UK arrested Tommy Robinson for reporting child-rape gangs that the government caters to. The UK banned reporting of his arrest, denied him a lawyer, and is trying to have him assassinated in prison. Regardless of how you feel about his views, this is a totalitarian government.

Tommy Robinson isn't the first to that the UK has jailed after a secret trial. Melanie Shaw tried to expose child abuse in a Nottinghamshire kids home -- it wasn't foreigners doing the molesting, but many members of the UK's parliament. The government kidnapped her child and permanently took it away. Police from 3 forces have treated her like a terrorist and themselves broken the law. Police even constantly come by to rob her phone and money. She was tried in a case so secret the court staff had no knowledge of it. Her lawyer, like Tommy's, wasn't present. She has been held for over 2 years in Peterborough Prison. read, read

Indigenous Americans

From en-Rightpedia
(Redirected from American Indians)
Jump to: navigation, search
Regions with significant populations
(not including Mestizo population)
 Peru 14 million
 Mexico 10.1 million
 Bolivia 6 million
 Guatemala 5.4 million
 Ecuador 3.4 million
 United States 2.5 million
 Colombia 1.4 million
 Canada 1.2 million
 Brazil 700,000
 Chile 692,000
 Argentina 600,000
 Venezuela 524,000
 Nicaragua 443,847
 Panama 204,000
 Paraguay 95,235
 El Salvador ~70,000
 Costa Rica 60,000
 Suriname 5,000
Indigenous languages
Native American Totemism and Animism

Indigenous Americans (or Amerindians for short) are a race of people who emigrated from Siberia to the American Continent, replacing the first waves of people that were living on this territory. During the Age of Discovery, the Iberian navigators wrongly called these people Indios as they thought to had reached India. The new European explorers colonized the new discovered land and the Siberian-Americans we reduced by number due to new diseases and inter-marriages.

They trace most or all their ancestory for at least 13,000 years among the Pre-Columbian inhabitants of North, Central and South America. Living Amerindian ethnic groups still identify with these early peoples, also called Paleo-Indians. Parts of the Americas are still populated by Amerindians; some countries have fairly sizable populations, such as Bolivia, Peru, Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, and Ecuador. At least a thousand different indigenous languages are spoken in the Americas. Some, such as Quechua languages, Aymara, Guaraní, Mayana, and Nahuatl, count their speakers in millions. Many also maintain aspects of indigenous cultural practices to varying degrees, including religion. Some Amerindians still live in relative isolation from Western society, and a few are still counted as "uncontacted" peoples, for example tribes inhabiting the Amazon rainforest.

Name controversy

The popular name Native Americans' is a politically correct term that applies only to the tribes within the 48 interconnected US states. The ones in Alaska are called Alaska Natives, the ones in Canada are called Aboriginals. Sometimes the ones up north are called eskimo or inuit. Sometimes First Nations is thrown around. Christopher Columbus incorrectly called them Indians to promote that he found a route to India instead of a new continent. Typically for this group of people across both American continents are Amerindians and Indigenous Americans and the first one is shorter. Other names are Red Indians, Red Skins, American Indians, Injuns, and Amerinds.

Application of the term "Indian" originated with Christopher Columbus, who thought that he had arrived in the East Indies, while seeking Asia and kept using it because he had promised to find a shortcut to India and not a completely different continent.[1][2] Later the name was still used as the Americas at the time were often called West Indies. This has served to imagine a kind of racial or cultural unity for the aboriginal peoples of the Americas. Once created, the unified "Indian" was codified in law, religion, and politics. The unitary idea of "Indians" was not originally shared by Amerindians themselves, but many over the last two centuries have embraced the identity. Most American Indians object to use of the term "Native American" and prefer to call themselves "(American) Indians".[3]

The people of the latino population are not Amerindians, they are mestizos--a mixture of Amerindian, European, and Negroid.


