Cowering before the Sky Woman
Wed, 2008-07-30 13:57
#1
Cowering before the Sky Woman
Wed, 2008-07-30 13:57
#2
quote:
Barbara Kay, National Post
Published: Wednesday, July 30, 2008If there's a God, and He made the world, it wasn't in seven literal days, as creationists affirm. Nor, as many aboriginals profess to believe, did the world begin with "Sky Woman" descending to Earth in the shape of a turtle. If you don't agree, no need to read on.
Such fanciful narratives may serve to transmit cultural values, but they are still myths and, "when science meets mythology, some-thing's got to give, and it shouldn't be the science."
I am quoting here from a certain Professor Chris diCarlo, whom I recently interviewed over the telephone. He will be the keynote speaker at this weekend's annual convention of the Humanist Association of Canada in Toronto. diCarlo is an academic and the author of the enticingly titled How to Become a Really Good Pain in the Ass: A Practical Guide to Thinking Critically.
The man knows whereof he speaks. For refusing to privilege myth over science in the classroom, he was sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.
Mr. diCarlo's troubles began in 2005 while teaching a course in critical thinking at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont., ironically, not long after he'd been named TVOntario's "Best Lecturer." From all reports a beloved and inspiring teacher, diCarlo is a rare bird nowadays: a non-ideological truth-seeker.
Caucasian himself, diCarlo had a T-shirt printed with the logo "We are all Africans" -- a reference to the widely held scientific view that Homo sapiens originated in the African savanna about 200,000 years ago, and then later migrated to other parts of the world.
But his anti-racist message that a disparate humankind evolved from a common genetic ancestry ruffled aborigino-centric feathers in his classroom. The result: an accusation of what is known in academia as a "stolen legacy.
Read it [url=http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=688477]here.[/url] or [url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/07/30/...
Wed, 2008-07-30 14:07
#3
So, you started a post about those nasty Indians, and now you want some bait?
here is some bait for you:
[img]http://www.lakemichiganangler.com/tips/photos/all_bait.jpg[/img]
![http://www.lakemichiganangler.com/tips/photos/all_bait.jpg[/img]](http://www.lakemichiganangler.com/tips/photos/all_bait.jpg[/img]){kind=link}
I hear the trolling is excellent with this bait.
Wed, 2008-07-30 14:11
#4
remind
You got here slightly before me stargazer, I mean wth? Quoting Barbra Kay and the National Post? Starting a thread dissing FN creation myth, in the title of the thread, but not the Christian one, spells trolling, at best!
[ 30 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Wed, 2008-07-30 14:12
#5
Yep, and I'm sure Snukkums knew that. Oh well, the last laugh is on him.
Wed, 2008-07-30 14:33
#6
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Convently, starting a thread dissing FN creation myths but not Christian ones speels trolling at best![/b]
Actually, the Christian one got dissed first, in the opening sentence:
quote:
If there's a God, and He made the world, it wasn't in seven literal days, as creationists affirm.
Wed, 2008-07-30 14:40
#7
remind
Reallly? You think that is dissing the Christian one? I don't.
What I see there is; dissing creationists, reaffirming that God is a He, and then a continuing on to diss FN's creation myth.
Wed, 2008-07-30 14:51
#8
Agent 204
The title of the article, and its overall tone, are indeed cringe-inducing, and makes me (and obviously most other people on the thread) very suspicious of Kay's motives for writing it as well as the [i]Post[/i]'s motive for publishing it.
That said, though, the question of whether diCarlo was in the wrong for wearing a T-shirt saying "We Are All Africans" is worth considering in its own right, and nothing about Snuckles' posting history makes me think his motives were the same as Kay's (though I haven't read all his posts, so I can't be sure). I'd also be interested to know if wearing that T-shirt was really the sole reason for the action against diCarlo.
[ 30 July 2008: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]
Wed, 2008-07-30 16:49
#9
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Reallly? You think that is dissing the Christian one? I don't.What I see there is; dissing creationists, reaffirming that God is a He, and then a continuing on to diss FN's creation myth.[/b]
Christians believe God is he; Christians believe God created the world in seven days. And the word "creationists" commonly refers to a group of Christians, not FN's.
Wed, 2008-07-30 17:01
#10
remind
No in fact Christians do not ALL believe the earth was created in 7 days.
There was no dissinf of Christians just creationists, and I believe only then to try and get away with her anti-FN and progressives tirade.
