Posts Tagged ‘amerinds’

For How Long Do Caucasians Get Blamed For The Dysfunction Of Other Races?

Sunday, October 8th, 2017

The pity narrative — which styles those who are not succeeding as victims, so that they have someone to blame for their “oppression” — creates a need for scapegoats, which is why almost all of our modern political discourse centers around oppressors, excuses, justifications and validations.

In the post-1960s Communist lite view of America, this nation was founded by victimizers who held their victims back from succeeding. Reality is more nuanced, and shows struggling societies which lashed out at the pioneers and started a war that ended badly for them, mainly because of the superior military strength, aptitude and technology of the newcomers, who had just a few centuries earlier fought invading Mongols who used tactics similar to those of Amerinds. Our people had suffered greatly, and they gave back with fervor.

However, the problem of a battle won is what to do with the losers. In the primordial past, they were enslaved and sold back to whatever continent seemed most appropriate, but in our modern wisdom, we elected to show pity and keep them on in reservations. Because we took on a stewardship role, we will forever be blamed as victimizers for the failings of that group.

Consider the dubious and ongoing relationship between Amerinds and alcohol, and how Caucasians are blamed for the dysfunction of the Amerind tribes:

Behind him, to the south, was the Pine Ridge Indian reservation – a vast, 3,500-sq mile rectangle of land at the south-western base of South Dakota, home to 20,000 Oglala Lakota Sioux tribe members and where the sale of alcohol is banned.

In front of him, on the ground he was now striding across, was Whiteclay, Nebraska. The town has no local government and only 14 residents. For over a century, its primary purpose has been to sell alcohol to the reservation’s residents. Four million cans of beer left the stores here each year – 11,000 a day. Activists have long argued it has decimated the tribe.

…“I’m hoping that Nebraska can look at themselves and their Christian ways and ask themselves: will they continue to profit off our people’s addiction?”

It would not be in my program to open a liquor store next to an Indian reservation, knowing that the inhabitants would sneak across and buy huge volumes of beer with their government checks. But it is hard to condemn someone for deciding to do just that, since the profits are there waiting to be taken, and if this story continues, will be taken up by a new person in a short while.

We are blamed for not just history, in which we defended ourselves against Amerind/Mongol attacks, but for every failure since, despite Amerind society following essentially the same pattern it has for aeons. It is the same with every other race we encounter.

Among African-Americans, many blame us for their fate, a hundred and sixty years after the freeing of the last slave. Colonized nations, despite having been impoverished and chaotic before we got there, and being slightly less impoverished and chaotic after we left, speak as if we ruined their lives, although the evidence is to the contrary.

Our only escape from guilt — well, if the Left has its way, there will be none — is to withdraw entirely from these parts of the world and assume zero stewardship style role. When we take on any responsibility for them, we become responsible in the sense of being the cause of their misfortunes, and the people who should pay forevermore for that sin.

Another Myth Dies: American Indians Were Not Given Smallpox-Infected Blankets

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017

As part of the construction of the New American Identity in the years following WW2, it was decided to demonize the Western European population and praise the Siberian immigrants who had come before them. As a means to this end, the noble savage myth was created, along with the notion that the poor Amerinds were victims of genocide when Europeans gave them smallpox-infected blankets.

This too turns out to be false because no documented evidence of smallpox blanket distribution exists except for a suggestion in a letter, but we know they got smallpox after attacking a hospital:

But the chain of events behind the one authentic case of deliberate smallpox contamination began in 1757 at the siege of Fort William Henry (in present-day upstate New York), when Indians allied with the French ignored the terms of a surrender worked out between the British and the French, broke into the garrison hospital and killed and scalped a number of patients, some of them suffering from smallpox. The blankets and clothing the Indians looted from the patients in the hospital and corpses in the cemetery, carried back to their villages, reportedly touched off a smallpox epidemic.

The French lost the war and left their Indian allies holding the bag, and in 1763 Chief Pontiac and his colleagues sparked an uprising against English settlers in the Great Lakes region that had Lord Jeffery Amherst and the British forces close to despair. The Indians destroyed several of the smaller British forts, but Fort Pitt (present-day Pittsburgh, Pa.) held out under the command of Captain Simeon Ecuyer, a 22-year veteran Swiss mercenary in the British service. Ecuyer, whose native language was French, also spoke German, the predominant language of his native Switzerland; the British had retained him because many settlers in Pennsylvania also spoke German. Smallpox had broken out among the British garrison, and during a parley on June 24, 1763, Ecuyer gave besieging Lenape warriors several items taken from smallpox patients. “We gave them two blankets and a handkerchief out of the smallpox hospital,” Captain William Trent of the garrison militia wrote in his journal. “I hope it will have the desired effect.”

