Tuesday, April 27, 2021

CRITICAL RACE THEORY—BOGUS

HOW CRITICAL RACE THEORY DISCRIMINATES 

Reverse Discrimination Is Discrimination 

Last year Sept 7, 2020, the NY Times ran an opinion piece entitled: The Tax Cut for the Rich That Democrats Love,  by Richard V Reeves and Christopher Pullman.  the authors argued why the SALT tax recall was a mistake.  They underscored the fact that then candidate, Joe Biden claimed that he was “working for the workers....not the privileged few at the top”.  But yet he promised to repeal a SALT cap of $10,0000.  The authors  go on to explain why the repeal of the cap on those paying state and local taxes was a giveaway to the very rich.  Down in the middle of the article they claim that one of the “failures” of this proposed recall is that:  Almost 60% of the benefits will go to only 1 percent of households (of which 90% are white).”  


Where I come from, that statement  is an example of  blatant racism.  Pullman and  Reeves are arguing that one of the underlying reasons Congress should not repeal the SALT cap on income is that it will unfairly benefit a group of people—and their reason that this is “unfair”—in their biased thinking— Is based on that the benefits will accrue to a group defined only by race!!!   Thankfully our supreme Court and our Constitution as well as the laws  of this nation protect us all—black white and brown—against such forms of blatant  discrimination and from such arguments. But the First Amendment permits  the press to foster racist statements.  


Suppose we were to turn that ugly argument of Reeves and Pullman  around and state.that the white majority should  not support the laws which established “affirmative action”—because such legislation benefits only black people?  Or that we should not pay certain State  taxes such as “benefits to dependent children” because that law benefits mostly black kids!  


Does the New York Times really want us to go in that ugly direction of racial divide, reverse discrimination, social dysfunction and chaos? 


No one would even think of such an argument when I worked (briefly) in the N Y Times in the 1960s.  What has happened to the air and water in Times Square?  Has some insidious miasma of stupidity, racism and malice seeped into the bowels of the edifice of the once great Gray Lady?  


Where was the editor on this piece?  Does he or she really agree that one of the reasons we should NOT support the repeal of SALT (or any other policy) is the color of the skin of the recipient? Or is this kind of “yellow journalism” the result of Critical Race Theory?  (An “ahistorical” and  radical concept that claims that “racism” was the paradigm which guided our forefathers in giving birth to this nation—and not the passion for freedom from oppression and for economic and personal liberty.)   


The weak Democrat Party of today has embraced this decades old radical, reviled and rejected agenda called “Critical Race Theory” which the Party  and their propaganda arm in the media have all taken up.  But it fosters  a dangerous policy of racial division which tramples on the American ideal of fair play and justice and the goal of treating all people equally,  regardless of race or gender—and it actually embraces and fosters ugly discrimination.  


The Democrats,  a party which long ago abandoned the working classes, farmers and and the middle road, have been driven by political weakness  to cobble together a coalition of radicals, minorities and far left fringe elements, to enable  them to cling to political power, but by a very very slim thread.  One of their fears is that Black Americans who are a critical component of. their coalition must and vote in very high percentages for Democrats to succeed in any national election.  Too many voted otherwise in 2020.  Their fear is that this trend of a weak Black vote will dash future hopes of political success.  Thus they have opted for a dangerous strategy to anneal  these voters to their banner by fostering  the idea of America as a nation of “systematic racism” and to promote Critical Race Theory.  These policies  patronize, weakens and encourages the victimization of the Blacks of this nation, and unearths a reverse form of discrimination which makes victims of whites and asians, males and Christians. Such racist polices to garner political power on the left  can never succeed in the USA. 


The weak , fractious fringe-coalition of socialist extremists of the Democrat Party are  “led” by a frail, figurehead President who is easily controlled.  Biden,  a bumbling old man whose infamous physical inability to even climb the stairs of  Air Force One without stumbling  is a metaphor of his weakness and failure to meet the exigencies and requirements of the Oval Office.  This President,  controlled and  programmed by his racist handlers who whisper “Iago like” into Biden’s “hearing aid”and control. his utterances like  a Manchurian candidate — is a  puppet who  repeats the lie that this country is “systematically racist”.  


Those who smear our nation as “systematically racist” and embrace the rejected concepts of Critical Race theory or phony revisionist history such as the debunked “1619 Project” of the New York Times are the only and actual   “systemic racists” we have in this nation.    


The  American people have always embraced the gold standard of race relations-the colorblind rule and the policy of treating everyone equality. The rebirth of ugly racism on the left to patch up a weak political coalition by the Democrats is dangerous, counterproductive and as un-American as the use of the infamous “N” word itself. 

Saturday, April 24, 2021

ANDREW MILLER FOUNDER OF MILLER PLACE

 HISTORY OF MILLER PLACE

An Account of An Early Seeker of Economic Freedom  


Andrew Miller a 17th Century cooper (cask and barrel maker) left East Hampton,  a township, where land ownership  was restricted by a closed economy and where he was employed building barrels for the whale oil industry.  Miller sought his fortunes in free and unfettered Miller Place on Long Island Sound where he found economic freedom to ply his trade and make his fortune. His new location gave him access to the expanding economy,  across the Sound,  in the rapidly growing English colonies of Connecticut.  


Miller Place is a hamlet in north-central Suffolk County, New York, located just east of Mount Sinai Harbor, a navigable bay and tidal inlet on Long Island’s north shore.  


The first known dwelling in the area, was constructed by a shadowy, little known, Captain  John Scott.  In the 1660s  Scott, a British “land agent” was actually operating in what was Dutch territory. As a result,  he may have had to keep his identity and agency activities “sub rosa” or secret. Perhaps for that reason, he was known only as “the old man”.  The land sales activities of the  “old man” of  the eponymous  “Old Man’s” harbor remained an “under the table” affair until 1664. when the British took over all of Long Island.  Perhaps it was through the agency of Captain Scott that Andrew Miller eventually purchased his 30 acre tract in Old Mans in 1670 or 1671. 