Their original skull shapes tens of thousands of years ago resembled Subsaharan Africans, Australoids, and Melanesians. Their skull shapes within the last few thousand years resemble Siberian. Genetic tests show that the Amerindians alive today are descendants from the people with the older skull shapes. It is either convergent evolution, or more likely certain ethnic groups were more successful and their tribes did what has been happening since the time of early apes: warriors kill all the males and then take the females as forced brides during conquest.[4]

Paleo-Indian settlement

Paleo-Indians migrated across Beringia from Siberia into North America

The Bering land-bridge ("Beringia") that formerly connected northeast Siberia and Alaska from 40,000 years ago to as late as 11,000 years, was a thousand miles wide (Laughlin, 1963). During this time there was a migration or number of migrations of Siberian hunter-gatherers across the land-bridge into Alaska. A short-chronology dates this migration from 17,000 - 13,000 BP, while a long-chronology 20,000 - 40,000 BP (Meltzer, 1995).

According to the American physical anthropologist William S. Laughlin:

"The first Americans were Siberians. Consequently the study of populations on both sides of the Bering Sea is necessary to understanding the entry of man into the New World, his migrations, expansion, diversification and successful adaptation to several contrasting ecological zones. Survival in Siberia and in Beringia, on either the interior entry route or the southern coastal entry route, required that the immigrants be skilled hunters and that they be well clothed. The indisputable cold of the Arctic and the Subarctic imposed ecological limits on the size of local groups, on the total numbers of groups, and on their location [...] The population of Siberia was small, and only a small sample of the Siberian population migrated across Beringia into the New World." (Laughlin, 1979a)

These early Paleo-Indians soon spread throughout the Americas, diversifying into many hundreds of culturally distinct nations and tribes. According to the oral histories of many of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, they have been living there since their genesis, described by a wide range of traditional creation accounts.


The genetic pattern indicates that the Americas experienced two very distinctive genetic episodes; first with the initial-peopling of the Americas from Siberia, and secondly with European colonization of the Americas from the 16th century.[5][6][7]

Competing theory

A competing theory, known as the Solutrean hypothesis suggests that early European people may have been among, or even the first, settlers of the Americas.[8][9] DNA evidence shows most of their population came from Siberia, however there is a mitochrondrial DNA haplogroup X found in some pure Amerindian populations, mostly around Quebec that arrived about 20,000 years ago. Mitochondrial DNA can be traced by its mutations to the age it arrived.

Pre-Columbian era

The Pre-Columbian era incorporates the history of all peoples across the Americas continent before Christopher Columbus's voyage of 1492 and subsequent European settlement.

An earlier European Norse colonization of the Americas though had began as early as 10th century AD, when Viking sailors explored and settled areas of the North Atlantic, including Greenland and the northeastern fringes of mainland North America. Therefore the term Pre-Columbian also includes Norse, alongside Amerindians.

Other theories of non-Amerindian Pre-Columbian settlement exist, but remain fringe or controversial to pseudo-historical.

Pre-Columbian Amerindian civilizations include those of Mesoamerica such as the Aztec, Maya and Toltec, while in South America the Inca, and the Mound Builders of North America.

The status however of Pre-Columbian Amerindian societies as "civilizations" is debatable. The biologist John Baker in his book Race (1974) outlining key indicia for civilization, points out that Mesoamerican societies failed to pass important hygienic criteria, and for this reason could not be considered true civilizations as such, like ancient Greece, or Sumeria.

European colonization

European colonization and large-scale settlement across the Americas occurred from the 16th and 17th centuries. Amerindian populations were massively reduced in number.


Skulls of various human races alongside the Amerindian skull to show the differences in phrenology.

Research on the racial affinities of Paleo-Indians was undertaken throughout the 20th century by Hrdlicka (1915), Neumann (1952), Coon (1965, 1982) and Laughlin (1977, 1979b).

Wiercinski maintained that the late prehistoric Siberians or Paleo-Indians who crossed over into Alaska, were predominantly a mixture of Mongoloid and Ainuid racial types, also noting a "Pacific" (i.e. Australoid) component, but which was weakly present. Although most Paleo-Indians were Mongoloid in phenotype, some were not:

"H. sapiens were sufficiently mobile for there to have been non-mongoloid elements among the first immigrants to America, even if they all came across the Bering Strait."[10]

The anthropologist Joseph B. Birdsell (1951) claimed to have discovered two races from analysing Paleo-Indian skulls: (a) Mongoloid and (b) "Amurian" (Ainuid).

Amerindians are of primitive proto-Mongoloid stock and have pronounced brow ridges (supraorbital ridge).[11]

Earnest Hooton (1931) argued that Paleo-Indians were a mixture of Mongoloid and Australoid. Coon however argued that their racial phenotype was between Mongoloid and Caucasoid, most likely through evolutionary convergence: "American Indians most resemble Mongoloids in skin and hair and Caucasoids in facial features" (Coon, 1982) but noted that Eskimos retained a Mongoloid phenotype. Likewise, Neumann (1952) and Stewart (1974) classified Eskimos separately, as "Inuids", recognizably different from other American Indians.

More recent physical anthropologists and biologists have moved away from racial typology,[12] but instead of abandoning race models entirely through political correctness some view the indigenous populations in the Americas in an ecological race framework, that incorporates clines, retaining "Mongoloid" for cold-adapted peoples in the Americas:

"...flat faces and fat-covered eyes are good protection against intense cold, in the supposed northern homeland of the most strongly accentruated Mongoloids like Eskimos" (Howells, 1997)


Culture varied from Eskimos, to North American nomads, to Aztec/Olmec/Incas that built pyramids, to South American groups that dwelled deep within the Amazon rainforests (around Brazil).


Totem pole

Totem poles are still made by Amerindians of the Pacific northwest as markers of clan or family heraldry (the word "totem" is derived from the Ojibwe word odoodem, "his kinship group").

Totemistic beliefs are found in many Amerindian cultures across the Americas continent, not limited to the Pacific northwest.


Amerindian myths and folklore are rich and diverse, some North American myths are summarised below:

"Tales of the North Pacific Coast are of a considerable variety. No more than the peoples already discussed do they possess a real creation myth. The trickster--Raven in the north, Mink, and Blue Jay farther south--is very active. Tales based on ritual or social rank are frequent. The sea is ever present, and in place of the animals of the Plateau, these tribes tell stories of whales and salmon. Tales involving the other world are prominent.

The interest of the teller of tales in California seems to be two things only--the creation and the deeds of the trickster. A few other animal tales are present. One feels that, with the possible exception of the Eskimos, the range of interest is least among the California Indians of any tribes on the continent.

In the Plains the range of interest is extraordinarily wide. Practically every class of tale current anywhere occurs here. If there are any favorite types they are the trickster and the hero tales. In certain parts of the area (for example, among the Caddoan tribes) the origin myth is important.

In general spirit it is hard to distinguish between the tales of the Plains and those of the Central Woodland. The trickster cycle in almost all its parts is common to the two areas. The mythology of the Central Woodland tribes is nearly uniform, whereas the Plains tribes show great divergence. The Manabozho cycle prevails through most of this area.

The Northeast Woodland has been in such constant contact with Europeans that the native tales, except among such remote tribes as the Naskapi, have been almost crowded out. In the culture-hero cycle, myths explaining topography are prominent. Animal marriages and trickster tales are frequent.

No other tribes show such thorough independence in their tales and detachment from other sections as do the Iroquois. Though their origin myth has much in common with that of the Central Woodland, the rest of their tales show little outside influence. The reader is impressed with a great monotony of motivation and treatment. Accounts of cruel uncles, wicked brothers, cannibalistic mothers, flying heads, and ravaging monsters are given but slight relief through an occasional trickster tale or a beautiful myth of otherworld journeying.

Animal tales and migration legends mark the collections from the Southeast.

The tribes of the Southwest desert land have many interesting stories of the emergence of the tribe from lower worlds and its final establishment in its present habitat. Their hero tales are usually connected with their mythology. The trickster cycle of the Plains is also prevalent. Among some tribes (for example, the Navaho) there is a tendency to string many tales into a long and complicated myth." [2]

Writing systems

Maya glyphs at the Museo de sitio in Palenque, Mexico
  • Mesoamerican Indians such as the Olmecs, produced a number of writing scripts from the 1st millennium BCE onwards.
  • Aztec codices include books.
  • Mayan society also had an elaborate usage of glyphs.
  • Aboriginal syllabic writing, is found among Algonquian and Inuit language families.