Smallpox did break out among the Indian tribes whose warriors were besieging the fort—19th-century historian Francis Parkman estimated that 60 to 80 Indians in the Ohio Valley died in a localized epidemic. But no one is sure whether the smallpox was carried by Ecuyer’s infected blankets or by the clothing Indian warriors had stolen from the estimated 2,000 outlying settlers they had killed or abducted.

On one hand, we have evidence that they acquired smallpox from their own war crimes; on the other, only the usual conjecture based on casual and possibly non-serious conversation. As always, never trust the Leftist version of history because it is far more Leftist than history.

“Native Americans” Do Not Exist

Friday, September 29th, 2017

When Christopher Columbus came to the New World, your teacher says in hushed and disapproving tones, he encountered the equal people there and called them “Indians” because he thought he had reached India. She rolls her eyes to show you how Columbus was stupid, and he was stupid because he was evil, not realizing that these people were equal to him in every way.

In reality, Columbus called the inhabitants of these places “Indians” because he correctly noted two aspects of their physiognomy: they were at least predominantly Asian in descent, and they were brown and not “yellow,” which by the calculus of human races meant that they were ethnically something like Indians.

As it turns out, they were a different type of Asian entirely and lacked the paternal European line that runs through India, but they were Asian immigrants just the same, only ones who had arrived over ten thousand years earlier via a Bering land-bridge along with other groups who subsequently were absorbed or exterminated.

In fact, Asian immigration to the new world took place in several waves, with caste variations intact. The leaders of the Inca, Aztec and Maya did not resemble the 90% of their population who were essentially serfs, but were taller, thinner and more intelligent. In the same way, whoever built the ancient civilization of Cahokia was likely more intelligent than their servants, but the servants lived on after that civilization collapsed, just like how Mexico today is mostly populated by the descendants of the serfs of the Maya, whose civilization was in decline before Europeans arrived, and Aztec, whose empire had surrounded itself with enemies who welcomed the Spanish conquest as a chance for revenge. Although the groups which arrived from Siberia were mixed in caste, they shared a similar origin and spread out across the Americas, differentiating themselves in the process.

We can see this through an analysis of the genetic origin of Amerinds (full paper)

These data suggest that Native American male lineages were derived from two major Siberian migrations. The first migration originated in southern Middle Siberia with the founding haplotype M45a (10-11-11-10). In Beringia, this gave rise to the predominant Native American lineage, M3 (10-11-11-10), which crossed into the New World. A later migration came from the Lower Amur/Sea of Okhkotsk region, bringing haplogroup RPS4Y-T and subhaplogroup M45b, with its associated M173 variant. This migration event contributed to the modern genetic pool of the Na-Dene and Amerinds of North and Central America.

All sources agree that the majority of Amerind genetics comes from a group that was at least living in Siberia, Mongolia or Manchuria which then moved into Siberia and across the Bering Strait, which at that time was either a land bridge or small continent called “Beringia.” This group may have acted like a genetic snowball, picking up other groups along the way, suggesting that the Amerind migration consisted of multiple groups crossing the Bering Strait:

They concluded that all Native Americans, ancient and modern, stem from a single source population in Siberia that split from other Asians around 23,000 years ago and moved into the now-drowned land of Beringia. After up to 8000 years in Beringia—a slightly shorter stop than some researchers have suggested (Science, 28 February 2014, p. 961)—they spread in a single wave into the Americas and then split into northern and southern branches about 13,000 years ago.

…But the Science team also found a surprising dash of Australo-Melanesian DNA in some living Native Americans, including those of the Aleutian Islands and the Surui people of Amazonian Brazil. Some anthropologists had previously suggested an Australo-Melanesian link. They noted that certain populations of extinct Native Americans had long, narrow skulls, resembling those of some Australo-Melanesians, and distinct from the round, broad skulls of most Native Americans.

They picked up some additional groups along the way, although these were a minority of the genetic material:

Nearly one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East and Europe, rather than entirely from East Asians as previously thought, according to a newly sequenced genome.

…DNA from the remains revealed genes found today in western Eurasians in the Middle East and Europe, as well as other aspects unique to Native Americans, but no evidence of any relation to modern East Asians.

…While the land bridge still formed the gateway to America, the study now portrays Native Americans as a group derived from the meeting of two different populations, one ancestral to East Asians and the other related to western Eurasians.

This makes for a changing summary of the genetic data which stays true to its roots — a Bering Strait migration by Asiatic people — but adds depth as a good history would have:

On the other hand, genetic data have demonstrated a close resemblance between the aboriginal Siberian tribes living east of the Yenisey River and northern Mongoloid populations, and similarities among populations dwelling to the west of the Yenisey River and European populations.

…Although there is general agreement among scholars that the first human inhabitants of the Americas came from Asia, the exact geographic source, number of migrations, and timing of these population movements remain controversial. The evidence in support of an Asian origin of New World populations is based on anatomical resemblance in contemporary populations, craniometric affinities, cultural similarities, and genetic similarities.

…In contrast, studies of maternally-inherited mtDNA have presented a variety of competing scenarios ranging from one to six separate waves of Asian migrants starting as long ago as 30,000 BP. Furthermore, there are different proposals for which “source” populations in Asia gave rise to New World populations: Viral distribution data implicate Mongolia/Manchuria and/or extreme southeastern Siberia as the ancestral homeland of the Amerinds; whereas, mtDNA data point to Mongolia, North China, Tibet, and/or Korea as the candidate source regions in Asia.

This includes the possibility of multiple migrations from multiple sources, potentially by boat as well as by land, over the course of ten thousand years:

There is also a controversial variant of the coastal migration model, put forward by archaeologists Dennis Stanford at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC and Bruce Bradley at the University of Exeter, UK. Called the Solutrean hypothesis, it suggests that coastal migration from Asia could have been supplemented by parallel migrations across the Atlantic, bringing stone-tool technologies from present-day Spain and southern Europe to eastern North America.

The Asiatic appearance with some additional details suggests ancient admixture into the mostly-Siberian group:

Before 24,000 years ago, the ancestors of Native Americans and the ancestors of today’s East Asians split into distinct groups. The Mal’ta child represents a population of Native American ancestors who moved into Siberia, probably from Europe or west Asia. Then, sometime after the Mal’ta boy died, this population mixed with East Asians. The new, admixed population eventually made its way to the Americas. Exactly when and where the admixture happened is not clear, Willerslev said. But the deep roots in Europe or west Asia could help explain features of some Paleoamerican skeletons and of Native American DNA today. “The west Eurasian [genetic] signatures that we very often find in today’s Native Americans don’t all come from postcolonial admixture,” Willerslev said in his talk. “Some of them are ancient.”

In other words, Amerinds are Siberian immigrants, and in addition to making local species extinct, they likely absorbed other tribes and created a new culture out of this racially-mixed group, which in part explains the relatively few successes of the New World, mainly because admixed populations lose the strengths of the original groups because traits are created by many genes, and not all of these are passed on, causing mixed-race people to have partial versions of the traits that were fully expressed in the unmixed group.

Black Lives Do Not Matter In Post-Obama America

Wednesday, July 19th, 2017

Bumbling my way around this historically minority-majority town, two things catch my eye: first, interactions with African-Americans have been polite, open and friendly; second, Hispanic people tend to ignore me if they can, or behave in a surly and passive-aggressive manner.

That struck me as curious, so it was time for a drive to the northeast part of downtown, which was historically an African-American community. Surprise and confusion: it is now a Hispanic community, save a small corner which has become gentrified and now is Soviet-style look-alike condominiums.

A quick look at the demographics of this area confirms the suspicions one might have on observing such a thing: over the past two decades, Hispanic and Asian numbers have steadily climbed, resulting in African-Americans being proportionally smaller as a portion of the population. In other words, they are losing demographic and thus democratic power.

Hitting the fast-forward button for a moment, we can see the future of this town. The white population continues to bail out with the exception of the very wealthy, who are not only high in average IQ but capable with business. They will rule industry for the near future. But everyone else will be non-white, and they will push the whites into a handful of neighborhoods.

Then, we have to ask, who will rule the remaining neighborhoods? African-Americans — mirroring the white flight of decades ago — seem to move out when too many Chinese, Mexican, Guatemalan, Vietnamese, Indian, Arab or Honduran people move in. African-Americans will find themselves in a handful of neighborhoods as well.

Surely there will be mixed-race neighborhoods for awhile. But if the answer is that the Hispanic cops do not come quickly to African-American doors, or that white people find their neighbors refuse to speak to them, the sorting will accelerate. Neighborhoods will become fully ethnic across the board.

At the same time, African-Americans will find themselves displaced. Other minority groups qualify for affirmative action as well, and tend to be picked first for low-level jobs because they have slightly higher average IQs. This means that African-Americans will be limited to working in their communities, and will get second cut at government benefits because other more numerous groups will have higher perceived need.

Enter the Asians. They are known as a hard-working group that gets great grades. These will begin displacing whites as they march through the institutions, get the degrees, and then get members in the door. Once they hit that magic 20% number, they will turn to nepotism, and soon traditionally white institutions — already infiltrated by near-whites like Irish, Italians, Jews, Greeks and Poles — will be assimilated.

In turn, Asians will begin moving into Hispanic neighborhoods by buying up the better houses, being proportionately wealthier than the Hispanics. Hispanics, or indios, are Central American Amerinds, who are distinct from the “First Nations”/”Native American” North American Amerinds, but both have a root in Siberia. These groups will find it easy to interbreed.

Over time, the more prosperous Asians will swallow up the Hispanics. For them, it will be like having a Vietnamese grandfather, because the shared genes will predominate and squeeze out any New World outliers. Soon the city will mostly have a population that resembles Filipinos or Vietnamese, and then it will begin subverting the Africans.

This happens through the oldest method possible: high-testosterone African-American youth will be attracted to the young Asian-Hispanic hybrids, and will have kids with them, but those will be rejected by the Asian community. The only obvious solution is that they will grow up among the African communities, and gradually be incorporated into the bloodline there.

Then we have another question of thresholds. At what percentage of Asian do blek people start simply feeling like Asian-Hispanics with a tan? Soon the African population, and any remaining Caucasians, will be absorbed through this trace admixture. Eventually, this population will see itself simply as a thing-in-itself, and not question its origins.

The new group will speak english, but adapt it to their genetic inclinations: short declarative sentences from the Spanish-speaking Amerinds, monosyllables from the East Asian languages, and eventually it will lose those definitive articles, with grammar more like a Slavic language and sentences that end in “yo” and “fam.” Over centuries, this will revert to a language more like Asian languages.

At this point, you will be unable to find a single African-American in the city. Their neighborhoods will be taken over, their churches bulldozed, their cultural contributions forgotten about and then dumped for “lack of funds.” They will be ethnically erased. This is what African-Americans see coming, and it is why they are wising up to the wisdom of the old white order.

Who Won The Vietnam War?

Wednesday, May 10th, 2017

Korea and Vietnam remaining the two most frustrating wars for Americans because they were proxy wars, which means that the actual fight was not the battle itself, but political objectives involving world powers jockeying for position.

In Korea, for example, we battle the recently-risen Chinese Communists, who took over China just the year before, in order to prevent them from expanding China to include the Korean peninsula, but the bigger fight was to discourage China and Russian from expanding further.

On paper, it is not clear who won because North Korea remains a Communist dictatorship to this day. But the real target, China, did not expand further.

In Vietnam, another proxy war was waged against China and the Soviet Union, both of whom supplied materiel and advisors to the Communist North Vietnamese, who then used that to sponsor a rebel group in the South know as the Viet Cong (or “Vietnamese Communists”).

As Peter Brimelow points out, political victory was achieved there as well by checking Communist expansion once again:

An odd feature of Sheehan`s book is that enough facts have survived his emotional selectivity and analytical ineptitude to refute his thesis completely. Thus he admits unhesitatingly that the Vietcong were always a wholly owned subsidiary of North Vietnam, contrary to ardent antiwar assertions at the time. He makes it clear that guerrilla warfare was not some new military magic, as David Halberstam implied in his influential 1965 book The Making of a Quagmire, and that it was quickly replaced by conventional main-force action; that Westmoreland`s approach, whatever its faults, was indeed wearing down the Communists even before the 1968 Tet Offensive; that Tet was a military disaster for them; that after Tet their grip on the countryside was broken; and that Nixon’s 1970 incursion into Cambodia achieved its objective in disrupting North Vietnam’s preparations for another offensive. He even notes that American bombing, which Vann originally criticized as too indiscriminate for the detailed war he wanted to fight, did indeed ultimately have the effect of driving the population into government-controlled areas where the Communist influence could not be sustained.

These battles resemble the way the West fought off the Mongols: we did not outright defeat them because they were numerous and fanatical, but we defeated their objective by putting up enough resistance that they went back to their homelands and shortly thereafter failed there.

In other Asiatic wars, a similar pattern has emerged. When fighting the American Indian (Amerind), the settlers did not achieve total domination for a long time, but broke the spirit of the Indians by making it clear that those Indians could not break the spirit of the settlers. The resistance wound them down and they over-extended their economies in order to fight, then experienced social upheaval as a result.

The Left, which hates anything good and successful with the acid bile of envy, teaches us that we lost those wars because we did not utterly conquer the proxies. A more advanced view is that we saved some from a disaster, and checked the further expansion of cancerous Communism, which was victory in itself.

The False Genocide Of Amerinds: Based On Pleasant Illusions

Thursday, April 14th, 2016


Part of the stress associated with The Awakening — the process by which a person learns that their entire worldview is constructed of lies designed to justify Leftism and its origin, the malignant individualism of the quaking cuck — is seeing how deep the rot goes.

Our only guide here is cause-effect reasoning. If you were taught it in school, there is a reason. The teaching is the effect; what is the cause? Normally, it is to hide one of several things: (1) the disparity between races, castes, and genders; (2) the decline of our civilization; (3) the bungling leadership of democracy.

Today’s topic is the Amerind, or “Native American.” The latter term is nonsense invented by liberals to counter the term “American Nativist,” which applies to those who understood the Western European root of American culture and the need for its genetic preservation. The original term, “natives,” was used alternatingly with “savages” to describe the people who were born here, but not necessarily indigenous or endogenous.

Our history tells us the following: the noble Indian lived in peace and harmony in the New World until Europeans arrived. The Europeans were puny, weak and stupid. The Indian saved them and brought them turkey. Then the Europeans turned on the Indian, and immediately embarked on a plan of genocide motivated by nothing other than racism, cruelty and a desire to dominate.

As with all things taught after 1968, but even more taught after The Enlightenment™, and even more, taught to us by someone other than a wise natural elite… well, you get the point. We live in a time of liberal domination which has been happening gradually for at least 500 years, and by 1968, almost everything was infected. So if you see elected officials, teachers, police, business leaders, clergy and celebrities endorsing something as “true,” you can be certain that it is a lie.

This means that all of your assumptions about life and history were based on illusions, and as you awaken, you will find more and more lies used as foundations for even more lies. These are complex lies: they tell part of the truth, give it a “spin” or “twist” to make your brain naturally leap to a certain conclusion, and that conclusion (coincidentally!) leads to the further assumption that Leftist ideas were right and are a solution.

Let us first look at the charges of genocide, explained here by Guenter Lewy, a professional historian, in his “Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?”:

We may examine representative incidents by following the geographic route of European settlement, beginning in the New England colonies. There, at first, the Puritans did not regard the Indians they encountered as natural enemies, but rather as potential friends and converts. But their Christianizing efforts showed little success, and their experience with the natives gradually yielded a more hostile view. The Pequot tribe in particular, with its reputation for cruelty and ruthlessness, was feared not only by the colonists but by most other Indians in New England. In the warfare that eventually ensued, caused in part by intertribal rivalries, the Narragansett Indians became actively engaged on the Puritan side.

Hostilities opened in late 1636 after the murder of several colonists. When the Pequots refused to comply with the demands of the Massachusetts Bay Colony for the surrender of the guilty and other forms of indemnification, a punitive expedition was led against them by John Endecott, the first resident governor of the colony; although it ended inconclusively, the Pequots retaliated by attacking any settler they could find. Fort Saybrook on the Connecticut River was besieged, and members of the garrison who ventured outside were ambushed and killed. One captured trader, tied to a stake in sight of the fort, was tortured for three days, expiring after his captors flayed his skin with the help of hot timbers and cut off his fingers and toes. Another prisoner was roasted alive.

A few vital points here: the Indians did not fight as a unified group, but were more interested in fighting each other. The Europeans were friendly at first, but after atrocities, embarked on counter-attacks which resulted in open warfare that frequently threatened the survival of any European colonists. Rape, murder and theft were common Amerind activities.

Now let us put ourselves into the shoes of the European settler. They find a land that is 99.9% uninhabited, being vast and having under a million Amerinds wandering around. They set up camp much as they have done for centuries in unoccupied areas of Europe. Then they meet the savages. These new people seem odd and primitive, but the settlers hope for the best and befriend them, which works out reasonably well with some tribes some of the time.

But then, problems occur. Thefts and attacks on outlying settlers are common. Who did these? Indians. That’s not very helpful; which Indians? No one knows the tribe. Distrust of Indians “in general” spreads. Some tribes ally with the new settlers, but this just makes the conflict worse. Then out comes the torture, rape and murder from the Indian side.

Every settler at once says, “Oh. So they were savages, after all.”

Most people do not know the humanitarian origins of the term “savage.” It means primitive tribespeople that you cannot expect to abide by European ways and morals. This means that you do not allow them to have the upper hand over you, because they will act as is normal in their culture, which will shock the European mind and result in retaliation. The term “savage” was used to minimize the retaliation against these groups by avoiding social trust with them in the first place.

As it played out in the Americas, the term was well-used. Rape, murder, torture, cannibalism and sodomy were common among Amerind tribes, much as they are among every third-world population ever studied. These groups had made food animal species extinct, fought many internal wars in which kidnapping and rape were common, and never managed to adopt even the rudimentary hygenic standards of Europeans which held some of the disease at bay.

Don’t take it from me. Read one of Liberal America’s best-beloved authors, Mark Twain, on his view of the Noble Savage in “The Noble Red Man”:

In books he is tall and tawny, muscular, straight and of kingly presence; he has a beaked nose and an eagle eye.

His hair is glossy, and as black as the raven’s wing; out of its massed richness springs a sheaf of brilliant feathers; in his ears and nose are silver ornaments; on his arms and wrists and ankles are broad silver bands and bracelets; his buckskin hunting suit is gallantly fringed, and the belt and the moccasins wonderfully flowered with colored beads; and when, rainbowed with his war-paint, he stands at full height, with his crimson blanket wrapped about him, his quiver at his back, his bow and tomahawk projecting upward from his folded arms, and his eagle eye gazing at specks against the far horizon which even the paleface’s field-glass could scarcely reach, he is a being to fall down and worship.

His language is intensely figurative. He never speaks of the moon, but always of “the eye of the night;” nor of the wind as the wind, but as “the whisper of the Great Spirit;” and so forth and so on. His power of condensation is marvelous. In some publications he seldom says anything but “Waugh!” and this, with a page of explanation by the author, reveals a whole world of thought and wisdom that before lay concealed in that one little word.

He is noble. He is true and loyal; not even imminent death can shake his peerless faithfulness. His heart is a well-spring of truth, and of generous impulses, and of knightly magnanimity. With him, gratitude is religion; do him a kindness, and at the end of a lifetime he has not forgotten it. Eat of his bread, or offer him yours, and the bond of hospitality is sealed–a bond which is forever inviolable with him.

He loves the dark-eyed daughter of the forest, the dusky maiden of faultless form and rich attire, the pride of the tribe, the all-beautiful. He talks to her in a low voice, at twilight of his deeds on the war-path and in the chase, and of the grand achievements of his ancestors; and she listens with downcast eyes, “while a richer hue mantles her dusky cheek.”

The ruling trait of all savages is a greedy and consuming selfishness, and in our Noble Red Man it is found in its amplest development.

Such is the Noble Red Man in print. But out on the plains and in the mountains, not being on dress parade, not being gotten up to see company, he is under no obligation to be other than his natural self, and therefore:

He is little, and scrawny, and black, and dirty; and, judged by even the most charitable of our canons of human excellence, is thoroughly pitiful and contemptible. There is nothing in his eye or his nose that is attractive, and if there is anything in his hair that–however, that is a feature which will not bear too close examination . . . He wears no bracelets on his arms or ankles; his hunting suit is gallantly fringed, but not intentionally; when he does not wear his disgusting rabbit-skin robe, his hunting suit consists wholly of the half of a horse blanket brought over in the Pinta or the Mayflower, and frayed out and fringed by inveterate use. He is not rich enough to possess a belt; he never owned a moccasin or wore a shoe in his life; and truly he is nothing but a poor, filthy, naked scurvy vagabond, whom to exterminate were a charity to the Creator’s worthier insects and reptiles which he oppresses. Still, when contact with the white man has given to the Noble Son of the Forest certain cloudy impressions of civilization, and aspirations after a nobler life, he presently appears in public with one boot on and one shoe–shirtless, and wearing ripped and patched and buttonless pants which he holds up with his left hand–his execrable rabbit-skin robe flowing from his shoulder–an old hoop-skirt on, outside of it–a necklace of battered sardine-boxes and oyster-cans reposing on his bare breast–a venerable flint-lock musket in his right hand–a weather-beaten stove-pipe hat on, canted “gallusly” to starboard, and the lid off and hanging by a thread or two; and when he thus appears, and waits patiently around a saloon till he gets a chance to strike a “swell” attitude before a looking-glass, he is a good, fair, desirable subject for extermination if ever there was one.

There is nothing figurative, or moonshiny, or sentimental about his language. It is very simple and unostentatious, and consists of plain, straightforward lies. His “wisdom” conferred upon an idiot would leave that idiot helpless indeed.

He is ignoble–base and treacherous, and hateful in every way. Not even imminent death can startle him into a spasm of virtue. The ruling trait of all savages is a greedy and consuming selfishness, and in our Noble Red Man it is found in its amplest development. His heart is a cesspool of falsehood, of treachery, and of low and devilish instincts. With him, gratitude is an unknown emotion; and when one does him a kindness, it is safest to keep the face toward him, lest the reward be an arrow in the back. To accept of a favor from him is to assume a debt which you can never repay to his satisfaction, though you bankrupt yourself trying. To give him a dinner when he is starving, is to precipitate the whole hungry tribe upon your hospitality, for he will go straight and fetch them, men, women, children, and dogs, and these they will huddle patiently around your door, or flatten their noses against your window, day aft er day, gazing beseechingly upon every mouthful you take, and unconsciously swallowing when you swallow! The scum of the earth!

And the Noble Son of the Plains becomes a mighty hunter in the due and proper season. That season is the summer, and the prey that a number of the tribes hunt is crickets and grasshoppers! The warriors, old men, women, and children, spread themselves abroad in the plain and drive the hopping creatures before them into a ring of fire. I could describe the feast that then follows, without missing a detail, if I thought the reader would stand it.

All history and honest observation will show that the Red Man is a skulking coward and a windy braggart, who strikes without warning–usually from an ambush or under cover of night, and nearly always bringing a force of about five or six to one against his enemy; kills helpless women and little children, and massacres the men in their beds; and then brags about it as long as he lives, and his son and his grandson and great-grandson after him glorify it among the “heroic deeds of their ancestors.” A regiment of Fenians will fill the whole world with the noise of it when they are getting ready invade Canada; but when the Red Man declares war, the first intimation his friend the white man whom he supped with at twilight has of it, is when the war-whoop rings in his ears and tomahawk sinks into his brain. . ..

…he is a good, fair, desirable subject for extermination if ever there was one.

The Noble Red Man seldom goes prating loving foolishness to a splendidly caparisoned blushing maid at twilight. No; he trades a crippled horse, or a damaged musket, or a dog, or a gallon of grasshoppers, and an inefficient old mother for her, and makes her work like an abject slave all the rest of her life to compensate him for the outlay. He never works himself. She builds the habitation, when they use one (it consists in hanging half a dozen rags over the weather side of a sage-brush bush to roost under); gathers and brings home the fuel; takes care of the raw-boned pony when they possess such grandeur; she walks and carries her nursing cubs while he rides. She wears no clothing save the fragrant rabbit-skin robe which her great-grandmother before her wore, and all the “blushing” she does can be removed with soap and a towel, provided it is only four or five weeks old and not caked.

Such is the genuine Noble Aborigine. I did not get him from books, but from personal observation.

Savages come in many forms. Anyone who is not aware of the consequences of his actions on a minimal level is probably a savage. This includes almost all people under 120 IQ points and many above it who have not taken the steps to self-actualize. Most Europeans are savages, these days, since Leftism has reprogrammed their brains.

The Leftist promotes the Noble Savage myth as a way of promoting the Leftist agenda, which is to replace all truth and reality with Left-thoughts, starting with the idea that everyone is equal and we need a strong ideological leader like Joseph Stalin (Bernie Sanders is the dollar store substitute) to enforce that equality.

But in reality, savages are savages, and the nobility is a projection of the neurotic Leftist mind.

Recommended Reading