Hunters and Gatherers Live at the Mercy of their Environment, Farmers Control their Environment

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 26th, 2013

History 101

(Originally published October 18th, 2011)

We can Ultimately Blame Neanderthal’s Demise on the Hunter and Gatherer System

We’re Homo sapiens.  Neanderthals were here before us.  By a few hundred thousand years.  Give or take.  We have fossil evidence of their existence.  And we’ve been able to put them into the historical timeline.  But we’re not sure what happened to them.  For they were stronger than us.  And they had a similar brain size as ours.  Stronger and just as smart, you’d have to give them the edge when Homo sapiens met Neanderthal.  Yet here we are.  Homo sapiens.  Wondering what happened to Neanderthal man.

There are theories.  Neanderthal was adapted to live in the cold.  And he hunted cold-adapted mammals.  But then an ice age came.  And the temperatures fell.  It became too cold even for the cold-adapted.  The climate change pushed the 4-legged mammals south.  In search of food ahead of the advancing glaciers.  And Neanderthal followed.  Moving into what were at one time warmer climes.  Bumping into warmer-clime Homo sapiens.

The climatic change was rather sudden during this period.  One theory says that this rapid changing changed the environment.  Creating different plant and animal species.  And Neanderthal was unable to adapt.  Another theory says that as the glaciers advanced they just forced more people into a smaller area.  And they fought over a smaller food supply.  When the glaciers retreated, Homo sapiens then followed Neanderthals north.  And expanded into their hunting grounds.  Until they displaced them from the historical timeline.

Whatever happened one thing is sure.  We can ultimately blame their demise on the hunter and gatherer system.  Because this system requires large hunting grounds for survival.  Advancing glaciers reduced those hunting grounds.  Putting more people together in a smaller area.  Competing for limited food resources.  And they ultimately lost that competition.

The Hunter and Gatherer Culture Continued to do things as they had During the Stone Age

We can see a more recent example of the demise of a hunter and gatherer people.  In North America.  During the European colonization of that continent.

The North American continent is huge.  Much of it remains uninhabited to this date.  But it wasn’t big enough for the North American Indians and the Europeans.  Why?  The Indians were hunters and gatherers.  They needed a lot of land.  Each tribe had ‘braves’.  ‘Warriors’.  Soldiers.  Because they were a fighting people.  They had a warring culture.  They followed food.  Taking land from other tribes.  And protecting land from other tribes.  So they needed large numbers of warriors.  Which required large amounts of food.  And great expanses of land to hunt that food.

The Europeans, on the other hand, were farmers.  They could grow a lot of food.  And grow large populations on very small tracts of land.  They had higher population densities on their land.  They were better fed.  And they had a middle class thanks to a healthy food surplus.  Which created new technologies.  And provided tools and equipment to advance their civilization.  While the hunter and gatherer culture continued to do things as they had during the Stone Age.

Food Surpluses Created a Middle Class which allowed Advanced Civilizations

Hunters and gatherers live at the mercy of their environment.  Whereas farmers have taken control of their environment.  Creating food surpluses.  Which led to a middle class.  And to advanced civilizations.  Which is why they became the dominant civilization.  And displaced hunter and gatherer people from the historical timeline.  Simply by being a much more survivable people.  Because they took control of their environment.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New Paper shows Inverse Relationship between Global Warming and Coal-Fired Power Plants

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 6th, 2013

Week in Review

In the Seventies they were scaring kids about a coming ice age.  And about air pollution so bad that we would one day have to wear gas masks when going outside.  The planet is a lot cleaner now.  And there is no talk about Americans one day having to wear a gas mask when going outside.  And that coming ice age?  Well, they were just wrong about that.  For what they thought was global cooling was actually global warming.  An easy mistake to make.  Because they’re both about temperature.  One just moves in one direction.  While the other moves in the other.  And unless you do something like record temperatures periodically how are you going to know which direction those temperatures are moving?

Then again, perhaps there was cooling then.  Before that cooling turned into warming.  For it now appears the reverse is happening.  A move from warming back to cooling.  Thanks to the Chinese and the Indians (see Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain posted on IOP Science).

Remarkably, and we will argue importantly, the airborne fraction has declined since 2000 (figure 3) during a period without any large volcanic eruptions… The airborne fraction is affected by factors other than the efficiency of carbon sinks, most notably by changes in the rate of fossil fuel emissions (Gloor et al 2010). However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 to 3.1% yr-1 (figure 1), other things being equal, would have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction (the simple reason being that a rapid source increase provides less time for carbon to be moved downward out of the ocean’s upper layers).

A decrease in land use emissions during the past decade (Harris et al 2012) could contribute to the decreasing airborne fraction in figure 3, although Malhi (2010) presents evidence that tropical forest deforestation and regrowth are approximately in balance, within uncertainties. Land use change can be only a partial explanation for the decrease of the airborne fraction; something more than land use change seems to be occurring.

We suggest that the huge post-2000 increase of uptake by the carbon sinks implied by figure 3 is related to the simultaneous sharp increase in coal use (figure 1). Increased coal use occurred primarily in China and India… Associated gaseous and particulate emissions increased rapidly after 2000 in China and India (Lu et al 2011, Tian et al 2010). Some decrease of the sulfur component of emissions occurred in China after 2006 as wide application of flue-gas desulfurization began to be initiated (Lu et al 2010), but this was largely offset by continuing emission increases from India (Lu et al 2011).

