posted
@ Explorer about this Lancaster guy,He makes studies,writes papers and yet he is willing to bargin and make compromises with someone he don't even know on the other end of a keyboard? Imo this sounds like politics rather than science where something is either right or wrong. It s..t,like this,that cause some folks right on E/S to distrust so called scientics.
If he was in error it would be better just to say he didn't take such and such into consideration and a revision is in order and let the facts fall where they may.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
why should he if he thinks m34 originated in west asia its is right its posible probably southern levant i think it originated in egypt than spread to antolia persian gulf and from there some return to ethiopia but only some of them since m34 is still common in southern arabia yemen oman as i said what does it matter to you again the african american slaves didnt carry m34 or m81 or m78 e3b1c1
quote:Originally posted by ackee: @ Explorer about this Lancaster guy,He makes studies,writes papers and yet he is willing to bargin and make compromises with someone he don't even know on the other end of a keyboard? Imo this sounds like politics rather than science where something is either right or wrong. It s..t,like this,that cause some folks right on E/S to distrust so called scientics.
If he was in error it would be better just to say he didn't take such and such into consideration and a revision is in order and let the facts fall where they may.
Evergreen Writes: The best thing that came out of that exchange is that Lancaster was exposed as a supporter and defender of a blatant White Supremacist - Dienekes.
Here is an example of the kinds of posts you will find on Dienekes website (which he controls):
The important question is, are Europids and Mongolids better adapted on average to modern-civilized and disciplined societies than Negrids or other races.
Dienekes is a blatant racist. Andrew Lancaster listed Dienekes as an advisor for his paper. Could it get any clearer!
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks,EverGreen it'sgood to know there are people out there to challange the B/S put forward by so called men/women of learning you guys keep up the pressure.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
@ Explorer about this Lancaster guy,He makes studies,writes papers and yet he is willing to bargin and make compromises with someone he don't even know on the other end of a keyboard?
Knew nothing about this fellow until his "review" article was posted here. So I don't know anything about any previous work of the guy, but the paper posted here cites works of other people; no primary scientific research therein that Lancaster himself conducted; certainly not genetics or linguistics, which are what the paper essentially revolves around.
Besides that, scientists are people too, which means that they have their own subjective personal opinions. The question is whether a scientist lets that get in the way or not; it is up to an "informed" audience to determine that, and make the case for it, accordingly.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. What connections are these? Whatever it maybe, I highly doubt it has any bearing on the Y-DNA trees presented. Commentary there, perhaps.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Interesting. What connections are these? Whatever it maybe, I highly doubt it has any bearing on the Y-DNA trees presented. Commentary there, perhaps.
Evergreen Writes: Commentary from ISOGG website....
Y-DNA haplogroup E would appear to have arisen in Northeast Africa based on the concentration and variety of E subclades in that area today. But the fact that Haplogroup E is closely linked with Haplogroup D, which is not found in Africa, leaves open the possibility that E first arose in the Near or Middle East and was subsequently carried into Africa by a back migration.Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Know that I linked to the ISOGG in my blog only in so far as the Y-DNA tree is concerned. Do you know of any alternative site(s), more reputable, that regularly updates the Y-DNA tree?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Yeap, that's what I thought it might be.
Know that I linked to the ISOGG in my blog only in so far as the Y-DNA tree is concerned. Do you know of any alternative site(s), more reputable, that regularly updates the Y-DNA tree?
Evergreen Writes: I don't. Until we develop our own we will have to selectivly use their tools. The important thing is we continue to dig deep with independent analysis and make the connections that exist between some of these racist organizations, entities and individuals (such as Dienekes).
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
dienekes is a living legend god bless him and his blog he is one of the first who reach the conclusion that e3b is diffrent racialy from the e3a guys e3b1c1
posted
The Explorer wrote: -------------------------------- Besides that, scientists are people too, which means that they have their own subjective personal opinions. The question is whether a scientist lets that get in the way or not; it is up to an "informed" audience to determine that, and make the case for it, accordingly. --------------------------------
Which naturally causes anyone with reasonable intelligence to ask, why do you guys hang on their every word. If you know they lie and are biased why do so many of you even bother listening to them.
You know that in order to stake a claim to Ancient Egypt the eurocentrists must divide Africans using bogus: anthropology, linguistics, geography, genetics, history, archaeology, and a host of others methods.
And yet you fools actually believe and recite word for word their propaganda. How did you people get this dumb?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: The Explorer wrote: The Explorer wrote: -------------------------------- Besides that, scientists are people too, which means that they have their own subjective personal opinions. The question is whether a scientist lets that get in the way or not; it is up to an "informed" audience to determine that, and make the case for it, accordingly. --------------------------------
Which naturally causes anyone with reasonable intelligence to ask, why do you guys hang on their every word. If you know they lie and are biased why do so many of you even bother listening to them.
1. We DON'T hang on to every word they say. What we DO is critically evaluate mainstream, peer-reviewed scholarship. Lancaster is obviously not a mainstream peer-reviewed scholar. His association with a known racist such as Dienkes demonstrates that.
2. We know that they lie and/or are biased, but we still need to engage their scholarship because the majority of our people recieve their information via the work of these scholars. Lying and being biased are two related but different things. We can agree that White Supremacy is at the root of both scholalry reactions. However, bias is unconciously administering a White Supremacist mentality. Lying is doing so with awareness. We can change those who are simply biased through change management strategies. If they are simply outright liars then we expose them as fringe scholars.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic