We humans are now 3,000 times more numerous than were our ancestral migratory Hunter-Gatherer clans/bands, who were the last iteration of Homo colossus to have lived in an ecologically balance, self-sustaining relationship with the rest of Mother Nature's creation. What could go wrong? Everything. Let's just call it what the indigenous world over called Her: GOD.
RE: "We humans are now 3,000 times more numerous than were our ancestral migratory Hunter-Gatherer clans/bands"
I feel it is worth highlighting that while there were certainly pre-statist animist place based cultures (indigenous) that primarily found sustenance through seasonal hunting and gathering of wild foods, there was also a range of ancient indigenous cultures that were forest gardeners, and they beneficially influenced forest ecology as their populations grew and they altered forest composition to include more long lived food bearing trees. This was the case here where I live in what is now called southern Ontario and given we know so much more now about regenerative soil science and mycology now (for stacking even more functions in the food forest) I see the potential for human beings to use their numbers as a beneficial force for enriching biodiversity on planet earth rather than diminishing it.
Much of the most verdant abundance, diversity, healing and dense old growth forests of Turtle Island (and other places) that European "explorers" encountered centuries ago were not (as they wrongly assumed) the result of the lack of human presence/influence, on the contrary, these were actively managed landscapes shaped by millions of humans living here centuries ago.
In other words, while it may not be a good idea to actively increase the population further, it is also true the great numbers of humans on the planet now could be a blessing if we used our hands for regenerative purposes and took responsibility for our role as stewards. That cannot happen with people sitting around in cities in their self-driving lithium powered e-cars, on their iphones buying stuff from amazon all day.
I also feel it is worth highlighting that not all ancient place based cultures established "ecologically balance, self-sustaining relationship with the rest of Mother Nature's creation". Some ancient cultures on Turtle Island (and elsewhere) took the path of the Roman Empire and chose to be exploitative, extractivist and authoritarian. They had to learn the hard way what happens when you destroy the ecosystems you depend on to survive.
For more info on a few examples of "civilization" and "empire" building "indigenous" cultures of pre-colonial Turtle Island, read the comment linked below:
Thanks, Gavin, for the dialog, a very important dialog indeed. However, I do not agree with your Humanistic optimism. H-G populations were/are (see Kung San) stable over great periods of time and their migratory lifestyles demanded limited reproduction. A woman/man can carry one child and may have to fight off predators as well. I suggest you do more reading on paleolithic lifeways and a fav of mine is “The Paleolithic Prescription” by Eaton, et al. a group of physicians/anthropologists who lived with the Kung !San in Namibia for long periods. Marjorie Shostack wrote of her experience in “Nisa” and “Return to Nisa”, who certainly was, like myself, an “animist” and returned to the San after developing cancer, as Nisa was so peaceful and reassuring in her relationship to nature. Southern Ontario is, in m y experience, a nightmare of human overpopulation and overconsumption, but I often visited the eastern shore of Lake Superior and that Provencial Park of 10,000 sq mi., as well as the wonderful spiritual painting by Ojibwa artists on Manitoulin Isl. and the Inuit carvings of the animals they live close to in nature. Forgive me for saying so, but you have a lot to learn, and ONLY Mother Nature can teach you the truth of our place in nature and how massively overpopulated we have become. Have a blessed day/evening.
In my opinion, we all have a lot to learn (as the process of scientific inquiry is not a pinnacle to stand upon, but rather a perpetual ascent on the mountain of understanding).
Anyone that feels they no longer have a lot to learn is (in my opinion) involved in a dogmatic religious belief system (and not scientific inquiry) as they have adopted the view that their current views are absolute and unassailable, and that they stand on the pinnacle of all knowing truth.
I appreciate your recommendations for books and look forward to hearing your thoughts on the books and thesis I linked and provided in a previous comment.
The names will inevitably be changed sometime in the future. As always. Nothing is static. Place names always change. However, rather than coming from a place of reactiveness, it would be more healing for the planet to focus on healing relationships between people and nations first. Then, whatever names that evolve will be coming from a peaceful base, and not a reactive, indignant, or angry space of creation.
Very sad history connection but I think the statute of limitations on what one man and his regime has done has expired somewhat.
Making this history known is a good idea. Fracturing society (as seen in your survey) for the continued enabling of easier control by globalists is not in out interest.
It is good that you had the survey but anything with less than 90% buy in is bad for society.
In South Africa there were name changes after apartheid ended, some were justified and others were gratuitous. There were rules to prevent gratuitous changes and they made sense. The problem always was when the sensible rules were flaunted and political mechanization FORCED name changes onto places. Quite recently call for submissions was made that I saw (having emigrated 10 years ago I don't usually see such activity) where a very popular large arterial road name was proposed to be changed to honour a Palestinian Freedom Fighter that had no connection with South Africa. This was a crude attempt to divide the country for political reasons and not to honour any local heroes.
The cost of your proposed name change is higher than you could imagine (It would affect EVERY county) and not worth the net zero PR results.
if i could ask the land itself what it would like to be called i would. I think that would take many years, however. Only a great shaman could do this.
