Cowering before the Sky Woman

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]
I think creationist myths are anti-intellectual, whether they are FN or non-FN.[/b]

---

Then I'm afraid you don't really understand Anishnabek creation legends, or Anishnabe myth in general.

Mr. DiCarlo Phd. should know better than to challenge someone about their beliefs. I mean really... way to sustain the mistrust for academia. But then again, academics haven't been so nice to First Nations' cultures in the past.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[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?[/b]

---

I'm sure that in the past there were many migration routes. And I suspect that the creation myths might contribute something of an understanding of this. You know, it's really annoying that people only seem to key on only parts of the Anishnabek creation legends. Particularly those concerning the creation of Turtle Island and Sky Woman, as though these were all there is. There is much more to the creation legends, of which Turtle Island and Sky Woman represent just two periods.

Mr. DiCarlo and Ms. Kay have seen fit to obtain just enough information about Anshanbek beliefs to serve their purpose, and not much else it seems. It's probably inconceivable that they might learn something from the myths they're abusing.

Thanks, sknguy.

quote:

---

sknguy: it's really annoying that people only seem to key on only parts of the Anishnabek creation legends. Particularly those concerning the creation of Turtle Island and Sky Woman, as though these were all there is. There is much more to the creation legends, of which Turtle Island and Sky Woman represent just two periods.

---

Methinks Prof. DiCarlo isn't such a critical thinker himself. Can't even move himself to get more information other than the typical mainstream culturally appropriated talking points. Ever hear of a thing called "research", doctor? Aka "reading works you haven't read already to gain new information and insight". Or not.

Sigh. The language has changed, but the overall agenda to silence, minimize and marginalize FN/Aboriginal voices remains. Not surprising , of course, nor is the legitimacy that some posters in this thread give the learned professor.

It's damned annoying though.

Another snippet from the interview with diCarlo:

quote:

---

The woman never returned to his classroom. Instead, she complained to the University, along with two other students who were opposed to his “religiously insensitive” position on evolution. The objections apparently focused on Dr diCarlo’s comments on religion and evolution, but also indicated concern about fair grading and “talking about sex in class.”

Dr diCarlo told me about being called into a meeting with the Associate Dean, where he was confronted, in what he calls a “vague manner,” about the students’ complaints. The concern about his talking about sex during a lecture baffled him. “I knew I was being pulled for something pertaining to religion, but what was this talking about sex about?” Later, while talking about the incident with a colleague, it came to him, “I think he must have been referring to homosexuality.”

Dr diCarlo had explained to his class that evidence seems to suggest homosexuality to be, in part at least, a genetic propensity, and that this could possibly provide a better understanding of this aspect of human nature — that it is not a ‘life choice’ but inherent, and therefore should not be considered morally problematic.

---

I wonder if the other two students who complained were FN as well, or if they were Christian or Muslim? The fact that diCarlo believes his views on homosexuality contributed to the complaints leads me to think the latter. If that's the case, then maybe he wasn't singling out anyone's religious beliefs, but simply dismissing those who challenged scientific views on religious grounds.

On the other hand, let's remember that we're only hearing diCarlo's side of the story here, and he may have said other, genuinely offensive things, which Kay of course would ignore, since she clearly wants to use this story as a smear against natives in general. It's unfortunate that the [i]Post[/i] seems to be the only major media outlet covering the story; I'd like to see a real journalist tackle this case, if possible interviewing the students who objected to diCarlo's lecture.

I also want to thank sknguy for the excellent comments, and bigcitygal for the following:

quote:

---

Sigh. The language has changed, but the overall agenda to silence, minimize and marginalize FN/Aboriginal voices remains. Not surprising , of course, nor is the legitimacy that some posters in this thread give the learned professor.

---

Most of all though I have to thank Papal Bull for this,

quote:

---

All this thread does is reinforce some old and weird Scandinavian myths.

---

The internet is just crawling with those weird Scandinavian myths [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]It's highly unlikely an FN student would complain about being taught homosexuality is genetic.[/b]

---

Why is it "highly unlikely" that a FN student would complaint about being taught homosexuality is genetic?

Seriously. How can you even say something like that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]I'd also like to know who these students were, and then I'd like to hear the appropriate outrage heaved at these Christians.[/b]

---

I'd love to hear what the students have to say about the diCarlo incident. Google revealed nothing...at least in my searches.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]Stick to science and what they are doing finding, and leave any creation myth dialogue out of the equation, IMV.[/b]

---

And, if an academic's scientific assertion that all humans originated from African is challenged by someone who believes in a contrary creation myth, what should the academic do? Say nothing? Conceded that creation myths are equally valid? What?

ETA: By the way, I think diCarlo [i]was[/i] "sticking to science". He was challenged and he offered to examine the question scientifically (compare competing evidence). He would [i]not[/i] have been "sticking to science" if he had simply conceded the validity of myths.

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

This is a potentially very interesting thread, but it can often be difficult for a thread to rise above its opening post, which is unfortunate.

