Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) has issued a new report (PDF) asserting that the Early Asian Immigrants (incorrectly referred to as “Native” Americans) are hit the hardest by “climate-induced weather extremes”. I’ll leave aside the obvious problems with that fanciful claim, and the oddity of the idea of “climate-induced weather” whatever that means, to look at the NWF’s proposed solution to their imaginary problem.
Their solution? Well, their brilliant plan is that everyone but the Immigrants should pony up some money to give to the Immigrants.
Now, the history of the Early Asian Immigrants is a sad and tragic one. They were cheated, lied to, killed indiscriminately, and their culture and ways were denigrated and often destroyed.
The response of the US Government, after many years, was to give the remaining tribes of Immigrants their own nations. These are sovereign areas with their own leaders, where many US laws do not apply. Me, I’d give just about anything to be able to write my own laws, and not have to obey some US laws. But I don’t get to.
Now, however, the NWF wants to change the rules. They want to alter the laws so that the separate Immigrant nations can not only be sovereign and independent and run casinos and not be subject to various state laws, but they can also suck up tax money paid by people who live in my nation. As an example of what they want to change, they say:
Indian [sic] Tribes are also excluded —– because of statutes, regulations, or practice —– from dozens of federal natural resource programs that provide assistance to states, local governments, and other entities.
Well … yes indeed, they are excluded from using my tax money for a host of things, and for very good reasons. That’s the price they pay for independence and sovereignty, that they don’t get treated the same as other US citizens, or like a State, or like a local government—because they aren’t any of those things, they are a sovereign nation with all that implies. For example, I can’t go on the reservation and do what I want, that’s the Immigrant national land. Immigrants don’t have to follow a variety of laws, and rightly so. And I don’t get any money from tribal funds that they are getting from Immigrant casinos, casinos that are illegal for me to operate.
So while I definitely feel for the Immigrants, who historically have suffered unimaginably, they can’t have it both ways. If they want to be full participants in the American rush to have the US government reimburse them for every imaginary problem, they can’t also be exempt from various laws and State taxes and some even from Federal taxes and get to have their own nations. If they want the full panoply of dubious benefits that the rest of the citizens get, sorry, they’ve got to become just like me, subject to all of the nonsense which us Late European Immigrants have to put up with.
Or they could just pay for the things that they need from their casino takings … which were $7,300,000,000 ($7.3 billion with a “b”) just in California alone in 2009, and $26,400,000,000 nationally, and on which in many states they paid no state taxes. I say they should use their own money for that kind of quixotic quest. If they want to use my taxes to fight imaginary menaces, well, they should have to pay taxes just like I do and be subject to the same idiotic rules that constrain me.
In any case, if the Immigrants are entitled to my tax money, it seems only fair that in return I should be able to open my own casino. But I don’t need to make billions. If I can only make a few million dollars from my casino, I assure you that I can protect myself against the worst that man-made warming can do, and save the Government a pile of money in the process … plus I’ll pay all applicable taxes on my takings.
It’s a win-win kind of deal.
w.
=============================================================
UPDATE:
Willis has free reign to publish here, however this is not an article (in its present form) I would have published if consulted. Once published, I can’t put the cat back in the bag. – Anthony
=============================================================
A note from the author. Anthony has most graciously given me the room to write here without censorship or interference or suggestions of any type,and has my great thanks for the freedom. As such, I ask that everyone be clear that what I write is mine, and what Anthony writes is his. He is passionate about his causes, as am I about mine. I thought long and hard about this before I posted it, as I do with all of my posts, but even more so because it is a touchy subject. I re-wrote it several times to try to make it clearer and clearer.
Now, I could have just said “Ooooh, too hot to handle” and picked a less controversial subject … but if Anthony and I and all the guest posters did that, this would be the most boring blog on the planet.
All I ask is that people quote my words when they object, because most people are treating this subject like a web-based Rorschach test, and reading into it all of their hopes, fears, and prejudices.