Wed, 2008-07-30 17:09
#11
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]No in fact Christians do not ALL believe the earth was created in 7 days.[/b]
Nevertheless, it is official Christian dogma, and stated in the Bible™. Everybody knows that - even you. You are just being obtuse.
quote:
[b]There was no dissinf of Christians just creationists, and I believe only then to try and get away with her anti-FN and progressives tirade.[/b]
Anyone who read the first sentence of the article and nothing more would easily see that it was a reference to Christian dogma, and nobody would take it as a swipe against FN religions.
That came in the second sentence, not the first.
Wed, 2008-07-30 17:14
#12
remind
MSpector the only time Christians were mentioned, in the whole damn article, was in the first sentence the whole rest of it was devoted to anti-FN and progressives tirade. It is not me who is being obtuse.
She did thatonyl, IMV, to make an appearance of balance so no one could come back on her for singling out FN's and progressives.
And what the fuck was the point of the article in the first place? it wasn't news, or even op, but is was propaganda.
Wed, 2008-07-30 17:17
#13
M. Spector
So you finally admit that I was 100% correct when I said:
quote:
Actually, the Christian one got dissed first, in the opening sentence:
Thanks ever so much for a totally pointless argument.
Wed, 2008-07-30 17:25
#14
RevolutionPlease
The pointless argument is that the first sentence provides adequate cover for the rest of the story...
Wed, 2008-07-30 17:28
#15
remind
yep, and she didn't even diss Christians she dissed the literal creationists.
Wed, 2008-07-30 17:35
#16
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]yep, and she didn't even diss Christians she dissed the literal creationists.[/b]
Maybe you should read your own posts:
quote:
[b]...starting a thread dissing FN creation myths but not Christian ones...[/b]
Now you are saying the author [b]did[/b] "diss" the Christian creation myth. You know - the one promoted by those "literal creationists"?
Wed, 2008-07-30 18:06
#17
ElizaQ
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]MSpector the only time Christians were mentioned, in the whole damn article, was in the first sentence the whole rest of it was devoted to anti-FN and progressives tirade. It is not me who is being obtuse.She did thatonyl, IMV, to make an appearance of balance so no one could come back on her for singling out FN's and progressives.
And what the fuck was the point of the article in the first place? it wasn't news, or even op, but is was propaganda.[/b]
I read it a bit differently and it's not there for the sake of balance. The intro set up the reader with something that most are familiar with Christian Creationism and then equated the Sky Woman story with it, basically saying that they are the same sort of thing. Then the article goes on to lay out the 'apparent' conflict with those that believe in the 'Sky Woman' story with the academic professor, in this case 'science' and how there is an 'apparent' conflict in academia due to things like political correctness yadda yadda and 'science' is getting the short shift.
The ending pretty much makes her point.
She's accusing FN's people who believe in the Sky Woman type stories of being just like creationists and engaging in a similar conflict as the one between creationism and evolution (that everyone is likely familiar with hence the initial set up to get people thinking along those lines) and suggest that they are bringing down science and academia eg as thieves.
There is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to start...
[ 30 July 2008: Message edited by: ElizaQ ]
Wed, 2008-07-30 18:26
#18
remind
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Now you are saying the author [b]did[/b] "diss" the Christian creation myth. You know - the one promoted by those "literal creationists"?[/b]
Oh, mspector, perhaps you should read my posts a little more critically. This snippet you quoted from the sentence I wrote was indeed in reference to snuckles who started this thread, not in reference to Barbara Kay.
Full paragraph reads:
quote:
You got here slightly before me stargazer, I mean wth? Quoting Barbra Kay and the National Post? Starting a thread dissing FN creation myth, in the title of the thread, but not the Christian one, spells trolling, at best!
So, go take your "gotcha" somewhere else,'kay?!
Wed, 2008-07-30 19:25
#19
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Oh, mspector, perhaps you should read my posts a little more critically. This snippet you quoted from the sentence I wrote was indeed in reference to snuckles who started this thread, not in reference to Barbara Kay.Full paragraph reads:
quote:You got here slightly before me stargazer, I mean wth? Quoting Barbra Kay and the National Post? Starting a thread dissing FN creation myth, in the title of the thread, but not the Christian one, spells trolling, at best![/b]
Of all the nerve! You fucking amended your post and now you're trying to rewrite history by saying you said something different!
