Discussion:
Date limit set on first Americans
(too old to reply)
Eric Stevens
2003-08-15 23:14:26 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Rednecks aren't normally very creative, but they are when coming up
with racial slurs.
???... "prove g doesn't exist"... "g"... as in "g-string"....
"ge-ge"...??????
Sorry, here in the States, there's a right-wing movement of
pseudoscientists who use the idea of Spearman's "g" (general
intelligence) to "prove" the poor and nonwhites are innately less
intelligent. Problem is, no neurologist has found an organ or chemical
responsible for "g". They get a lot of media exposure, but no one in
the news admits their idea is long-discredited.
Hmmm... and here I thought it was the book The Bell Curve (nazi
eugenics) that advocated that ....
Yes. The Bell Curve was extremely spurious, but not as spurious as
other nazi books, many of which were its sources. (Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc.)
I love the way you throw symbols around when buidling your
intellectual constructs. But do you really think that an intelligent
person will think either more or less of Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc simply because you choose to label them 'nazi'?
Their methodology was flawed as well: Using a retention test as an IQ
test. There's a huge difference; a retention test tells what you
learned in high school, and there's no way to control for high school
when comparing classes.
A troll on one forum I frequent always mentions biological determinist
books, so I've had experience knocking down the arguments of TBC.
Not everything is racial slurs. Racism is limited to
blaming/causing/being the result of a race/etnicity/cuilture/religion.
Even blaming mega fauna extinction on PEOPLE (and effectively a
specific people for the sole reason they were the only people there at
the time), isn't racism - it is merely "ignorance".
Thanks for the clearup. If it was simply the nature of humans, one
must wonder why they don't apply it to Eurasia. Maybe Cro-Magnon did a
number to Europe's megafauna.
While it is in the nature of humans, they didn't manage it - that
time. But you do make an interesting point. Not much is said about the
European mega fauna.... but then neither is much said about the Asian
or Siberian mega fauna either. East Siberia is one of the most common
places to find whole frozen Mammoths. The native people there in fact
do trade in Mammoth tusks! One group had a good 1/2 dozen huge tusks.
There is a vast store of them in Russia.
One reason nothing's said about Asia's megafauna is because tigers
still exist. Europe's aurochs survived into historical times. Both are
fairly large.
The Asian tigers are not large as mega-fauna tigers go. In fact, they
are quite small.
Of course, people forget that the aforementioned American animals also
still exist. It doesn't take much, just dwarfism, to turn Bison
latrifons into Bison bison. Mammoths are obviously gone, though
anthropologists (especially Hrdlicka) for a long time tried to make
mammoth extinction later, in order to "explain away" spearpoints in a
Pleistocene species.
Are you seriously arguing for a genetic change which swept Bison
Latrifons to turn them all into Bison Bison?

--- snip ---



Eric Stevens
MIB529
2003-08-16 18:54:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Rednecks aren't normally very creative, but they are when coming up
with racial slurs.
???... "prove g doesn't exist"... "g"... as in "g-string"....
"ge-ge"...??????
Sorry, here in the States, there's a right-wing movement of
pseudoscientists who use the idea of Spearman's "g" (general
intelligence) to "prove" the poor and nonwhites are innately less
intelligent. Problem is, no neurologist has found an organ or chemical
responsible for "g". They get a lot of media exposure, but no one in
the news admits their idea is long-discredited.
Hmmm... and here I thought it was the book The Bell Curve (nazi
eugenics) that advocated that ....
Yes. The Bell Curve was extremely spurious, but not as spurious as
other nazi books, many of which were its sources. (Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc.)
I love the way you throw symbols around when buidling your
intellectual constructs. But do you really think that an intelligent
person will think either more or less of Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc simply because you choose to label them 'nazi'?
I actually didn't label them Nazi first. But if you must know, they
get their money from the Pioneer Fund, which has previously defended
the policies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
Post by Eric Stevens
Not everything is racial slurs. Racism is limited to
blaming/causing/being the result of a race/etnicity/cuilture/religion.
Even blaming mega fauna extinction on PEOPLE (and effectively a
specific people for the sole reason they were the only people there at
the time), isn't racism - it is merely "ignorance".
Thanks for the clearup. If it was simply the nature of humans, one
must wonder why they don't apply it to Eurasia. Maybe Cro-Magnon did a
number to Europe's megafauna.
While it is in the nature of humans, they didn't manage it - that
time. But you do make an interesting point. Not much is said about the
European mega fauna.... but then neither is much said about the Asian
or Siberian mega fauna either. East Siberia is one of the most common
places to find whole frozen Mammoths. The native people there in fact
do trade in Mammoth tusks! One group had a good 1/2 dozen huge tusks.
There is a vast store of them in Russia.
One reason nothing's said about Asia's megafauna is because tigers
still exist. Europe's aurochs survived into historical times. Both are
fairly large.
The Asian tigers are not large as mega-fauna tigers go. In fact, they
are quite small.
Yes, but someone here said "anything larger than a deer". As far as I
can tell, the only definition of "megafauna" is by its size.
Post by Eric Stevens
Of course, people forget that the aforementioned American animals also
still exist. It doesn't take much, just dwarfism, to turn Bison
latrifons into Bison bison. Mammoths are obviously gone, though
anthropologists (especially Hrdlicka) for a long time tried to make
mammoth extinction later, in order to "explain away" spearpoints in a
Pleistocene species.
Are you seriously arguing for a genetic change which swept Bison
Latrifons to turn them all into Bison Bison?
Why not? The only difference between them is size.
Eric Stevens
2003-08-16 22:20:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Eric Stevens
Rednecks aren't normally very creative, but they are when coming up
with racial slurs.
???... "prove g doesn't exist"... "g"... as in "g-string"....
"ge-ge"...??????
Sorry, here in the States, there's a right-wing movement of
pseudoscientists who use the idea of Spearman's "g" (general
intelligence) to "prove" the poor and nonwhites are innately less
intelligent. Problem is, no neurologist has found an organ or chemical
responsible for "g". They get a lot of media exposure, but no one in
the news admits their idea is long-discredited.
Hmmm... and here I thought it was the book The Bell Curve (nazi
eugenics) that advocated that ....
Yes. The Bell Curve was extremely spurious, but not as spurious as
other nazi books, many of which were its sources. (Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc.)
I love the way you throw symbols around when buidling your
intellectual constructs. But do you really think that an intelligent
person will think either more or less of Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc simply because you choose to label them 'nazi'?
I actually didn't label them Nazi first. But if you must know, they
get their money from the Pioneer Fund, which has previously defended
the policies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
... and the point of calling them 'nazis' is ... ?
Post by MIB529
Post by Eric Stevens
Not everything is racial slurs. Racism is limited to
blaming/causing/being the result of a race/etnicity/cuilture/religion.
Even blaming mega fauna extinction on PEOPLE (and effectively a
specific people for the sole reason they were the only people there at
the time), isn't racism - it is merely "ignorance".
Thanks for the clearup. If it was simply the nature of humans, one
must wonder why they don't apply it to Eurasia. Maybe Cro-Magnon did a
number to Europe's megafauna.
While it is in the nature of humans, they didn't manage it - that
time. But you do make an interesting point. Not much is said about the
European mega fauna.... but then neither is much said about the Asian
or Siberian mega fauna either. East Siberia is one of the most common
places to find whole frozen Mammoths. The native people there in fact
do trade in Mammoth tusks! One group had a good 1/2 dozen huge tusks.
There is a vast store of them in Russia.
One reason nothing's said about Asia's megafauna is because tigers
still exist. Europe's aurochs survived into historical times. Both are
fairly large.
The Asian tigers are not large as mega-fauna tigers go. In fact, they
are quite small.
Yes, but someone here said "anything larger than a deer". As far as I
can tell, the only definition of "megafauna" is by its size.
Post by Eric Stevens
Of course, people forget that the aforementioned American animals also
still exist. It doesn't take much, just dwarfism, to turn Bison
latrifons into Bison bison. Mammoths are obviously gone, though
anthropologists (especially Hrdlicka) for a long time tried to make
mammoth extinction later, in order to "explain away" spearpoints in a
Pleistocene species.
Are you seriously arguing for a genetic change which swept Bison
Latrifons to turn them all into Bison Bison?
Why not? The only difference between them is size.
Eric Stevens
MIB529
2003-08-18 15:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by Eric Stevens
Rednecks aren't normally very creative, but they are when coming up
with racial slurs.
???... "prove g doesn't exist"... "g"... as in "g-string"....
"ge-ge"...??????
Sorry, here in the States, there's a right-wing movement of
pseudoscientists who use the idea of Spearman's "g" (general
intelligence) to "prove" the poor and nonwhites are innately less
intelligent. Problem is, no neurologist has found an organ or chemical
responsible for "g". They get a lot of media exposure, but no one in
the news admits their idea is long-discredited.
Hmmm... and here I thought it was the book The Bell Curve (nazi
eugenics) that advocated that ....
Yes. The Bell Curve was extremely spurious, but not as spurious as
other nazi books, many of which were its sources. (Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc.)
I love the way you throw symbols around when buidling your
intellectual constructs. But do you really think that an intelligent
person will think either more or less of Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc simply because you choose to label them 'nazi'?
I actually didn't label them Nazi first. But if you must know, they
get their money from the Pioneer Fund, which has previously defended
the policies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
... and the point of calling them 'nazis' is ... ?
The same point as calling Nazi Germany, whom they defend regularly, Nazis. *plonk*
MIB529
2003-08-16 19:00:29 UTC
Permalink
You don't have to hunt them to extinction. You only have to hunt them
to a level where their breeding rate cannot support their population.
And you might've noticed it was the US that hunted them to that level,
not Indians. Now you must write "I will not omit important details
that contradict my theory" on the blackboard until you get carpal
tunnel.
Eric Stevens
2003-08-16 22:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
You don't have to hunt them to extinction. You only have to hunt them
to a level where their breeding rate cannot support their population.
And you might've noticed it was the US that hunted them to that level,
not Indians. Now you must write "I will not omit important details
that contradict my theory" on the blackboard until you get carpal
tunnel.
That would be fine if I had the least idea of what you thought my
theory was.