The Harbor is a shallow, marshy bay, separated from Long Island Sound by a bay-mouth-bar, a sandy spit of land originally arising on the west side and which partially closed the small, half-square-mile-in-area bay from the waters of Long Island Sound.  


In its early years, the eastern  inlet permitted coastal vessels access from the Sound.  A navigable channel into the interior permitted small boats to enter most of the bay, especially on flood tides.  The Harbor, with its potential for maritime travel and trade must have been an attractive asset to Andrew Miller who may have planned to exploit the surrounding area for its forest products.  The Harbor itself was an asset to other settlers for  its shallows teeming with shellfish, its salt meadows which provided cattle fodder and bedding, its salt hay was valuable roof thatching and its access to the deep waters of the Sound permitted use of trade routes to Connecticut, and other English colonies on the coast. 


Although there may have been several houses on or near the harbor at Old Man’s (Mount Sinai) legal title of these lands in central Long Island was not secure.  Prior to 1664 the Dutch,  barely 80 miles to the west in New Amsterdam (later New York) claimed this part of Long Island.  While the English colonists of Connecticut, had made inroads onto that claim in the 1620s by establishing colonies on the extreme east ends of the Island, in Southampton and East Hampton, the central part of the Island was too close to Dutch settlements on the Island’s west end to attract settlers. These vacant central Long Island territories  of rich woodlands and potential farm lands remained unsettled and unclaimed due to fear of  potential legal disputes, outright eviction,  and uncertain ownership. And without a prospect for a secure title to the land,  investors and settlers were hesitant to immigrate or invest.  


However, all these concerns  ended abruptly when an English squadron under Colonel Richard Nicholls sailed into New Amsterdam Harbor in 1664 and took that colony from the Dutch governor. Nichols renamed the colony “New York”. That event spurred an early L.I. land boom,  in the formerly disputed and vacant central parts of Long Island.  


These events did not go unnoticed in the minds of more recent immigrants in East Hampton.  That colony, settled in 1640 by a Puritan band of investors or “proprietors” from Lynn, or Salem Massachusetts , comprised a colony which occupied much of the extreme eastern half of the South Fork, as well as Gardiner's Island.


These early colonists were not simple subsistence farmers, but like many immigrants —they were entrepreneurs— eager to exploit the resources of the new world and improve their economic status. And once achieved, perhaps they would return to the mother country as an affluent former colonial.  In East Hampton  the “proprietors” were in fact invested in an early form  of “corporation”, in which each member owned shares in the enterprise.  Their formal contract or agreement provided all original investors and shareholders  a modest land plot in the center of town, where they built their homes, but they also owned “shares” in all of the rest of the township’s acreage, which was designated as “commons”. These commons were owned jointly  by all the original “proprietors” and were available to the shareholders to graze their  cattle, and to exploit the woodlands for their fuel and timber needs. 


 As a consequence of this system, the growth of the colony was limited by the closed nature of land ownership and restricted access to the commons.  


In this early East Hampton which was in one economic sense a form of “feudal manor” there was little opportunity for new families seeking their fortunes to expand and prosper.  


As the Town grew, the apparent weaknes of this  closed form of economy became apparent.  For soon the desperate need arose in the Town for essential artisans, craftsmen, and professionals,  such as blacksmiths, coopers, apothecaries, physicians and others, but the closed economy limited immigration of these craftsmen and professionals. To remedy this problem and assure the Town’s survival,  the proprietors were forced to offer  “allotments” of several acres each to those whose services were needed,  such as a blacksmith, carpenter, farm worker, cooper, shipwright or other craftsman. 


The offer required them to work in the township, and provide their services to the town for a contracted  period of years, at the end of which the allottee  would then own the small plot of land offered to him or her.  But this ownership was limited to the formal allotment. For these individuals opportunities for expansion or entrepreneurship was strictly limited. 


It was into this Puritan dominated, closed economy that the Miller family migrated  in mid 17th Century.  The first member of that family, John Miller,  probably originally from Sussex in England, settled first in Lynn or Salem, Massachusetts.  But Miller found opportunities for economic advantages there limited. So seeking “fresh pastures” he moved on with his family to Southampton in 1643,  and then finding similar restrictions continued on to East Hampton, where he arrived about 1649.  


A year earlier in 1648, the East Hampton proprietors had purchased additional acreage to the east of Town from the Montauk Indians, giving them vast new meadows for grazing their cattle.  It may have been on part of this new purchase that the recent immigrant Miller family settled. after applying for and gaining an allotment from the Town proprietors. 


John’s occupation is not stated, but he may have been a farmer.  His son Andrew Miller, who was born in 1634, probably in Lynn Massachusetts, arrived in East Hampton in 1649 with his father,  and brothers, John, and George.   


With these new east-end lands the East Hampton proprietors were able to expand one of their main enterprises and sources of income: the raising of cattle, sheep and beef on the grazing lands of the township for profitable sale to other English colonies.  The Miller family may have been employed in this town enterprise. 


And  just as importantly, to the proprietors’ income was the new stretches of beach which were part of their new acquisition which extended to Montauk Point in the east. Along these beaches they could increase the exploitation of the pods of migrating Right Whales passing just offshore.  Catching and killing whales for their valuable whale oil (and an even more rare and valuable fluid known as spermaceti) was the town’s main and hugely profitable commercial enterprise.


  The Miller family were permitted allotments by the proprietors becaue they had skills needed by the town for these enterprises. In time the Millers were  to eventually become involved in both of these profitable town enterprises. 


