeye

    It definitely was, and even lower for most of the preceding 100,000 years. An emerged land mass (“Sundaland”) occupied most of present-day Indonesia. Marine fishing cultures had developed in that area by 40,000 years BP. It’s not difficult to conceive of the Andaman population as an isolate of an ancient population that contributed to admixtures in the circumpacific region.

  106. @Charles Pewitt
    @Thomm

    Western Europe then shot ahead at great speed.


    It's impressive that an island off the coast of a peninsula(Europe) of the Eurasian land mass managed to create the British Empire.

    The Angles, Danes, Saxons, Scandinavians, Celts and other Brits kept expanding their reach till they damn near had the Oceans and the major important coastal points all to themselves.

    The Dutch, the French, the Spaniards and the Swedes had their moments too.

    Replies: @Thirdeye, @TheJester

    By the end of the 19th Century, Great Britain ruled the waves. France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands needed permission from the British to keep and communicate with the remnants of their sea-based empires. Britain had veto power over everything that moved on the world’s oceans.

    The United States has usurped that role as the British Empire imploded into a quaint “outdoor museum”. The United States also inherited the same imperial organization. The British Foreign Office (the Establishment) ignored Parliament and the Prime Minister and conducted foreign policy as it saw fit. The CIA (the Deep State) has picked up the mantle of imperial reach and control for the United States. It ignores Congress and the President and conducts foreign policy as it sees fit.

    As Allen Dulles said, the State Department is responsible for foreign relations with “friendly” nations … and the CIA is responsible for foreign relations with “unfriendly” nations. It seems that there are more of the latter than the former these days.

  107. anonymous[106] • Disclaimer says:
    @Silva
    @anonymous

    "As to North America, whether “Native American” or “First Nation” NEITHER are “native” to North America."

    What do you consider "native"?

    Replies: @anonymous

    As in “not originating” (in this case in North America). As you indicated in another post they, like the white settlers who displaced them, migrated from elsewhere on the globe (in this case what is termed “the Eurasian landmass”). The term “Native American”, like its sister term “African-American” is a covenient shorthand which carries far more political than scientific weight.

  108. @silviosilver
    @Buzz Mohawk


    No one has any claim to a homeland except those who are there and can keep it.
     
    That's obviously a sensible 'natural law' way to look at it.

    I think, though, that human beings who are willing to be reasonable could probably come up with some sort of global compact whose centerpiece is an agreement that it's just wrong to invade and demographically displace a people from their homeland. This would have clearly favorable consequences for immigration restriction (and maybe even reversal, in some cases). Considering the portents of 'the world's most important graph', the need for such a compact has never been more pressing.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton

    Likely there have been many thousands of such compacts over the years, all forgotten when opportunity displaces obligation.

  109. @Anonymous
    @Thomm

    Except Northern Germans and Eastern Slavs in 500 AD, had metalurgy, complex tribal society, know about horses (although horses were not verry useful in Scandinavia) , chariots even some cities... That wouldput them on pair with Inkas in 1500.

    Replies: @ThirdWorldSteveReader, @Thomm

    We are not comparing Eurasia to the Americas. We are comparing the North-South divides in both entities separately.

  110. @Disordered
    @syonredux

    Early hominids and earlier homo sapiens seem taller. Up to a foot taller. Some say it's due to them primarily eating meat. Given that Northern Amerindians were buffalo lovers, makes sense. (Contrast that to the shorter Andean Amerinds, made shorter of course by grueling mitas, obrajes, and encomiendas).

    As for the Mississippian culture, Natchez, or mound builders, are they all one and the same? Sincere question, I guess he thinks they aren't. Or, at any rate, maybe he refers to the lost colony having spread some white genes on eastern Amerindians?

    Replies: @syonredux

    As for the Mississippian culture, Natchez, or mound builders, are they all one and the same? Sincere question, I guess he thinks they aren’t.

