posted
Flash! Fox News Reports that Aliens May Have Built the Pyramids of Egypt!
Pseudoscience as news? The Fox Network's handling of its primetime special "Opening the Lost Tombs: Live from Egypt" raises ethical questions. Richard C. Carrier
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I couldn't believe my eyes. It was a Sunday night, on the ten o'clock news. Right between a report on Y2K and another on a fine against a local construction company, Fox 5 News in New York saw fit to give us a "special report" on who built the pyramids. The graphic behind the announcer, on a backdrop of the Gizeh pyramids, asks the question: "Alien Architects?" The announcer plugs the upcoming Fox television network special "Opening the Lost Tombs: Live From Egypt," then segues into the story with the campy introduction, "There are many mysteries in Egypt, like the pyramids. Who built them and how did they do it?" With that she introduces Fox News correspondent David Garcia, who begins his voice-over to video of the pyramids: "The ancient future, a civilization of contradiction." Immediately we hear another voice in an Arabic accent, "a pyramid was a tomb," followed immediately by another similar voice, "the pyramid has never been a tomb." This is how it begins, and it only gets worse. Besides the ramifications of this news report for the whole field of journalism-the way it was conducted, and the shoddy journalism it represents-there is the then-upcoming special that this "news report" was plugging, which aired the following Tuesday (March 2, 1999). Although that show might be excused as "entertainment," when the same thing is done on a regular news hour, amidst real news, such an excuse is inadequate. And as I eventually discovered, it would even be ethically questionable for Fox to call its live special "entertainment." One scholar who participated in it told me he agreed to take part in the show for no fee, on the basis that it was a "news" program. "They certainly used the word 'news'," he told me, "using that as the reason why 'no one' who was interviewed was getting paid." If that is true, and if Fox does claim the show was entertainment, then it is pulling a fast one.
Questionable Sources On the ten o'clock news, after we are told that the pyramids have never been a tomb, correspondent Garcia continues, "Still, modern day scholars debate not only what they are, but why they are-who, or what, built them?" He treats both claims as if they are exemplary of real scholarly debate. Does Garcia really think that? He could not be reached for comment. Then we see a man identified onscreen as "Fadel Gad, Egyptologist." What news does he have for us? Why, just this: "Were the Egyptians thinking of UFOs at that time? Yes! A very sophisticated, highly intelligent species that had intercepted this planet Earth and had caused the evolution and the exploration of the human consciousness." A real Egyptologist is saying this? This is what Fox News is reporting. Though I later found that Mr. Gad has extensive field experience and a master's degree in Egyptology, he has authored no known publications, and is not a member of the International Association of Egyptologists.1 But there is one more thing: Fadel Gad just happens to be a co-executive producer of "Opening the Lost Tombs." This is not mentioned in this news report. Here is a real blurring of the line between news and entertainment, with producers being portrayed as unbiased experts on news stories to drum up interest in their future entertainment programs. The thrust of the report was definitely not skeptical. Garcia tells us that "traditional Egyptologists" consider "even the mention of UFOs or other-world intelligence [as] heresy," as if this were about opinion and dogma, with rival opinions as good as any other, instead of being about facts and evidence. The only skeptic presented was Zahi Hawass, "Undersecretary of State," a truly renowned Egyptologist, widely published in the field, with a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania (all far more than Fadel Gad can claim). But Dr. Hawass was not listed as an Egyptologist-instead, he was identified as an establishment bureaucrat (though it wasn't mentioned, he would also be involved in the upcoming special). Hawass explains, "People like to dream. If you meet someone who is not an archaeologist, they love to dream." Recounting the claims of aliens, he concludes, "That's a dream! My job is to let you dream, but you have to know a little bit about reality." That is all Hawass gets to say against the ideas of Mr. Gad. No other experts or information are presented on this matter. This furthers the impression that the debate is about opinions, not facts, about heretics fighting the establishment and being arrogantly dismissed as dreamers.