Whales —Right Whales, (Eubalena glacialis)—were common visitors to Long Island waters in the !7th Century, as they migrated along the Atlantic Coast seasonally.   Stranded whales or beached whales were also regular  occurrences along the sandy shores of the South Fork, and initiated the process of hunting the slow swimming beasts in small boats launched from the beach.  In earlier days these strandings even provided a large portion of the food of the Montauk Indians. (The choice portions were the fins and tails of the giant mammals).


The distinctive “V” shaped spouts of these huge fifty-ton,  slow swimming creatures were spotted by (often young) whale watchers on the south shore beaches of East Hampton who would alert their elders at home often by lighting a smokey signal fire.  Small boats were launched from the beach to row up close to the slowly swimming fifty foot long whales.  The whales were harpooned and then killed just offshore.  The floating carcasses were then towed back to the beach, where the body was cut up. The skin, with the valuable blubber which comprised about 40% of the animal’s weight was cut into blocks and rendered into oil by firing in huge vats.  The oil—used as a lubricant—but most importantly for oil lamps—was stored and  transported for sale in 42 gallon wooden barrels.   


Exploiting migrating Right Whales for oil along the south shore beaches, and the production and sale of beef cattle on the east-end meadows and grasslands were the two most important sources of income for the East Hampton proprietors and their most protected and favored enterprises.  


It was into this economic and social environment that Andrew Miller arrived in East Hampton in 1649  as a 15 year old youngster.  


As a young boy, he must have been apprenticed to the town cooper, where after serving a seven year apprenticeship  he would have mastered the essentials of the  craft and  the intricacies of the trade of making casks, buckets, barrels and “pipes” of oak wood.  In 1656 after completing his apprenticeship,  and at the age of 22 years, he was then a journeyman cooper,  and would have been able to leave his master and start a business  of his own. 


In the 17th and 18th Centuries being a cooper insured one of a well paying job and financial security. Coopers were the 16th century equivalent of  “engineers”, or “web developers”,  of the 21 century.  In those early times, wood was used as we use plastic and cardboard today.  The cooper made the casks in which  all products were preserved, stored, or sold.  Every house had its well-water bucket, its milk pails and water troughs, its butter churns, and barrels to store preserved salted meat, barrels for dry storage,  for flour,  seeds, etcetera, etcetera. 


Barrels (42 gallon capacity) and larger containers called “pipes’ (126 gallons) were in great demand as the essential container of almost all trade.  Whale oil, salted meats, fish, shellfish, grains, flour, gunpowder, etc.,  were all stored and shipped in barrels. While wine and beer were brewed and shipped in barrels too.  


Great numbers of these casks were needed for the whale oil industry.  A cooper was THE essential craft in a  time when practically the entire economy rested on exploiting local products, packing them in wood barrels and casks and then shipping them off to other colonies or overseas to the mother county.  As a result, a cooper was guaranteed a high demand for his labor, respect for his craft, and a substantial and stable income.  


In the 17th and 18th centuries an age of extensive maritime trade all carried out in wooden sailing ships, each ship’s hold was filled with products stored in wood casks.  With this great demand for wood  forest products to build the ships and the casks were in great demand.  


Wood was the “petroleum” of those centuries.  It was the main fuel of that age. And like the plastics of today was a building material too. Oak was  needed for the frames and ribs of ships, pine and cedar for their hulls. Oak and hickory were the materials that the cooper used for his craft, especially the white oak wood for the staves and barrel “heads”, and the hickory wood for  the barrel hoops. These wood species were consequently in great demand.  

 

The British, as islanders, became a powerful maritime economy early in their history.  The need for ships and barrels for that economy put great demand on their native forests.  The great oak trees of that well wooded island were cut down early on for fuel, for the pottery and iron smelting industry, and for shipbuilding, and even more wood was needed for the barrels in which the products and supplies the British produced.  


By the 15th Century most of British forests had been cleared.  Britain, needed a secure source of wood for domestic fuel, for ship building and for the barrels in which all of its products were shipped.  

In the 16th and early 17th centuries that nation had to turn to the Baltic states (Latvia, Estonia)  for the oak lumber it so desperately needed. But these nations were poor and could not buy British agricultural or manufactured products. Thus a “balance of trade” problem developed, whereby the British began to run a dreaded “trade deficit” with the Baltic states. This required the government  to  continually pay cash for their desperately needed forest products. In those days cash was the gold bullion held in the Royal mint.  These withdrawals removed visible  “wealth” from the nation and transferred it to the Baltic states.  Such circumstances were a very much undesirable drain on the royal treasury.  This economic situation and high demand  for forest products may have contributed in large measure to what happened far across the Atlantic in the latter 17th Century. 


In 1664 a British squadron under the command of Colonel Richard Nicholls entered New York Harbor (then known as New Amsterdam).  The British took over the Dutch colony without firing a shot.  The acquisition of all of New England from the Dutch in 1664, changed the economic situation for England.  For by taking of New Amsterdam from the Dutch they opened up the vast forests of New York and New England to the British, and their wood-starved shipping industry. 


New England’s pristine forests were the answer to the desperate need for tall spruce and pine trees for the ships’ masts and pine and cedar wood for hulls and oak for the frames of British ships.  But as important, the vast oak forests also provided for the many many  more white and red oak wood trees needed for the innumerable barrels required  to store and ship British  products and fill the holds of British ships.   


After 1664 these resources in New York were all there for the taking by enterprising and ambitious colonials.  And many British colonists already situated in New England and on Long Island were well prepared and placed to take advantage of this opportunity.  We will see that one of these entrepreneurs was Andrew Miller. 