    Various Amerind cultures built mounds. The Mississippian culture (of which the Natchez are a descendant) built mounds:

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

    Early hominids and earlier homo sapiens seem taller. Up to a foot taller. Some say it’s due to them primarily eating meat. Given that Northern Amerindians were buffalo lovers, makes sense. (Contrast that to the shorter Andean Amerinds, made shorter of course by grueling mitas, obrajes, and encomiendas).

    Yeah, but here’s his quote:

    Some of the earlier people were much bigger than modern humans, too. The “giants” skeletal remains and artifacts have been found all across what is now the continental US.

    “Much bigger than modern humans.” I don’t think that he’s talking about meat-eating HGs being taller than agriculturalists….

  111. @Charles Pewitt
    @Thomm


    Western Europe then shot ahead at great speed.

     

    How Scandinavian were the Normans? Many of the troops that went over to England in 1066 under William the Conqueror were French, Bretons, Flemings, and other continental Europeans.

    The internet lists a lot of the surnames for people who have Norman ancestry and a lot of them are French or French place names.

    Was George Washington a descendant of Scandinavians by way of Normandy or was he a Breton, Fleming or something else. A lot of people with old stocker Southern ancestry have Norman ancestry, much more so than old stocker New Englanders, who have mostly Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

    Replies: @BB753, @syonredux

    . A lot of people with old stocker Southern ancestry have Norman ancestry, much more so than old stocker New Englanders, who have mostly Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

    Tend to doubt that. The Norman Conquest did not have any kind of real impact in terms of ancestry in the British Isles.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    @syonredux

    Tend to doubt that. The Norman Conquest did not have any kind of real impact in terms of ancestry in the British Isles.


    Plenty of English people have Norman blood. Thomas Hardy, the writer, had Norman blood.

    The internet says I have Daubney, St. Leger, Bourchier, Manners and other ancestors with similar surnames that might be Norman.

    I will repeat my claim that more old stocker Southerners have Norman ancestors than do old stocker New Englanders. I will further repeat that plenty of contemporary English people have Norman blood.

    The fictional character Hyacinth Bucket on that Britcom TV show was funny, though.

  112. @Anonymous
    @gcochran

    What’s the earliest evidence for Amerind population in New England?

    I had a professor long ago who suspected that the folks encountered by the Mayflower migrants were themselves somewhat recent arrivals. He thought the lack of any very old monuments was indicative of recent arrival (maybe a couple of hundred years pre-Mayflower).

    Replies: @Sunbeam, @syonredux

    There was a mass die-off in coastal New England prior to the arrival of the Pilgrims (1620) and the Puritans (1630s):

    In the winter of 1620, the Mayflower happened to dock at an abandoned village. It had been known in the local Wampanoag language as Patuxet. Pilgrims rejoiced; the land “hath been planted with corn three or four years ago, and there is a very sweet brook runs under the hillside.” In fact, the French explorer Samuel de Champlain had observed what would become Plymouth harbor 15 years earlier and drew a map of native homes surrounded by fields of corn.

    Where had all the people gone? As the Pilgrims thanked God for their luck, they were unaware that the previous tenants had died of a gruesome infectious disease.

    In the spring of 1621, the Pilgrims finally met their surviving neighbors. If the colonists thought God was good for guiding them to pretilled land and a sweet brook, they were even more thankful when the first Native American strolled into their midst, smiling and saying in English, “Welcome!” According to Pilgrim-era writings, he told them straight away that the previous villagers “died of an extraordinary plague.” A few days later, Tisquantum arrived. Called Squanto by Pilgrims, he was born in Patuxet, abducted by Englishman Thomas Hunt in 1614, and missed out on the epidemic that killed his entire village. During his years in captivity, he’d learned English, and he was now attached to a nearby branch of the Wampanoag.