G, change the name and the history goes away. Terror and slavery and profiteering off the sale of flesh need to forever be associated with Columbus and Vespucci's name. You would be doing the bidding of TPTSB in rewriting history for the winners, Not the losers. I M H O.
In particular, it's bugged me that we in the belly of the beast don't even have a name for ourselves. We are the default 'Americans' and everyone else on two continents needs to distinguish themselves from us. Otherwise are we United Statesians?
But my preference is that we start from small to name our own commonwealths, then move up from there in new configurations that are around the same size. That way we're not starting out with the legacies of conquest to determine what we are.
I don't like what Vespucci did, or Columbus in his treatment of the original inhabitants. But name changing is "virtue signaling." It say we're better and we wouldn't do that. In that time and place we might have.
Keep the name and work together with indigenous people. Here in Canada we often stoke tension between the races by institutionalizing past grievances, when we are free to work together now. We have a grievance industry between native and whites that has nothing to do with respect or love. And there's a race-hustler industry too, huge.
Thank you for this post. I was not aware of all the details of this horrible human being. Thanks for enlightening me. Absolutely if the Native Americans want to change the name then we should change the name. That would be a start. Same thing in South America I mean we’re not South Americans so we can’t make that decision for them, but perhaps they might want to consider it once they knew what country was founded on
I voted yes to all 3. I didn’t know where the word America came from & what was provided above is disgusting but not surprising. By changing the name we can start thinking of ourselves differently & maybe start making needed changes in our individual lives & society as a whole. Words have meaning & power, we should all be more mindful of this.
I voted "yes" because the brutal men who "discovered" the so-called Americas were horrible to the native Peoples here... VICIOUS. HORRIFIC. DESPICABLE. (Vespucci, Cortez, Columbus... et al)
So yes, it would be a good thing, I'd say. And I'd also say that perhaps we might poll some of the progeny of those Native Peoples, living today, and ask THEM what they might like the new name(s) to become...
"Turtle Island" is great, but... are we an "island," really?
I won't suggest any new names right now, I will think on it, but it does seem a good idea.
We humans are now 3,000 times more numerous than were our ancestral migratory Hunter-Gatherer clans/bands, who were the last iteration of Homo colossus to have lived in an ecologically balance, self-sustaining relationship with the rest of Mother Nature's creation. What could go wrong? Everything. Let's just call it what the indigenous world over called Her: GOD.
Thanks for the comment.
RE: "We humans are now 3,000 times more numerous than were our ancestral migratory Hunter-Gatherer clans/bands"
I feel it is worth highlighting that while there were certainly pre-statist animist place based cultures (indigenous) that primarily found sustenance through seasonal hunting and gathering of wild foods, there was also a range of ancient indigenous cultures that were forest gardeners, and they beneficially influenced forest ecology as their populations grew and they altered forest composition to include more long lived food bearing trees. This was the case here where I live in what is now called southern Ontario and given we know so much more now about regenerative soil science and mycology now (for stacking even more functions in the food forest) I see the potential for human beings to use their numbers as a beneficial force for enriching biodiversity on planet earth rather than diminishing it.
Much of the most verdant abundance, diversity, healing and dense old growth forests of Turtle Island (and other places) that European "explorers" encountered centuries ago were not (as they wrongly assumed) the result of the lack of human presence/influence, on the contrary, these were actively managed landscapes shaped by millions of humans living here centuries ago.
For details, I suggest reading books like 1491, The Dark Emu, The Dawn of Everything, The Largest Estate On Earth, Tending the Wild and dissertations such as Lyla June’s Architects of Abundance: Indigenous Regenerative Food and Land Management Systems and the Excavation of Hidden History ( https://www.proquest.com/openview/17597a179528716e1a9e8515ca76ec77/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y )
In other words, while it may not be a good idea to actively increase the population further, it is also true the great numbers of humans on the planet now could be a blessing if we used our hands for regenerative purposes and took responsibility for our role as stewards. That cannot happen with people sitting around in cities in their self-driving lithium powered e-cars, on their iphones buying stuff from amazon all day.
I also feel it is worth highlighting that not all ancient place based cultures established "ecologically balance, self-sustaining relationship with the rest of Mother Nature's creation". Some ancient cultures on Turtle Island (and elsewhere) took the path of the Roman Empire and chose to be exploitative, extractivist and authoritarian. They had to learn the hard way what happens when you destroy the ecosystems you depend on to survive.