By 1656 East Hampton Town records state that “John Miller, Andrew Miller and George Miller are added to our combination.”  The “combination” was an early association of town residents—often ones who had been allotted parcels within the town.  Andrew who had arrived in the town as a 15 year old youngster, and had served out a seven year apprentice as a cooper,  was at this time, a man of twenty-two years and an established journeyman cooper. It was at this young age and time that he becomes a member of the “combination” in the Town of East Hampton.


Eight years, later in 1664, Town records indicate that Andrew Miller had apparently been living for much of the preceding years on Gardiners Island, located about ten miles northeast of East Hampton town in Gardiners Bay.  There  Andrew was presumably employed at his trade as barrel maker.  At that time Gardiners Island was a semi-independent colony of East Hampton owned and controlled by the Gardiner family, as East Hampton was owned by the “proprietors”. 


 In that year (1664) Andrew  sold his allotment house on Gardiners Island and land to one Jeremiah Conkling and departed the Island.  Andrew, was then 30 years of age, was married to Margaret (—no surname known-) and the records tell us the couple had three children: Andrew, John and Samuel. 


It is unclear where Miller moved his family after leaving Gardiners Island. Perhaps he joined his brother John in Two Mile Hollow in East Hampton. 


John Miller (Andrew’s brother) was a farmer and whaler who lived in east Hampton. close to the  south shore beach, on Two Mile Harbor Road,  just about one mile and a quarter southeast of East Hampton village.  John, was active as a whaler, and probably operated a town sponsored whaling enterprise with the proprietors as major stock owners,  and with their approval. This whaling enterprise was operated from his sea shore property on Two Mile Hollow Road.  It is possible that it was here that Andrew plied his trade of barrel maker,  providing casks for his brother’s (and the 

Town’s) whale oil enterprise. 


Perhaps  the partnership (?) and business (?) flourished.  For four years later, in 1668 the town proprietors allotted Andrew Miller eight (8) acres of woodland next to his brother John’s property on Two Mile Hollow Road.  The allotment agreement with the proprietors stipulated that Andrew would make whale oil casks “for the town use”, but he had to live in East Hampton for three years before the land was his to sell.  


We can assume that Andrew continued his probably well paying, but hard manual labor of building casks for the Town and the whalers until 1671 when he finally owned his allotted acres.  


He was then 37 years of age. He was a successful craftsman.  He had a wife and family. It was a time in life when many see an opportunity and realize that rather than continue to work for others, it is their time to make an opportunity for themselves a reality.  


Miller must have envisioned his economic  opportunity to be in far off Miller Place, then an unsettled land in the wilderness of the north shore of Long Island.  


For at the first opportunity he had for selling his property on Two Mile Hollow Road, he did so.  He left the Puritan sect and the closed economy of the  “proprietors”dominated Town of East Hampton and its economic restrictions on ownership. He chose freedom, entrepreneurship and growth and moved his business and family to far off Miller Place. 


There with his savings and the cash from the sale of his Two Mile Hollow eight acres, he purchased a thirty acre parcel of woodland in “Old Mans”.  But why?


Miller Place did not exist, there was no settlement, no colonists.  It  was vacant woodland with no established customers and no need for whale oil barrels, no settlers in great need of a highly valued, highly paid master cooper.  Miller could have gone anywhere to ply his trade, but he chose heavily wooded, isolated  Miller Place, where huge white oak trees and ancient hickory grew in primeval profusion. 


And as well as this profusion of forest  products, Old Mans was close to a small but navigable harbor which debouched onto Long Island Sound, only twenty four miles (or a four hour sail) across,  to the English colony of New Haven, at that time with a population of about 12,000 citizens.  From there too he had maritime access to all the English colonies..even New York 


  Andrew Miller like his forebears was an entrepreneur who seems to have sought economic freedom and opportunity unfettered by the established religious sect and the closed economy he had experienced in East Hampton.  He sought advancement that was denied him in East Hampton. 


I suggest here that  Miller was attracted to the small north shore harbor of Old Mans because he had a vision of exploiting  the Miller Place forests to cut and prepare  especially valuable four foot white oak wood staves —for barrels called “pipes’ —the larger barrels—which were in great demand in the British colonies of the Barbados and elsewhere in the Caribbean.  


In the British Caribbean colonies  where molasses was produced from sugar cane, oak wood for barrels was scarce.  British colonies needed oak barrels to store, process and ship this product to the rum distillers in New England.  The barrel staves, heads and hoops were sold and shipped in the “broken down” stage. When needed, the staves and barrel heads were put together to form the cask  to be filled. 


Miller may have envisioned an enterprise in which he simply produced barrel staves and their parts, packed them for sale and transit and sold these to various agents in the British colonies. And perhaps too the new rum distilleries and manufacturers which had a burgeoning trade in New England colonies.    


It is very likely that on a warm late spring day in 1671 Andrew Miller and his family, his dogs, livestock, his tools and household, simply boarded a small coastal sailing vessel in Springs or Devon in East Hampton and sailed north through Gardiners Bay, around Orient Point, through the “gut” and there set a course following the curve of the Island’s North Shore bluff to the west 


A southwest sea breeze billowed the ships  oak-tanned sails as they proceeded west southwest along the North Shore of Long Island.  They continued on this course following the steep yellow sand bluffs, topped with greening  forests which here and there extended down to the shore.  A pod of bottle-nosed dolphins, played at the bow of the ship and sea birds flashed white and gray against the deep blue sky. 


Sailing closer to shore. they navigated among clusters of huge boulders washed by the salty waves and draped in sea weed,  where drowsy gray seals stared at them as they passed. 


Finally, a strip of sandy beach and a break in the bluffs signaled they were close to their destination, what was then known as Old Mans harbor.   


Changing course and lowering sail, they proceeded ahead under reduced sail and with the aide of the flood tide glided through a narrow sand choked inlet to enter the small marshy harbor.  The tall mast and fluttering sails  flushed up several pair of geese and ducks as the ship worked its way though a narrow marsh-lined channel where an otter breached to the surface, then 

dived below the hull.  