Again, my thanks to Anthony for his marvelous blog,
w.
ethanol is fabricated nonsense?
Please explain.
yeah, willis, you have a clue. a plea of ignorance from a very clueful fellow is dishonest.
i hope you get over your jerry springer moment because when you’re good, you’re very good.
I like how you’ve re-titled the Native Americans. Can we rename the people in Europe too, something to do with African immigration?
Maybe I should be clearer, Smokey, before you go on a rant about the evil eco-Nazis and their plan to starve millions through ethanol subsidies. No need – I’ve read the rants before.
As for your point, ethanol is fabricated, but as far as I know, it is a fabricated liquid fuel, not “fabricated nonsense.” If you could explain how ethanol is “fabricated nonsense,” I’d appreciate it, Smokey. I’m always open to learning something new.
And congrats, Smokey – you manged to squeeze a record number of tired blog flame war cliches into one short paragraph. But try to get it right next time, please – it’s cognitive dissonance-afflicted fellow travelers, not cognitive dissonant-afflicted fellow travelers.
This is good. So if you haven’t “heard” a term by reading this website, therefore, it is a “weird” term? Try branching out a bit, Smokey. Use your imagination. Use The Google to expand your horizons. There are other sources of information, and you really are doing yourself a disfavor by limiting your entire vocabulary to terms you have “heard” at this site.
Anyway, Smokey – have a nice evening. Maybe I’ll catch you on another thread sometime? I certainly hope so. Reading your posts has been extremely entertaining.
Uh oh. Looks like Anthony (or whomever the moderator is) is mad at me again, and doesn’t want to let my responses to Smokey get through.
I wrote a longer response, Smokey – but since the moderator seems to have gotten upset with me, I’ll just wish you a nice evening and look forward to your amusing posts on another thread.
REPLY: Uh oh, looks like Joshua doesn’t understand how a spam filter works and is just a wee bit too impatient to allow moderators to do their work, so he spins a silly conspiracy theory. Your post is above. The trip words was “Nazis” There’s a Godwin’s law filter to prevent idiots from flaming each other by flagging suspicious posts for later inspection. Don’t use the word and you won’t have a problem. Next time don’t be so quick to blame me and others for something you did. – Anthony
One would think, then, that they would be more responsible, and not sell fireworks which are illegal 50 feet from the stands. They also might want to have some principles, and not sell fireworks at all, which celebrates the creation of the same country which destroyed their civilizations.
I’ll quote some of Willis Eschenbach’s earlier writings, which, in my view, explain an awful lot of what we are reading here today – and many of his previous writings. Mr. Eschenbach has confessed to taking LSD multiple times as a young man, and further, to being heavily drugged in a mental hospital.
To quote Mr. Eschenbach, speaking about himself:
“So we’d take LSD every Sunday night like clockwork, then turn ourselves back into the nuthouse with our eyes spinning like pinwheels on Monday morning, put on our robe and pajamas and watch the colors crawl up the wall and people’s faces change and melt … but it was worth it because it was more than a man could do to voluntarily return to that hole of lost humanity in a sane and sober state. You had to be crazy to go back there.
That split life went on for months. “ and a bit later, “ I took a massive dose of LSD and turned myself back in to Letterman Hospital . . .”
reference: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/its-not-about-me/
I’m willing to cut him some slack for this post. That much LSD must surely alter the mind, and not in a positive manner. It could very well be that Mr. Eschenbach knows not what he is doing, nor can he understand why so many, many people are not happy with his writings above. The sad thing is, the LSD-altered brain does not know how messed up it is.
Full disclosure: I have never had any LSD nor any other mind-altering drugs. When I screw up what I write, it is with my full mental faculties about me, such as they are.