We suggest that the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal, since 2000 is a basic cause of the large increase of carbon uptake by the combined terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks… Sulfate aerosols from coal burning also might increase carbon uptake by increasing the proportion of diffuse insolation, as noted above for Pinatubo aerosols, even though the total solar radiation reaching the surface is reduced…

Reduction of the net human-made climate forcing by aerosols has been described as a ‘Faustian bargain’ (Hansen and Lacis 1990, Hansen 2009), because the aerosols constitute deleterious particulate air pollution. Reduction of the net climate forcing by half will continue only if we allow air pollution to build up to greater and greater amounts.

Let’s review.  The airborne fraction carbon dioxide has fallen since 2000.  And, as a result, global temperatures did not rise as projected.  Even though there were no large volcanic eruptions.  Which cause global cooling.  Tropical forest deforestation and re-growth are balancing each other out.  So that’s not a factor in this decline of airborne carbon dioxide.  Which leaves the sole remaining answer for the decline in airborne carbon dioxide levels as China’s and India’s explosion in new coal-fired power plants.  Yes, the wonderful air pollution from burning coal apparently cools the planet.  Like a volcanic eruption does.

Are you seeing the bigger picture here?  For a hundred years or so the Industrial Revolution belched so much ash, soot, smoke, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the air that it left black clouds over cities.  And a layer of soot and ash on everything.  This is why we electrified trains in our cities.  To keep coal-fired locomotives and their great black plumes of smoke out of the cities.  Was there a global warming problem then?  No.  That didn’t come into vogue until Al Gore started talking about it in the Nineties.  When the planet was doomed if we didn’t act immediately to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Despite only a few years earlier the climate scientists were warning us of the coming ice age.  Probably because of all that global cooling from our coal-fired power plants, steam engines and locomotives.

As oil, gas and electricity replaced coal-fired boilers everywhere (we even used coal in our home furnaces) all that pollution from coal went away.  And then came the Nineties.  And catastrophic global warming.  Just as China and India began to incorporate some capitalism into their economies.  Which they fed with electricity provided by more and more coal-fired power plants.  And as they belched all that wonderful pollution into the air the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide as well as global temperatures fell.  So I ask again, do you see the bigger picture here?

Yes, global warming is man-made.  At least this is what one can conclude from this paper.  And it is the climate scientists who made it.  By telling us to reduce all of the cooling emissions from our coal-fired power plants.  But, thankfully, the Indians and the Chinese still care enough about Mother Earth to pump those cooling emissions into the air.  And gave us a reprieve from the global warming apocalypse.  But if the climate scientists get their way they’ll bring on that apocalypse.  By pressuring China and India to stop putting those cooling emissions into the air.  And for the sake of the planet we can only hope that they don’t succumb to that pressure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2012 Endorsements: George Washington

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 16th, 2012

2012 Election

At first the Six Nations feared the French taking their Land more than the British

George Washington entered the history books when he entered the Ohio Country.  Where the French and the British were claiming the same land in North America.  While his contemporaries went to college Washington went to war.  Over the Blue Ridge Mountains.  In the harsh frontier lands of the Ohio Country.  Fighting for the British against Britain’s archenemy.  France.  Who had seized a half-built fort near the junction of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers.  Renamed it Fort Duquesne.  And proceeded to turn the surrounding area French.  Until, that is, Washington arrived on the scene.

It is much debated about what happened when the British fell upon a French force outside of Fort Duquesne.  Especially who fired first.  Or what happened after the French surrendered.  The French commander, Joseph Coulon de Villiers, sieur de Jumonville, was wounded.  And as he explained he was on a diplomatic mission to deliver a message to the British Washington’s Indian ally, Tanacharison, who was the diplomatic representative of the Six Nations (Iroquois Confederation), brutally murdered Jumonville while he was explaining his diplomatic mission.  Tanacharison spoke fluent French.  And had apparently heard enough.  For he feared the French taking their land more than the British at that time.

So this international incident brought war once again between the French and the British.  The Seven Year’s War as they called it in Europe.  Or the French and Indian War as they called it in British North America.  Even though the British also had Indian allies.  There were more French in the area.  So Washington built a fort to wait for their counter attack.  Fort Necessity.  The French came.  And after a brutal fight the British surrendered.  The Articles of Capitulation Washington signed included the word ‘assassination’.  Of Joseph Coulon de Villiers, sieur de Jumonville.  Washington later claimed the document was poorly translated from French and that he did not know he was admitting to assassinating a French diplomat.  Whether he did or not it put the blame of the French and Indian War on the British.  Not a very auspicious start for America’s indispensible Founding Father.

Washington felt that the British looked down on him and his Fellow Americans

The British came up with a bold plan to remove the French from North America.  By marching into the Ohio Country.  And taking Fort Duquesne.  Then capturing the forts along the Great Lakes.  And then capturing French Canada.  A bold plan.  Executed by a very experienced general.  Edward Braddock.  A veteran of European battles.  But without a clue of what it was like fighting in the American wilderness.  He had at his disposal the largest military force ever assembled in America.  Equipped with the finest arms.  So confident of victory he told the Indians that were friendly to the British that he didn’t need their help.  And that he was going to take all their land for the British Crown.  Making most switch sides and fight alongside the French against the British.