Ahead, they came to a small sand delta where a fresh water stream entered the Harbor. They nosed the shallow draft boat into the soft fine sand.  Andrew jumped off and taking the bow line tied the craft to a tree stump above the sand bank.   


“This is the place,” Andrew  called to his family.  He  up the sandy bank and looking inland.


The stream flowed along a glacial drainage channel, marked with a faint foot trail and now known as Pipe Stave Hollow.  Here the family loaded their possessions on an ox cart and following a faint foot trail that paralleled the course of the stream bed, they continued southwestward  along what would later become Pipe Stave Hollow Road. 


 It was here perhaps that Miller took note of the profusion of mature white, black and scarlet oaks growing on the slopes of the glacial hills. It was from these trees he could cut and fashion the valuable  “pipe staves” he planned to sell.


 A half mile upstream, the Millers turned left, East onto a faint ox cart track that followed  the rising course of a dry tributary-stream bed which continued inland for about one mile to a wooded, level upland. 


Here among huge oak and sycamores trees they came to an opening where a small pond surrounded with cypress and tupelo sparkled in the sunlight.  A doe deer it’s muzzle dripping water into the still pond surface stared at them as they approached. then bounded off.  


It was here where their 30 acre parcel was laid out. Miller let his oxen and cattle drink at the pond’s edge,  as he unloaded his wagon.   


Miller’s original 30 acre tract may have been laid out from a “big rock” located at the east edge of the pond, then extending 400 feet west,  along the cart path to be later designated as North Country Road, then south for 3000 feet,  and then east for 400 feet (where it would in later years meet the extension of North Country Road), and thence north 3000 feet to the point of starting at the big rock at the northeast corner of the pond. 


This is a likely discription of the boundaries of the original Miller 30 acre tract,  based only on the size and the most likely landmarks that may have been used at that time. I base this clearly conjectural account on my interviews with early farmers ( J. Davis) in Miller Place and Mount Sinai in which he explained how he and his  ancestors determined their own lot boundaries or marked off parcels of land for sale.  All of which was completed not by formal surveys but by pacing along known boundaries or roads from prominent landmarks. 


In choosing his homesite Miller must have recognized the advantages of a parcel which afforded the owner access to water for his horses and cattle and the possibility of digging a well for domestic water close to the home site.  


The original site of the Miller home must have been very close to the present day MillerPlace Pond. Here Miller would have had access to pond water for his stock.  and with a water table close to the surface, this site also  permitted one to easily dig a shallow but free flowing permanent well.  These attributes of the geology of  this place were a critical attraction encouraging  its settlement. And all subsequent  early settlers took advantage of the pond and the shallow (perched) water table to site their homes. 


The result was eventually a small hamlet with homes clustered over a subterranean aquitard (a layer of clay or sediment of low permeability which impedes the downward flow of surface water ) and which produced this unique access to fresh water. This unique geology was a distinct advantage along the North Shore where the permanent water table is often one hundred or more feet deep.  Too deep for a hand dug well.  But not the case in Miller Place where permanent flow of potable water was often less than ten or twelve feet down  


It is not known where Miller’s original house was located, but Mrs Margaret Gass (nee Davis) the venerable dean of town historians indicated to this author that she considered the house located just west of the pond, (#187 North Country Road) to be the likely candidate.  But she cautioned that the two elderly brothers who owned that house near the pond over much of  her early childhood had so altered the structure that she thought there would be little evidence of it early history.  (Pers comm. @1995)  


Wherever Miller’s original home was located in the hamlet,  (and it was likely closer to the pond) he must have practiced his trade of cooper.  We have no record of Miller making major sales of pipes or barrels to other British colonies. But it remains a possibility.  


Perhaps with the rapid immigration of settlers and growth of Miller Place, Andrew Miller’s business stayed local where he had more than enough work making casks, “pipes”, hogs heads, water buckets, butter churns,  and barrels of wood—and selling them to local homesteaders, fishermen, baymen and others who used them to store and preserve their products of their trade or business .  


The local road  Pipestave Hollow Road,  may have been named by Miller himself as a place to secure, along its wooded slopes,  the red oak or white oak logs he needed to produce the barrel and pipe staves necessary for his trade.   Of particular value were the staves for pipes which had to be over four feet long.  Raw cut and trimmed pipe staves were one of the earliest exports to England from its New York  colonies.  The longer red or white oak wood for pipes was scarce in England and Miller may have when the opportunity arose exploited the virgin woodlands in Miller Place for this valuable product.  


In only a few decades the Miller family had grown and prospered.   Its members soon owned several houses in the hamlet.  Other settlers arrived and purchased plots close to the pond and within the zone where they could dig a shallow well for potable water.  


This author excavated the site of a 19th century blacksmith located just north of the pond.  


The small community was known as “Miller’s Place”, where at the Miller cooperage settlers  could buy either finished casks or the parts to make, pipes and barrels to store or pack for trade their products.  


Among the several Miller homes in Town are the William Miller House,  still standing today, built by Miller’s grandson William Miller in 1720, and added on to over the decades until about 1816.    The Samuel Hopkins House on Pipe Stave Hollow Road near the Harbor was built in 1770, and the lovely Timothy Miller House right on North country Road in the heart of the hamlet was built in 1785.   


The large house across from the pond owned by the Davis/Gass family was once the home of the Mayor of New York City Caleb Smith Woodhull (1792-1866) who served as mayor of the New York City from 1849-1851.  