While human sacrifice of Amerindians from about the area of the southern United States and further southward is well known, particularly among the Mesoamerican societies, the media typically gives a propagandized image of the ones north of this as being peaceful, essentially hippies. However all historical evidence points to them being one of the most violent people in the world. Experts believe 1 out of 4 North Native Americans males died a violent death in Pre-Columbian times. Some tribes butchered babies, roasted enemies alive and would ride 1,000 miles to wipe out a family. The last Comanche tribal commander was born to an abducted white girl who they first murdered all her family, and raped her.[13][14][15]

Demography of contemporary populations

The following table provides estimates of the per-country populations of Amerindian people, and also those with non-negligible partial Amerindian ancestry, expressed as a percentage of the overall country population of each country. The total percentage obtained by adding both of these categories is also given.

Note: these categories are inconsistently defined and measured differently from country to country. Some are based on the results of population wide genetic surveys, while others are based on self identification or observational estimation.

Indigenous populations of the Americas
as estimated percentage of total country's population
Country Amerindian Ref. Part Amerindian Ref. Combined total Ref.
North America
Canada 1.8% [16] 3.6% [16] 5.4% [16]
Mexico 9.8% [17] 60% [18] 69.8% [18]
United States 0.9% [19] 0.6% [19] 1.5% [19]
Central America
Belize 16.7% [20] 33.8% [20] 50.5% [20]
Costa Rica 1% [21] 15% [21] 16% [21]
El Salvador 1% [22] 90% [22] 91% [22]
Guatemala 40.8% [23]  %  %
Honduras 7% [24] 90% [24] 97% [24]
Nicaragua 5% [25] 69% [25] 74% [25]
Panama 6% [26] 84% [26] 90% [26]
Antigua and Barbuda  %  %  %
Barbados  %  %  %
The Bahamas  %  %  %
Cuba  %  %  %
Dominica 2.9% [27]  %  %
Dominican Republic  %  %  %
Grenada ~0% [28] ~0% [28] ~0% [28]
Haiti ~0% [29] ~0% [29] ~0% [29]
Jamaica  %  %  %
Puerto Rico 0.4% [30] 84% [31] 84%
Saint Kitts and Nevis  %  %  %
Saint Lucia  %  %  %
Saint Vincent and
the Grenadines
2% [32]  %  %
Trinidad and Tobago 0.8% 88% 80%
South America
Argentina 1.0% [33] 2% 3% [34]
Bolivia 55% [35] 30% [35] 85% [35]
Brazil 0.4% [36]  %  %
Chile 4.6% [37]  %  %
Colombia 1% [38] 58% [38] 59% [38]
Ecuador 10% [39] 65% [39] 75% [39]
French Guiana  %  %  %
Guyana 9.1% [40]  %  %
Paraguay  % 95% [41]  %
Peru 30% [42] 47% [42] 77% [42]
Suriname 2% [43]  %  %
Uruguay 0% [44] 8% [44] 8% [44]
Venezuela  %  %  %

Conflict with Europeans

Armed conflict between Amerindians and Europeans lasted for nine centuries, from the late 900s AD in North America (the Viking efforts to explore and colonize the New World) through the end of the 1800s AD (the surrenders of Geronimo in the southwest and Crazy-Horse in the northwest) marking the end of the Indian-Wars. The American Indians knew no laws of war.

The American Declaration of Independence references this. In one of the reasons provided for independence, the colonials wrote:

"[The King] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and

has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the
merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare is an

undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions."

A well known event in the conflict was the killing of the American buffalo to near-extinction. What is not known is that the Jewish Rothschild crime family was behind it. They had invested heavily in railways. As a result, they hired former slaves as "buffalo soldiers" to prevent buffalos from damaging the railway lines and to deal with the Amerindian population which they were unable to control, despite their previous attempts by Jewish distilleries of controlling them through alcoholism.[45]

An example conflict was the Fort Parker massacre in 1836. Among those captured by Amerindians was 9-year-old Cynthia Ann Parker. She was forced into marriage at an extremely young age, which today would be considered child molestation. She later gave birth to a son named Quanah Parker, who became the last chief of the Comanche.