In [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001958#0... post,[/url] [b]I correctly quoted what you originally wrote. Then you went back and added the words, "in the title of the thread".[/b]
Your dishonest subterfuge doesn't matter anyway, because [b]the argument was over the interpretation of the first sentence in the Kay article, not the title thread.[/b]
I got the interpretation right, and you got it wrong.
Wed, 2008-07-30 19:40
#20
Maysie
The Barbara Kay article is racist, xenophobic, hateful and disgusting. [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
Was that the response you were looking for, Snuckles?
quote:
From the National Post article:
Pandering to aboriginals' stolen-legacy gambits has become commonplace, I'm informed by my "moles" studying Canadian history at various universities. One is now job-hunting in the academy, so I'll call her Lori, not her real name.Lori feels her academic freedom has been constrained by academics' obsession over the empowerment of "oppressed" groups at the expense of historical fact: "When aboriginality comes into the mix, academics fall all over themselves to compromise their core secularism."
She indignantly reports that more than one of her professors suggested she teach native creation stories -- not as anthropological lore but alongside the Bering Strait theory -- to accommodate aboriginal sensibilities.
Those damn natives always asking for something. If they would just shut up and listen to white professors everything would be so much better. Even white professors that wear t-shirts that say "We are all Africans" [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
When history teachers can't -- or won't -- distinguish between allegory and fact to avoid accusations of stolen legacies, they are denying an entire generation of students their intellectual inheritance: the unbiased pursuit of objective truth. We could help students -- and principled teachers -- to reclaim what's rightfully theirs by asking: Who is the real thief here?
Ah, the unbiased pursuit of objective truth. How we all long for such a reality. NOT!
I'm sorry, what paper do you write for again, Ms. Kay? [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Edited to add: re the feud between M.Spector and remind: (mod hat on) Cut it out. If either of you read the article you would see that the fuckwad Ms. Kay focuses her wrath on First Nations and their hijacking of the Canadian academy, and maybe even Canadian rational thought (tm) and how They Must Be Stopped.
[ 30 July 2008: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
Wed, 2008-07-30 21:33
#21
remind
That is exactly what I was pointing out BCG. That Kay used the first sentence to try and cover up her racist and anti-progressive propaganda contained in the rest of it. As well as indicating that snuckles furthered her message with the thread title.
And I am sorry BCG, but I will not let mspector's false accusations of subterfuge against me go unchallenged.
mspector, I edited the post, apparently at the same, as your intitial post in response to me occured, as I only saw your response after I edited it. So you can piss off with your false accusations of subterfuge, I had no need to to use subterfuge, nor would I ever, and the content of the post is exactly the same.
Stargazer even responded to what I was saying in respect to snuckles starting this thread, all I did was clean up spelling and syntax. In no way did my edit change what I was saying in respect to snuckle's actions in starting this thread.
Nor, as you should have seen, did my initial non-edited edited post say anything about Kay's dissing Christians which you tried to also accuse me of and frankly you are now trying to bluster your way out of having pie on your face.
And I will no longer respond to your stalking and meta debate.
Wed, 2008-07-30 23:33
#22
I find the article rather offensive as well, certainly in tone. Myths are not necessarily false (or fanciful), although creation stories that purport to be applicable to all people that differ wildly in details can't all be literally true. Which is not to say that some creation myths only refer to distinct peoples. Personally I think how First Nations people got to the Turtle Island is irrelevant from the standpoint of rights and stewardship (the concept of ownership being problematic for obvious reasons); they were here first regardless and their land was stolen from them, often violently, and cultures destroyed.
This is not to say that there were not migrations of First Nations within Turtle Island before (and after) Europeans arrived (including settlement of previously ice-covered lands), and some oral traditions and pictorial codices describe these migrations, which are also supported by archaeological and linguistic evidence. The application of the scientific method to human origins and migration is as susceptible to racist viewpoints as any field of study, but to be anti-science can almost be as bad as being racist. For example, not accepting the science of climate change may lead ultimately to extinction if mitigating and adaptive action is not taken.
The land-bridge theory of First Nations origins is in full retreat, but there is genetic evidence for an African origin of all humans as well as archaeological evidence that Turtle Island has been inhabited for far longer than 13,000 years. As well as linguistic, archaeological and genetic evidence for more recent non-European migration elsewhere. Scientific evidence needs to be treated with skepticism, but so can creation myths. Do we have to accept that they have been transmitted unaltered over millenia or that current meaning attributed to them is the original meaning?