For more info on a few examples of "civilization" and "empire" building "indigenous" cultures of pre-colonial Turtle Island, read the comment linked below:
https://collapsecurriculum.substack.com/p/forsaking-cahokia-five-lessons-from/comment/141813040
Thanks, Gavin, for the dialog, a very important dialog indeed. However, I do not agree with your Humanistic optimism. H-G populations were/are (see Kung San) stable over great periods of time and their migratory lifestyles demanded limited reproduction. A woman/man can carry one child and may have to fight off predators as well. I suggest you do more reading on paleolithic lifeways and a fav of mine is “The Paleolithic Prescription” by Eaton, et al. a group of physicians/anthropologists who lived with the Kung !San in Namibia for long periods. Marjorie Shostack wrote of her experience in “Nisa” and “Return to Nisa”, who certainly was, like myself, an “animist” and returned to the San after developing cancer, as Nisa was so peaceful and reassuring in her relationship to nature. Southern Ontario is, in m y experience, a nightmare of human overpopulation and overconsumption, but I often visited the eastern shore of Lake Superior and that Provencial Park of 10,000 sq mi., as well as the wonderful spiritual painting by Ojibwa artists on Manitoulin Isl. and the Inuit carvings of the animals they live close to in nature. Forgive me for saying so, but you have a lot to learn, and ONLY Mother Nature can teach you the truth of our place in nature and how massively overpopulated we have become. Have a blessed day/evening.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
In my opinion, we all have a lot to learn (as the process of scientific inquiry is not a pinnacle to stand upon, but rather a perpetual ascent on the mountain of understanding).
Anyone that feels they no longer have a lot to learn is (in my opinion) involved in a dogmatic religious belief system (and not scientific inquiry) as they have adopted the view that their current views are absolute and unassailable, and that they stand on the pinnacle of all knowing truth.
I appreciate your recommendations for books and look forward to hearing your thoughts on the books and thesis I linked and provided in a previous comment.
wow. deep roots. Thank you for shining a light on this.
Gerald Celeste calls the US Slavelandia.
The names will inevitably be changed sometime in the future. As always. Nothing is static. Place names always change. However, rather than coming from a place of reactiveness, it would be more healing for the planet to focus on healing relationships between people and nations first. Then, whatever names that evolve will be coming from a peaceful base, and not a reactive, indignant, or angry space of creation.
Very sad history connection but I think the statute of limitations on what one man and his regime has done has expired somewhat.
Making this history known is a good idea. Fracturing society (as seen in your survey) for the continued enabling of easier control by globalists is not in out interest.
It is good that you had the survey but anything with less than 90% buy in is bad for society.
In South Africa there were name changes after apartheid ended, some were justified and others were gratuitous. There were rules to prevent gratuitous changes and they made sense. The problem always was when the sensible rules were flaunted and political mechanization FORCED name changes onto places. Quite recently call for submissions was made that I saw (having emigrated 10 years ago I don't usually see such activity) where a very popular large arterial road name was proposed to be changed to honour a Palestinian Freedom Fighter that had no connection with South Africa. This was a crude attempt to divide the country for political reasons and not to honour any local heroes.
The cost of your proposed name change is higher than you could imagine (It would affect EVERY county) and not worth the net zero PR results.
if i could ask the land itself what it would like to be called i would. I think that would take many years, however. Only a great shaman could do this.
G, change the name and the history goes away. Terror and slavery and profiteering off the sale of flesh need to forever be associated with Columbus and Vespucci's name. You would be doing the bidding of TPTSB in rewriting history for the winners, Not the losers. I M H O.
I agree.
This is one of the reasons 'we know nothing'........because of 'name changes'.
In particular, it's bugged me that we in the belly of the beast don't even have a name for ourselves. We are the default 'Americans' and everyone else on two continents needs to distinguish themselves from us. Otherwise are we United Statesians?
But my preference is that we start from small to name our own commonwealths, then move up from there in new configurations that are around the same size. That way we're not starting out with the legacies of conquest to determine what we are.
I vote that we change the name to Smorth Asmerica.
I voted no across the board.
I don't like what Vespucci did, or Columbus in his treatment of the original inhabitants. But name changing is "virtue signaling." It say we're better and we wouldn't do that. In that time and place we might have.
Keep the name and work together with indigenous people. Here in Canada we often stoke tension between the races by institutionalizing past grievances, when we are free to work together now. We have a grievance industry between native and whites that has nothing to do with respect or love. And there's a race-hustler industry too, huge.
You make good points.
Now that we have destroyed most of the natural wonder we are going to recognize Native people? It's gone. They're gone. It's over.
there is a LOT still left here. take a drive across Montana.
Or New Mexico…or a few miles from where I live inhabited by some of the survivors of the Sullivan campaign. Look it up for the details.
Thank you for this post. I was not aware of all the details of this horrible human being. Thanks for enlightening me. Absolutely if the Native Americans want to change the name then we should change the name. That would be a start. Same thing in South America I mean we’re not South Americans so we can’t make that decision for them, but perhaps they might want to consider it once they knew what country was founded on
I voted yes to all 3. I didn’t know where the word America came from & what was provided above is disgusting but not surprising. By changing the name we can start thinking of ourselves differently & maybe start making needed changes in our individual lives & society as a whole. Words have meaning & power, we should all be more mindful of this.
I voted "yes" because the brutal men who "discovered" the so-called Americas were horrible to the native Peoples here... VICIOUS. HORRIFIC. DESPICABLE. (Vespucci, Cortez, Columbus... et al)
So yes, it would be a good thing, I'd say. And I'd also say that perhaps we might poll some of the progeny of those Native Peoples, living today, and ask THEM what they might like the new name(s) to become...
"Turtle Island" is great, but... are we an "island," really?
I won't suggest any new names right now, I will think on it, but it does seem a good idea.