Eric Stevens
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-17 04:25:52 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 05:36:30 GMT, Seppo Renfors
[..]
Rednecks aren't normally very creative, but they are when coming up
with racial slurs.
???... "prove g doesn't exist"... "g"... as in "g-string"....
"ge-ge"...??????
Sorry, here in the States, there's a right-wing movement of
pseudoscientists who use the idea of Spearman's "g" (general
intelligence) to "prove" the poor and nonwhites are innately less
intelligent.
Spearman's G is an intellectual construct which happens to have some
correlation with what is seen in the real world. It may be useful as a
measure but it is a total mistake to use it as an explanation of cause
and effect.
I worry the minute I see you use the word "correlation", specially in
association with "intellectual construct", it gets really scary! It is
so because there is no "intellectual construct" to such in the above
case. It is already WELL KNOWN it is a socio-economic and access
issue. It is a complete bastardisation of the meaning of "intellect"
to a bigoted boxed up restricted view. Someone living on their wits in
an environment where the more "accepted" opportunities doesn't exist
is somehow "less intelligent"??? I don't think so!! To then argue that
it is an "intellectual construct" to "correlate" this, is clearly NOT
"intelligent" at all!
Problem is, no neurologist has found an organ or chemical
responsible for "g". They get a lot of media exposure, but no one in
the news admits their idea is long-discredited.
That's a spurious argument. It has been well known for some time that
brain function is correalated with intelligence so claiming that no
organ is responsible for "g" is a spurious argument.
The hell it is!! ALL (normal) brains have the same capacity. What is
"intelligence" is a question that is LOADED with bigoted assumptions
in its answer! Is it "intelligent" to know how to pick up a stone fish
or not? Of course it is as NOT KNOWING and poisoning oneself is called
"stupid". Or not knowing, that not knowing one should leave bloody it
well alone is the opposite to "intelligent". So everyone who does NOT
KNOW, is the opposite to "intelligent".

If one them uses the brain to think with, instead of decoration, then
"intelligence", is the aggregate of ALL knowledge if one is to relate
intelligence to knowledge. If one does relate it to the ability to USE
knowledge, it still comes back to the same - ALL knowledge is required
in order to use it. As there is, and never will be any single person
who has all knowledge available, then there shouldn't be a test of
intelligence, merely the level of stupidity at best. However - neither
"intelligence" or "stupidity" measures are relevant to anything. A
simple shift in environment will shift a person from being
"intelligent" to being "stupid".
Hmmm... and here I thought it was the book The Bell Curve (nazi
eugenics) that advocated that ....
There is nothing much wrong with the principles of the "Bell Curve".
You can't be serious! The "principle" is that "Nazi eugenics works" -
you say YOU SUPPORT that principle??? Hell, not even the Nazis
actually BELIEVE that! It is the "excuse" to kill off non whites and
Jews..... except when they need them as doctors... scientists...
etc...
Where it went off the rails is with its selection and application of
data.
NO! Where it goes off the rails is contemplate using a statistical
function!! THAT is where the insanity starts!
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Stevens
2003-08-17 09:55:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 04:25:52 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 05:36:30 GMT, Seppo Renfors
[..]
Rednecks aren't normally very creative, but they are when coming up
with racial slurs.
???... "prove g doesn't exist"... "g"... as in "g-string"....
"ge-ge"...??????
Sorry, here in the States, there's a right-wing movement of
pseudoscientists who use the idea of Spearman's "g" (general
intelligence) to "prove" the poor and nonwhites are innately less
intelligent.
Spearman's G is an intellectual construct which happens to have some
correlation with what is seen in the real world. It may be useful as a
measure but it is a total mistake to use it as an explanation of cause
and effect.
I worry the minute I see you use the word "correlation", specially in
association with "intellectual construct", it gets really scary!
Yep.

