And it turns out that it never even existed in the first place. Apparently rumors of its existence were greatly exaggerated.
And it turns out that it never even existed in the first place. Apparently rumors of its existence were greatly exaggerated.
I was thinking about how much of America is forested. When we think of forests, we usually think of the West. But what changed my thinking was the Bigfoot sightings. Bigfoots live in the forest, or the swamp. They prefer areas of 40-50 inches or more. There were quite a few sightings back east in some places, and I could not believe it. I had always thought this creature was limited to the Pacific Northwest.
Reading through the sightings though, it turned out a lot of the East is very sparsely settled, rural, and deeply forested or covered in swamps. There are wooded rivers, creeks with caves and cliffs running all through the region. It was not uncommon for a house in say Alabama to be two miles from the nearest home!
Many of these folks are still more or less living off the land. The have a number of acres, and they use those to grow food or run some livestock. They grow enough food crops so they have enough fruits and vegetables to get them through the year. They often have chickens, geese, pigs, sheep, goats or even cows that they raise for food in some way or another.
If a family has chickens but no cow, they might walk 2 miles to the nearest house and trade eggs for milk. You still need to buy stuff, so the mother often works for other homes as a maid, housekeeper, etc. or maybe makes dress or does sewing on the side. The men do whatever. Backwoods distilleries for homemade booze are still common. These folks are pretty much off the grid so to speak.
I did some research, and it turns out that the East is much more forested than the West! Truth is the entire East was a forest, hardwood in the more southern parts and softwood to the north.
Much of it was cleared by homesteaders in the 1800′s. Back then, they farmed the land and lived off it. However, much of the land back east is marginal farmland. It’s not the Central Valley or the Great Plains. Many of the farms were abandoned, especially during the Depression. Afterward, there was not much use for the land, so it just went back to forest. Much of it is now in timber production. Although the old growth forest is gone, much of the East has gone back to second growth forest.
Maine is the most forested state in the nation at about 85% forest. Next is Alabama, at 70% forest! Who would have thought? The most forested state in the West, Washington, is only 40% forested!
In Canada, we have something called the Boreal Forest. It’s one of the largest forests on Earth, and much of it is still uncut. It’s second only to Russia in the great temperate forests of the world.
Looking briefly at Google Earth in terrain mode, I came up with this. Note that “totally forested” means that most of the land is 10% or more forested. Same with “80% forested.” All forested land, 10%-100%, shows up as forest Google Earth, with the lesser forested regions being only a lighter shade of green.
States and provinces showing almost total forest cover on Google Earth.
3. New Hampshire
6. Rhode Island
7. New York
10. West Virginia
15. British Colombia
16. Prince Edward Island
States showing 80%+ forest cover on Google Earth
Notice how preposterous this theory is. OIT folks never talk much about the spread of IE after it left India, so one of the detractors took their theory and made a map out of it, just to show how idiotic it is. Based on Est’s theory of the spread of IE using the OIT model. What the Hell are the IE languages doing in the Middle East a few thousand years ago anyway? Does this mean that Sumerian was IE? Once you start playing with the actual dynamics of the theory, it makes less and less sense.
This is an interesting map, though on first thought it seems unnecessary.
First of all, it makes quite clear how Brazil stands out as the Portuguese speaking state in Latin America. One could argue that this makes them odd man out, but if we look in terms of population, Latin America has a population of 570 million. 192 million of those are Brazilians. So 34%, or fully 1/3, of Latin Americans speak Portuguese. So what at first looks like Brazil’s linguistic isolation may not be so isolating as it appears.
All the Spanish-speaking countries can communicate well with each other, and there is a “neutral Spanish” that any educated person can use when conversing with any other educated person from Hispanophone Latin America. As long as you are doing this, you will both be understood.
Getting down to regional dialects, things do get complicated. I understand that Chilean soap operas, spoken in the rich dialect of the Chilean street, are dubbed in the rest of South America because other South Americans can’t understand Chilean street Spanish. But they are probably well understood in Argentina. There does seem to be a “Southern Cone Street Spanish” that is harder to pick up as the latitudes move northward.
Bolivian Spanish sounds strange, but it’s probably intelligible in South America. It heavily inflected with Indian languages.
There is a general Caribbean Spanish that can be hard to understand.