Washington requested to join General Braddock.  Hoping to get a good military career out of this great military expedition.  And a commission in the British Army.  Braddock took him along.  But disaster fell upon the expedition.  A force of French and Indians fell onto the lumbering column and attacked.  The British regulars formed into ranks as they would on any European battlefield.  And were shot down in droves.  Then broke and ran.  Braddock fell mortally wounded.  Washington then took command and rallied the troops and made an orderly retreat.  While having two horses shot out beneath him.  And four musket ball holes in his jacket.  But he didn’t suffer a scratch.  Washington learned a lesson that day.  You didn’t win battles in the American wilderness with European tactics.  No matter how superior you numbers and arms.

He never would receive that British commission.  Feeling in part that the British looked down on him and his fellow Americans.  They may have been part of the British Empire.  But they were not truly British.  Which made it difficult for Washington to respect his British superiors.  In fact, though he was a good soldier who followed orders he often felt superior to his superiors.  And preferred giving orders.  With the future of a British commission not in the cards he retired from the army.  Married Martha Dandridge Custis.  Thanks to her wealth he became one of the wealthiest men in Virginia.  As well as becoming one of the more successful planters in Virginia.  He had wealth (through his marriage to Martha).  Land.  And leisure time.  He lived the good life.  And spent the money.  And why not?  He married into great wealth.  And had vast land holdings earning wealth.  Life was good.

If George Washington were around Today he would Likely Endorse Republicans Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan

He bought the finest things from London from Robert Cary.  Who ran London’s largest mercantile houses.  Cary & Company.  Washington also sold his tobacco crop to Cary.  And early on he complained about the price he was getting for his tobacco.  And all the charges on his invoices.  But he had even bigger problems.  He was spending more than he was earning.  With the balance due coming from the wealth he got from his marriage.  Worse, his account at Cary & Company was in arrears.  The price for those fine things continued to go up while the price he was getting for his tobacco did not.  He didn’t trust Cary.  But he recognized the real problem was tobacco.  And mercantilism.  Where American colonists sent raw material to the mother country.  And bought finished goods from the mother country with the proceeds.  Making the planters dependent on people like Robert Cary.  Well, after this revelation Washington made some changes.  He planted wheat instead of tobacco.  Wheat he ground into flour in his own mill.  Which he sold locally.  Without going through Cary.  He built a ship to fish the Potomac.  And bought a ship to transport his goods to markets in the Caribbean.  Even all the way to Europe.  He set up a small textile shop to produce linen and wool fabric.  These changes helped Washington return to profitability.  Unlike some of his fellow planters.  Like Thomas Jefferson.  Who would die in debt.

Washington was an astute business man.  Who did not like being controlled by men in faraway places.  Around this time Parliament passed the Stamp Act to raise revenue to help pay the costs of the British Empire.  While he agreed with his fellow colonists that this was taxation without representation he did see something good in it.  The higher tax would reduce British imports.  As Americans gave up on British luxuries and provided for their own needs.  Which would help the Americans get away from the control of people in faraway places.  Something he was more and more interested in.  Economic independence.  Then came the Royal Proclamation of 1763.  Which shut off the Ohio Country to American settlers.  To ostensibly keep the peace with the Indians on the frontier.  Which stung Washington particularly hard.  Having helped to defeat the French to clear them from the Ohio Country King George was now denying this land to those who won it.  Still, they did promise to give some land to the veterans who fought there.  As long as they were a veteran of the British Army.  Yet another British slight directed at Washington.  And evidence of British cronyism when it came to the rule of the American colonies.  Then came the Intolerable Acts.  The Quebec Act.  The Townshend Acts.  Further encroachments by men in faraway places.  Washington had had enough.  And joined those demanding independence from Great Britain.

So if George Washington were around today who would he endorse in the 2012 election?  Well, he would not like the party that wanted to reach further into business affairs from faraway places.  Or that raised taxes and increased the regulations on business.  Or one that elevated the state over businesses.  Where the government picks winners and losers in the market place.  Like the mercantilism of old.  He would not like the smug, elitist politicians who know better than we do.  And change things in our lives to what they perceive as being for our own good.   Such as telling us what cars to drive or what fuels to use to make our electric power.  He would not like the massive spending.  Or the debt it gave us.  As his brief brush with inundating debt shook him to his core.  Making him turn away from the governing powers, returning to his rugged individualism of his days in the Ohio Country.  And so on.  Clearly the party he would not endorse would be the Democrat Party with their oppressive rules and regulations and their nanny state.  So it is likely that if he were around today he would endorse the Republican ticket of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

India wants to Burn U.S. Coal in their Coal-Fired Power Plants if the Americans are Foolish Enough not to Burn it in Theirs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 6th, 2012

Week in Review

India is one of the leaders in solar and wind power.  They have one of the world’s largest solar power plants.  Charanka Solar Park.  Adding about 200 megawatts to the electric grid.  When the sun shines.  India has about 15,000 megawatts worth of installed windmills.  When the wind blows they provide about 2% of India’s electric power.  India also has about 37,000 megawatts of hydroelectric power.  Which provides about 20% of their total electric power.  When the rains come.  So the Indians are serious when it comes to renewable energy.  Of course, they know that solar and wind power are more novelties than serious providers of electric power.  No, the big daddy of electric power in India?  Coal (see Tata Power scouts for overseas coal assets by Malini Menon posted 10/4/2012 on Reuters).

Tata Power (TTPW.NS) is looking for more overseas coal assets, a top executive said, joining the growing number of companies in the energy-hungry nation looking to secure supplies abroad amid a widening domestic shortfall.