The very idea of statistics scare you.
Post by Seppo Renfors
It is
so because there is no "intellectual construct" to such in the above
case. It is already WELL KNOWN it is a socio-economic and access
issue. It is a complete bastardisation of the meaning of "intellect"
to a bigoted boxed up restricted view. Someone living on their wits in
an environment where the more "accepted" opportunities doesn't exist
is somehow "less intelligent"??? I don't think so!!
Well, that's good, because that's not the argument.
Post by Seppo Renfors
To then argue that
it is an "intellectual construct" to "correlate" this, is clearly NOT
"intelligent" at all!
That's a 'wunnerful' argument.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Problem is, no neurologist has found an organ or chemical
responsible for "g". They get a lot of media exposure, but no one in
the news admits their idea is long-discredited.
That's a spurious argument. It has been well known for some time that
brain function is correalated with intelligence so claiming that no
organ is responsible for "g" is a spurious argument.
The hell it is!! ALL (normal) brains have the same capacity.
Measured in litres, grammes, farads or what (or maybe watt)?
Post by Seppo Renfors
What is
"intelligence" is a question that is LOADED with bigoted assumptions
in its answer! Is it "intelligent" to know how to pick up a stone fish
or not? Of course it is as NOT KNOWING and poisoning oneself is called
"stupid". Or not knowing, that not knowing one should leave bloody it
well alone is the opposite to "intelligent". So everyone who does NOT
KNOW, is the opposite to "intelligent".
That is not a common measure of intelligence. Where is Lloyd Bogart
when he might be useful?
Post by Seppo Renfors
If one them uses the brain to think with, instead of decoration, then
"intelligence", is the aggregate of ALL knowledge if one is to relate
intelligence to knowledge.
Jeez!!!

Intelligence is the aggregate of all pies eaten if one is to relate
intelligence to pies eaten.
Post by Seppo Renfors
If one does relate it to the ability to USE
knowledge, it still comes back to the same - ALL knowledge is required
in order to use it. As there is, and never will be any single person
who has all knowledge available, then there shouldn't be a test of
intelligence, merely the level of stupidity at best. However - neither
"intelligence" or "stupidity" measures are relevant to anything. A
simple shift in environment will shift a person from being
"intelligent" to being "stupid".
Do you mean to say there is hope for you yet? Move then Seppo. Just
move.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Hmmm... and here I thought it was the book The Bell Curve (nazi
eugenics) that advocated that ....
There is nothing much wrong with the principles of the "Bell Curve".
You can't be serious! The "principle" is that "Nazi eugenics works" -
you say YOU SUPPORT that principle??? Hell, not even the Nazis
actually BELIEVE that! It is the "excuse" to kill off non whites and
Jews..... except when they need them as doctors... scientists...
etc...
You are a frothing dingbat ....
Post by Seppo Renfors
Where it went off the rails is with its selection and application of
data.
NO! Where it goes off the rails is contemplate using a statistical
function!! THAT is where the insanity starts!
You have oftentimes shown that that is your view.




Eric Stevens
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-17 13:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Eric Stevens wrote:
[..]
Post by Eric Stevens
You are a frothing dingbat ....
Eric, if you are only capable of that kind of replies, as demonstrated
here - Do me a favour, don't bother replying, and I wont bother you
with anything requiring greater intellect than Homer Simpson has -
fair enough?
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Stevens
2003-08-17 21:06:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:20:58 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
[..]
Post by Eric Stevens
You are a frothing dingbat ....
Eric, if you are only capable of that kind of replies, as demonstrated
here - Do me a favour, don't bother replying, and I wont bother you
with anything requiring greater intellect than Homer Simpson has -
fair enough?
Well then, don't spout such arrant nonsense. Virtually everything you
wrote in that article was rubbish ranging from your comments on
correlation through your equating of intelligence with knowledge to
your entirely unsolicited remarks re the assumption of a normal
distribution of intelligence being ' the "excuse" to kill off non
whites and Jews..... except when they need them as doctors...
scientists... etc...'. After that lot, even a Homer Simpson level of
intelligence would be an improvement.




Eric Stevens
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-18 03:03:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:20:58 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
[..]
Post by Eric Stevens
You are a frothing dingbat ....
Eric, if you are only capable of that kind of replies, as demonstrated
here - Do me a favour, don't bother replying, and I wont bother you
with anything requiring greater intellect than Homer Simpson has -
fair enough?
Well then, don't spout such arrant nonsense. Virtually everything you
wrote in that article was rubbish ranging from your comments on
correlation through your equating of intelligence with knowledge to
your entirely unsolicited remarks re the assumption of a normal
distribution of intelligence being ' the "excuse" to kill off non
whites and Jews..... except when they need them as doctors...
scientists... etc...'. After that lot, even a Homer Simpson level of
intelligence would be an improvement.
I see, you have rejected what I considered a very reasonable request,
in favour of on-going vilification. Listen, it isn't MY fault, you are
not capable of responding better, is it - all I can do is suggest a
more REASONABLE approach!
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Stevens
2003-08-18 03:06:41 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 03:03:43 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Eric Stevens
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:20:58 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
[..]
Post by Eric Stevens
You are a frothing dingbat ....
Eric, if you are only capable of that kind of replies, as demonstrated
here - Do me a favour, don't bother replying, and I wont bother you
with anything requiring greater intellect than Homer Simpson has -
fair enough?
Well then, don't spout such arrant nonsense. Virtually everything you
wrote in that article was rubbish ranging from your comments on
correlation through your equating of intelligence with knowledge to
your entirely unsolicited remarks re the assumption of a normal
distribution of intelligence being ' the "excuse" to kill off non
whites and Jews..... except when they need them as doctors...
scientists... etc...'. After that lot, even a Homer Simpson level of
intelligence would be an improvement.
I see, you have rejected what I considered a very reasonable request,
in favour of on-going vilification. Listen, it isn't MY fault, you are
not capable of responding better, is it - all I can do is suggest a
more REASONABLE approach!
Reason from the author of <***@not.ollis.net.au> ?