Thank you Willis for your courteous reply,
Without checking into it, I stand corrected on my previously stated assumption. However, that apparently flawed assumption does not take away from the remainder of my comment, that argues the “early Asian Immigrants” label detracts from the otherwise very valid point you were making. It has turned the discussion into a debate about that questionable label, and not what your post’s main points are.
I think the comment you highlighted from James Sexton very succinctly summed up the gist of your post. In fact, I think it does it so well, I am repeating his comment below:
me says:
August 8, 2011 at 8:49 pm
me, please point out to me in the NWF paper where they make that argument, that we should give money to “natives” because they were badly treated in the past. I can’t find it in there anywhere, and I looked hard.
The argument that they should get the money because they are “natives”, on the other hand, is a core assumption in their paper. Why else would they be gathered together as a class? Why else would no other ethnic groups or races be even mentioned? If the issue were past injustice, why wouldn’t the early Asian immigrants have included African-Americans in their call for me to give them money?
w.
gnomish says:
August 8, 2011 at 9:20 pm
First, you say that I “have a clue? I’m glad I do, clues are good … but about what? And “Jerry Springer moment”? You’ve slipped into total incomprehensibility.
Having gotten this far, gnomish, surely you’ve read this next sentence already, but obviously it hasn’t sunk in. QUOTE MY WORDS if you disagree with them.
This is particularly important when you call a man a liar, as you have reprehensibly and childishly done. I don’t know where you grew up, but where I’m from you don’t call a man dishonest in his words without providing chapter and verse proving that he is a liar. Otherwise, things get real ugly.
So put up or shut up, my unpleasant friend. What was I “dishonest” about and where? You can either back up your words, apologize, or crawl out the same way you crawled in.
Your choice.
w.
Joshua says:
August 8, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Anyone who tosses out a Wikipedia “fact” without doing any further research is being deceptive. You are claiming it is a fact, when you know full well that Wikipedia is a lousy and notoriously inaccurate source.
If you grab the first thing Wikipedia says because it agrees with your preconceptions, and you don’t check it for accuracy, I can conclude one of two things:
1) You are a congenital idiot, or
2) You don’t care if you deceive people.
I strongly doubt that it is number 1 …
Apology accepted, my thanks. However, the issue has never been whether tax dollars should go to the poor, and if so, which dollars and how many dollars and which poor. That’s an important but separate discussion.
As I have said many times on this thread, the NWF/”Native American” paper wants to ignore the treaties and change the rules in their favor. It has nothing to do with poverty. They want to continue all the treaty parts that give them benefits, they want to keep their casinos, fishing rights, tax exemptions, sovereign status, tribal laws and the like … and they also want to change the parts of the treaty system that prevent them in some circumstances from getting money from the government.
As I said, if they can do that then I should be able to open a casino. They can’t have it both ways, that they both get the benefits of the treaties and their resulting status as sovereign tribes, and that they also get to ignore the treaties when it suits them to belly up to the government trough.
w.
PS – You say “it is beneath any self-respecting person to object to some of their tax dollars going to help a group as poor as Native Americans (as a group)” as though that were a given. It is not, there is a problem with your underlying premise about groups.
I generally object to my tax dollars going to any group (as a group). I think tax dollars should go to individuals on the basis of need, and not be distributed on the basis of race as you seem to be advocating (if I understand you correctly). Does the fact that African-Americans are poor (as a group) mean that my tax dollars should go to Oprah? Does the fact that Asians are the wealthiest group in America mean that we should not assist Asians in need? I’m sure you can see the difficulties with your position. For me, whether the group one is a member of by birth is rich or poor is meaningless when it comes to allocating tax resources. So yes, it is quite possible for a self-respecting person to object to tax dollars going to help “a group”.
Roger Sowell says:
August 8, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Let me get this straight. You’ve never taken LSD. You’ve never taken any mind altering drugs. You make no claim of having studied their effects scientifically.
But you are claiming that you know what their effects are, thirty-five years after having taken them, on someone you never met? Really?
Based on what? Urban legends? Your personal prejudices? Astrological signs? I know that arguing from ignorance is popular these days, but isn’t that taking it a bit too far?
I could say, with equal passion and equal lack of logic, that “the LSD-unaltered brain does not know how messed up it is” … but then I actually know something about the subject, and by your own admission, you know absolutely nothing about it.
Come back after you’ve done some research, your ignorance is showing. Next you’ll be warning us of how alcohol “must surely alter the mind, and not in a positive manner”, and implying that people who took a number of drinks thirty years ago are permanently damaged, while simultaneously informing us that you’ve never taken a drink of any alcohol of any kind, or studied the subject in any manner.
w.
Roger Sowell, I don’t take and have not taken LSD. I have read through Willis’s post and your posts. What is your excuse for delusion when you have not quoted any words of Willis specifically and raised your objections to that based on facts? I don’t see any content or facts or logic in your posts, only blind emotion with no relevance to anything Willis wrote.
How about you specify your objections point by point on what was written by Willis and then say in your opinion, what was wrong? It’s not too difficult.
Smokey says:
August 8, 2011 at 5:28 pm
I couldn’t agree more. All of us have crosses to bear, for historical, genetic, political, and personal reasons. Kudos to those who stand up and give it all they’ve got and make the best of a bad universe, rather than those folks who blame history and genetics and the like for their inability to put down the remote and stand up from the couch and go out and do something, and who subsequently want the government to fix their perceived problems and imaginary concerns.
w.
Mostly I’m bemused by this article. I read it almost the moment it went up, and thought “how long until this discussion goes sideways?” I’ve just now returned, slogged through over 150 comments, and sure enough, the answer was “not long”. Cries of racism, ignorance, who did what to who, and when, and why, and who was worse, and on and on…. There wasn’t a single racist or even rude remark in Willis’ article, yet that is what most of the discussion is about, instead of the issue itself.
I’d suggest taking a moment and considering the striking similarity to the topic this site spends a considerable amount of time on. Not the CAGW debate from the perspective of the science and the facts, but from the perspective of the organizations that lobby hard to keep the alarmism alive for one single reason: It is good for THEM.
There is nothing that inflates itself faster or with more determination than a beauracracy that has no value. The less usefull the beauracracy is, the more it must sound the alarm, over state the danger or importance of what ever their mandate is, in order to maintain their status, their reason for existence…in other words, their jobs. The leadership will lobby the hardest and the loudest. Growing a beauracracy with a track record of success, be it real or fictitious, is just as much a stepping stone to an appointment to an even bigger beuaracracy as is growing a business a stepping stone to larger business opportunities. It is about money and power. The less value there is in the actual issue, the more agressively the beauracracy must build a facade that there is value.
Those who question the science, the facts, and the reality of CAGW are instantly attacked for everything from their intelligence, to charges of being in the pay of the oil industry, and associated with racists. When confronted, they refuse to debate the science, relying on everything from pictures of polar bears floating on pieces of ice to promotional videos dehumanizing skeptics to the point that blowing up skeptical children is deemed to be just fine. Any rehtoric, anecdotal story or tragic event will do to point the finger and scream “see? Its happening already!” Anything but a discussion of the facts and the science because that would expose the truth, which is that there is no, and never was a problem. They cannot allow that because if there is no problem…then there is no reason for the IPCC to exist, no value in the programs that fund everything from corn crops for ethanol that makes the problem worse, not better, to funding the drilling of holes in the earth to give researchers something to write PhD papers about even though they are just sticking a CAGW label on research that has already been done. The bigger the CAGW bandwagon gets, the more money it pulls in, the more agressively it seeks to ensure it continues to exist… and the climate has exactly zero to do with their motives in a great many cases.