Eventually, Garcia tells us, "also preserved are records, etched in stone, supporting evidence not of this Earth." This is a tacit approval of the alien hypothesis by a mainstream journalist on a major network's regular ten o'clock news hour. This is not a tabloid; this is supposedly a mainstream source. Yet there is no hint of skepticism.
What is this "supporting evidence" not of this Earth? Gad again: "The records indicate that we came from another place, we came from the stars." Do they? A picture is then shown of some Egyptian hieroglyphs resembling rings, and we hear Gad declaring "they look like flying saucers!" Then comes a picture of a carving of an Egyptian in a ceremonial headdress, followed by Gad's voice again: "They are showing figures with antennas on their head. Very mysterious." No other interpretation is offered, no one is given the chance to rebut Gad's reading of these glyphs.
Garcia finishes with a sappy catch-phrase ending, typical of this brand of TV journalism, "A higher intelligence, or merely dedicated hard work? Which theory is correct? Neither is proven. It is the mystery of Egypt," an overt declaration that the aliens theory is just as good as any other, that it hasn't been "proven" that the pyramids are man-made. If the Fox network can be this gullible, or this incompetent, or this shifty, on a subject where information and experts abound, how can anyone trust anything else they report?
By now I was dreading the Fox special. I had already found the Fox Web site (www.foxnetwork.com/egypt/) promoting all kinds of pseudoscience, uncritically, from mummy curses to aliens to psychics. No real journalism appears on the Web site at all, virtually no skepticism, and no references or authorities. Statements are made as if they were facts. The Titanic was sunk by a mummy's curse; the pyramids may have been built to signal space travellers; the fifty-year-old predictions of "the celebrated American psychic" Edgar Cayce suggest the pyramids were built ten thousand years ago; that the Sphinx shows damage from the Great Flood; and a secret hall of records from Atlantis would be found under it in the late 1990s-conveniently, the very time that Fox planned to explore, live on television, new shafts opened up "beneath" the Sphinx (not exactly-more like behind it).
"Forget about everything you've ever seen or heard about" the Sphinx and the pyramids, Maury Povich says as the show begins. Then there's a cheesy voice-over, asking the questions that set the tone for the rest of the show. "Are there clues to man's destiny? Was it Atlantis that taught Egypt how to build? Are we the descendants of astronauts from another world?" The entire two-hour show is littered with New Age authors pushing their theories, interspersed with more interesting archaeological tours led by Zahi Hawass. Hawass is a wonderful scientist, and clearly loves his job. He embodies the excitement of archaeology, and is eager to share it with others. Around this backbone of "reality," which included the new, "live-on-TV" discovery of an intact mummy, the exploration of an unused tomb, and the first-ever public viewing of the tomb of Osiris, the content is entirely lopsided in favor of the "heretics." The "reality" aspect of the show is also suspect; much of it seemed staged. It was apparent that Hawass had explored many of these sites before, identifying art and translating inscriptions, in preparation for the show (and then, perhaps, "setting them up" by covering them with sand). Moreover, many archaeologists, whose comments can be read in the ANE Digest archives, note that Hawass was providing a very bad example of how to conduct a dig. Some even said they would use the video to instruct students on what not to do.2
A Parade of Paranormal Purveyors We are given a tour of all the outlandish theories at the start of the program, with longer, corresponding monologues popping in and out as the show progresses, apparently to fill dead time between setting up archaeological sites for the TV cameras. In each case an author pitches his theory, with the title of his book appearing on screen. We are thus led through the entire gamut of "heretical" Egyptology today. The narrative quaintly portrays these guys as the "doubters" and "skeptics" who are challenging supposedly tired, old views. About these theorists, who posit lost civilizations and alien visitors, Povich tells us, "their ideas, or at least some of them, are not quite as wacky as you might suspect." Indeed, "they are vigorously challenging mainstream archaeologists like Zahi Hawass." When at last we get some comment from Hawass, sanity is championed, though not permitted a fair fight. He is only given time to say the obvious: "There is no evidence at all, existing in any place in Egypt, about this lost civilization." So who are these purveyors of the strange? First, the views of Edgar Cayce, the deceased psychic mentioned in the Web site, are espoused by John Van Auken of the Edgar Cayce Foundation. He tells us we will be enlightened by the discovery of the secret hall of records containing the truth about our past. Then there is Richard Hoagland, author of The Monuments of Mars. We are descended, he says, from Martian refugees who settled at Gizeh. Robert Bauval is there, author of The Orion Mystery. The three pyramids of Gizeh were built thousands of years earlier than we think, according to him, since they must have been aligned with the Orion constellation, which was only possible in 10,500 b.c. We get to hear from John Anthony West, author of Serpent in the Sky. The Sphinx, he insists, must have been built in 12,000 b.c. in order for so much erosion to have occurred (and, of course, the fact that the head was refashioned is to him further proof of its fantastic antiquity). Graham Hancock, author of Heaven's Mirror, makes an appearance. He believes, among other things, that "an earlier civilization" that emphasized the soul rather than technology was destroyed in a great flood, and the survivors settled in Egypt. He says we are "technologically brilliant" but "spiritually barren" and so we should look to this ancient civilization for guidance.