The language of the Colombian Caribbean coast can be hard for even other Colombians to understand.
Dominican Spanish is notorious for being hard to understand. First of all, it seems to be based on Canarian Spanish of the Canary Islands, which is a very strange form of Spanish. Into this base went a ton of African words, much more than in the rest of Latin America. Further, it is spoken very fast. Dominican Spanish is pretty baffling to other Spanish speakers, at least for a while. Nevertheless, there is a more neutral form of Dominican Spanish that is widely intelligible to other Hispanophones.
On the streets of Mexico City, a very hardcore slang has emerged, sort of a Mexico City Street Spanish, that is pretty hard to figure out outside of Mexico.
Latin America is interesting in that the rest of the world seems to be learning “English as the universal language,” while Latin America is lagging behind.
I know quite a few educated Latin Americans who barely speak a lick of English. Latin Americans live not so much in the society of the Western Hemisphere, but more particularly in the society of Latin America. And Latin America is extremely Hispanophone. Everywhere you go, most everyone speaks Spanish. Spanish is a very highly developed modern language with words for everything. Why bother to learn English? What for? To talk to gringos?
However, at advanced university levels, such as Master’s Degree and particularly doctorate level, increasingly there are requirements to learn English.
One would think that Mexicans at least would be required to take some English in school, right? Forget it. First of all, Mexican schools are crap, and they are broke. The elite and upper middle class steal all the money in the country, and the Libertarian/Republican dream minimal state/free market economy hosts horribly defunded and decrepit schools. It’s not uncommon to meet 20 year old Mexicans who dropped out in the 2nd grade.
English is typically not offered in Mexican public schools. It’s only offered in private schools, which is of course where the moneyed class above sends their kids, which is why they won’t pay for public schools (They don’t use ‘em), which is why the public schools are crap. I’m sure many more non-Hispanic Americans in the US are taking Spanish than Latin Americans are studying English.
Hispanophones also often do not bother to learn Portuguese. Some of the educated ones claim they can understand it without studying it, but I doubt it.
A lot of Brazilians say they can understand Spanish pretty well (I think they study Spanish more than Hispanophone Latins study Portuguese), but when you start talking to them in Spanish (which I do on a regular basis) it doesn’t seem to work very well. Want to talk to a Brazilian? Learn Portuguese!
As we can see on the map, both French Guyana and Haiti speak French.
I was talking about Haiti with my liberal Democrat Mom once. The general conversation was along the lines that Haiti was all screwed up. She said, “Well, they’re all Black, they’re dirt poor, and worst of all, they’re in the Western Hemisphere, but they all speak French!” Indeed. What do these funny Frencophones think they’re doing in our Anglophone, Hispanophone and Lusophone Hemisphere anyway?
Further, the language of Haiti is not really intelligible to French speakers. It makes about as much sense as hardcore Jamaican English does to us. However, the Haitian elite often speaks good French. They also say they understand Spanish, but I’ve tried to talk to them in Spanish, and it didn’t go anywhere. Often they don’t understand much English either. Want to talk a member of the Haitian upper class? Learn French!
So the Haitians are rather isolated in this Hemisphere, but I’m not sure if your average dirt poor Haitian cares. I suppose they could always talk to the Quebecois, but no one understands Quebecois either.
French Guyana is also a French speaking country. It’s still a colony, and it has a very nice standard of living. Nowadays, colonies don’t even want to go free anymore, as it means a standard of living crash.
As you can see, British Honduras speaks English. There are some other English speaking islands in the Caribbean and some French speaking islands too, but none are marked on the map.
Dutch has pretty much died out in the Western Hemisphere, but it used to be spoken widely in Suriname and the Dutch Caribbean.
The main language of Guyana is probably some English creole, but it’s not shown on the map.
Indian languages are still very widely spoken in Peru (Quechua), Bolivia (Aymara) and Paraguay (Guarani).
Pretty darned hilarious! The Tories are the conservative party in the UK, more or less aligned with the Upper Classes and their views and prejudices. In particular, as this map indicates, they are characterized by some pretty blatant racism and a creepy fondness for the British Empire. They also have a Nordicist bent in that they don’t like Southern Europeans too much.
Here are a couple of excellent maps showing, first, the tropics, and second, skin color around the world.
It’s curious to me that dark skin is devalued. I grew up on the beach in Southern California. In the summer I lived at the beach and surfed. While I wasn’t surfing, I was living in a cloud of marijuana smoke. In the winter, I lived at the ski slopes, once again in a marijuana fog. All year, I chased women, listened to hard rock music and sold pot. Life has never been better.
I had bleached long hair and a year-round tan. This was the idea. Surfer and skier society was White society, but it was not racist. There simply were few if any non-Whites in the scene. But those non-Whites that were in scene were completely accepted as normal, see Bobby Nishi, once of the greatest surfers of all time. I once threw a party in my house and at one point I caught Bobby in my brother’s bedroom screwing some chick. No one cared, and everyone thought it was funny. Women swarmed to Bobby like bees to blossoms.
Thing was, we were always trying to be brown. How brown? I’m not sure if it ever came up. Obviously, White people can only get so brown, but our mestizo and NE Asian friends did get a lot browner with the sun, but no one seemed to care. None of us Whites got as dark as Black people, but if we could have, it might even have been cool, who knows? Whether we were as brown as mestizos is hard to say. We were certainly as brown as a lot of the lighter mestizos.
The fascinating thing was that growing up on the beach, we thought that pale, White skinned White girls were ugly! Everyone wanted a bitchin’ tan. The pale skinned White thing came back with the punk rock thing in the late 70′s and early 80′s, but at the time, it was bad news.
This makes me wonder about this White nationalist thing that everywhere on Earth, humans and males in particular have a preference for lighter skin, which is of course superior, right? Except that my So Cal White culture was an exception to all of that. Therefore, what? My culture was a genetic aberration? Come on. I’ll side with the Cultural Left assholes here and say that this whole light skin preference thing is socially constructed. It’s not some inborn bias or instinct.
In Africa, males have no preference for lighter skin in females, and female Africans do vary quite a bit in skin color. In Tasmania, Tasmanians actually preferred darker skin in women! I suppose they had a special genetic mutation, huh?
There does seem to be evidence that men prefer females to be lighter through all cultures, but there women have no preference at all for men. Tall, dark and handsome isn’t exactly a reference to the melanin-deficient White dude. As commenter tulio notes, this is probably a preference for youth, since our skin is lighter as babies and children and grows darker as we age, except in guys like me, where my dark brown hair is paradoxically turning light grey as I age. But go figure!
Here we have two maps, one for what I am going to call blond hair, though they are calling it light hair here. The other is for what I call blue eyes, but they are calling them light eyes here.
These are of course the Aryan Prize Jewels. What is funny is that the centers of Blondness and Blueness seem to be in some cases outside of the Land of Odin and Thor.
For instance, the lower half of Finland, plus central Sweden and Norway, are Ground Zero for blonds. You can hardly spit in any direction around there without hitting a wolverine, a caribou, or some blond and blue hottie. If it wasn’t too cold to fuck, the place would be a sexual paradise!
What is interesting about this is that the your true Nazis always held that the Finns are “Asiatics,” and therefore not really White. What’s wrong with almond eyes and submissive, slender women, I’ll never know, but the Mighty Whiteys think this Chinky stuff is no good. Better a strong German woman who looks like she could shot put you across the room I guess. Sometimes Nazis are hard to figure.
Anyway, we see that Russia, in particular far northwestern Russia, is also a Hot Zone for major breakouts of blond and blue, especially for the blue eyes.
In fact, the center for azure isises seems to be around Estonia or a bit east of there in the Ingrian region, a bit south and further east than the Almogordo of the blonds, noted above as central Scandinavia. Once again, the Nazi types insist that these centers of Aryanism are fatally contaminated with them dirty Asiatic genes.
I would say that these are markers of mutations. One, for blond hair, in central Scandinavia, around 9,000 years ago, and the other, for blue eyes, in Estonia around the same time.
Why they persisted is a mystery, as they add little Darwinian fitness. I assume that the blond and blue chicks were in hot demand by the fur-draped fellows up there. They all jumped on the blond and blue chicks, and the early Neolithic Marilyn Monroe types pumped out lots of babies. What’s surprising is that these evil bitches stealing all the good men were not all killed by their proto-Viking sisters.
Anyway, since gentlemen prefer blonds, the mutation spread, and nowadays we even have blond and blue Jews, though most of those come from bottles and contact lenses.
The maps are interesting. The general Scandinavian – Baltic region seems to be an epicenter, with the Finnic region predominating. Taking the median of the blond epicenter in central Sweden with the blue eyed epicenter around Novgorod in Russia just east of Estonia (Ingria), we get a blond-blue epicenter around Tampere, Finland in southern Finland about 150 miles north of Helsinki. Northwestern Russia has a lot of Finnic and general Scandinavian genes. After all, the St. Petersburg region and environs was ruled by Swedes for centuries.
We have a strange strip of blond along the forbidding Pomeranian coast of Poland, near the V-2 rocket test site. The outbreak of blonds in the Galicia region of Spain is interesting. These folks say they are Celts, and perhaps they are. Moving to France, we see another outbreak in Brittany, once again attributable to Celtic Bretons. In the UK, blondism trends to the East, but this was where the Danish influence and the Danelaw was greatest.
Heading down to Italy, we see that the Venetian speaking region in far northeast Italy is a blond outlier, not the general “Padania” of the northern separatists. Since this region was long under the Austro-Hungarian Empire, perhaps the answer can be found there. There is another blond outlier on the heel of the Italian boot in the Puglia-Salento region that is also unexplained. There are a lot of Greek and Albanian genes in this region, but how do we get blondism from that?
The blue eyed map also shows some interesting things. In Spain, there is an area of very dark eyes, but it is a little to the east of the Moorish area. There is an area of somewhat lighter eyes in North Africa on the border of Algeria and Morocco that is unexplained. A commenter says it was from Vandals. That region is in the area of the Middle Atlas Mountains and much of the Rif Range. There are a lot of the more pure Berbers in area – Riffians in the Rif and Chleuh in the Middle Atlas.
The Riffians in particular are very light – 36.8% of them have blond hair and blue or green eyes, higher than the % of light hair among Spaniards and Italians. Riffians have a moderate amount of Alpine and Nordic features for a Mediterranean race. Considering that Riffians are lighter than Spaniards or Italians, it seems insane that White Nationalists say that they are “non-Whites.” The Chleuh are also quite light, see pics.
Czechs have lighter eyes than Slovaks, and Turks have lighter eyes than most Italians, perhaps due to heavy Slav influence. The far south of Switzerland has darker eyes and hair than the Swiss to the north of them. This is the Italian, Lombard and Romansch speaking region of Switzerland.
Your assignment, just to piss PC Idiots off, is to analyze the maps in terms of demographics and race.
Greed is highest on the East Coast, in California, in Washington State and Oregon, in Arizona, in Texas and around Chicago, in lower Michigan, in Florida and in the Rust Belt. These are all places where there are concentrations of wealth. The measure was based on “Average income compared with number of people living below the poverty line.” What this means is that this is where extremes of wealth and poverty exist.
They exist in Arizona, California and Florida because of mass Hispanic immigration. Hispanics can probably only create societies with extremes of wealth and poverty, and the Hispanic elite which has settled in Florida has created the most outrageous and reactionary mirror of a Latin American banana republic shithole you could imagine. Why? Because that’s what they do. That’s what they create in Latin America, so that’s what they are going to create when you import them to the US.
In California and Arizona, there are still a lot of rich people, mostly rich White people. This has recently been combined with the insanity of importing millions of Mesoamerican urban poor and peasants with an average 5th grade education. Predictably, they have created mass poverty and slums wherever they have settled. Combine this with the rich Whites you get greed on the map.
I have no explanations for the high greed coefficients around Chicago, lower Michigan and the Rust Belt, but there is a lot of Black poverty and there are a lot of wrecked cities in this region. I can’t understand the high readings on the liberal White East Coast or in Washington State/Oregon either. Interestingly, the South, including the Black Belt, scores low on greed. Maybe there is not much money to go around?
The next map is Envy, or the Ripoff Map. It’s a map of theft. Predictably, it’s high in Arizona, central California and Washington State. Extremes of inequality cause tons of crime, especially theft, but you can never get a conservative to admit this basic fact of human nature.
The South, including the Black Belt, has tons of theft. Presumably, Blacks are doing a lot of this stealing, but I am curious to what extent Southern Whites are thieves too. I have always heard that Southern Whites also have a high crime rate. In that respect, Southern crime may be more of a regionalism than a race thing per se.
Also lots of ripoff in lower Michigan and Rust Belt. We do have lots of Blacks there, lots of wrecked cities and abandoned industry, along with extremes of wealth and poverty. That sounds like a recipe for Ripoff Central. Also quite a bit of ripoff in eastern Oklahoma and NE Texas, which I cannot explain.
The Wrath Map, or violent crime map, is most interesting. Once again, high rates in Central California which are not explainable. Arizona has lots of violent crime, possibly due to Hispanics. So does New Mexico, and I cannot explain that.
So does Southern Missouri, East Texas, Eastern Oklahoma, Tennessee, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and Southern North Carolina. Yet Mississippi has little and Alabama has much less than the rest. One is tempted to say “Black Belt”, except that I have always heard that those wonderful Southern White folks have always had a very high violent crime rate. In particular a high homicide rate. And it’s been that way for 200 years or so. I chalk it up to culture.
Southern Michigan has some violent crime, but the Rust Belt does not. Go figure? There’s also quite a bit of violent crime being committed those White redneck mountain men in far Western Montana. Huh? So much on these maps hardly makes sense.
Next up we have Sloth, and this map doesn’t tell us much except that Americans are not particularly sloth-like, nor are they all that workaholic. In the Yellowstone region, we find the laziest folks of all, what with all that elk hunting and flyfishing in the rivers. That includes Western Montana, where the homicidal herds of Whites roam. I guess when they are not shooting each other, they are practicing on elk and deer?
The Gluttony map tells us little except that Texas is full of fatties, steer-shaped guys and gals wearing outsized beltbuckles and deep fat-frying anything no longer moving. Appalachia is full of unhealthy eaters and so is the Washington DC area, except for Michelle’s organic garden I guess.
Now for my favorite subject: Lust! This is a VD map, unfortunately, not a Get Laid Map. One would think that wherever you have lots of queers you have tons of VD, but it doesn’t show on the map.
Instead we get the South. And indeed, it does look something like the Black Belt. I know Blacks like to screw a lot, but how about Southern Whites? Are they all prim and proper, going to Church every Sunday and Bible Study during the week? One wonders.
There are some strange anomalies on there – the Black Hills, NE Arizona, until one realizes that these are Indian reservations. Indians like to screw a lot? I never knew. I thought Indian maidens were all shy and reserved and proper. We also have tons of uncontrollable sex maniacs in East Central New Mexico and across the border in West Texas (Bible Belt). I don’t understand this one at all. Once again, we have lots of evil, this time Sex Evil, in NE Texas, which I don’t understand. Lot of Black folks there? Lot of screwing in southern Michigan, once again a lot of Blacks.
Thaaat’s all, folks!
Geographic Spread and Ethnic Origins of European Haplogroups, on the very interesting Eupedia page.
From the About:
Eupedia.com was founded in December 2004.Our aim is to create a detailed and informative guide for countries of the European Union for travellers, expats and locals alike, with an emphasis on sightseeing, history, culture, economy, and life in Europe.
I figure that this page tells us something about the origins of the Caucasians, not to mention the origins of the Europeans. One thing that is incontrovertibly clear is that the Caucasian Race did not arise in Europe. Instead, it appears to have arisen in Southern Iran, the Caucasus and the Middle East, as I have speculated. So the Grandaddy of all the great European White Men was some towelheaded wog. Figures. Choke on that, White nationalists.
Going back even further, the Caucasians appear to have origins in Haplogroup N, which, a commenter on this blog has noted, seems to originate in Eastern Africa, especially around the area of the Masai in Kenya. This is also as I suspected, as I assume that the proto-Caucasians may have roots in the Masai, the Tutsi, the Southern Sudanese and other Desert Adopted Elongated African types. The Tutsi even have an uncanny, almost Caucasian appearance about them, despite their African purity (no Caucasian blood).
It also looks like any European clades go back no further than 13,000 years in Europe, and even at that time, I am told that Europeans looked more like Arabs than present day Aryan Supermen. This means that the vaunted White Race, like most exact races on Earth, is a relatively new creation, the latest model, as it were. Attempts to link present day Europeans to Paleolithic Europeans would appear to be absurd on their face.
If anyone other than White nationalist boneheads can make more sense of that page than this, go to it. It’s looks kind of mind-boggling from here.