Thu, 2008-07-31 03:07
#23
Thanks BCG.
Thu, 2008-07-31 05:36
#24
The photo of the fish was the best. No, really. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2008-07-31 06:07
#25
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]mspector, I edited the post, apparently at the same, as your intitial post in response to me occured, as I only saw your response after I edited it.[/b]
I don't care when you saw my response; it doesn't matter. Your suggestion that I had taken a "snippet" of your post out of context was a phony attempt to say that I hadn't read your post very clearly or had deliberately altered it, when in fact it was you who made the alterations, not me.
quote:
[b]...the content of the post is exactly the same.[/b]
Exactly the same...except that you added the words, "in the title of the thread," and later tried to imply that I had misquoted you by leaving out that phrase, and that what you had been arguing about all along was not the first sentence of the Kay article but the title of the thread!!
quote:
[b]...all I did was clean up spelling and syntax. In no way did my edit change what I was saying in respect to snuckle's actions in starting this thread.[/b]
Nonsense. Here's what you posted originally, as I quoted exactly, complete with spelling and syntax errors:
quote:
[b]Convently, starting a thread dissing FN creation myths but not Christian ones speels trolling at best![/b]
Here's what you changed it to:
quote:
Starting a thread dissing FN creation myth, in the title of the thread, but not the Christian one, spells trolling, at best!
OK, let's assume that what you really meant to say in that post all along was that the [b]thread title[/b] was biased. Fine. But when I quoted the first sentence of the Kay article, to show that she was in fact dissing Christian creationism, you immediately responded:
quote:
Reallly? You think that is dissing the Christian one? I don't.What I see there is; dissing creationists, reaffirming that God is a He, and then a continuing on to diss FN's creation myth.
And [b]that's what the disagreement was about - not about the thread title, but about the meaning of the first sentence of the Kay article.[/b] No amount of rewriting history will change that.
You're trying to pretend that you were actually arguing about the thread title? And [b]I[/b] have "pie on my face"??
quote:
[b]And I will no longer respond to your stalking and meta debate.[/b]
Huh? Stalking? Do you always throw out wild accusations when you have nothing left to say? Oh, wait - you do.
[ 31 July 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Thu, 2008-07-31 07:11
#26
remind
Borrowing from stargazer, [b]X[/b]
Thu, 2008-07-31 10:31
#27
I really don’t mean to sound smug, but I throw my hands up sometimes at this tired and boring debate over religion versus science. The two are very different Truths. I would like to see society move on to new intellectual debates.
Anishnabek myths encourage critical thought. One is challenged to think for themselves and learn for themselves. And, besides being a human responsibility, critical thought is an important value. Ms. Kay shouldn’t profess to understand the intricacies of things that most of society still struggles to understand.
The students at that school have been taught and socialized well. They’ve been taught to challenge, yes. But in the tradition of Eurocentric thought they’re challenging others, more than themselves. Ms Kay’s article seeks to reduced human beliefs, which is itself a recipe for failure. It’s simply an article that resorts to intolerance.
Thu, 2008-07-31 11:05
#28
I'll take the myths that have been around for thousands of years over the myths we've developed in the last couple of centuries any day.
Thu, 2008-07-31 14:14
#29
quote:
I'll take the myths that have been around for thousands of years over the myths we've developed in the last couple of centuries any day.
There are examples of both that are dangerous.
Thu, 2008-07-31 14:26
#30
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Reallly? You think that is dissing the Christian one? I don't.What I see there is; dissing creationists, reaffirming that God is a He, and then a continuing on to diss FN's creation myth.[/b]
Are some myths subject to a "diss-free zone"?
Thu, 2008-07-31 14:29
#31
Stop your trolling Sven. You history with FN posts is horrid. Just stop now.
Thu, 2008-07-31 14:39
#32
All this thread does is reinforce some old and weird Scandinavian myths.
Thu, 2008-07-31 14:39
#33
quote:
Originally posted by It's Me D:
[b]I'll take the myths that have been around for thousands of years over the myths we've developed in the last couple of centuries any day.[/b]
So you're fine with Genesis?
Thu, 2008-07-31 14:44
#34
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Stop your trolling Sven. You history with FN posts is horrid. Just stop now.[/b]
Look. What I don't understand is how myths of virtually every sort (particularly Xian myths) get trashed here all the time (including by me) but some people seem to feel that aboriginal myths get a pass simply because...they are aboriginal?