“We are continuously looking at the other geographies and today, the options are the U.S., Colombia and Africa,” Managing Director Anil Sardana said, pointing to logistics, cost and sustainability of contracts…

Coal accounts for two-thirds of power production in India, which is struggling to meet the demands of a fast-growing economy and increasingly affluent population of around 1.2 billion people.

With all that investment in solar and wind power coal-fired power plants still provide about two-thirds of all electric power.  Which means coal and hydro provide close to 90% of all their power.  And solar and wind account for less than 10% of their electric power generation.  When the sun shines and the wind blows.

So the Indians want to buy U.S coal.  As do the Chinese.  You know who doesn’t want to buy U.S. coal?  The U.S. government.  They don’t want any Americans buying American coal.  And are aggressively trying to shutter coal-fired power plants.  Because of global warming.  Even though in all likelihood someone will burn that coal.  It just won’t be Americans.  So instead of China and India suffering rolling blackouts it will be the US.  Because of an energy policy dominated by environmental alarmists.

The Indians know they need coal-fired power plants.  The Chinese know they need coal-fired power plants.  But for some reason the Obama administration and his political base don’t understand that we need coal-fired power plants.  Perhaps they will when those power hungry server centers suffer rolling blackouts and shut off their online activities.  Perhaps they will only appreciate reliable coal after they lose all the comforts of life they take for granted.  Pity they aren’t as smart as the Indians and the Chinese.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Mercantilism, North America, Pontiac’s Rebellion, American Revolution, Northwest Territory, George Rogers Clark, Louisiana Territory

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 31st, 2012

Politics 101

The French claimed great Territories in the New World but they did not Settle them nor could they Defend Them

In the Age of Discovery the Old World discovered the New World.  The Portuguese bumped into Brazil while sailing around Africa.  And they stayed awhile.  Which explains how the language from tiny Portugal is one of the top ten spoken languages in the world today.  Because of Brazil.  Population 205,716,890 in 2012.  The Spanish pretty much discovered and settled the rest of South and Central America.  Working their way up the Pacific coast of North America.  And into Mexico, Texas and Florida.  Because of this Spanish is now the 4th most spoken language in the world.  The British discovered and settled North America east of the Appalachians between Maine and Georgia.  They also settled parts of Canada south of the Hudson Bay.  And some of the Maritime Provinces.  Today English is the 2nd most spoken language in the world.  The French also came to the New World.  But they weren’t as successful.  Today French is only the 10th most spoken language in the world.

The Age of Discovery was also the age of mercantilism.  Which is why the Old World was racing to settle the New World.  So they could establish colonies.  And ship back raw materials to the mother country.  And in Spain’s case, all the gold and silver they could find.  Which they found a lot of.  Mercantilism is a zero-sum game.  To maximize the export of manufactured goods.  And to maximize the import of raw materials and bullion.  To always maintain a positive balance of trade.  And whoever had the most overseas colonies sending raw material back to the mother country won.  And as they expanded throughout the New World they eventually began to bump into each other.  As well as the Native Americans.  Who weren’t mercantilists.  But hunters and gatherers.  Like all Europeans were some 5,000 years or so earlier.  Before they became farmers.  Moved into cities.  Where they took control of their environment.  And became more efficient.  Growing ever larger populations on smaller tracts of land.  Which proved to be a great threat to the Indians.  For when these Europeans took their land they also increased their numbers.  Greatly.  And this fast growing population had the latest in war-fighting technology.

Soon they were stepping on each others’ toes in the New World.  The British and the Spanish north of Florida.  The British and the French between the Mississippi River and the Appalachians.  In New Brunswick.  And large parts of Ontario and Quebec.  A lot more territory was in dispute between the British and the French.  And that’s because the French claimed so much territory in North America.  Their claims included the lands around the St. Lawrence Seaway.  All the land around the Great Lakes.  And pretty much the total watershed into the Mississippi River.  The French had profitable business in the fur trade.  They used the rivers in North America for that trade.  With a few forts scattered along the way.  Where they traded with the Indians.  But the big difference between the French and everyone else is that the French claimed the land.  But they didn’t settle it.  Which made the Native Americans tolerate them more than the other Europeans in the New World.  But in the days of the mercantilist empires that was a problem.  Because everyone wanted everyone else’s land.  And if it wasn’t settled with large and growing populations, someone else was just going to take it.

The Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774 tried to make Peace with the Indians but Inflamed the Americans

And that’s what happened in the French and Indian War (1754–1763).  The European powers came into conflict with each other over their North American territories.  The British came out the big winners.  And the French were the big losers.  Losing pretty much everything east of the Mississippi to the British.  And everything west of the Mississippi to Spain.  The various Indian tribes fought alongside the various European powers.  But it is the fighting on the side of the French that we know them for in this war.  Where their fighting against the British Americans was some of the cruelest fighting in the war.  For the Indians liked the non-settling ways of the French.  While they didn’t care for the settling ways of the American colonists at all.  Who kept encroaching on their hunting grounds.  So at the conclusion of the French and Indian War the Native Americans were restless.  Something the British were keenly aware of.  And after the long and expensive war they just fought they didn’t want a return to hostilities.  So King George III issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763.  Setting the border between the British American colonists and the Indian lands along the watershed of Appalachia.  Lands where the rivers flowed to the Atlantic Ocean were the American colonists’ lands.  Lands where the rivers flowed into the Mississippi River and its tributaries (east of the Mississippi) were Indian lands. 