Who gets to speak on behalf of the real scholars? Several-but none of them are asked or allowed to comment on any of the other theories being touted on the show. Among the genuine experts, who give brief talks on ordinary facts and theories not related to the New Age claims, are Bob Brier, an Egyptologist from Long Island University; Dieter Arnold from the Metropolitan Museum of Art; Gaballa Ali Gaballa, Secretary General of the Egyptian Antiquities Council (actually the Supreme Council for Antiquities), and, though it is not mentioned (as in the case of Hawass in the previous Sunday's news report), a leading Egyptologist with a Ph.D. from Liverpool University; Aidan Dodson, an Egyptologist (now at the University of Bristol) commenting on the King Tut dig; and Nicholas Reeves, author of The Complete Tutankhamun, who talks about how good forensic evidence suggests the boy king was murdered (Dr. Dodson weighs in on this one, too).
Mixing and Matching Expert Theories The only credible expert with unorthodox ideas was Robert Schoch, author of Voices of the Rocks. Though not mentioned in the show, he holds a Ph.D. in geology and geophysics from Yale and has been a faculty member at Boston University since 1984. But the way his testimony is treated is part of a worrisome trend. By interweaving comments by both Schoch and West, Schoch's geological observations are depicted as supporting West. But Schoch only dates the core body of the Sphinx to around 5000 b.c. (as opposed to 2500 b.c. as is normally believed, or 12,000 b.c. as West argues), based on his estimation of the rates of rain erosion.3 Schoch told me he did not see the show, so could not comment on how his views were portrayed. But as far as I can tell, he certainly does not advocate West's theory, and it seems a bit shifty to present them as if they are a tag team supporting a common view. But Schoch's claims very specifically do not encompass the head or hind quarters of the Sphinx, and he also notes that his dating falls within the period of known megalith civilizations (the walls of Jericho, for example, were built in 8,000 b.c.). But this is not the theory presented on the show. Instead, the scene turns on two occasions to Schoch to argue about water erosion data, during the monologue of John Anthony West, who argues "if the water-weathering theory is correct" then there was "a very ancient and highly sophisticated" (stone carving is "highly" sophisticated?) "civilization existing at a time when no civilization is supposed to have existed." When? In 12,000 b.c. Povich then says this may be the "last monument" of a vanished civilization. When he rhetorically asks if there is further evidence, he turns immediately, not to any archaeologist or historian, but to Edgar Cayce-the psychic.
But that is not the most disturbing part of this story. Schoch is shown arguing that "there were moist periods, rainy periods, in Egypt that clearly predate the modern Sahara desert." Then at once we see West, who follows, "this kind of a rainy period prevailed in Egypt around from the time when the last ice age broke up," and thus the Sphinx had to have been built around then. There is no qualification or distinction made here between the two views. Schoch is very plainly being presented as if he is West's co-theorist. Lest we be mistaken, Povich introduced the whole segment by saying "as we have seen, many suspect ancient Egypt was influenced by a vanished genius culture. For one group, the rock of the Sphinx speaks the truth." But wait, isn't Schoch's book called Voices of the Rocks? This seems an almost deliberate attribution of West's odd theory to Schoch, as if his book argues for a lost civilization (it does not - it isn't even about the Sphinx, although it briefly mentions it). We are led here to believe that Schoch and West are the "one group" Maury is talking about. This is a dangerous license to be taken with serious scholarship.