The professor was making a point that substantial and growing scientific evidence indicates that all humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago (which is probably contrary to every creation myth that exists). This upset some FNs at the school and the professor was--astoundingly--punished for it.
It's a legitimate debate about academic freedom.
I criticize Xian creationist myths (like teaching "Intelligent Design" in schools) in the same manner.
I think creationist myths are anti-intellectual, whether they are FN or non-FN.
Thu, 2008-07-31 14:50
#35
Sven
[url=http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/humanmigration.s... Genome Project[/url]
It's worth reading.
Thu, 2008-07-31 15:24
#36
The “Creationist” myth that I’m familiar with is filled with metaphors. And I find this metaphoric language to be very intellectually stimulating, given that the challenge was tackled metaphorically. Too often we take the literal route.
However, I can’t provide you with any of the creation story as I’ve never been given it, as a knowledge keeper. In other words I’m not the one to be sharing it. And I suspect, neither is Ms. Kay. Using knowledge that you haven’t been given permission to use is very dangerous. That’s why there are knowledge keepers for certain types of information.
A little knowledge can do just as much harm as no knowledge at all. I also suspect that knowledge that Ms. Kay is using shouldn’t be used by her, nor in such a way, until she’d earned that knowledge. And that in itself should be a lesson worth learning. Ms. Kay is simply being a troll of another kind.
Myths, at least the Anishanbe myths that I know, have a lot to teach us. Even in the practices of preserving them there’s lessons to be learned.
After more than a century of having their heritage taken from them, the students are simply being defensive of what they have to hold on to. As with other Oskapayhos, the students are on a learning curve too. Do we want the universities to be like the residential schools as well? Debunking myth and culture? I personally agree with the science behind the evolution of humans. But myths have a lot to teach us about actually being human.
Thu, 2008-07-31 16:03
#37
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by sknguy:
[b]However, I can’t provide you with any of the creation story as I’ve never been given it, as a knowledge keeper. In other words I’m not the one to be sharing it. And I suspect, neither is Ms. Kay. Using knowledge that you haven’t been given permission to use is very dangerous. That’s why there are knowledge keepers for certain types of information.[/b]
If people wish to keep their myths to themselves, fine. But, when, for example, Xian creationists want to have “Intelligent Design” taught in schools, they are trying to impose the “truth” of their myth on others.
Here, we have the believers of a different creation myth telling an academic institution that academics should not be making an assertion that the origin of all humans is Africa because the assertion conflicts with the “truth” of their myth.
I guess the question here is: Should academics be prohibited from asserting that scientific evidence points to a conclusion that all humans originated in Africa?
quote:
Originally posted by sknguy:
[b]Do we want the universities to be like the residential schools as well? Debunking myth and culture?[/b]
What would you propose universities do? Stop doing research about human origins because the effect of that research will (almost certainly) debunk myths?
Thu, 2008-07-31 16:12
#38
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by sknguy:
[b]I personally agree with the science behind the evolution of humans.[/b]
Does that include the science that says that North American aboriginals' forebears traversed the Bering Strait when it was still an icy land mass 13,000 years ago?
Thu, 2008-07-31 16:18
#39
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Papal Bull:
[b]All this thread does is reinforce some old and weird Scandinavian myths.[/b]
How does this thread "reinforce" [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_mythology]Scandinavian myths[/url]?
The [b][i]creation of humans[/b][/i] according to Norse mythology (from the link):
[i]"According to Norse myth, the beginning of life was fire and ice, with the existence of only two worlds: Muspelheim and Niflheim. When the warm air of Muspelheim hit the cold ice of Niflheim, the giant Ymir and the icy cow Audhumla were created. Ymir's foot bred a son and a man and a woman emerged from his armpits, making Ymir the progenitor of the Jotun, or giants. Whilst Ymir slept, the intense heat from Muspelheim made him sweat, and he sweated out Surtr, a giant of fire. Later Ymir woke and drank Audhumbla's milk. Whilst he drank, the cow Audhumbla licked on a salt stone. On the first day after this a man's hair appeared on the stone, on the second day a head and on the third day an entire man emerged from the stone. His name was Bъri and with an unknown giantess he fathered Bor, the father of the three gods Odin, Vili and Ve.