This did not go very well with the American colonists.  For they planned to expand west until they could expand west no further.  At the shore of the Pacific Ocean.  Especially Virginia.  Who wanted to expand into Kentucky.  And into the Ohio Country (across the Ohio River from Kentucky).  Before the Proclamation of 1763 could even go into affect the Indians rose up in the Great Lakes region, the Illinois Country and Ohio Country.  Where the British displaced the French.  Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763–66).  A rather nasty and brutal war where the Indians killed women and children as well as prisoners.  And the British used biological warfare against the Indians.  Giving the Indians smallpox-infested blankets.  In 1774 Parliament passed the Quebec Act.  Which did a lot to further annoy the American colonists.  Especially that part about extending the province of Quebec (the former French territory from Labrador all the way to the Great Lakes region) south into the Ohio and Illinois country.  Many lumped the Quebec act in with the Intolerable Acts of 1774 which were to punish the colonists for the Boston Tea Party.  All these acts of Parliament and proclamations of the Crown failed in one of their main objects.  Maintaining the peace on the frontier.  One year later there was another shooting war in North America.  And this one did not end well for the British.

The American Revolutionary War evolved into a World War.  Once the Americans defeated a British army at Saratoga the French joined the American cause and declared war on Great Britain.  Eager to get back their North American territories.  The Spanish would join the French in alliance and declared war on Great Britain.  Primarily to settle some old scores in the Old World as opposed to helping the American cause.  They had the lands west of the Mississippi and control of that same river.  They had no desire to see the Americans advance any further west.  In fact, they wanted to expand their territory at the expense of both the Americans and the British.  The Indians, meanwhile, saw the Americans as the greatest threat and allied with their two-time past enemy.  The British.

The Indians were Little More than Bystanders while the Europeans Traded their Land with each Other

The war in the frontier lands of the West was as nasty and brutal as ever.  The British coordinated their war effort against the Americans from their frontier outposts.  Where they traded with their Indian allies.  Some even paying the Indians for each scalp they brought back from their raids.  And so the Indians crossed the Ohio River into Kentucky.  Throughout the war.  And attacked these frontier settlements.  While the Americans fought a defensive war.  Until one man arose.  Who believed the strongest defense was a strong offense.  And he took the war to the Indians and the British in the West.  Saving Kentucky.  And conquered the Northwest Territory. 

George Rogers Clark’s plan for conquering the Northwest was bold.  First take Vincennes (in southern Indiana near the Illinois border).  Travel up the Wabash River.  Down the Maumee River.  And then on to Detroit.  After taking Detroit head north to Michilimackinac (on the northern tip of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula).  The Virginian authorities liked the plan.  And commissioned him colonel in the Virginian forces.  And authorized him to conquer the Northwest.  For Virginia.  So Clark led his men down the Ohio River.  And traveled all the way to Kaskaskia near the Mississippi River in southern Illinois.  Not far from St. Louis.  Took it.  And marched to Vincennes.  And took Fort Sackville at Vincennes.  Shortly thereafter Henry Hamilton (who had a reputation for buying scalps from the Indians), governor of Detroit, Left Detroit and headed to Vincennes.  Gathering Indians along the way.  Recaptured Vincennes.  Then Clark returned and in one of the most fabled actions of the entire Revolutionary War took back Vincennes.  Despite the British and Indians greatly outnumbering Clark’s force.  Detroit lay open.  But Clark did not have the men or provisions for that conquest.

Meanwhile the Spanish were looking to cash in on their alliance with France.  And moved against British outposts from New Orleans.  Taking Baton Rouge.  Natchez.  Mobile.  And Pensacola.  To turn back the Spanish Governor Sinclair of Michilimackinac gathered a force and headed to the Spanish outpost St. Louis.  With the ultimate goal of taking New Orleans.  It did not go well.  The following year the Spanish launched an offensive of their own to take Detroit.  They got as far as St. Joseph on the other side of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula.  Around the bottom of Lake Michigan from Chicago.  A lot of land changed hands in the Northwest.  But thanks to Clark much of it remained in American hands at the end of the war.  Who came out the big winners in this war.  The British ceded all their claims east of the Mississippi to the Americans.  Including all of the Illinois and Ohio country.  Including Michigan and the lands surrounding the Great Lakes south of Canada.  The French did not drive the peace as they had hoped.  And recovered none of their North American territories.  The Spanish emerged with pretty much what they had when they entered.  Only with the Americans across the Mississippi instead of the British.  Who were much more interested in westward expansion than the British.  But they didn’t have to worry about the Americans crossing the Mississippi.  For Napoleon strong-armed the Louisiana Territory from the French in exchange for some land in Tuscany.  Who would later sell it to the Americans.  While being rather vague on the exact boundaries.  Which the Spanish would have to worry about in the years to come as the Americans headed west.  Towards Spanish country on the west coast.

Of course the Indians were the greatest losers.  For they were little more than bystanders while the Europeans traded their land with each other.  Making the Native Americans ever more restless.  And unwilling to give up their hunting and gathering ways.  Which sealed their faith.  For while they retreated west the American population exploded.  Due to their efficient use of the land.  It was the New World against the Very Old World.  Modern farming civilizations displaced the hunters and gatherers everywhere in the world.  A trend that started some 5,000 years earlier.  And the history of North America would be no different.  The Indian ways since then have been fast disappearing.  The Indian languages were so rarely spoken in the 20th century that the code based on it was the one code the Japanese couldn’t crack during World War II.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Vengeance, Loyalists, Patriots, French, British, Indians, Frontier, Ohio Country, Massacres, Washington and Westward Expansion

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 24th, 2012

Politics 101

The American Colonists kept moving into the Interior of the Country into Indian Lands

History has shown civil wars to be the bloodiest of wars.  For when people you know and grew up with kill your friends and family, well, things get a little ugly.  They escalate.  And there are a lot of opportunities for revenge when people in towns and villages join different sides in the war.   When friends and family fall in combat people retaliate by attacking the families left behind.  Those who didn’t take up arms.  The women and children.  They destroy their crops.  Burn their homes.  Force them to flee for their lives.  Then these acts are met with new acts of vengeance.  They don’t force family members to flee.  They kill them.  Then these acts are met with new acts of vengeance.  Instead of killing they rape, torture and mutilate their bodies.

When the American Revolutionary War broke out it tore families and towns apart.  People remaining loyal to the Crown became Loyalists.  Those rebelling became Patriots.  It was not uncommon to find Loyalist and Patriot in the same family.  And they hated each other.  That hatred grew as the people they knew and loved suffered the horrors of war.  Hardening them into merciless killers.  The people you were fighting were not soldiers.  They were fighting the lowest of traitors.  So there was no need for honor.   The people they were killing were no better than feral animals threatening their peaceful lives.  They deserved to die.  And worse.  This was civil war.  This was part of the American Revolutionary War.  And it got worse.

During the French and Indian War (aka the Seven Years’ War) the French allied with the various Indian tribes against their long-time foe.  The British.  The Indians fought on the French side because it was the lesser of two evils.  The French were sticking to the rivers and had small colonies.  The British had larger colonies.  And they kept moving into the interior of the country.  Which the Indians wanted to stop.  And in trying they made the war on the frontier a bloody one.  And very cruel.  The word used in official correspondence of the time used to describe them was savages.  For the unspeakable cruelties they did to white men, women and children.  They did not fight European style with bands and grand formations on the field of battle.  They made people suffer and live in fear.  The way they have always fought.

The British, the Loyalists and their Indian Allies advanced out of the Frontier into the River Valleys

Well, there was another war on the continent.  This one between the British and the American colonists.  Both sides tried to get the Indians to fight on their side.  Some were friendly with the Americans.  Some remained neutral.  But a lot fought with the British because they saw them as the lesser of two evils.  The American colonists were expanding further into the interior of the country.  In violation of their British treaties that were to keep the Americans out of the Ohio country.  Something the British agreed to without consulting their American colonists.  Who had every intention of moving further west.  So once again the Indians made the war on the frontier a bloody one.  And very cruel. 

Not all the British were on board with this.  Edmund Burke denounced this policy.  As did William Pitt, Earl of Chatham.  Who said in the House of Lords, “What! to attribute the sacred sanction of God and nature to the massacres of the Indian scalping knife?  To the cannibal savage, torturing, murdering roasting and eating…Such horrible notions shock every precept of religion, divine or natural, and every generous feeling of humanity.”  Even the Americans had their reservations about using the Indians.  George Washington wrote to the Commissioners of Indian Affairs, “Gentlemen: You will perceive, by the inclosed Copy of a Resolve of Congress, that I am impowered to employ a body of four hundred Indians, if they can be procured upon proper terms.  Divesting them of the Savage customs exercised in their Wars against each other…”  Both sides were worried about using the unpredictable and uncontrollable Indians.  And for good reason.

The British had forts at Niagara, Detroit and Michilimackinac (on the northern tip of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula).  From these strongholds they controlled the Great Lakes and the frontier.  They, the Loyalists and their Indian allies advanced out of the frontier into the river valleys.  The Allegheny, the Susquehanna, the Mohawk, the Schoharie, the Monongahela.  Into the Ohio country.  And the frontier of New York.  Leaving a path of devastation in their wake.  Smoldering homes.  Ravished farms.  And a lot of dead.  The Loyalists and their Indian allies killing and torturing fleeing soldiers.  Prisoners.  Civilians.  And taking scalps.  There was a growing list of these massacres.  Wyoming.  Cherry Valley.  German Flats.  Blue Licks.  In the end these massacres did not help the British.  They just made the war more savage.  And turned anyone on the frontier who were neutral or leaning Loyalists into Patriots thirsting for vengeance.

George Washington was no Better than King George and Parliament in Restraining American Expansionist Ambition

The Americans couldn’t control their Indian allies any better than the British could.  They, too, were embarrassed by these savage acts that went counter to the rules of war and Christian teachings they were trying to adhere to.  But their embarrassments were short lived as the Americans had fewer Indian allies.  And, therefore, fewer atrocities.  For it was the Americans that were trying to expand into Indian hunting grounds.  And it was the British trying to restrain that expansion.  So more of them fought on the British side.  And thus the British had more of this blood on their hands.  Which only served to hurt their cause.

The opening and closing of the American Declaration of Independence are familiar to many people.  The stuff in the middle is not as well known.  Which is a laundry list of “repeated injuries and usurpations” committed by King George against the American people.  Including, “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”  This British Indian policy was one of the items that pushed the Americans past reconciliation with the British.  And into open rebellion.

Fast forward to the Washington administration of the new United States of America.  Washington saw America’s relations with the Indians as a matter of foreign policy.  He spent more time trying to negotiate with them then he did with the Europeans.  For America’s future was in the west.  He wanted American expansion.  That would coexist with sovereign Indian lands.  Hoping in time that these lands would become future states within the new and growing union.  And the Indians would assimilate into the American way of farming and manufacturing.  Giving up their hunting and gathering ways that require such great tracts of land.  But, alas, that was not to be.  For he was no better than King George and Parliament in restraining American expansionist ambition.  The individual states ignored the new federal treaties with the Indians and negotiated their own treaties.  Or simply moved onto their land. 

Rather ironic, really.  Washington fought with the British against the French and Indians to secure American westward expansion.  He fought in the American Revolutionary War against the British to secure American westward expansion.  And the first major failure as president of the United States was over American westward expansion.  The subsequent treatment of the Indians would become what he feared.  A policy of confiscation that he worried “would stain the character of the nation.”  Which it has.  For the conflicts on the frontier were as violent and vicious as they ever were.  Forcing the Americans to send in troops to once again subdue these hostilities.  And to protect the Americans living on or near the frontier.  Which put the Americans and the Indians on the path Washington so wanted to avoid.  War.  Instead of conciliation.  And assimilation. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Reforms of Manmohan Singh are Eroding and Threatening India’s Economic Growth with a Return to a Welfare State

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 22nd, 2012

Week in Review

The BRICS economies are doing pretty well.  Well, better than Europe and the United States at the moment.  Which is saying something.  But it’s not all rosy.  China is struggling to get housing prices under control while at the same time not hindering economic growth.  Not easy to do.  When inflationary policy gives you both that growth and those high home prices.  And now people in India are worrying about sustaining their economic growth.  Which appears to be making a transition from free market capitalism to state capitalism.  Putting the brakes on economic growth much as it has in Europe and in the United States.  Where policies now are turning (or returning) to be more anti-business than pro-growth.  And a rise in public spending that would seem to indicate a return to a welfare state.  For which Manmohan Singh, India’s prime minister, was hammered for at a recent event (see Now finish the job posted 4/15/2012 on The Economist).

The event, in Delhi, was billed as a discussion of India’s economic reforms, hosted by a prominent and respected economics think-tank, ICRIER, along with Oxford University Press. The idea was to celebrate Mr Singh and the launch of an updated version of a book marking his momentous economic reforms of the early 1990s. These, everyone agrees, did more than anything else to usher in sustained and rapid economic growth which has helped to lift millions out of absolute poverty.

As ever, Mr Singh sat twinkly-eyed and almost entirely silent, as a series of speakers took turns to address the room. Yet rather than waste time celebrating his work of two decades ago, everyone pushed on with far more urgent business: trying to get India’s prime minister to understand that, without a second round of economic reforms, and soon, India’s economic prospects will look far grimmer in the next few years than they have recently. In turn, Mr Singh may not be remembered as the man who reformed India’s economy, but the man who only got the job half done…

Then a blunt-speaking economics professor from the University of Chicago, Raghuram G. Rajan, pointed out that things are looking bad when “domestic industry prefers to invest abroad” rather than brave the hassles and uncertainty of India today. Nor did he shy away from identifying who was at fault: “paralysis in growth-enhancing reforms” is a blunt way for an economist to speak; it means Mr Singh and his cabinet have done almost nothing to promote growth, devoting energy instead to ways to dish the proceeds of growth as welfare and other public spending…

He frets, too, that India’s middle class has no clue how high economic growth was first brought about, and instead is deeply, and increasingly, suspicious of capitalism and liberalisation. The result, as another speaker eloquently pointed out, is that there is no political constituency for reform. He saved his most explicit attacks for the budget passed last month, which came with a baffling mix of anti-business measures, especially over retrospective tax, and which is now scaring away the foreign investors that India desperately needs.

Those economic reforms replaced India’s socialism with free market capitalism.  And the subsequent burst in economic activity lifted millions out of “absolute poverty.”  Something their kind and caring socialism never could.  Yet another example of how capitalism helps those least able to help themselves.  But with robust economic activity comes great tax revenue.  And the temptation is to spend that tax revenue instead of cutting taxes further.  Because that excess tax revenue is not needed.  But politicians being politicians are weak.  And they will spend that excess tax revenue.  As Ronald Reagan learned in the Eighties.  His cut in tax rates created so much economic activity and tax revenue (nearly twice what it was before the cut in tax rates) the politicians increased their spending faster than the money came into Washington.  Which is why Ronald Reagan had great budget deficits.  It had nothing to do with the tax cuts.  For they increased tax revenue.  It was the massive increase in spending.  As it always is.

This is the danger of any democracy.  Once the people get a taste of this government largess they want more.  And will vote anyone out of office who doesn’t give them more.  Or, worse, takes some of it away.  Which leads to some problems.  As in chronic deficits.  And sovereign debt crises.  Like they currently have in Europe.  And are getting dangerously close to having in the United States.  All made worse by the fact that during the good times voters become blissfully ignorant about the economic policies that made those good times so good.  All they know is that they like getting a lot of free stuff.  And want to keep getting a lot of free stuff.  So they vote for the politician that promises to give them more free stuff.  Even when they can no longer sustain that level of public spending.

So when the people are blissfully ignorant it us up to the politicians to be responsible.  And not give in to pandering for votes.  They need to do the right thing.  To continue the good times.  By cutting taxes.  Cutting spending.  And cutting regulations.  The proven way to lift people out of poverty.   A particularly difficult task when many in the population have only known the good times.  And have no idea how quickly those good times can turn bad.  But unless the Indians want to slip back to their impoverished socialist past Mr. Singh should take stock of this wise counsel and keep the miracle going in India.  The miracle of free market capitalism.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

China and India Economic Performance Still Strong While Europe is Weighed down by their Debt

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 7th, 2012

Week in Review

Asia is besting Europe in economic performance.  But is the growth real?  Or is somewhat artificial with monetary policy inflating their economies?  Time will tell.  But in the mean time, their manufacturing is showing resilience (see India, China Economies Show Asia Resilient as Europe Falters by Unni Krishnan posted 1/3/2012 on Bloomberg Businessweek).