Saturday, April 17, 2021

RUSSIA’S SPUTNIK V VACCINE, TOP OF LINE

 RussIa has recently  been attacked by the Biden administration which claimed  it interfered with the 2016-2020 elections.  What nonsense! I suspect the US has to have some boogeyman to attack simply to make our fragile, over the hill President seem to have a pulse.  But the real troublemaker, threat and villain is communist China (the nation which really did interfere in our elections—recall Covid 19?).  But the the “Big Guy” and the Biden clan is heavily invested in China, but  —just as sinister—too many our own US companies are so obsessed with the 1.4 billion-person Chinese  market they focus on nothing else—even policies that threaten our nation.   So the Biden handlers direct  “Grandpa Joe” to shake his cane at Russia only.    

So I was happy to learn that when it comes to technology, the Russians are still at the top of the class.

A piece in the UK’s premiere economic journal :The Economist” just published a story on the efficacy of the vaccines on the market today: entitled: “In clinical and real world China’s Sinovac underperforms. ”  The magazine reports that the phase three trials in Brazil on health care workers, show very disappointing effecacy  results for China  — (only 51% ).  This for an aspiring world leader—one which secretly has plans to take over the world both economically and technologically..  In an earlier “real world”  trial (on the general population) its effectiveness dropped even lower—to only 35%!!!  That is below WHO standards—but don't expect the WHO to call them out on this, just yet,.  That organization is under the Chinese thumb  very much like our greedy US companies. 

But the Phase three trial results in Brazil were good for Pfizer, Moderna and Sputnik V  which were up at 96%, 94% and 92% respectively.  Novavax had a very poor trial in South African,  and a much better British trial (49% in SA and 89% in UK) but remains in the questionable range.   Astrzeneka results were reported in thevlow 80% range , while Johnson and Johnson  was in in the high 60%.    These latter vaccines have also reported other troubling side effects not experienced in the top three   

I know August of 2020–I do recall the response by our (no longer to be believed) press when Sputnik V —the first one out on the market.(in August of 2010!!) ,  Our politicized media were very dismissive of the Russian effort.  Comments  such as: “You can’t believe Russia.” “Putin lies”, “No one could trust Russian science”, etc. etc.   But here they Russians are with one of the top efficacy rates.  (The premiere journal of medicine The Lancet also  published the results on Sputnik V in February,  asserting it was 92% effective against symptoms of Covid.  and was one of the top performers)  zBut our own press remains silent on these results   

But that is not all.  Sputnik V, uses a common adenovirus as the carrier for the messenger RNA (mRNA)which then enters the cells to produce the antibodies for the Covid spike protein. Thus  unlike Pfizer’s vaccine, it does not have to be kept at extraordinarily cold temperatures  before use.  Like Pfizer it is a two jab process, 21 days apart. But unlike Pfizer,  the two injections are different! The first and second injections use different  adenovirus carriers. This is to insure that the the patient does not develop and immune response to the carrier virus, which would then destroy it on the second injection.  So in this way its two  shot process improves its efficacy, but by using two two different carriers it prevents the problems of the host developing immunity, possible in the other vaccines. 

So the Russian vaccine has some very positive things to say about it in this world battle against the Covid plague.   It is very effective, avoids immunity problems for the carrier, it does not require very special equipment to keep it super cold, and it is a lot less expensive than the others. 

It will probably be used extensively in more rural , less advanced countries where the infrastructure is not adequate for the Pfizer vaccine. 

We should all be standing together in our battle against this world wide plague   Too bad the Democrats only see the plague as just another means of advancing their self serving domestic policies  

Kudos to Russia!!

Sputnik was another Russia first  First 1958 artificial earth satellite !!







Tuesday, April 13, 2021

PREHISTORIC BIG GAME HUNTERS HAD A GOOD LIFE

 WHERE’S THE MEAT? 


ANCIENT BIG GAME HUNTERS—“THE LIFE OF RILEY” vs “THE DELIGHTFUL LIFE”


PREHISTORIC HUNTERS HAD A GOOD LIFE


Hunter-gatherers have been with us for most of human history, and their life styles have been badly mischaracterized.  Their lives were not brutish and difficult, but may have been the original “Life of Riley”,  or as one anthropologist claimed—they were the: “original affluent society”.  Rather than scraping out a bare existence until they became  “smart enough to settle down” to take up growing maize or corn, hunter gatherers appear to have had a healtful, easy life with plenty of leisure.  When their own populations were low—game was abundant and they lived the Life of Riley.  When examined, the life of hunter gatherers, (and specifically the big game hunter, such as the mounted buffalo hunters of the Great Plains of North America) was characterized as one with a low work load, abundant and highly nutritious food, low incidence of disease, little conflict, gender and age equality, and groups which utilized sharing, and lived in small —probably family related —groups.


Hunter gatherers did not abandon their life style easily. It is likely that as human populations increased, competition sharpened for space and game animals.  Pressures on herds of game drove populations to decline.  Hunters were less successful and were forced by the threat of food scarcity to settle in one location and exploit a wider range of food sources to sustain their lives.  This new settled life style required more work and produced fewer nutritious foods. 


AN ANALYSIS :


A band of ancient hunter gatherers of about twenty, closely related individuals, send out a group of five (5) males to hunt. The  five hunters  spend one day stalking. killing and butchering a 

2000 pound buffalo (Bison bison).  Each hunter has expended about 2500 calories in the effort. (2500 x 5 = 12,500)  Thus the sub group of 5 hunters expended 12,500 calories.


A pound of raw American Buffalo or Bison (Bison bison) meat produces almost 500 calories (or 496 cal),  68 grams of protein, and 34 grams of fat. It provides nearly 300% of vitamin B12 and high levels of niacin, as well a high levels of minerals, zinc, selenium, and iron. Bison meat has a rich nutrient profile and is an excellent food source. One could live on it without eating anything else.  


The carcass of a bull, Great Plains Buffalo on the hoof may reach 6.5 feet at the shoulders, are nearly ten feet long and weigh on average about  2000 pounds.  (Cows are somewhat shorter at the shoulders and weigh less, about 700 -800 pounds.) 


If we ignore the skin, offal, organ meats, brain, subcutaneous fat, and intestinal fat, (all high in energy and all generally consumed by hunter gatherers) a Buffalo kill—minus the latter parts— could provide between 400-500 pounds of boneless edible meat.  Hunter gatherers ate almost all of the carcass except bones and skin. They also consumed the fatty, nutritious marrow in the bones. Thus the following figures are a only minimum assessment.    The calories from the offal, organ mets, brain, etc. may constitute another 50 to 100 pounds of high calorie fats and other tissues, which we ignore here.  The food energy or calories (excluding  the above parts of the carcass) from the muscle meat alone of one kill could provide (400 lbs x 496 calories/ lb. = 196,400 calories) or at least  200,000 calories of food energy per kill.  


Thus our analysis indicated that the 5 man-hunter band expended 12,500 calories to access 200,000 calories of food energy. Or they invested 12,500 calories to  generate 200,000 calories,  or increased their investment in effort  (200,000/ 12,500 = 16) sixteen (16)times.   That can be stated as a 16 fold increase on their investment of labor


If we accept a 2000 calories per day/per person caloric intake for an average person, and one Buffalo kill provides (200,000 calories per kill / 2000 calories per day = 100 days of survival per person, or one kill could provide adequate food energy for 100 people for one day, or five (5) days for a band of twenty people.    


A band of 20 hunter gatherers (20 people x 2000 cal/day = 40,000 total calories/ day per band; 200,000 calories for one buffalo/40,000 calories = 5 days) or a band of twenty (20) could live off one buffalo kill for at least five days.  The analysis indicates that one buffalo  kill would result in an adequate food supply for five days. Result = five days of leisure for a band of 20 hunters expending effort for only one kill. 


This simplification of caloric intake makes it clear what was attractive about hunting as a strategy for survival.  Hunting for ones food, requires little effort, is efficient in terms of energy input relative to return, and produces results in a highly nutritious diet. 


HOW DOES ANCIENT AGRICULTURE COMPARE?


In first Century AD Rome   a North African (Morocco) family of six people needed to cultivate 3 hectares (7.4 acres) of land by hand  to meet minimal caloric intake food requirements ( See: Agriculture in Ancient RomeWikipedia, DL 4-11-21 ). I interpret this to mean that to generate the roughly  (6 x 2000 = 12,000 calories) twelve thousand (12,000 ) calories per day (or 4.4 million calories per year) for a family of six,  the adults —here we assume there are three (3) —had to devote at least six months of their daily labor  to produce the yearly supply of grain.  Thus,  3 x 2000 cal/day = 6,000 x 365.25/2= 1.1 million calories or an investment of 1 million calories to produce 4 million.   That is a four fold increase in investment of labor.   Compare with the 16 fold increase in input for big game hunters noted above. 


The big game hunter’s return on investment was a least four times,or four hundred percent, (400%) greater than the return gained from agriculture


Even today in modern day France with modern labor saving machinery, it takes 25 hours of human labor to produce one bushel (60 pounds) of wheat.  Converting that to calories we assume 25 hours = @2 two days (2 x 2000 cal per day = 4,000) 4000 calories to produce one bushel (60 lbs) or @ 65,000 wheat calories. Thus four thousand (4000} human calories (plus untold oil or electric sources of energy) produces @ 65,000 calories of food energy.   That is a 1 to 16 ratio or a 16 fold increase of human effort for return.  


Thus in some places in the world today, even with oil fired machinery, farming continues to be a labor intensive life style with  caloric investment no better than that of the prehistoric big game hunter. Though it should be noted here that whilst  buffalo meat is a perfect complete food, —wheat (Triticum ) —even whole wheat is not a complete food . A farmer would need to supplement wheat bread with other sources for a complete diet. 


This analysis of the labor of farming tends to undermine the popular notion of farming as a more “advanced”. or desirable  food strategy.  Perhaps such judgements or biased  ideas are very ancient for these concepts on agriculture were promoted long ago by Roman Republic author, Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE to 43 BCE) who considered farming the “delightful life”.  Cicero  states in his treatise “On Duties”  that “of all the pursuits in which gain is secured, none is better than agriculture, none is more profitable.... and none more becoming to a free man.”  


Cicero of course knew only the life of the gentleman farmer and nothing much of the efforts of the North African man and woman  (above) who toiled ceaselessly in the hot sun, digging, planting and harvesting on their 3 hectare plot to provide food for a family.  He also knew nothing at all of the big game hunters of the past such as the Neanderthals , or of the mounted buffalo hunters of the Great Plains of the New World.  The latter are a unique example of how settled farmers abandoned the “advanced” food strategy of agriculture to become mounted big game hunters. 


PLAINS INDIANS  ABANDON FARMING FOR BIG GAME HUNTING

It is interesting to note that farming demanded so much hard labor that many early Amerindian tribes of the Great Plains, who had “settled” down to an agricultural life  actually abandoned that life for the big game hunter when the opportunity arose.

 

By about 700 CE, the Great Plains tribes which then occupied a vast swath of North America east of the Rocky Mountains from Mexico to western Canada, had adopted a settled life style. They lived in large villages located along river courses where they  grew corn (maize),  squash and beans, crops that were adopted from Mesoamerican  sources.  

These foods were  supplemented with hunting small game, deer, antelope, and the occasional  and desirable huge buffalo of the Plains.  