Has someone made you take your pills?

.... or maybe they used a dart gun. Now that would be fun!



Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
2003-08-17 09:55:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:34:34 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Actually there is no test in existence that measures intelligence.
What is "intelligence" is a subjective view in any event. An IQ test
isn't actually a test of intelligence either.
As my old psychology prof (Crowther) said "It all depends upon what
you mean by intelligence". Certainly, if you can't define it, you
can't measure it. In that context, I will be among the first to argue
that there is more than one form of intelligence and more than one
measure of it.



Eric Stevens
res6l2wx
2003-08-17 18:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:34:34 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Actually there is no test in existence that measures intelligence.
What is "intelligence" is a subjective view in any event. An IQ test
isn't actually a test of intelligence either.
As my old psychology prof (Crowther) said "It all depends upon what
you mean by intelligence". Certainly, if you can't define it, you
can't measure it. In that context, I will be among the first to argue
that there is more than one form of intelligence and more than one
measure of it.
Yeah, well the IQ isn't used for any really practical purpose, while a
GPA is used for academic preferment. The GPA is the average of a a
collection of grades issued by professors with completely different views on
how to grade, in a variety of courses, to students who have engaged in
cheating and cramming to wildly differing extents. So how come no one ever
criticizes the GPA? Or the fact that professors insist on looking at every
grade and object to repeating courses, or to seniors taking freshmen work?
These practises only make sense if you consider the GPA to be a measure of
native ability.
And the stupid statement, "Passing a test only measures whether you can
pass a test." Yeah - laying a brick wall under the eye of a master
bricklayer who is satisfied with your moves only proves you can lay brick.
So why hire you to build a wall when Joe Schmo has a better sales talk?
All this crap about IQ and GPA simply means that college degrees are to
become patents of nobility, just as in the Renaissance effete nobility were
given the titles of fighting men.
Cheers
John GW
Dan Seur
2003-08-17 19:57:26 UTC
Permalink
To settle an argument I'm having with the guy who tunes my Lamborghini,
could you please define 'effete'?

I say it means 'having no feet'. He says it's a respected old political
putdown in the USA.
Post by res6l2wx
All this crap about IQ and GPA simply means that college degrees are to
become patents of nobility, just as in the Renaissance effete nobility were
given the titles of fighting men.
Cheers
John GW
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-17 12:56:48 UTC
Permalink
In short, the issue of ownership (that is, who gets to repatriate
the remains of KM), simply is immaterial to the threshold
question of whether the remains of KM is subject to repatriation
at all; it is a separate question that requires a finding that
the remains of KM are in fact Native American human remains
before it is even reached. Jelderks held, quite properly, that
the Secretary of the Interior had the burden of showing that they
were, and the burden wasn't carried either under DoI's
pre-Columbian definition, or under the statutory definition.
Frankly, I do not understand why you are having such a problem
comprehending this. It is not rocket science.
It is *exactly* that kind of institutional racism that Congress
passed NAGPRA to stop.
You are talking one hell of a lot of ROT! It is a rare occurrence when
I can agree with the Shyster, but even HE cannot be 100% wrong (only
90+ %...)!! This is one of those times. Having read that case, there
is NO WAY you are able to HONESTLY make that claim!
Well, let's see...
1) He looks Indian.
HE looks like a collection of BONES!
Yes, and you can reconstruct a face by the bones. Duhh...
...and average of averages.... so what? It doesn't say who a person
was, their culture or beliefs. Looks doesn't govern that. He is said
to have looked like the British actor Patrick Stewart in any event!
2) Anthropologists insist he's white (because he has features which
are generally NOT white, such as a prognathous jaw, Australasian teeth
patterns, and is an inch taller than the typical white male today,
let's forget about 9000 years ago; in fact, I reduced his "caucasoid"
features to a trait, cheekbones, that could simply be sexual
selection).
Wrong again - it is said he has certain caucasoid features this is NOT
the same as "insisting he's white" as you claim. Further more
"Australasian" is hardly "white"!
What, pray tell, does caucasoid imply? You'll notice I said
Australasian teeth patterns are generally NOT a white trait.
The operative word here is "certain" -ie not all. Nor is it indicated
in the transcript that anyone has "insisted" the remains are that of a
"white" person.
3) They spin an entire story of Indians invading and wiping out
whites. (Or at the very least, don't disclaim to the media that it
means nothing of the sort.)
What ARE you talking about - read the judgement. There isn't a single
mention of anything like that in it.
No, but it was all over the media.
I don't have access to your media - I have read the transcript of the
judgement. It's that judgement that is being discussed.
4) This idea is just a regurgitation of 200+ years of Merkin
mythology. Jews, Egyptians, Basques, Mongols, Vikings, Chinese, Nuba,
Celts, Arabs, Greeks, Trojans, Persians, Atlantis survivors,
extraterrestrial Star People...The idea of "lost races" wiped out by
invading Indians is nothing new. Due to the cliche nature of the
claim, there's a higher standard of evidence for FoP. Sorry, but
them's the breaks.
Again I have NO idea where all of that comes from, certainly it has
absolutely nothing whatever to do with the issues I have addressed.
See #3.
Again the response is the same.
There is not a shred of evidence that the Kennewick Man remains
are anything other than Native American,
It is quite immaterial if he is or not to the LAWS you would rely on -
NAGPRA. You know perhaps you SHOULD read the ruling and you MAY
understand - *IF* you do so HONESTLY without preconceived notions!
He was found with ONE artifact: A spearpoint in his side.
The document refer to "a stone projectile point". Does not state it
as either arrow or spear point.
Same purpose, basically.
Well, a projectile of that nature has the purpose of killing. But it
would be beneficial to determine something about the dead person, if
more was known about it. Some people may have never used arrows - or
didn't till a time point. It narrows down the possibilities. The
workmanship of the projectile point might tell us more again. It does
require study to know this. The access to study was denied. This has
prevented gathering knowledge essential for a determination of any
kind with NAGPRA. There is no way to determine what tribe, or tribal
connection that person had to an existing group today.