    The Pilgrim leader William Bradford was already aware of the death toll from “Indean fever.” His scouts had ventured inland and noted “sculs and bones were found in many places lying still above ground, where their houses and dwellings had been; a very sad spectackle to behould.” It’s estimated as many as nine out of 10 coastal Indians were killed in the epidemic between 1616 and 1619.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/11/leptospirosis_and_pilgrims_the_wampanoag_may_have_been_killed_off_by_an.html

    • Replies: @Travis
    @syonredux

    very interesting, thanks for the link. The article states the disease, leptospirosis was spread by rat urine. The Rats were European Black rats , which were brought to the new world by European ships before the pilgrims landed. I wonder how many amerindian deaths were caused by the introduction of the Black rats into the new world...It seems to have wiped out the entire indigenous population of Massachusetts before the pilgrims even landed there.

  113. Parenthetically, I’ve heard that other people had seen something weird in those Amazonian genetic samples even earlier, but seem to have thought it was too weird to publish

    Explorers discovered over a century ago that penguins were such perverts that they’d even put Germans to shame. That was self-censored, too.

    Sex then, race now. Murray and Herrnstein were right. Table limbs, indeed.

  114. @BB753
    @Disordered

    I never understood why the Aztecs built Tenochtitlan in the middle of a lake. It probably wasn't very healthy to live there surrounded by still waters and mosquitoes, even without Old World diseases to worry about.

    Replies: @syonredux, @J.Ross

    It probably wasn’t very healthy to live there surrounded by still waters and mosquitoes, even without Old World diseases to worry about.

    Dunno. No yellow fever. No malaria….

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @syonredux

    I am perplexed by Aztec health because their religion required their superior castes to open their skin multiple times every day. This sounds like the last thing anyone should be doing in a tropical zone. Perhaps it eventually guaranteed robust immune systems (until totally unknown disease arrived)?

    , @gcochran
    @syonredux

    The floating farms were enormously productive, and Tenochtitlan seems to have low mortality. Unlike any city in the Old World, it was probably a population source ( rather than a sink) - constantly exporting more Aztecs.

  115. @BB753
    @Disordered

    I never understood why the Aztecs built Tenochtitlan in the middle of a lake. It probably wasn't very healthy to live there surrounded by still waters and mosquitoes, even without Old World diseases to worry about.

    Replies: @syonredux, @J.Ross

    Setting aside the standard explanation which you have surely heard, the first thing I thought of when I learned that was the old Irish crannog or bog-island. Apparently it’s easier, or maybe more intuitive at a certain level of engineering, to start with the moat and then add the castle.

  116. @syonredux
    @BB753


    It probably wasn’t very healthy to live there surrounded by still waters and mosquitoes, even without Old World diseases to worry about.
     
    Dunno. No yellow fever. No malaria....

    Replies: @J.Ross, @gcochran

    I am perplexed by Aztec health because their religion required their superior castes to open their skin multiple times every day. This sounds like the last thing anyone should be doing in a tropical zone. Perhaps it eventually guaranteed robust immune systems (until totally unknown disease arrived)?

  117. @Red Pill Angel
    @Bliss

    The Andamanese are fascinating little people, the blackest on Earth. When the world is too much with me, I watch Youtube videos of the little fellows shooting their teeny but deadly accurate arrows at anthropologists in boats. They still practice public sexual relations as conflict resolution, initiated by women, when approached by intruders. It is also interesting to track things like female steatopygia, which occurs among the Andamanese, and also among the otherwise unrelated Congo pygmies. The Congo pygmies also employ water percussion in their music, a peculiarity they share with some tribes of New Guinea, all if which might suggest a once much larger population of wee black peoples in the Pacific, and maybe even connections to Homo floresiensis.

    Replies: @BB753, @Rosamond Vincy

    “They still practice public sexual relations as conflict resolution, initiated by women, when approached by intruders.”

    I’d never heard of that peculiar conflict resolution practice, which is pure genious. Perhaps I’ll mention it during the next meeting with Human Resources.
    When did this practice become obsolete?

  118. @syonredux
    @BB753


    It probably wasn’t very healthy to live there surrounded by still waters and mosquitoes, even without Old World diseases to worry about.
     
    Dunno. No yellow fever. No malaria....

    Replies: @J.Ross, @gcochran

    The floating farms were enormously productive, and Tenochtitlan seems to have low mortality. Unlike any city in the Old World, it was probably a population source ( rather than a sink) – constantly exporting more Aztecs.