The creation narratives of First Nations people, as well as the western-model scientific narrative are both answers, and both equally valid answers. That this is an apparent contradiction is because they are answer to different questions.

If your questions are “who am I in relation to my people, what is my place and role on the earth, do I even have one, what matters, I know I am an ‘I” but what is my ‘we’,”? then a thoughtful look at the stories and narratives of your people, and talks with older people who are wise in these matters is a place to start. The fact that your DNA shows up somewhere else on the planet may be real, but isn’t useful.

The language of a people’s narrative is hugely rich, with the underlying assumptions, shared values, and ethics which bind a peoples and feed sustain their souls.

( I hardly ever type in all caps but…)

IT IS A THOUSAND TIMES MORE IMPORTANT IF YOU HAVE BEEN SUNDERED FROM YOUR ELDER GENERATION, ROBBED OF THE BASIS OF YOUR CULTURE AND AS AN “I” TORN AND SCATTERED FROM YOUR “WE”.

Ok, I’ll stop shouting, but that was important.

So the answer you get is as good as the question you ask.

I’ll indulge in a bit of self revelation. Oldgoat doesn’t have a “we”. I stand as an “I”. The wisdom of my ancestors, who’s bare feet felt the forest floors of the dark and magnificent woods, and who built henges is lost in the mists of time. I also have a Judeo-Christian creation narrative to draw on, but have consciously rejected it. There are bits I can take, but not much.

The scientific narrative, with its different methods answers different questions. As a member of the white settler group, who hasn’t felt what I was talking about in my little shout above, I look at these question too, and personally find value in that kind of curiosity.

I think you can indulge in both, with respect and without conflict, if your clear on “what is my question and why am I asking it”.

A university course should be clear on what its parameters are, what is it asking and what does it purport to answer and what not.

I should also add that the Xtian creation myths of the dominant culture (while interesting) are tainted in the context of this particular discussion, because Christianity was unabashedly used as an instrument of oppression cultural genocide, and naked theft and murder. I do not therefore view their value equally with FN creation narratives.

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Sven, fuck off.[/b]

---

This is not an answer! Sven asked like a million questions - why not answer honestly?

Sorry oldgoat. I've been doing really good but I know Sven dislikes aboriginal peoples, and I know what motivates him. He's like a dog with a worn out chewed up sock that just won't let go.

And no Ghislaine, I refuse to answer dishonest questions from someone who has never been my ally.

The moderating in this thread is an absolute disgrace.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
[b]Try just shutting up and listening for a bit, or the next step will be to kick you off this forum too.[/b]

---

Um, from the humanities and science forum? For what...specifically?

And this outrageous and false comment cannot go unanswered:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]I know Sven dislikes aboriginal peoples [/b]

---

You are saying that on what basis? Because I don’t believe in FN myths and actively assert that such myths regarding the origin of FN peoples conflicts with the scientific evidence regarding the origins of all human beings?

I don’t believe in [i]any[/i] creation myths (FN, Hindu, Islamic, Xian, Norse, etc., etc, etc., etc.). But, according to you, because I disagree with FN myths specifically, I “dislike aboriginal peoples”?!?!?! I suppose I “dislike” Xians, too, and any other group that has traditionally believed in creation myths?

Please retract that statement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]and I know what motivates him. [/b]

---

It is clear that you have no idea what “motivates” me. I have never ascribed motivations to you (because I don’t know what they are). I think that ascribing motivations to another in a discussion is pointless to that discussion. I focus on what is [i]actually being said[/i].

quote:

---

Um, from the humanities and science forum? For what...specifically?

---

Oh you're probably right and I'm sorry if I overreacted, but there are not equal measures of talking and listening going on here which keeps taking the discussion off in very pissy directions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
[b]...there are not equal measures of talking and listening going on here...[/b]

---

If that's directed at Sven, it's wrong. He has responded in detail to every point made against him, which shows he is reading and considering carefully everything that is being said.

It's people who threaten to throw him out of the humanities & science forum who are doing more talking than listening.

Sven I will retract nothing. I have no desire to wade through the many Aboriginal threads you have been tossed out of.

And Ghislaine, I agree with you 100 percent. That was an excellent post.

From Wikipedia

In the academic fields of mythology, mythography, or folkloristics, a myth is a sacred story usually concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to be their present form. The active beings in myths are generally gods and goddesses, heroes and heroines, or animals. Myths are often said to take place before recorded history begins. A myth is a sacred narrative in the sense that it contributes to systems of thought and values, and that people attach religious or spiritual significance to it. Use of the term by scholars implies neither the truth nor the falseness of the narrative.

quote:

---

A myth is a sacred narrative in the sense that it contributes to systems of thought and values, and that people attach religious or spiritual significance to it.

---

That's an interesting definition. I will continue to classify "modern science" as modern mythology until people stop "attach[ing] religious or spiritual significance to it" (which I imagine wouldn't be possible).

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: It's Me D ]

quote:

---

Science currently may show,(as science really does not yet conclusively prove that this is the case, if it ever could/can) peoples may have evolved and migrated out of Africa.