Chatters believes it to be a spear point of the Cascade type, but this
hasn't been detailed in the transcript.
Those
beloved Folsom points, so beloved because finding one in a mammoth was
the only way they could prove humans existed during the Pleistocene
(while the dominant school at the time imagined species matching
geologic strata exactly).
It don't assist at all as far as the NAGPRA requirements went.
Still, when considering the way Umatilla oral tradition matches the
natural history of the area even farther-back, you'd have to agree,
it's likely they've been there a long time. And considering the fact
that they'd lie and say the remains were "caucasoid", they forfeited
all right to say it was just in the interest of science anyway.
There were 5 tribes claiming the remains, the Umatilla was only one of
the five, elected as speakers for the 5 tribes. Which one of the 5 did
KM have a cultural affiliation to - if to any of them at all? It
doesn't help even *IF* we knew for certain that the remains were of an
Indian..... but which tribe/culture? maybe he shouldn't be buried, but
cremated... or whatever.

As for oral stories, I hope they never get lost and are properly
recorded for posterity. Not only in text but the way of telling them
too (sound). However, what is well known is that such stories are part
religion, part exaggerations, part plain old myths. Any real facts
they have in them is often the time is consternated into a single
story, mixing events. This reduces the volume needing to be
remembered.

These usually include stories on creation and explains how things came
to be. These are religious aspects, but the whole takes on the
religious aspects to them. Every believer just KNOWS that it is THE
absolute truth - and that THE god is the one who has said so, and God
cannot be wrong...... not ONE of the 5783 (or thereabouts) Gods have
ever been wrong! Each and every one has promised their people the
world - some even literally the world!!

But what is interesting is that, In the beginning.... going back to
the beginning of time itself, there were all these different worlds
that started up. Each one started off different. So do we live in a
series of parallel worlds... connected by computers? Or is it that
SOME gods were telling porky pies? So who is prepared to point a
finger at another's god to say THAT ONE.. and that... and that...
that... that... gods were not being very truthful (5782 times)? What
if it isn't you who gets to do the pointing?

One thing is that "Oral Traditions" is not science, nor is it history,
though it may contain some core bits - it is mostly religion - or
religious aspects that were required when a way of explaining things
was needed and no other explanation fitted - a god is very handy thing
to fill the gaps with - except in court cases!
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-18 03:00:36 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by Seppo Renfors
...and average of averages.... so what? It doesn't say who a person
was, their culture or beliefs. Looks doesn't govern that. He is said
to have looked like the British actor Patrick Stewart in any event!
Only if you bias the non-skeletal features to evaluate to "Patrick
Stewart". In terms of actual skeletal features, I reduced Kennewick
man to cheekbones. That's his ONLY "caucasoid" feature that Indians
generally lack. A simple solution, of course, is sexual selection.
(After all, even white women generally have projecting cheekbones.)
The women suddenly decided they liked projecting cheekbones, and now
projecting cheekbones dominate.
The word "caucasoid" is a red herring and was irrelevant to the ruling
by the Judge. Completely irrelevant - nothing hinged on it at all.

[..]
Post by Seppo Renfors
Wrong again - it is said he has certain caucasoid features this is NOT
the same as "insisting he's white" as you claim. Further more
"Australasian" is hardly "white"!
What, pray tell, does caucasoid imply? You'll notice I said
Australasian teeth patterns are generally NOT a white trait.
The operative word here is "certain" -ie not all. Nor is it indicated
in the transcript that anyone has "insisted" the remains are that of a
"white" person.
But the implication was still there, even though none of the traits
really worked for it. In short, it was a snow job.
I don't know what you have read, but I have read the ruling,. and
there is ZERO consideration given to any skin colour, or your claimed
"implication". You do need to read the judgement, you know.

[..]
Post by Seppo Renfors
What ARE you talking about - read the judgement. There isn't a single
mention of anything like that in it.
No, but it was all over the media.
I don't have access to your media - I have read the transcript of the
judgement. It's that judgement that is being discussed.
It was in Time, Newsweek, all three major networks...It proves my
point: No one cares about anthropology, unless it's confirming their
own racial assertions.
What "racial assertions"? I haven't seen any, and I have read a couple
of on line articles, subsequent to your statements, and they do NOT
support your claims. But then your claims about the Judgement are not
supported by the transcript itself either. "Anthropology" isn't
something that replaces other sciences - or common sense for that
matter.

[..]
Post by Seppo Renfors
The document refer to "a stone projectile point". Does not state it
as either arrow or spear point.
Same purpose, basically.
Well, a projectile of that nature has the purpose of killing. But it
would be beneficial to determine something about the dead person, if
more was known about it. Some people may have never used arrows - or
didn't till a time point. It narrows down the possibilities. The
workmanship of the projectile point might tell us more again. It does
require study to know this. The access to study was denied. This has
prevented gathering knowledge essential for a determination of any
kind with NAGPRA. There is no way to determine what tribe, or tribal
connection that person had to an existing group today.
It seems to me, it could simply be an accident.
Could.... but highly unlikely considering where it was. Or is it a
"friendly fire" type accident the Yanks are so famous for ;-)
After all, the bone
had already healed over the spearpoint; a murderer would've found
another way to attack him.
Not necessarily. It is possible that they didn't catch him, that he
got away - or he was part of a more powerful force in a bit of a scrap
over something.

[..]
Post by Seppo Renfors
It don't assist at all as far as the NAGPRA requirements went.
Still, when considering the way Umatilla oral tradition matches the
natural history of the area even farther-back, you'd have to agree,
it's likely they've been there a long time. And considering the fact
that they'd lie and say the remains were "caucasoid", they forfeited
all right to say it was just in the interest of science anyway.
There were 5 tribes claiming the remains, the Umatilla was only one of
the five, elected as speakers for the 5 tribes. Which one of the 5 did
KM have a cultural affiliation to - if to any of them at all? It
doesn't help even *IF* we knew for certain that the remains were of an
Indian..... but which tribe/culture? maybe he shouldn't be buried, but
cremated... or whatever.
It doesn't matter; Chatters didn't have to say "caucasoid". It became
his buzzword. It seemed like he said "caucasoid" more in everyday
conversation than he said "the".
THAT is hyperbole and therefor valueless!
Post by Seppo Renfors
As for oral stories, I hope they never get lost and are properly
recorded for posterity. Not only in text but the way of telling them
too (sound). However, what is well known is that such stories are part
religion, part exaggerations, part plain old myths. Any real facts
they have in them is often the time is consternated into a single
story, mixing events. This reduces the volume needing to be
remembered.
And it's the same way with written history, as evidenced by American
history textbooks.
True, but then there is more than ONE book, you know.
But such similarity can't be a coincidence, you'll
agree.
What "similarity"? The books for that long ago haven't been fully
written yet. The study of KM will advance and add to the knowledge we
do have.
Post by Seppo Renfors
These usually include stories on creation and explains how things came
to be. These are religious aspects, but the whole takes on the
religious aspects to them. Every believer just KNOWS that it is THE
absolute truth - and that THE god is the one who has said so, and God
cannot be wrong...... not ONE of the 5783 (or thereabouts) Gods have
ever been wrong! Each and every one has promised their people the
world - some even literally the world!!
You're projecting your own Judeo-Christian prejudices here.
You cannot know that - you have no idea of what my "beliefs" are in
that area. Further to that you are pushing a line that
"Judeo-Christianity" is "prejudiced". So you are taking the view that
"attack is the best form of defence" - a pre-emptive attack! Oh, if
you were to take a slightly more unbiased view you would call it the
Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion as the god is the one and the same
for all of them.
Tell me
when these peoples have sought converts. In fact, some plains tribes
have declared war on self-appointed "white man's shamans".
Aha.... so you admit to resort to killing in the defence of a mere
"belief"! Isn't that the whole problem with all religions - they lead
to killings? Oh, well... you are therefor on par with the people you
make a pre-emptive attack on. So who says your god is any better than
anybody else's god? Why should your gods be respected if you don't
respect those of others?
Post by Seppo Renfors
But what is interesting is that, In the beginning.... going back to
the beginning of time itself, there were all these different worlds
that started up. Each one started off different. So do we live in a
series of parallel worlds... connected by computers? Or is it that
SOME gods were telling porky pies? So who is prepared to point a
finger at another's god to say THAT ONE.. and that... and that...
that... that... gods were not being very truthful (5782 times)? What
if it isn't you who gets to do the pointing?
One thing is that "Oral Traditions" is not science, nor is it history,
though it may contain some core bits - it is mostly religion - or
religious aspects that were required when a way of explaining things
was needed and no other explanation fitted - a god is very handy thing
to fill the gaps with - except in court cases!
You're fairly well-versed in deconstructionism, Seppo.
As a kid I was very good at pulling all kinds of machinery apart, to
see what made them work. You have to do that in order to understand
what makes things tick. Not doing so, is to not understand.
If you want to
go down that road, I will too: I would say that anthropology is highly
politicized, so don't pretend that you guys are as rigid a discipline
as physics. I would say that the "history" that is written down is
only written so to serve the needs of the upper-class white male
elite.
It is one thing to analyse something - it is quite another to start
creating fantasies and resorting to racism. I have NO IDEA where you
have pulled the idea I'm an "anthropologist" from - *I* do not use the
argument, "Bugger the content, look at the LABEL" - I have no interest
in labels, including the one of "anthropology".

Just sticking labels on things is unscientific and ILLOGICAL. Put a
label on an empty jar, and the jar is STILL EMPTY!
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIB529
2003-08-18 15:37:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
...and average of averages.... so what? It doesn't say who a person
was, their culture or beliefs. Looks doesn't govern that. He is said
to have looked like the British actor Patrick Stewart in any event!
Only if you bias the non-skeletal features to evaluate to "Patrick
Stewart". In terms of actual skeletal features, I reduced Kennewick
man to cheekbones. That's his ONLY "caucasoid" feature that Indians
generally lack. A simple solution, of course, is sexual selection.
(After all, even white women generally have projecting cheekbones.)
The women suddenly decided they liked projecting cheekbones, and now
projecting cheekbones dominate.
The word "caucasoid" is a red herring and was irrelevant to the ruling
by the Judge. Completely irrelevant - nothing hinged on it at all.
Oh, yes, once I disprove his "caucasoid"-ness, you find it irrelevant.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
Wrong again - it is said he has certain caucasoid features this is NOT
the same as "insisting he's white" as you claim. Further more
"Australasian" is hardly "white"!
What, pray tell, does caucasoid imply? You'll notice I said
Australasian teeth patterns are generally NOT a white trait.
The operative word here is "certain" -ie not all. Nor is it indicated
in the transcript that anyone has "insisted" the remains are that of a
"white" person.
But the implication was still there, even though none of the traits
really worked for it. In short, it was a snow job.
I don't know what you have read, but I have read the ruling,. and
there is ZERO consideration given to any skin colour, or your claimed
"implication". You do need to read the judgement, you know.
But one must question Chatters' motives, I'm sure you'll agree.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
What ARE you talking about - read the judgement. There isn't a single
mention of anything like that in it.
No, but it was all over the media.
I don't have access to your media - I have read the transcript of the
judgement. It's that judgement that is being discussed.
It was in Time, Newsweek, all three major networks...It proves my
point: No one cares about anthropology, unless it's confirming their
own racial assertions.
What "racial assertions"? I haven't seen any, and I have read a couple
of on line articles, subsequent to your statements, and they do NOT
support your claims. But then your claims about the Judgement are not
supported by the transcript itself either. "Anthropology" isn't
something that replaces other sciences - or common sense for that
matter.
Funny, they seem to hold onto the Bering Strait theory, no matter how
much geologists disagree. And if a site's too old for the theory, it's
quickly covered up. Seems it DOES replace other sciences AND common
sense.

As for your question "What 'racial assertions'?", let's see...His
overuse of the word "caucasoid" might be one. Quit being in denial.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
The document refer to "a stone projectile point". Does not state it
as either arrow or spear point.
Same purpose, basically.
Well, a projectile of that nature has the purpose of killing. But it
would be beneficial to determine something about the dead person, if
more was known about it. Some people may have never used arrows - or
didn't till a time point. It narrows down the possibilities. The
workmanship of the projectile point might tell us more again. It does
require study to know this. The access to study was denied. This has
prevented gathering knowledge essential for a determination of any
kind with NAGPRA. There is no way to determine what tribe, or tribal
connection that person had to an existing group today.
It seems to me, it could simply be an accident.
Could.... but highly unlikely considering where it was. Or is it a
"friendly fire" type accident the Yanks are so famous for ;-)
I based it on the fact that the wound was clearly healed. Therefore,
it's clear he had it for a long time. Were he attacked, they would've
likely followed up with a knife or something.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
It don't assist at all as far as the NAGPRA requirements went.
Still, when considering the way Umatilla oral tradition matches the
natural history of the area even farther-back, you'd have to agree,
it's likely they've been there a long time. And considering the fact
that they'd lie and say the remains were "caucasoid", they forfeited
all right to say it was just in the interest of science anyway.
There were 5 tribes claiming the remains, the Umatilla was only one of
the five, elected as speakers for the 5 tribes. Which one of the 5 did
KM have a cultural affiliation to - if to any of them at all? It
doesn't help even *IF* we knew for certain that the remains were of an
Indian..... but which tribe/culture? maybe he shouldn't be buried, but
cremated... or whatever.
It doesn't matter; Chatters didn't have to say "caucasoid". It became
his buzzword. It seemed like he said "caucasoid" more in everyday
conversation than he said "the".
THAT is hyperbole and therefor valueless!
Still, you'll agree, "caucasoid" was a buzzword.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
As for oral stories, I hope they never get lost and are properly
recorded for posterity. Not only in text but the way of telling them
too (sound). However, what is well known is that such stories are part
religion, part exaggerations, part plain old myths. Any real facts
they have in them is often the time is consternated into a single
story, mixing events. This reduces the volume needing to be
remembered.
And it's the same way with written history, as evidenced by American
history textbooks.
True, but then there is more than ONE book, you know.
And they all clone each other. That's how textbooks are made. You
can't obviously believe everyone thought the world was flat in 1491.
Or the still-in-textbooks belief of a "lost race" of (non-Indian)
"mound builders".
Post by Seppo Renfors
But such similarity can't be a coincidence, you'll
agree.
What "similarity"? The books for that long ago haven't been fully
written yet. The study of KM will advance and add to the knowledge we
do have.
Not if Merkins are busy inventing racial theories. If there's any
evidence Indians have been here more than 10,000 years, it
mysteriously "vanishes". If there's any evidence for the same
assertion about whites, it's toured all over the media.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
These usually include stories on creation and explains how things came
to be. These are religious aspects, but the whole takes on the
religious aspects to them. Every believer just KNOWS that it is THE
absolute truth - and that THE god is the one who has said so, and God
cannot be wrong...... not ONE of the 5783 (or thereabouts) Gods have
ever been wrong! Each and every one has promised their people the
world - some even literally the world!!
You're projecting your own Judeo-Christian prejudices here.
You cannot know that - you have no idea of what my "beliefs" are in
that area. Further to that you are pushing a line that
"Judeo-Christianity" is "prejudiced". So you are taking the view that
"attack is the best form of defence" - a pre-emptive attack! Oh, if
you were to take a slightly more unbiased view you would call it the
Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion as the god is the one and the same
for all of them.
Still, the basic Western prejudice is the same.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Tell me
when these peoples have sought converts. In fact, some plains tribes
have declared war on self-appointed "white man's shamans".
Aha.... so you admit to resort to killing in the defence of a mere
"belief"! Isn't that the whole problem with all religions - they lead
to killings? Oh, well... you are therefor on par with the people you
make a pre-emptive attack on. So who says your god is any better than
anybody else's god? Why should your gods be respected if you don't
respect those of others?
Not necessarily "killing" any more than the war on drugs is "killing".
Still, you've noticed it's the EXACT OPPOSITE of the prejudices you
previously claimed.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
But what is interesting is that, In the beginning.... going back to
the beginning of time itself, there were all these different worlds
that started up. Each one started off different. So do we live in a
series of parallel worlds... connected by computers? Or is it that
SOME gods were telling porky pies? So who is prepared to point a
finger at another's god to say THAT ONE.. and that... and that...
that... that... gods were not being very truthful (5782 times)? What
if it isn't you who gets to do the pointing?
One thing is that "Oral Traditions" is not science, nor is it history,
though it may contain some core bits - it is mostly religion - or
religious aspects that were required when a way of explaining things
was needed and no other explanation fitted - a god is very handy thing
to fill the gaps with - except in court cases!
You're fairly well-versed in deconstructionism, Seppo.
As a kid I was very good at pulling all kinds of machinery apart, to
see what made them work. You have to do that in order to understand
what makes things tick. Not doing so, is to not understand.
That's now what deconstructionism is.
Post by Seppo Renfors
If you want to
go down that road, I will too: I would say that anthropology is highly
politicized, so don't pretend that you guys are as rigid a discipline
as physics. I would say that the "history" that is written down is
only written so to serve the needs of the upper-class white male
elite.
It is one thing to analyse something - it is quite another to start
creating fantasies and resorting to racism. I have NO IDEA where you
have pulled the idea I'm an "anthropologist" from - *I* do not use the
argument, "Bugger the content, look at the LABEL" - I have no interest
in labels, including the one of "anthropology".
You shouldn't have made such a deconstructionist argument, then. And
it's well-known that history serves the needs of the upper-class white
male elite. This is why, for example, we don't learn that Helen Keller
was a socialist (because she was blind and deaf, but still had more
money than most because her parents did). We're taught that the war in
the Phillipines was against the Spanish. (It wasn't; the
Spanish-American War only lasted a few months, while the war in the
Phillipines was five years.) And so on.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Just sticking labels on things is unscientific and ILLOGICAL. Put a
label on an empty jar, and the jar is STILL EMPTY!
Remember that when you make deconstructionist arguments.
MIB529
2003-08-17 19:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Rednecks aren't normally very creative, but they are when coming up
with racial slurs.
???... "prove g doesn't exist"... "g"... as in "g-string"....
"ge-ge"...??????
Sorry, here in the States, there's a right-wing movement of
pseudoscientists who use the idea of Spearman's "g" (general
intelligence) to "prove" the poor and nonwhites are innately less
intelligent. Problem is, no neurologist has found an organ or chemical
responsible for "g". They get a lot of media exposure, but no one in
the news admits their idea is long-discredited.
Hmmm... and here I thought it was the book The Bell Curve (nazi
eugenics) that advocated that ....
Yes. The Bell Curve was extremely spurious, but not as spurious as
other nazi books, many of which were its sources. (Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc.)
The Bell Curve... "spurious"... you are overly generous - fraudulent
would be my choice of words for it.
Well, I use "spurious" because I have no doubt Murray thinks he's 100%
right. My favorite was still Rushton; penis size and intelligence. LOL
Sounds like something out of South Park.
Their methodology was flawed as well: Using a retention test as an IQ
test. There's a huge difference; a retention test tells what you
learned in high school, and there's no way to control for high school
when comparing classes.
Actually there is no test in existence that measures intelligence.
What is "intelligence" is a subjective view in any event. An IQ test
isn't actually a test of intelligence either.
Good point. IQ measures IQ. LOL
A troll on one forum I frequent always mentions biological determinist
books, so I've had experience knocking down the arguments of TBC.
So have I ;-)
I think everyone who has a computer has.
While it is in the nature of humans, they didn't manage it - that
time. But you do make an interesting point. Not much is said about the
European mega fauna.... but then neither is much said about the Asian
or Siberian mega fauna either. East Siberia is one of the most common
places to find whole frozen Mammoths. The native people there in fact
do trade in Mammoth tusks! One group had a good 1/2 dozen huge tusks.
There is a vast store of them in Russia.
One reason nothing's said about Asia's megafauna is because tigers
still exist. Europe's aurochs survived into historical times. Both are
fairly large.
The Asian Tiger... or snow Tiger are nothing like the Sabre tooth
tiger and are not megafauna.
I see your point. It seems to me that the major difference between
megafauna and modern species is that modern species are dwarfs. Size
differences aren't necessarily genetic.
Of course, people forget that the aforementioned American animals also
still exist. It doesn't take much, just dwarfism, to turn Bison
latrifons into Bison bison. Mammoths are obviously gone, though
anthropologists (especially Hrdlicka) for a long time tried to make
mammoth extinction later, in order to "explain away" spearpoints in a
Pleistocene species.
Hey, that sort of thing is usually used as "evidence" of native people
having caused the extinction.....
No, they tried to have it both ways: Indians only arriving 3000 years
ago, but still wiping out the megafauna. I don't blame Hrdlicka; he
was under the mistaken belief that hominid evolution corresponded
exactly to geologic strata. Thus anything in the Pleistocene had to be
in Europe, as the Pleistocene corresponded to Neanderthals.
Fact remains, the theory of Pleistocene extinctions being caused by
man is held up by the twin pillars of Clovis-first and stereotypes
about Indians.
You are wrong about "Indians" - UNLESS you also suggest, hold the view
that there were other people, other than Indians around at the time.
You also argue from a very insular POV, and forget that mega fauna
existed in Australia too - the arguments not being any different for
the Australian extinction either. One thing is certain, there were no
Indians here at the time!
LOL I guess you're right. But here, the media has a tendency to
overmasculinize Indians. Hence my reference to stereotypes about
Indians.
Well... we are rushing headlong to meet some Native Americans...
Australia is on a collision course with Hawaii at the breakneck speed
of 6.7cm pa!
<G> You'll hit one of the other Polynesian islands first.
Well, got to collect a few mates along the way, you know. Then, after
Hawaii we'll all head off together to Alaska :-)
;) The good news is that North America's rotating counter-clockwise,
so Alaska won't be that hard to hit. South America's rotating
clockwise at the same time, so you might hit Chile or Argentina first.
LOL
Media always jumps onto populist theories, tell half the story in
exaggerated manner, and claim "a possibility" as "fact". The more
outrageous the claims are, the better the media likes it. There is no
difference here. We also have our own "revisionist" historians - eg
Winshuttle - one who denies the massacres of aborigines here - and
claim those that he can't deny, to have been "justified".
Poisoned rice is justified?
....or poisoned water holes, without the traditional "warning sign" to
people.....
Well, there's a general tendency for these things. Here in the States,
David Horowitz asked for reparations from Mongolia, even though the
Mongols actually invested in a revival of the arts wherever they went,
eventually assimilating into the local culture.
Here, they do a lot of similar tricks. The revisionists rule the
history textbooks here. That's why so many Merkins don't realize
EVERYONE knew the world was round in 1491.
Oh I think that it was fairly common knowledge from long before then.
The Greeks had already figured out (calculated mathematically) that
the continents of Americas and Australia existed at around 100 BCE....
I'm aware of the existence of a map, in some place in the Sahara that
shows the planetary system and the sun in the centre of the solar
system, written in the 1300's. The document is Arabian. What they
hadn't worked out was how to draw maps properly.... I wonder actually
how accurate or true any belief in a "flat earth" has ever been. It
doesn't take much to realise that when you come to "the edge" you say
before, the "edge" is again the same distance away, is the result of
curvature of the earth.
I've seen those maps; Patagonia's connected to Antarctica, and
everywhere down to Oregon is connected to Asia. Also, Korea's no
longer a peninsula, and Japan's no longer an island. Best they could
do without actually being there, I guess. (On a side note, that kind
of thing continued into the 19th century: Oftentimes, sailors' stories
of far-off lands included inhabitants with some sort of impossible
biology. Or they'd describe rites that, as it turned out, didn't
exist. One of their favorites was trying to turn Indians into Jews; in
fact, the land bridge began as a device for Jews to reach America.)
It's also why there are
monuments to Confederate dead in Montana. It's why "Abraham Lincoln
was born in a cabin he built with his own hands." (No joke! That's
actually a line from a Lincoln biography.)
That's what one would call a major clanger! :-)
Still it doesn't surprise me as I have seen that very "logic" used.
It proves, we can't rely on written history whatsoever. ;)
And I won't even talk about
the descriptions of our culture. (You'd think Indian women didn't even
exist. Then you'd wonder where little Indians came from. Maybe we
shoot off spores. LOL)
Actually having had considerable contact with a young Indian
"princess" (a chief's daughter) from the Grand Coulee Dam mob for
around a year (I forget the correct tribe name). I have a fair idea
that they do actually exist..... and what a live-wire she was too. A
mate of mine is a "honorary Indian" of the same mob. He was even given
an Indian name "Walking Eagle"... because he is too full of shit to
fly (and he is too :-) .... and that's a true story! He has stayed
with the people on the reservation as well, year before last.
Oh, yes, the Indian princess. I guess I was wrong: In the media
portrayal, the "princess" is like the queen of an ant colony or
beehive.