The Amerindians regularly kidnapped white children and then subjected them to nonstop torture, physical butchery, gang-rape, humiliation, and worse! If they captured a white person with an infant, they killed the infant and ate it (for example Rachel Plummer's child)![46][47][48][49][50]

Here is a quote from a Daily Mail article about the Comanche tribe:[46]

The 16-year-old girl’s once-beautiful face was grotesque.

She had been disfigured beyond all recognition in the 18 months she had been held captive by the Comanche Indians.

Now, she was being offered back to the Texan authorities by Indian chiefs as part of a peace negotiation.

To gasps of horror from the watching crowds, the Indians presented her at the Council House in the ranching town of San Antonio in 1840, the year Queen Victoria married Prince Albert.

‘Her head, arms and face were full of bruises and sores,’ wrote one witness, Mary Maverick. ‘And her nose was actually burnt off to the bone. Both nostrils were wide open and denuded of flesh.’

Once handed over, Matilda Lockhart broke down as she described the horrors she had endured — the rape, the relentless sexual humiliation and the way Comanche women had tortured her with fire. It wasn’t just her nose, her thin body was hideously scarred all over with burns.

When she mentioned she thought there were 15 other white captives at the Indians’ camp, all of them being subjected to a similar fate, the Texan lawmakers and officials said they were detaining the Comanche chiefs while they rescued the others.

S C Gwynne, author of Empire Of The Summer Moon about the rise and fall of the Comanche, says simply: ‘No tribe in the history of the Spanish, French, Mexican, Texan, and American occupations of this land had ever caused so much havoc and death. None was even a close second.’

He refers to the ‘demonic immorality’ of Comanche attacks on white settlers, the way in which torture, killings and gang-rapes were routine. ‘The logic of Comanche raids was straightforward,’ he explains.


An American Indian
Genocide of one Amerindian group (dorset) by another (thule).

The population of Native Americans (that being the Amerindians in the 48 US states) dropped from 1853 to 1880. This genocide was caused not by mass murder, but by race mixing between Europeans to produce mestizos. Race mixing is still genocide.[4]

Copyright-symbol.png Copyrighted section: text of this section was found on or is owned by By Ian Jobling and is therefore viewable for educational and research purposes only.

Roger Cohen’s proposal for a museum dedicated to slavery and segregation led me to read the comments on Cohen’s article at his blog. Not a single commenter pointed out the absurdity of Cohen’s belief that whites had not sufficiently recognized their historical mistreatment of blacks. However, a number of them did say that another monument to white guilt was needed: a museum memorializing the “genocide” of American Indians. This alleged genocide is a mainstay of leukophobic anti-Americanism. Fortunately, Guenter Lewy, the historian who also debunked false stories of Vietnam War atrocities, examined the question in a 2004 Commentary article, and found claims of genocide to be groundless.

That the Indian population of the United States was almost wiped out after European settlement is an established fact. At the end of the 1800s, there were 250,000 Indians in America. Anthropologists have estimated that between one and 12 million Indians lived in the territory north of Mexico before Europeans arrived.

Does this loss of life constitute genocide? The contemporary definition of genocide is acts of war undertaken with the purpose of eradicating a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. By this standard, Lewy concludes, although there were isolated acts of genocide against the Indians, genocide was never the policy of the United States government or army.

Seventy-five to 90 percent of Indian deaths were the result of disease, mostly smallpox, not warfare. While “scholars” like the notorious Ward Churchill have claimed that whites deliberately spread diseases like smallpox among Indians, there is only one instance in which plausible documentation of deliberate infection exists. In 1763, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, after whom my alma mater Amherst College is named, advised one of his officers to give blankets infected with smallpox to Indians, and the officer seems to have acted on the idea. Other allegations of biological warfare do not stand up to scrutiny.

Since the Amherst atrocity occurred during in the colonial period, it cannot be blamed on the American government, of course. Indeed, it was American policy starting in 1796 to vaccinate Indians against small pox. It would be odd if Ameicans tried to kill off Indians by means of a disease they were trying to prevent!

Genocide of the Indians was never the policy of the US army or government. The army was under orders to spare women, children, and men who surrendered or were too severely wounded to fight. Although some non-combatants were killed during army attacks, any deliberate killing of a non-combatant was punishable by law.