  119. Anonymous[373] • Disclaimer says:

    As I recall, when the Aztecs first arrived on the lake all the best coastal territories were already taken by rival tribes, so they settled the islands out of necessity not choice. However this later became a source of strength as it made them difficult to attack, setting the stage for their later domination of the region.

    • Agree: BB753
  120. @Lot
    @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro

    Still doesn't answer the bigger question. California has a perfect climate and soil for some forms of agriculture, similar to the Mediterranean where civilization arose and supported large ancient populations. Yet the California tribes were completely stone age and very sparse on the ground, while the Mexican tribes were building giant painted pyramids, had 1000 mile trade networks, and developed writing and calendars.

    Replies: @Polynikes, @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro, @Hapalong Cassidy, @International Jew, @AnotherDad

    California has a perfect climate and soil for some forms of agriculture, similar to the Mediterranean where civilization arose and supported large ancient populations.

    Lot, you’re confusing “nice Mediterranean climate” for suburbanites to enjoy when they emerge from their cubicles, with “perfect for agriculture”.

    https://www.bing.com/search?q=fresno+annual+rainfall&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=fresno+annual+rainfall&sc=5-22&sk=&cvid=59D900B9262543B5931278D85D42814A

    California’s big agricultural output depends entirely on irrigation. (Feel free to compare to Athens or Rome.)

    Sometime while you’re out driving around look at what the native, undisturbed California vegetation looks like.

    We have a word for California’s climate … “desert”.

  121. @Arclight
    I always thought it was interesting how multiple civilizations arose between Mexico and Peru with fairly complex societies, engineering and metallurgy, yet North America's natives (with a few exceptions) really didn't advance all that far.

    Replies: @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro, @Thomm, @Lars Porsena, @Anon, @syonredux, @Hapalong Cassidy, @AnotherDad

    I always thought it was interesting how multiple civilizations arose between Mexico and Peru with fairly complex societies, engineering and metallurgy, yet North America’s natives (with a few exceptions) really didn’t advance all that far.

    Actually they were doing fine. Corn (maize) cultivation had seeped up north. The Mississippian culture was quite reasonable for a stone-age civilization. Make an analogy to northern Europe when the Mediterranean had just entered the Bronze age.

    Ballpark–Aztecs in Bronze Age, no one with iron–you’d put these folks at three to four thousand years behind the West at contact. But …

    I’d speculate–along the lines of Jared Diamond (ignoring all his PC puffery)–that the big thing holding them back was failure to domesticate a decent draft animal. They needed to domesticate a buffalo and breed something like an ox. Without that they really were stuck in a rut of relying on only human labor, and the scale of agricultural society was limited.

    It would have been very interesting to see this experiment play out without the horse. The horse is a huge asset, but it also enabled barbarians to continually be swooping in and over running civilization–until stopped by the age of gunpowder. It would have been interesting to see the path of development in the Americas without it.

    • Replies: @prosa123
    @AnotherDad

    "I’d speculate–along the lines of Jared Diamond (ignoring all his PC puffery)–that the big thing holding them back was failure to domesticate a decent draft animal. They needed to domesticate a buffalo and breed something like an ox. Without that they really were stuck in a rut of relying on only human labor, and the scale of agricultural society was limited."

    I'm not sure if buffalos are capable of domestication.

    Replies: @candid_observer

  122. @syonredux
    @Anonymous

    There was a mass die-off in coastal New England prior to the arrival of the Pilgrims (1620) and the Puritans (1630s):


    In the winter of 1620, the Mayflower happened to dock at an abandoned village. It had been known in the local Wampanoag language as Patuxet. Pilgrims rejoiced; the land “hath been planted with corn three or four years ago, and there is a very sweet brook runs under the hillside.” In fact, the French explorer Samuel de Champlain had observed what would become Plymouth harbor 15 years earlier and drew a map of native homes surrounded by fields of corn.