There were other "experts" as well. Christopher Frayling, listed as a "popular culture historian" and author of The Face of Tutankhamun, tells us that "the most convincing explanation of the curse" of King Tut is that "some energy" of some kind was pent up in the tomb and released, affecting all who were associated with it. Fortunately, Dodson's account at least lets us judge for ourselves, since he reports how Lord Carnarvon died from an infected mosquito bite that was cut while shaving-a more plausible account, at least of his death. We are not told about any of the other "dozen" (Maury Povich) or "thirty-five" (Fox Web site) people who died under "mysterious circumstances," so Fox does not help us decide what to believe here.4 The way Dodson's narrative is abused, however, pushes ethical boundaries yet again. Interspersed with his otherwise historical account we hear others interject fantastic comments: Povich tells us that "at the precise moment of [Lord Carnarvon's] death" there was a blackout in Cairo, and Frayling adds that Carnarvon's pet howled and died in England. Are we being led to believe that Dodson endorses this account?
When asked, Dodson said he could not confirm any of the claims inserted into his monologue. However, he doubted that there were a "dozen" mysterious deaths, and added that Cairo's power system is so notoriously bad that a blackout would not be a supernatural coincidence. Is it ethical to splice factual statements when the speakers do not share each other's views? This is the very same thing done to Schoch. I asked Dodson if he would have liked to respond on TV to any of the claims made on the show (not just those littering his own segment). He said he would, but "with such off-the-wall ideas, it's almost impossible to even try to rebut them. There's just no point of connection between reality and fantasy!"
This abuse is matched by yet another example. Povich introduces the "monuments on Mars" theory again later in the broadcast, adding that "recent exploration suggests it may be so." Immediately we hear a replay of a real news report, over the sight of a rocket launch. The news anchor's voice declares, "All the talk tonight is about Mars and whether American scientists have the proof that life once existed on that planet." Immediately, we move to Hoagland, and Viking orbiter images of the "face" on Mars. But wait . . . are we being told that there was a real news story about this, that "American scientists" were really asking whether this was proof of life on Mars? The recording sure sounded to me like a report on the evidence of microbial fossils in a Martian meteorite, but I have no way of knowing, because that part was cut out. If this is what they did, isn't this dishonest? This seems a serious ethical question.
Eventually we get to the expected tie-in with the previous Sunday's news report. Besides being told repeatedly that the Egyptian constructions were "seemingly supernatural" in their technical perfection,5 the hieroglyphs that "prove" our extraterrestrial origins are shown again. This time, Hoagland is our interpreter, despite the fact that even Fox won't stoop so low as to claim he has any expertise in this matter. We are shown a wall inscription, which Hoagland says has pictures of "high-tech things" like "helicopters and land speeders and spaceships and the Millennium Falcon." To prove his point, the Fox production team overlays video of an Apache helicopter to show the similarity. According to Ms. Griffis-Greenberg, an Egyptologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who saw this broadcast, this interpretation is absurd, but not new to her - it has cropped up on the Usenet so many times she is tired of answering it. But she was glad to explain yet again, and referred me to more credible sources.