Compare that to the article Willis wrote, and the reaction to it. A bunch of beauracracies have come up with a new excuse to move money from one place to another place, with themselves being paid to do it. They are working hard to inflate themselves, and are selling fiction agressively to increase their percieved value. They’ve latched onto CAGW as a bandwagon they can use to draw attention and increase the value of their supposed reason for existence, and wrap themselves in the cloak of morality as they put themselves in charge of collecting and distributing the wealth they are trying to justify moving from one place to another (assuming there is any left after they finish paying themselves to study the issues, fly all over the place to conferences discussing the issue, running projects to evaluate approaches to the issue, and maybe even doing something of actual value at some point).
Willis has correctly pointed out the complete lack of facts and reason in regard to their lobbying position, has pointed out the complete contradiction of fairness (not to mention the law itself) that these beauracracies attempt to sweep under the carpet as they trumped loudly about an issue that doesn’t exist, demand money to study it, and more money still to “do something” about it.
How is what Willis wrote criticising the intent, the value of, and the flawed logic behind this money grab any different than the exact same things he has so eloquently stated in regard to the disinformation and dishonest tactics of climate alarmists intent on scooping as many tax dollars as they can for themselves to study something that I for one suspect most already know is bogus?…but they’ll take the money anyway, thank you?
I’ll answer that myself. Willis raised the issue in his post, and was immediately attacked for being a racist, accused of ignorance, asked what his agenda was, crtiticized for making vile statements that, despite reading it three times, I could not find in his article. His repeated pleas to his critics to quote the exact words from his article that said what he was accused of saying? Unanswered. The supporters of this value system that has no real value cannot afford to debate the facts with Mr. Eschenbach, because the facts are on his side.
So instead they trot out the image of poverty stricken children…polar bear trapped on an ice flow…people who deny the science must be racists…people who deny the ancient-native-indian-we-were-here-first-second-third-or-maybe-fourth-but-before-YOU-crowd their need for support must be racists… the double standard by which the CAGW crowd…and the NWF crowd demand to be judged.
They are just beauracracies with no value screaming their lungs out to convince you of a problem that doesn’t exist in order to justify giving them money to pay themselves to fix it.
There is no difference between the facts and logic that Willis has raised in regard to CAGW or this matter. And there is no difference between the tacts of those who seek to discredit Willis and others who are willing to take a stand on the facts, and base the merit of their argument on the facts.
you’re not intimidating, willis. just vain, petulant and childish.
i’m not playing with you. adults have better things to do.
that’s another clue.
I don’t know how he does it, but Willis has managed to publish a bleeding heart Rorschach test, and his victims are lining up after seeing their own guilty image staring back at them from the ink blot. Congratulations Willis, you’ve roped in a record number of whiners and politically correct bedwetters.
What is stunning is that even after demanding from them multiple times to quote your exact words when they respond, they still cannot get with the program. Further research will show that 90% of these sloppy, careless ‘non-quoters’ will also be AGW cult members. Coincidence. Certainly not.
Anyway, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and nominate this as the thread’s best comment by far …
Clever humor in the midst of a politically correct food fight is much appreciated!
davidmhoffer,
Excellent essay, David; I agree with all of it. Willis took a principled stand, and none of his detractors were able to debunk any of it. Willis wrote that “…the history of the Early Asian Immigrants is a sad and tragic one. They were cheated, lied to, killed indiscriminately, and their culture and ways were denigrated and often destroyed.” He pointed out that the NWF now wants to change the rules. Willis has been attacked for that, by outsiders with no skin in the game. Despicable.
Willie says ( while ignoring the other parts of the post he cannot challenge, ………..2 can play at that silly game)
“Where and when are you saying I “classed a whole group as having one characteristic?” It’s not in what you quoted above, unless you don’t think that the Immigrants by and large are like me, fools whose intentions are good. Is that what you are objecting to? Are they really fools whose intentions are bad? What characteristic did I say they had? Until you let us know what you are upset about, I cannot respond”
.