    Where had all the people gone? As the Pilgrims thanked God for their luck, they were unaware that the previous tenants had died of a gruesome infectious disease.
     

    In the spring of 1621, the Pilgrims finally met their surviving neighbors. If the colonists thought God was good for guiding them to pretilled land and a sweet brook, they were even more thankful when the first Native American strolled into their midst, smiling and saying in English, “Welcome!” According to Pilgrim-era writings, he told them straight away that the previous villagers “died of an extraordinary plague.” A few days later, Tisquantum arrived. Called Squanto by Pilgrims, he was born in Patuxet, abducted by Englishman Thomas Hunt in 1614, and missed out on the epidemic that killed his entire village. During his years in captivity, he’d learned English, and he was now attached to a nearby branch of the Wampanoag.
     

    The Pilgrim leader William Bradford was already aware of the death toll from “Indean fever.” His scouts had ventured inland and noted “sculs and bones were found in many places lying still above ground, where their houses and dwellings had been; a very sad spectackle to behould.” It’s estimated as many as nine out of 10 coastal Indians were killed in the epidemic between 1616 and 1619.
     
    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/11/leptospirosis_and_pilgrims_the_wampanoag_may_have_been_killed_off_by_an.html

    Replies: @Travis

    very interesting, thanks for the link. The article states the disease, leptospirosis was spread by rat urine. The Rats were European Black rats , which were brought to the new world by European ships before the pilgrims landed. I wonder how many amerindian deaths were caused by the introduction of the Black rats into the new world…It seems to have wiped out the entire indigenous population of Massachusetts before the pilgrims even landed there.

  123. @TelfoedJohn
    On an obscure stretch of the Amazon, a pleasure boat of vulgar American tourists pass by. One of the tourists tosses a bag of rubbish into the flowing water. On the bank, Kevin Hart, dressed as an Andaman Islander, turns to the camera, and a single tear rolls down his face.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Rosamond Vincy

    The icing on the cake: The actor in that commercial was Italian. He specialized in playing Hollywood Indians.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Rosamond Vincy

    Yeah. "Iron-Eyes Cody".

  124. @Red Pill Angel
    @Bliss

    The Andamanese are fascinating little people, the blackest on Earth. When the world is too much with me, I watch Youtube videos of the little fellows shooting their teeny but deadly accurate arrows at anthropologists in boats. They still practice public sexual relations as conflict resolution, initiated by women, when approached by intruders. It is also interesting to track things like female steatopygia, which occurs among the Andamanese, and also among the otherwise unrelated Congo pygmies. The Congo pygmies also employ water percussion in their music, a peculiarity they share with some tribes of New Guinea, all if which might suggest a once much larger population of wee black peoples in the Pacific, and maybe even connections to Homo floresiensis.

    Replies: @BB753, @Rosamond Vincy

    “It is also interesting to track things like female steatopygia.”

    Could this explain the Kardashians?

    Nothing else can.

    Except surgery, of course.

  125. @J.Ross
    @Twodees Partain

    ... do you have a link that does not also talk about Saturn being a dying star that fostered our early development in a purple haze until the Sun pulled us out? I mean tiny pockets of surviving vegetarian giant redheaded Cro-Mags makes sense up to a point (as does Saturn, it elegantly explains a massive amount of folkloric stuff) but the real scientists don't buy it.

    Replies: @Twodees Partain

    Here’s a page with some old newspaper articles about skeletons of giants found in the US:

    http://www.sydhav.no/giants/newspapers.htm

    I don’t really know anything about Saturn being a dying star in connection with giants, but I’ll assume you’re just trying to be snarky. Your reference to vegetarian Cro-Magnons is also an attempt at snark as well, I suppose, to go with your usual know-it-all iSteve postings.

    Another page has similar references:

    http://www.jasoncolavito.com/newspaper-accounts-of-giants.html

    I’ve been reading articles on this subject for years, but haven’t bookmarked many links. You should be able to find plenty of your “real scientists” who have debunked the idea.