Manufacturing in India and China improved in December, a sign the world’s fastest-growing major economies are withstanding Europe’s debt crisis…

In another positive sign, a Chinese index for non- manufacturing industries rose today. Europe’s crisis may still cap demand for goods from Asia with an index for Chinese export orders indicating a third month of contraction in December. India’s economic growth will be constrained by higher borrowing costs and global economic weakness, HSBC and Markit said.

High debt is a problem for Europe.  And India.  For they, too, have high borrowing costs.  Something the Chinese don’t have a problem with at the present moment.  But they do share something else with India.

In China, the “festival effects” of western and Chinese New Year celebrations helped to boost the manufacturing PMI, said the logistics federation, which releases the data with the statistics bureau. China has also unwound some tightening measures to spur growth, cutting banks’ reserve requirements in November for the first time since 2008.

The Shanghai Composite Index tumbled 22 percent last year, the most since 2008, on concern that monetary tightening and efforts to rein in property prices in big cities will limit growth.

The Chinese were battling inflation pressures.  Hence the monetary tightening last year.  Now they’re lowered the reserve requirements for their banks.  In the world of fractional reserve banking that means inflationary growth.  By pumping more money into the economy.  By letting the banks lend out more of their deposits.  And now that thing they have in common with India.

India’s benchmark wholesale-price inflation slowed to a one-year low of 9.11 percent in November from 9.73 percent in October.

Inflation.  Nearly double digit at the wholesale level.  So the Indians have economic growth.  But they’re paying a pretty high price for it.  Or will.  Because the way the market fixes high inflation is with nasty recessions.  To adjust prices to reflect real demand.  Not the inflated one created by easy monetary policy.

So China and India are currently outperforming Europe.  But so did Japan once upon a time.  But their bubble burst.  As bubbles are wont to do.  And if China and India are just blowing bubbles, they, too, will burst.  Because that’s what bubbles do.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hunters and Gatherers Live at the Mercy of their Environment, Farmers Control their Environment

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 18th, 2011

History 101

We can Ultimately Blame Neanderthal’s Demise on the Hunter and Gatherer System

We’re Homo sapiens.  Neanderthals were here before us.  By a few hundred thousand years.  Give or take.  We have fossil evidence of their existence.  And we’ve been able to put them into the historical timeline.  But we’re not sure what happened to them.  For they were stronger than us.  And they had a similar brain size as ours.  Stronger and just as smart, you’d have to give them the edge when Homo sapiens met Neanderthal.  Yet here we are.  Homo sapiens.  Wondering what happened to Neanderthal man.

There are theories.  Neanderthal was adapted to live in the cold.  And he hunted cold-adapted mammals.  But then an ice age came.  And the temperatures fell.  It became too cold even for the cold-adapted.  The climate change pushed the 4-legged mammals south.  In search of food ahead of the advancing glaciers.  And Neanderthal followed.  Moving into what were at one time warmer climes.  Bumping into warmer-clime Homo sapiens.

The climatic change was rather sudden during this period.  One theory says that this rapid changing changed the environment.  Creating different plant and animal species.  And Neanderthal was unable to adapt.  Another theory says that as the glaciers advanced they just forced more people into a smaller area.  And they fought over a smaller food supply.  When the glaciers retreated, Homo sapiens then followed Neanderthals north.  And expanded into their hunting grounds.  Until they displaced them from the historical timeline.

Whatever happened one thing is sure.  We can ultimately blame their demise on the hunter and gatherer system.  Because this system requires large hunting grounds for survival.  Advancing glaciers reduced those hunting grounds.  Putting more people together in a smaller area.  Competing for limited food resources.  And they ultimately lost that competition.

The Hunter and Gatherer Culture Continued to do things as they had During the Stone Age

We can see a more recent example of the demise of a hunter and gatherer people.  In North America.  During the European colonization of that continent.

The North American continent is huge.  Much of it remains uninhabited to this date.  But it wasn’t big enough for the North American Indians and the Europeans.  Why?  The Indians were hunters and gatherers.  They needed a lot of land.  Each tribe had ‘braves’.  ‘Warriors’.  Soldiers.  Because they were a fighting people.  They had a warring culture.  They followed food.  Taking land from other tribes.  And protecting land from other tribes.  So they needed large numbers of warriors.  Which required large amounts of food.  And great expanses of land to hunt that food.

The Europeans, on the other hand, were farmers.  They could grow a lot of food.  And grow large populations on very small tracts of land.  They had higher population densities on their land.  They were better fed.  And they had a middle class thanks to a healthy food surplus.  Which created new technologies.  And provided tools and equipment to advance their civilization.  While the hunter and gatherer culture continued to do things as they had during the Stone Age.

Food Surpluses Created a Middle Class which allowed Advanced Civilizations

Hunters and gatherers live at the mercy of their environment.  Whereas farmers have taken control of their environment.  Creating food surpluses.  Which led to a middle class.  And to advanced civilizations.  Which is why they became the dominant civilization.  And displaced hunter and gatherer people from the historical timeline.  Simply by being a much more survivable people.  Because they took control of their environment.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,