You'll have to explain a little more how I said that, or how I emphasized race. I guess I'm slow and am missing something. Sure, writings by the English and Spanish make it clear racist attitudes toward the peoples they encountered was a factor in relations toward those native peoples. Among the English, the one notable exception was Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptist church in America and ostracized by the Puritan leaders for his belief that the natives in New England had a right to their lands, etc. He wasn't perfect, however. The English also introduced total warfare among the natives by two massacres, the Pequot in 1637, the Narragansett in 1675, in which hundreds of women and children were burned to death. This type of ethic cleansing warfare was unknown among the natives. Death by lack of immunity to European diseases preceded settlement in the Northeast. European fishermen were working the banks in the Northeast in the mid 1400's, before Columbus even sailed, but the plague of 1616 basically completely wiped out the Massachusett, and greatly reduced the Wampanoag, so the Puritans found the area devoid of native villages in 1630. The Narragansett escaped that decimation by hiding out on the islands in Narragansett Bay, and emerged as the most powerful tribal group as a result. I've often wondered how Verrazano's visit to the Narragansett in 1524 could not have resulted in death by disease, and maybe it did. This "Great Dying" by disease was not racism. Germ theory for disease was unknown, the Europeans were not saying "let's give them smallpox, it's our best weapon". But they did see this dying as "God's will", clearing the wilderness for the English, and that notion was certainly racist. At any rate, racism was present among the English and Spanish, less so the French. It was just a natural assumption of these groups of Europeans toward the people they encountered. Disease and warfare that included advanced weaponry on the part of the Europeans led to the decimation of the numbers of people living in the Americas. If this latest study is weak and poorly argued, and not supported by the evidence, so be it. I just thought NPC D4617 bringing up racism was not really relevant to the argument regarding global cooling, since that racism would have been present anyway, regardless of climate. I did not emphasize race at all, I questioned why racism was relevant. Racism was an obvious component in the settlement of the Americas by the European powers, but not pertinent to the argument made by this Little Ice Age study. Racism, in the attitude of Europeans toward native peoples, seems like an entirely separate subject to me.