Quite an irony that democracies (in the truest sense of the word, rule
by consensus) would have princesses.
Most people don't realize that. I mean, look at what happened recently
in Arizona.
Saw bits of it on TV, then there is Canada, and Portugal.....
California not long ago....
These fires will continue to get worse. What was bad was, the forests
were home to an endangered species of rodent. But they couldn't
relocate the rats, as they was an endangered species.
Gisele Horvat
2003-08-17 19:44:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:51:45 GMT, Gisele Horvat <g-***@shaw.ca>
wrote:

[...]
http://www.roperld.com/mtDNA.htm#haplogroups
Haplogroup A is shown as diverging from Asian 'M'. To my knowledge,
no molecular biologist has suggested the same but the thought has
crossed my mind a few times since haplogroup M sequences of India have
similar variants.
After taking a better look at this migration map, it appears that
there was no intention to show haplogroup A diverging from M even
though the haplogroups of Europe were shown to stem from N.

Haplogroups A, Y, F & B should have been connected to 'N'. Better
yet, to be consistent with current views, A, Y?, X, W and I should
have been shown to diverge from a common source and then, later, F, B,
and the remainder of the European haplogroups from another.

By showing A, C & D travelling together as a group, it appears as if
the route charter followed Wallace et al's proposal (the Chukchi and
Siberian Eskimo are Asian remnants of an ancient Beringian population
from which the majority of Native Americans were derived - which I
disagree with).

Gisele
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...