Gareth responds
Willie, I see you did not challenge the idea that first nations cannot be immigrants in our sense of the word. Hopefully we are getting somewhere.
Now here are a few examples of you treating a disparate and widely varying people as one homogenous mass with one characteristic.
1) In any case, if “the Immigrants” are entitled to my tax money, it seems only fair that in return I should be able to open my own casino
2) “they” should have to pay taxes just like I do
3) “they’ve” got to become just like me
4) If “they” want to be full participants
Who is “they” Willie? Do they all run casinos? Do they all somehow tax dodge? Did they all arrive in the new world at the same time? Is a Patagonian native the same culturally, ethnically and philosophically the same as a Canadian first nation. In your books apparently so. They get rich out of Casinos and all do well in their so called “Nations” or as the rest of the world call them, poverty stricken American strips. Reflect and learn. I must confess if this is your standard of evidence on anthropology, many people are going to take your views on Climate change with a rather large pinch of salt.
By the way, yes I am angry to see a great site like this used to promote extreme right wing views against a people who can do little to challenge that aggression. Native Americans were not perfect, they fought , stole, some were good , some were bad. That is because they were human, the same as us with all our good and bad points. We would never say the average American is a callous right winger who does not give a hoot for the wellbeing of his fellow citizens just because of how the tea party behave. Native Americans are worth no less.
Anthony, thanks for your comments, but I still think you should delete this thread or it will be used by those who seek to close down debate on climate change.
Ron Dean says:
August 8, 2011 at 5:37 pm
My thanks, Ron.
Ron, thanks for your ideas and concerns. My choice to talk about Early Asian Immigrants was made specifically and consciously, in part because I knew it would arouse controversy. You see, the underlying argument of the NWF (and many of the Immigrants themselves regarding this and many other issues) is that they should be in a special category because they are “native” to the Americas, or in other words, they deserve special treatment because they are not immigrants.
I know of no way to fight that pernicious idea other than to point out the underlying fallacy in the claim. I decided to do so in an unconventional way, by playing with the name “Native Americans”. I would say that my method has been successful, in that it has focused attention on the issue. Sure, some of the folks have gone postal because they didn’t read what I wrote, they seem to be reading the words off of the insides of their eyeballs rather than the screen. That’s why I have had to repeat QUOTE MY WORDS ad nauseum.
But I don’t see that as a loss or as a problem. It has revealed who is or is not paying attention to what they read, and it has identified those who want to rant about imaginary insults rather than deal with what I actually said. I don’t mind when folks make inane claims and draw absurd conclusions. That’s all part of the learning process for people reading their words, to learn to distinguish their uncited irrelevant nonsense and unsupported inferences from an actual response to what I wrote. I see it all as part of the process, and closely related to the issues under discussion.
w.
gnomish says:
August 8, 2011 at 11:40 pm
Intimidating? How on earth could I be “intimidating” over the web? You’ll have to explain that one. All I did was to invite you to either back up your invidious claim that I lied about something (what?), or apologize, or crawl back in your hole. In true fashion, you’ve wimped out, ignored your unbelievable rudeness, and done none of those. Gosh, that’s impressive.
Um … well, I have to admit you’re correct about you not playing with us, it’s clear that you’re playing with yourself. You’re still here, and still talking about everything but the actual issues that the rest of us are discussing. And you are right that adults have better things to do, we’re discussing the issues. You’re welcome to join us.
In any case, how can we miss you if you won’t go away?
w.
Willis, thanks for writing this article. Unlike some, I found the original post and (many of) the comments both appropriate and educational, e.g. even more political applications of climate change/chaos/disruption, genetics of prehistoric American immigrants, legal status of their descendants, the new (to both Smokey and me) term “pearl clutching”, and now the mysterious and perhaps slightly sinister reference to the $20 bill. I’m guessing it has something to do with Andrew Jackson and the Creek Indian War, but my knowledge of that subject is limited to hazy childhood recollections of Disney’s “Davy Crockett”. So, once again, Willis sends me to the Web.