For these tribes of the Great Plains in the eighth century of the Christian era, buffalo hunting was fraught with danger for hunters on foot, armed only with their light weapons such as the long bow and arrow. Buffalo were huge, unpredictable and difficult to kill. Hunting success was limited.  A dangerous stratagem used by some Plains tribes was to prepare cloaks of the head and skins of wolves. Dressed in this camouflage, hunters could crawl up  close to a feeding herd  to a point where they might rise up and discharge their arrows. The technique was a dangerous one, for their weaponry was not capable of an outright kill and a wounded bull or cow could easily chase and trample a hunter or precipitate a stampede—a perilous situation on foot in the treeless plain. Some buffalo were exploited but other grazing ungulates were more safely and commonly taken, such as pronghorn antelope, elk and deer. 


That all changed in the late 15th and 16th centuries when Spanish explorers introduced  horses to the New World.  Spanish mid 16th Century explorers such as Narvaez, DeSoto  and Coronado brought huge herds of horses to the New World. Many of these died on the long and slow ocean passage from Spain, especially though the zones of calm winds—the doldrums— where sailing vessels were becalmed for days or weeks, and limited water and bulky forage combined with a longer than expected voyage—caused these large animals in confined spaces to die.  The dead animals were hoisted off the deck and dumped overboard where they floated for many weeks.  The floating carcasses gave  these zones of calm winds the maritime term: “Horse Latitudes”.  


Of those horses that did make it to the New World, some escaped into the wild to become feral bands.  These wild herds found a near perfect environment of vast grasslands for grazing, plenty of water and few predators large enough to threaten them.  As is with many introduced species —they thrived and their populations exploded.  


The Plains Indians who had been introduced in the mid-16th century to what they termed  the “big dogs” of the Spanish by explorers Desoto and Coronado realized their value as beasts of burden, but more importantly, as a way to exploit the seemingly innumerable herds of desirable buffalo, their meat, fat and skins. A single mounted hunter could (relatively) safely ride up close to to the huge beasts within range of their weapons. They often rode along with a stampeding herd, using a newly developed short but powerful bow—designed specifically for use while mounted. With this weapon they could easily and safely kill several stampeding animals as they rode along side with arrows directed to the lethal point just behind the shoulder.  (In the mid 18th c when firearms were available as trade items they shunned them for they could not reload while mounted and could kill more buffalo with the lethal short bow.) 


Soon horses were in such demand that the Plains tribes were making regular raids into Mexico to steal horses from the Spanish estates. By the 18th Century almost all of the southern Great Plains tribes had horses and had become exquisite “caballeros”.  The horse completely altered the lives of the tribes who adopted them for hunting the buffalo. They abandoned irksome, tedious hard work of agriculture and returned to the way of the big game hunter. Some tribes that did not give up agriculture such as the Mandan, did not achieve the physical stature of the mounted buffalo  hunter tribes such as the Sioux, Dakota, Cherokee.  Big game hunting provided abundant and highly nutritious food.  The Mandan  had to trade with the hunting tribes for dried buffalo meat and buffalo fat to supplement their diets.   


Notes. 


George Caitlin, a mid 19th Century, attorney, artist and explorer of the Great Plains describes the Lakota Sioux below: 


The personal appearances of these people  is very fine and prepossessing; their persons tall and straight, and their movements elastic and graceful, Their stature is considerably above that of the Mandanns and Ricarees, or Blackfeet; but about equal to the Crows, Assineboines and Minartarees, furnishing at least one half of their warriors of at least six feet or more in height.


Illustrations of Manners customs and Costumes of North American Indians,  George Caitlin 1846, Vol 1: On the The Sioux (Dakota) Plains Indians . Page 326 


NOTE; 

Mandans a settled agrarian culture, traders.  villages along the upper Missouri River

Ricarees: (Aricara)  related to Mandans primarily settled agrarian culture  Corn main crop.  Raised dogs for use as sentries and best of burden (travois0  as  traders of upper Missouri River.  

Blackfeet: Buffalo hunters of far north Great Plains 

Crow: Nomadic hunters 


Julius Caesar remarks on the huge size and health of mostly meat eating German barbarians of First Century BCE


Julius Caesar Commenatrii on Bello Gallico, Julius Caesar, @ 57 BCE   In which Julius Caesar comments on the fact that the German invaders in Gallico  were meat eaters.  consuming only meat from a early age. They ate meat from  cattle and game and milk and very little, if any, vegetable foods.  To the Germans the Italian troops were “puny” at probably only 5.5’ or 5.8” while the Germans often were six foot tall or taller. The meat consuming  German troops were very tall, wore only animals skins or very little clothing and fought fiercely. 


Note on Advantage os meat easting American troops over British. 


During the Revolutionary War  It is widely reported that American troops were on average about 172.8cm or about 5’8”. That was about two inches taller than their British opponents who were on average about twelve centimeters shorter—or 160.8  or  5’.3” .  Some claim the disparity was a factor in the outcome of the war.  But its cause is not disputed. It was well known that Americans were better fed, and were raised on more nutritious food. 


Colonial Americans on average had greater access to food and more meat than the typical British soldiers did.  In North America game animals were still plentiful. Many recruits and volunteers came from a farm background where meat, beef, mutton, chicken, as well as game meats,  eggs and milk were more available than in England or Europe. 


NOTES


Marshall Sahlins 1988, “the original affluent society” (time allocation studies) hunters gathers spend less time on work than agriculturalists. —main strategy of hunter gatherers is to accept low low production gols and and optimize the distribution and use of resources.  No hirearchy—equality prevails.  Leveling practices limit growth off inequality—sharing and demand sharing 

Gambling may be inherent mans of leveling procedures helps in redistribution of good and eliminates hoarding....though meat rots and can not be hoarded.  gambling by Hadza use arrows  hunter carries arrows of other hunters in quiver—meat killed with hunters arrow gives arrow maker ability to demand portion of meat.  “ Insulting the meat” a leveling strategy (Lee 2004) which prevents successful hunters from boasting and exploiting luck to dominate others. 

Multi-relational