When the gods felt strong enough they killed Ymir. His blood flooded the world and drowned all of the giants, except two. But giants grew again in numbers and soon there were as many as before Ymir's death. Then the gods created seven more worlds using Ymir's flesh for dirt, his blood for the Oceans, rivers and lakes, his bones for stone, his brain as the clouds, his skull for the heaven. Sparks from Muspelheim flew up and became stars.
One day when the gods were walking they found two tree trunks. They transformed them into the shape of humans. Odin gave them life, Vili gave them mind and Ve gave them the ability to hear, see, and speak. The gods named them Ask and Embla and built the kingdom of Middle-earth for them and to keep the giants out the gods placed a gigantic fence made of Ymir's eyelashes around Middle-earth."[/i]
That all sounds pretty pre-scientific.
Thu, 2008-07-31 16:21
#40
RevolutionPlease
Absent any response from the students in this "story", I think there's plenty more to this than what is printed.
Journalism at its worst.
Thu, 2008-07-31 16:22
#41
Sven
By the way, the original two worlds (Muspellheim and Niflheimr) ultimately morphed into nine worlds:
[i]"Scandinavians believed there are 'nine worlds' (nнu heimar), that many scholars summarize as follows:
■ Бsgarрr, world of the Жsir.
■ Vanaheimr, world of the Vanir.
■ Miрgarрr, world of humans.
■ Muspellheim, world of the primordial element of fire.
■ Niflheimr, world of the primordial element of ice
■ Hel, underworld, world of the dead.
■ Бlfheimr, world of the Бlfar (elves).
■ Svartalfheim or Nidavellir, world of the Dvergar (Norse dwarves).
■ Jцtunheimr, world of the Jцtnar (giants).
Note the boundaries between Niflheim, Jцtunheimr, Hel, Niрavellir, Svartбlfaheimr, and several other significant places like Utgarрr remain uncertain."[/i]
Uncertain indeed.
Thu, 2008-07-31 16:23
#42
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]Absent any response from the students in this "story", I think there's plenty more to this than what is printed.[/b]
I would very much like to hear it.
Thu, 2008-07-31 16:29
#43
Very nice people here I see.
Look Sven, you're a smart guy, you know it's not even remotely as simple as you put it.
Xian myths have been forced upon people. Xian thinking is the norm. When academic institutions include the beliefs of minority groups, it can hardly be seen on the same same level as Xian creationism. It is especially important given the small number of anishnawbe people and the fact that their history and culture is largely ignored.
Do you honestly think or believe that anishnawbe people are trying to force the world to change according to the various beliefs? Surely you can see how this differs from Xian thinking.
You must know that there is not, and never will be, the sacrifice of science to any anishnawbe teachings/beliefs. Not only is this not desired, FN history and beliefs are actively suppressed.
But I know you know this...
I know that you know this distinction. This is why I also know that your questions are neither innocent, nor coming from a place which could possibly believe the voices of a very marginalized group are ready to kick science to the curb.
Edited because my spelling sucks right now.
[ 31 July 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]
[ 31 July 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]
Thu, 2008-07-31 16:44
#44
Sven
Stargazer, what are you recommending academics do regarding their scientific study of human origins and their conclusions regarding those studies?
Thu, 2008-07-31 17:28
#45
Sven
Had I read a little more closely, I might have gotten a hint of an answer to my question above:
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]When academic institutions include the beliefs of minority groups...[/b]
If I'm reading your post correctly, are you saying that academics should include FN creation myths as possible legitimate alternatives to genetic anthropology?
Is that what you are saying?
Thu, 2008-07-31 17:32
#46
remind
IMV, you're not reading it correctly.
Thu, 2008-07-31 17:35
#47
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]IMV, you're not reading it correctly.[/b]
Then how should academics study human origins?
Thu, 2008-07-31 17:42
#48
remind
Stick to science and what they are doing finding, and leave any creation myth dialogue out of the equation, IMV.
Thu, 2008-07-31 17:56
#49
The Fates need to cut Barbara Kay's cord, she's a waste of oxygen.
Thu, 2008-07-31 17:58
#50
RevolutionPlease
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]I would very much like to hear it.[/b]
But without it, is there any journalistic integrity?
Thu, 2008-07-31 18:28
#51
quote:
I know that you know this distinction. This is why I also know that your questions are neither innocent, nor coming from a place which could possibly believe the voices of a very marginalized group are ready to kick science to the curb.
You're asking a question I've already answered. You know that what you wrote I am no where near implying. That's my last word on this subject.