---

It is more correct to say that the balance of scientific evidence indicates that modern human beings evolved in Africa and migrated from Africa to the rest of the world, rather than evolving independently from previous populations of genus homo in various locations, or some other origin. Science is always a provisional proof, rather than an absolute proof, as it allows for the possibility of contrary evidence that may lead to another theory or paradigm.

quote:

---

However, I do not believe science can ever definitively prove this is the case, as land masses have risen and fallen, covered by water, and uncovered by water, mountains have risen from formerly flat land, throughout the world's history, and much more ancient civilization rercords could well have, and have most likely, been lost.

---

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but given that mountain building (aside from volcanoes) and continental drift occur on time scales of tens of millions of years, I'll go with the current genetic and archaeological/paleontological evidence that genus homo emerged around 2.5 million years ago and homo sapiens sapiens emerged less than 200,000 years ago. However agriculture may have first developed well before 10,000 years ago and not necessarily in the middle east (assuming agriculture is an essential element of civilization).

quote:

---

Moreover, the ancestors of some of the FN's in NA, may have well lived in NA before the last iceage and migrated out, and their ancestors came back, knowing it was here by oral history.

---

If you mean the last glacial period they may well have been here and there is evidence pro and con. If you mean the Pleistocene, highly unlikely. At this point, migration from the Americas and back is shear speculation, aside from the more recent introduction of the sweet potato to Polynesia and chicken to South America (prior to European exploration and colonization).

quote:

---

These are the things current science does not yet know, and perhaps will never know. Science has stated that they knew everything before, and have found that indeed they didn't, as new evidence has been discovered.

---

Some scientists may have stated that about certain branches of science. Others have stated that there were things that we would never know, and gave examples. The classic case is the composition of stars, which was able to be determined by spectroscopy in the 1840s, a few years after it was deemed impossible to know.

So what should he have done? Lied?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]So what should he have done? Lied?[/b]

---

No. If there is anything he should have done differently, he should simply have been more diplomatic about it, or perhaps used the language of "different narratives" advocated by oldgoat.

I wouldn't say that he can't. But when dealing with the mythology of a people who have been oppressed by one's own culture, and when part of that oppression involved active suppression of their mythology, the need to be diplomatic is greater than when dealing with Christian mythology, I'd say.

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agent 204:
I wouldn't say that he can't. But when dealing with the mythology of a people who have been oppressed by one's own culture, and when part of that oppression involved active suppression of their mythology, the need to be diplomatic is greater than when dealing with Christian mythology, I'd say.

---

Why? It wasn't a course on aboriginal mythology; it was a course on critical thinking. How could a course whose goal is to teach people to not accept unsubstantiated claims at face value [i]not[/i] critically examine these narratives in the face of available evidence?

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

I can't speak for everyone in the thread, but the tentative nature of discussions like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture#Evidence_of_human_habitation... suggests that the people working in this field are well aware of the uncertainty involved:

quote:

---

Archaeologists have long debated the possible existence of a culture older than Clovis in North and South America.

Predecessors of the Clovis people may have migrated south along the North American coastline. According to researchers Michael Waters and Thomas Stafford of Texas A&M University, new radiocarbon dates place Clovis remains from the continental United States in a shorter time window (13,050 to 12,800 years ago)[10], while radiocarbon dating of the Monte Verde site in Chile place Clovis like culture there as early as 13,500 years ago and remains found at the Channel Islands of California place coastal Paleoindians there 12,500 years ago. This suggests that the Paleoindian migration could have spread more quickly along the coastline south, and that populations that settled along that route could have then began migrations eastward into the continent.

In 2004, worked stone tools were found at Topper in South Carolina that have been dated by radiocarbon techniques to 50,000 years ago[11], although there is significant dispute regarding these dates.[12]. A more substantiated claim is that of Paisley Caves, where rigorous carbon-14 and genetic testing appears to indicate that humans related to modern Native Americans were present in the caves over 1000 14C years before the earliest evidence of Clovis. A study published in Science presents strong evidence that humans occupied sites in Monte Verde, at the tip of South America, as early as 13,000 years ago. [13] If this is true then humans must have entered North America long before the Clovis Culture - perhaps 16,000 years ago.

---

The fact that a lot of uncertainty is acknowledged in this discussion, and that people [i]want more evidence[/i] before they settle on an explanation, makes it rather different from what I normally think of as "sacred knowledge".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Why? It wasn't a course on aboriginal mythology; it was a course on critical thinking. How could a course whose goal is to teach people to not accept unsubstantiated claims at face value [i]not[/i] critically examine these narratives in the face of available evidence?[/b]

---

Good point.

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

Feature article on DiCarlo in [url=http://www.thestar.com/living/article/469380]today's Toronto Star.[/url]

He is being named [b]Humanist of The Year[/b] by the [url=http://www.humanists.ca/humanists-in-the-news/]Humanist Association of Canada[/url].

Previous recipients of the award include Henry Morgentaler, Grace MacInnis, Margaret Atwood, Sue Rodriguez, Robert Buckman, John Ralston Saul, and Claire Culhane.