  126. @AnotherDad
    @Arclight


    I always thought it was interesting how multiple civilizations arose between Mexico and Peru with fairly complex societies, engineering and metallurgy, yet North America’s natives (with a few exceptions) really didn’t advance all that far.
     
    Actually they were doing fine. Corn (maize) cultivation had seeped up north. The Mississippian culture was quite reasonable for a stone-age civilization. Make an analogy to northern Europe when the Mediterranean had just entered the Bronze age.

    Ballpark--Aztecs in Bronze Age, no one with iron--you'd put these folks at three to four thousand years behind the West at contact. But ...

    I'd speculate--along the lines of Jared Diamond (ignoring all his PC puffery)--that the big thing holding them back was failure to domesticate a decent draft animal. They needed to domesticate a buffalo and breed something like an ox. Without that they really were stuck in a rut of relying on only human labor, and the scale of agricultural society was limited.

    It would have been very interesting to see this experiment play out without the horse. The horse is a huge asset, but it also enabled barbarians to continually be swooping in and over running civilization--until stopped by the age of gunpowder. It would have been interesting to see the path of development in the Americas without it.

    Replies: @prosa123

    “I’d speculate–along the lines of Jared Diamond (ignoring all his PC puffery)–that the big thing holding them back was failure to domesticate a decent draft animal. They needed to domesticate a buffalo and breed something like an ox. Without that they really were stuck in a rut of relying on only human labor, and the scale of agricultural society was limited.”

    I’m not sure if buffalos are capable of domestication.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    @prosa123


    I’m not sure if buffalos are capable of domestication.
     
    Remember: the most cuddly of dogs has been domesticated from a ferocious predator, the wolf.

    If there's a problem domesticating a species, it most likely has to do with the failure to find value for human beings in the intermediate stages of domestication. In this sense artificial selection as exemplified in domestication is like natural selection: there has to be a gradual process in which there's increased fitness at every stage (or, in the case of domestication, increased value to human beings); it doesn't suffice for there to be a fitness (or human value) payoff at the end of that process.

    Horses were domesticated as meat before they were tamed for riding.

  127. anonymous[371] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosamond Vincy
    @TelfoedJohn

    The icing on the cake: The actor in that commercial was Italian. He specialized in playing Hollywood Indians.

    Replies: @anonymous

    Yeah. “Iron-Eyes Cody”.

  128. @International Jew
    @Lot

    All true. But let's not be so impressed with pyramids, ok? A pyramid is just a bit harder to "build", than making a pile of stones.

    Replies: @Pat Boyle

    Yes it’s true. A pyramid was popular with early people everywhere because it was so easy to build and is self supporting. A typical pyramid creates a staircase as it’s built. A simple vertical wall for a fortress or keep is much harder to create and inherently less stable.

  129. @prosa123
    @AnotherDad

    "I’d speculate–along the lines of Jared Diamond (ignoring all his PC puffery)–that the big thing holding them back was failure to domesticate a decent draft animal. They needed to domesticate a buffalo and breed something like an ox. Without that they really were stuck in a rut of relying on only human labor, and the scale of agricultural society was limited."

    I'm not sure if buffalos are capable of domestication.

    Replies: @candid_observer

    I’m not sure if buffalos are capable of domestication.

    Remember: the most cuddly of dogs has been domesticated from a ferocious predator, the wolf.

    If there’s a problem domesticating a species, it most likely has to do with the failure to find value for human beings in the intermediate stages of domestication. In this sense artificial selection as exemplified in domestication is like natural selection: there has to be a gradual process in which there’s increased fitness at every stage (or, in the case of domestication, increased value to human beings); it doesn’t suffice for there to be a fitness (or human value) payoff at the end of that process.

    Horses were domesticated as meat before they were tamed for riding.

  130. @syonredux
    @Charles Pewitt


    . A lot of people with old stocker Southern ancestry have Norman ancestry, much more so than old stocker New Englanders, who have mostly Anglo-Saxon ancestry.
     