Professor Anne Stone, of Arizona State University, discovered in 2014 that African tuberculosis killed off most of the Amerindians before European contact. From a study of the bones of seals and sea lions in Peru, the evidence was conclusive that sea creatures traveling from Africa to South America carried the tuberculosis that wiped out many Amerindians. Human skeletons from Peru, dated 750 AD-1350 AD showed conclusive proof that people back then already had tuberculosis, long before Columbus arrived. By studying the DNA strains of the disease on the remains of Amerindians, they showed that it was the African strains rather than European strains.[51]

Various claims in popular culture such as smallpox blankets are recent hoaxes. All death by disease was unintentional. The only actual genocide of the Amerindians was in Latin America where they were genocided through mass miscegenation with Europeans and Africans, producing the spiritually inferior mestizo race, which unlike the Amerindians no longer can live independently off the land and so are easily manipulable. For example, in 19th century Paraguay, dictator José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia forced all white people to marry non-whites and this genocided the unique ethnic groups of the country.[52]

In Anglo-America, there are more pure-blooded Amerindians today than when Columbus arrived due to the white man's medicine. Based on 2012 US Census data, there are an estimated 4 million people who identify as pure or largely pure Amerindian and about 53 million who identify as mixed Amerindian "Latino" in the United States.[53]

There was an actual wiping out of a distinct group of people in the history of the Amerindians. It was the dorset people, living in Canada. As the thule people immigrated into the area, eventually the dorset died off. The dorset people are now extinct with no descendants, including those interbred with others. The two groups of people were hostile to each other and the thule people outcompeted them.[54]

When white society goes down and turns brown, they are doomed

When white society goes down and turns brown, they are doomed because:

  1. No one to go to their casinos.
  2. No more white people with white guilt so no more gimmiedats due to no motivation by the general population. There will be no more free welfare and no more free, tax-free land they can run themselves (which was a unique, nice thing in the history of conquerors). It will be taken away from them and they will be expected to integrate. Latin America doesn't give its Amerindian population all these privileges and the US and Canadian population is quickly being replaced by Latin Americans.
  3. No greater society to seek refuge.


The Amerindians were not as heavily into environmentalism as the mass media leads people to believe. For one, their arrival in the Americas brought about the extinction of various large animal species. They also engaged in slash-and-burn agriculture, destroyed forests and grasslands, and wiped out entire animal populations (on their religious belief that animals felled in a hunt would be reanimated in even larger numbers). Also when land and game were plentiful, the Amerindians cared little for property rights, but when it became scarce, they assigned property rights in things, for example: hunting and fishing. Their environmentalism was based on necessity, such as not catching all salmon so some could breed to make more. In addition, the tribes Arapahoes and Shoshones in modern times on Wyoming's Wind River Reservation have wiped out entire animal populations.[55]

In 2015, the Navajo tribe planned to build a large mall inside the Grand Canyon.[56] So in response, a judge allowed uranium mining near the canyon.[57]

Democracy hoax

It's not just the smallpox blankets hoax and WIndian fakers, the claim about democracy was another hoax. Historian Jack Weatherford has argued that the ideas leading to the American Constitution and democracy derived from various indigenous peoples of the Americas including the Iroquois. Weatherford claimed this democracy was founded between the years 1000–1450, and lasted several hundred years, and that the American democratic system was continually changed and improved by the influence of Native Americans throughout North America.[58]

Temple University professor of anthropology and an authority on the culture and history of the Northern Iroquois Elizabeth Tooker has reviewed these claims and concluded they are myth rather than fact. The idea that North American Indians had a democratic culture is several decades old, but not usually expressed within historical literature. The relationship between the Iroquois League and the Constitution is based on a portion of a letter written by Benjamin Franklin and a speech by the Iroquois chief Canasatego in 1744. Tooker concluded that the documents only indicate that some groups of Iroquois and white settlers realized the advantages of a confederation, and that ultimately there is little evidence to support the idea that eighteenth century colonists were knowledgeable regarding the Iroquois system of governance.[59]

What little evidence there is regarding this system indicates chiefs of different tribes were permitted representation in the Iroquois League council, and this ability to represent the tribe was hereditary. The council itself did not practice representative government, and there were no elections; deceased chiefs' successors were selected by the most senior woman within the hereditary lineage in consultation with other women in the clan. Decision making occurred through lengthy discussion and decisions were unanimous, with topics discussed being introduced by a single tribe. Tooker concludes that "...there is virtually no evidence that the framers borrowed from the Iroquois" and that the myth that this was the case is the result of exaggerations and misunderstandings of a claim made by Iroquois linguist and ethnographer J.N.B. Hewitt after his death in 1937.[59]



A Native American's Warning to the White Race
A Native American on Nationalism and Ethnic Preservation

See also


  1. Hoxie, Frederick E. (1996). Encyclopedia of North American Indians. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 568. ISBN 9780395669211. 
  2. Herbst, Philip (1997). The Color of Words: An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Ethnic Bias in the United States. Intercultural Press. p. 116. ISBN 9781877864971. 
  3. Why I’m An Indian—not “Native American”. By David Yeagley
  4. 4.0 4.1 The Truth About The Native American Genocide
  5. Wells, Spencer; Read, Mark (2002). The Journey of Man — A Genetic Odyssey (Digitised online by Google books). Random House. ISBN 0812971469. Retrieved 2009-11-21. 
  6. "Learn about Y-DNA Haplogroup Q. Genebase Tutorials" (Verbal tutorial possible). Genebase Systems. 2008. Retrieved 2009-11-21.  |first1= missing |last1= in Authors list (help)
  7. Orgel L (2004). "Prebiotic chemistry and the origin of the RNA world" (PDF). Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 39 (2): 99–123. doi:10.1080/10409230490460765. PMID 15217990. Retrieved 2010-01-19. 
  8. The North Atlantic ice-edge corridor: a possible Palaeolithic route to the New World. Bruce Bradley and Dennis Stanford. World Archaeology 2004 Vol. 36(4): 459 – 478.
  9. Carey, Bjorn (19 February 2006). First Americans may have been European.Life Science. Retrieved on October 13, 2010.
  10. "Some Problems in the Physical Anthropological Study of the Peopling of America" [Comments and Reply]. Santiago Genoves T., James O. Bellis, Adelaida G. de Diaz Ungria, R. F. Hafer,Marshall T. Newman, Phil C. Orr, Erik K. Reed and Juan Schobinger. Current Anthropology. Vol. 8, No. 4 (Oct., 1967), pp. 297-312.
  11. Lahr, M. M. (1995), Patterns of modern human diversification: Implications for Amerindian origins. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 38: 163–198. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330380609
  12. "Anthropology in the Arctic: A Critique of Racial Typology and Normative Theory" [Comments and Reply] Author(s): Debra L. Schindler, Jean S. Aigner, William Fitzhugh, Hans Christian Gulløv, A. B.Harper, W. S. Laughlin, Robert J. Meier, Patrick Plumet, E. J. E. Szathmary, Charles J.Utermohle, Kenneth M. Weiss, William B. Workman and Stephen L. ZeguraSource: Current Anthropology, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Aug. - Oct., 1985), pp. 475-500.
  16. 16.0 16.1 16.2 "Aboriginal Ancestory, 2006 Census". 2010-05-19. Retrieved 2010-05-23. 
  17. Lizcano (2005), pg 218, Martinez-Torres (2008)
  18. 18.0 18.1 Lizcano (2005), pg 218, Martinez-Torres (2008)
  19. 19.0 19.1 19.2 "Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin, 2000 US Census (Page 3-4)" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-05-23. 
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 "Belize 2000 Housing and Population Census". Belize Central Statistical Office. 2000. Retrieved 2008-09-30. 
  21. 21.0 21.1 21.2 "CIA — The World Factbook — Costa Rica". Retrieved 2009-09-14. 
  22. 22.0 22.1 22.2 "El Salvador". CIA World Fact Book. 26 Apr 2010. Retrieved 9 May 2010.  External link in |publisher= (help)
  23. Guatemala entry at The World Factbook
  24. 24.0 24.1 24.2 Honduras entry at The World Factbook
  25. 25.0 25.1 25.2 Nicaragua entry at The World Factbook
  26. 26.0 26.1 26.2 Panama entry at The World Factbook
  27. Dominica entry at The World Factbook
  28. 28.0 28.1 28.2 Grenada entry at The World Factbook
  29. 29.0 29.1 29.2 Haiti entry at The World Factbook
  30. Puerto Rico entry at The World Factbook
  31. Bonilla et al., Ancestral proportions and their association with skin pigmentation and bone mineral density in Puerto Rican women from New York City. Hum Gen (2004) 115: 57-58, and Reconstructing the population history of Puerto Rico by means of mtDNA phylogeographic analysis, Martinez-Cruzado et al, Am J Phys Anthropol. 2005
  32. Suriname entry at The World Factbook
  33. "''Primeros Resultados de la Encuesta Complementaria de Pueblos Indígenas (ECPI)''" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-07-23. Retrieved 2010-05-23. 
  34. Argentina entry at The World Factbook
  35. 35.0 35.1 35.2 Bolivia entry at The World Factbook
  36. "População residente, por cor ou raça, segundo a situação do domicílio - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-05-23. 
  37. Chile entry at The World Factbook
  38. 38.0 38.1 38.2 Colombia entry at The World Factbook
  39. 39.0 39.1 39.2 Ecuador entry at The World Factbook
  40. Guyana entry at The World Factbook
  41. Paraguay entry at The World Factbook
  42. 42.0 42.1 42.2
  43. "CIA World Factbook: Suriname". CIA. Retrieved 23 Mar 2010. 
  44. 44.0 44.1 44.2 Uruguay entry at The World Factbook
  46. 46.0 46.1
  52. The Rise and Fall of the Paraguayan Republic, 1800-1870 by John Hoyt Williams [1]
  55. Were American Indians really Environmentalists?
  56. Amerindians Plot to Turn the Grand Canyon into a Gigantic Mall
  58. Weatherford, J. McIver (1988). Indian givers: how the Indians of the Americas transformed the world. New York: Fawcett Columbine. p. 133. ISBN 0-449-90496-2. 
  59. 59.0 59.1 Tooker E (1990). "The United States Constitution and the Iroquois League". In Clifton JA. The Invented Indian: cultural fictions and government policies. New Brunswick, N.J., U.S.A: Transaction Publishers. pp. 107–128. ISBN 1-56000-745-1. 


  • Angel. L. (1966). "Early skeletons from Tranquillity, California". Smithsonian Press. [3]
  • Birdsell, J. B. (1951). "The problem of the early peopling of the Americas viewed from Asia". In: The Physical Anthropology of the American Indian. New York: Viking Fund.
  • Hrdlicka, Ales. (1915). "The peopling of America". Journal of Heredity. 6. pp. 79-91.
  • Krantz, Grover. (1977). "The Populating of Western North America". Society for California Archaeology. [4]
  • Laughlin, W. S. (1963). "Eskimos and Aleuts: Their origins and evolution". Science. 142. pp. 633-45.
  • Laughlin, W. S. (1977). "Origins and Affinities of the First Americans". Current Anthropology. 18(3). pp. 526-528.
  • Laughlin, W. S. (1979a). "Problems in the Physical Anthropology of North American Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts". Arctic Anthropology. 16(1). pp. 165-177.
  • Laughlin, W. S. (1979b). The first Americans: Origins, affinities, and adaptations. New York: Gustav Fischer.
  • Levin, M. G. (1963). Ethnic origins of the peoples of northeastern Asia. Arctic Institute of North America, Anthropology of the North.
  • Meltzer, D. J. (1995). "Clocking the First Americans". Annual Review of Anthropology. 24. pp. 21-45.
  • Neumann, G. K. (1952). "Archaeology and Race in the Amerindian". In: Archaeology of Eastern United States. pp. 13-34. University of Chicago Press.
  • Oschinsky, L. (1964). The Most Ancient Eskimos. Ottawa: Canadian Research Centre for Anthropology.
  • Stewart, T. D. (1960). "A physical anthropologist's view of the peopling of the New World". Southwestern Journal of Anthropology. 16. pp. 259-73.
  • Stewart, T. D. (1974). The People of America. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Part of this article consists of modified text from Metapedia (which sadly became a Zionist shill), page Americans and/or Wikipedia (is liberal-bolshevistic), page Americans, and the article is therefore licensed under GFDL.