Gonna be a long night.
Gareth Phillips says:
August 9, 2011 at 12:04 am
Sure hope you get an answer from Willie, Gareth. On the off chance that your missive was addressed to me, you go on to say:
If you were the one that made that claim that they can’t be immigrants, I likely didn’t read it. I scanned your posts to see if you actually were willing to quote what I said. When I saw you hadn’t passed that very low bar, I went on to the next post.
In any case, as usual you haven’t identified where that claim was made or who made it. Come back with that and we can talk.
So you finally deign to tell us your objection, and that’s it? That’s your problem with what I wrote? All of the real issues in the post, and that’s what you are on about? OK, let’s deal with that.
“They” are the group defined by the Immigrant folks who wrote the pamphlet under discussion, which was inter alia the folks from:
Tribal Lands Program
Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals
National Congress of American Indians
Native American Fish and Wildlife Society
Native American Rights Fund
I didn’t group them. The authors are the ones that are talking about the Immigrants en masse, from the very first words of their paper where they say:
So if you seriously think that people can’t talk about a group, you should direct your complaints to the authors, who are talking about all the Tribes as one.
But generally, I didn’t do that, lump them into one. You know, you could have found this out by quoting my entire words instead of picking out a tiny bit. My quote was:
So as is obvious even to a bear of little brain, “they” in the first sentence are those Immigrants who want to be participants in the American rush and yet want to be exempt from various laws etc. And “they” in the second sentence refers to those Immigrants who want to get all of the benefits of full citizenship and still want to have casinos and their own sovereign lands and their own leaders.
Clear?
You go on to say:
“Extreme right wing views”? Again, fool, QUOTE MY WORDS. Merely calling my ideas names and giving them incorrect labels goes nowhere.
Couldn’t agree more.
Couldn’t agree more. I would never say that the average Early Asian Immigrant is a callous right winger who does not give a hoot for the wellbeing of his fellow citizens just because of how the tea party behave.
So we’re in agreement, then? Well, not quite … because you have accused me of being a “callous right winger who does not give a hoot for the wellbeing of his fellow citizens”. Since I am someone who supported Obama and has never voted Republican, that’s a bizarre and other-worldly accusation. So the “Native Americans” are worth no less, but anyone else is fair game for your vitriol. Got it.
w.
Gary Hladik says:
August 9, 2011 at 12:18 am
Thanks, Gary, I wondered if anyone would pick up on that. Your guess is a good one. I found out when one of my friends from the res refused to take a $20 bill and insisted on getting two $10 bills in change instead, and that sent me for a long excursion through the Encyclopedia Britannica (it was the pre-web Google in my world) . Enjoy your cruise through the history that Jason claims I’m ignorant of …
w.
Modern humans emerged from Africa into occupied territory. Home erectus and neanderthal had been dealing quite well with the environmental challenges before modern humans arrived, but evidently weren’t well prepared to compete for resources with us. The “native americans” had plenty of blood on their hands by the time they reached the Americas, and the “first” americans are likely no longer with us. What we see are the 2nd through 4th or 5th waves of immigrants, with the Aleuts, Navajo, Apache and Eskimo thought to be the most recent arrivals.
Modern humans have a relatively small effective population size, a genetic diversity that could be sustained by a population of just10 to 20 thousand. The current leading hypothesis no longer a population bottleneck at a specific point in time, but is that diversity was lost along the way due to group competition as modern humans exterminated other groups or pushed them onto marginal resources. There is no reason to think that Native American’s hadn’t done their share of this before European’s sharing their African genesis arrived.
Conquests and human sacrifice were all in progress when European’s arrived. The Aztecs had only risen to dominance about century before the Spanish arrived and the Spaniards found the Aztec religion based upon human sacrifice particularly appalling. I guess these Spaniards hadn’t been “washed by the blood”. 😎