    Tend to doubt that. The Norman Conquest did not have any kind of real impact in terms of ancestry in the British Isles.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    Tend to doubt that. The Norman Conquest did not have any kind of real impact in terms of ancestry in the British Isles.

    Plenty of English people have Norman blood. Thomas Hardy, the writer, had Norman blood.

    The internet says I have Daubney, St. Leger, Bourchier, Manners and other ancestors with similar surnames that might be Norman.

    I will repeat my claim that more old stocker Southerners have Norman ancestors than do old stocker New Englanders. I will further repeat that plenty of contemporary English people have Norman blood.

    The fictional character Hyacinth Bucket on that Britcom TV show was funny, though.

  131. @Hapalong Cassidy
    @Arclight

    The North American climate was much harsher, so agriculture developed much later. IQ isn’t the only factor in the development of agriculture (which is the springboard to civilization). The Northern Europeans, high IQ and all, developed civilization much later than the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern people did.

    Replies: @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro, @Bliss

    The Northern Europeans, high IQ and all, developed civilization much later than the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern people did.

    More like they had civilization imposed on them by the Romans.

  132. I just saw my first episode of The Americans, and I must say I was disappointed to not see any Native Americans or African Americans in any meaningful roles. On top of being manipulative and collusive, the Russians are apparently racists.

  133. @Buffalo Joe
    North American Indians, never having invented a wheel, needed to wait for the white man so that their casinos could have roulette tables and slot machines with numbered wheels. South American Indians didn't realize the value in miles of coastal beaches. They should be happy the white man "discovered " their continents.

    Replies: @Silva, @Father O'Hara

    Those SA Indians females, whatever their origins, really didn’t look all that exciting strolling the beaches of Rio in their bikinis. Of course the Injuns couldn’t really say anything about it,as these were the only women they had. But they often went on the SmokeNet(their version of the Internet) and complained about their women being short,squat and fat. “If only I could go to Eastern Europe–if such a place may someday exist–I would get a good woman!”

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @Father O'Hara

    Father, you are a funny guy.

  134. @Father O'Hara
    @Buffalo Joe

    Those SA Indians females, whatever their origins, really didn't look all that exciting strolling the beaches of Rio in their bikinis. Of course the Injuns couldn't really say anything about it,as these were the only women they had. But they often went on the SmokeNet(their version of the Internet) and complained about their women being short,squat and fat. "If only I could go to Eastern Europe--if such a place may someday exist--I would get a good woman!"

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

    Father, you are a funny guy.

  135. @Charles Pewitt
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Steve Sailer Needs A Hoxha Round Cement Bunker In His Backyard:

    https://twitter.com/HPhotographed/status/939242180723527682

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Steve Sailer Needs A Hoxha Round Cement Bunker In His Backyard

    Sailer already has one. It was built by his late pet rabbit.

  136. So, the racial/ethnic group that now has the Newspeak label ‘Amerindians’ may NOT have been here ‘first” and if not, were, in LeftSpeak, invaders? As in ‘land stealers’…? You know, like ‘white’ people ostensibly ‘stole’ land that was “Mexican” after Mexico – a creation of the nation of Spain – stole it from the “Amerindians” who stole it from..well, they haven’t come up with a new label for the real original humanoids in Central America. All of which begs the question: how do we know what ‘race’ stole what from whom, if, as Lefties keep tell us, ‘race is only a social construct..”?

  137. @dfordoom
    @Buzz Mohawk


    No one has any claim to a homeland except those who are there and can keep it.
     
    At this point in time that pretty much means accepting that very soon the white man won't have any homeland. Whites don't seem to be genetically fitted for survival. We may be an evolutionary dead end. No people in all of history have been so determined on self-destruction.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “At this point in time that pretty much means accepting that very soon the white man won’t have any homeland. Whites don’t seem to be genetically fitted for survival. We may be an evolutionary dead end. No people in all of history have been so determined on self-destruction.”

    Of course whites have a homeland. There are hundreds of millions of white people. We are perpetuating our race. We are genetically suited to thrive. We are not destroying ourselves.

    I will take your statements to be based on ignorance.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS