Memo to James Clapper: Are Americans Genetically Prone to Regression? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14810165
Boy, this article is heavily-loaded article from my favourite author. Makes a somewhat interesting read though.

James Clapper, former director of US National Intelligence, recently claimed that Russians were “genetically driven” to manipulate and interfere in the affairs of other nations, echoing the Weltanschauung of a bygone dictator who harboured similar views on those “inferior Asiatic” genes.

One would be forgiven for momentarily assuming that Clapper was referring to his own nation. The United States has been warring for 93% of its miserable existence, entailing 222 out of 239 years of bloodshed between its founding in 1776 and 2015. No US president has ever led a continuous peacetime administration.


https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201705 ... s-clapper/
#14810478
Motti wrote:Which I wonder how DE Stannard settled on that figure. This is not the first time I have across such figures from supposedly Native American sources.


A lot of it depends on historical sources, archaeology, and some guesswork. You can take a city like Tenochtitlan, gather a pretty accurate estimate on how many people lived in the city around the time of the Conquistadors, and then make an educated guess on how many people lived in the vicinity in order to support the city in terms of food, etc. The same kind of reasoning can be applied elsewhere. There's also demographic data on Amerindians a century or two after the Spanish conquest, and we can apply an estimate on what their population range most likely was shortly before the conquest, based on estimated natural growth, the impact of European diseases, etc.

We will likely never know, to an accurate degree, how many people lived in the Americas before the Europeans came. But we do have a rough range from about 20-100 million, with 20 being a low estimate (with a large proportion of the population being concentrated in Mesoamerica and Peru/Ecuador) and 100 being the highest. A lot of anthropologists/archaeologists consider 40-50 million to be a reasonably moderate estimate, which is why that range is commonly used.
#14810541
A lot of it depends on historical sources, archaeology, and some guesswork. You can take a city like Tenochtitlan, gather a pretty accurate estimate on how many people lived in the city around the time of the Conquistadors, and then make an educated guess on how many people lived in the vicinity in order to support the city in terms of food, etc. The same kind of reasoning can be applied elsewhere. There's also demographic data on Amerindians a century or two after the Spanish conquest, and we can apply an estimate on what their population range most likely was shortly before the conquest, based on estimated natural growth, the impact of European diseases, etc.

We will likely never know, to an accurate degree, how many people lived in the Americas before the Europeans came. But we do have a rough range from about 20-100 million, with 20 being a low estimate (with a large proportion of the population being concentrated in Mesoamerica and Peru/Ecuador) and 100 being the highest. A lot of anthropologists/archaeologists consider 40-50 million to be a reasonably moderate estimate, which is why that range is commonly used.


A highly informative reply. Many thanks.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]