I spoke to several other Egyptologists who were amazed that this was being done on television, although one said to me that he expects this sort of thing now, "It is just what TV does." But what do the experts say about this "helicopter" glyph? This will serve as an example for all the rest: the "helicopter" is in fact the Abydos palimpsest. A palimpsest is what is created when new writing is inscribed over old. In the case of papyri, old ink is scraped off, but in the case of inscriptions, plaster is added over the old inscription and a new inscription is made. The image described as a helicopter is well known to be the names of Rameses inscribed over the names of his father (something Rameses was known to do quite frequently). A little bit of damage from time and weathering has furthered the illusion of a "helicopter."6 What we should ask is why no Egyptologists were questioned about this, something well known in the literature? As one of them said to me, "We don't live under rocks!" It would not have been hard to get an expert to clarify the meaning of the "helicopter"-they had several experts on camera already. Hawass is heard saying the claim of aliens coming from space and building the pyramids "is nuts," but he is never asked to comment on any specific details of the arguments being made. This is a very one-sided investigation. The people are not being fairly informed.
The show did conclude on an encouraging note, however. West's theory was tied to Cayce's claim of a lost hall of records beneath the Sphinx, and when the tomb of Osiris is being explored with Hawass, he is asked his opinion of the Cayce theory. His response? "It's a myth . . . but to be fair," he adds with a humorous tone, "I did not excavate this tunnel yet," pointing down a shaft perhaps leading in the direction of the Sphinx, "then really I don't know." Hopefully the audience will catch his sarcasm.
Hawass was also given (almost) the last word: "People like to dream. And I like to let them dream. But my show gives them a little of reality. I believe that all that we found today, this is the reality." And indeed he is right-for despite all the "wacky" theories, the only real facts that were exposed on the show were of that very reality: the pyramids were tombs built for mummified corpses buried only thousands, not tens of thousands, of years ago. The pyramids were built without secret history or technology; no Atlantis; no aliens; no amazing hall of records. Just an exciting, fascinating, thoroughly human, and definitely Egyptian, historical reality.
Notes Fadel Gad is president of Joy Travel International (11600 Washington Pl., Suite 209, Los Angeles, CA 90066). He was travelling and could not be reached for comment. His resume cites official posts, from Inspector of Antiquities to Director of Excavations at Saqqara, excavations from 1973 to 1980, and a master's degree in Ancient Egyptian Art and Archaeology from Cairo University, 1981. He runs tours for organizations as diverse as The Institute of Noetic Sciences and the University of California, and works a lecture circuit on "Egyptian mythology." I contacted many people who met him, and all praised him as an ethical businessman and all-around nice guy. For online, mostly New Age, references to Fadel and his unusual teachings see www.visionmagazine.com/august98/artofliv.htm,www.intuition.org/journey.htm, and www.instadv.ucsb.edu/InstAdv/AlumniAssociation/Travel.
There was much discussion about this Fox special: see www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/ANE-DIGEST/CURRENT.
See R. M. Schoch, "Redating the Great Sphinx of Giza," KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt, 3:2 (Summer 1992), pp. 52-59, 66-70; T. L. Dobecki and R. M. Schoch, "Seismic Investigations in the Vicinity of the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt," Geoarchaeology, 7:6 (1992), pp. 527-544; R. M. Schoch, "L'Age du Sphinx de Gizeh: Vers Une Revision Dechirante?" Kadath, Chroniques des Civilisations Disparues, 81 (Winter 1993-1994), pp. 13-53).
See David Silverman, "The curse of the curse of the pharaohs," Expedition, 29:2 (1987), pp. 56-63.
The pyramids are still made of the most primitive of permanent construction materials (stone) and no super-technological cutting tools have been found. See also Robert Bianchi, "Pyramidiots," Archaeology, 44 (Nov-Dec 1991), p. 84, and Daniel Boorstin, "Afterlives of the great pyramids," The Wilson Quarterly, 16 (Summer 1992), pp. 130-8.
See http://www.finart.be/UfocomHq/usabydos.htm. See also Juergen von Beckerath, Handbuch der Aegyptischen Koenigsnamen, Muenchner Aegyptologische Studien 20, pp. 235-237; Omm Sety and Hanny El Zeini Abydos: Holy City of Ancient Egypt, 1981, p. 187; and Shafik Farid, ed., The Temple At Abydos, 1983, Simpkins Splendor of Egypt series, 1983, p. 8. I would like to thank Ms. Griffis-Greenberg for her help.
About the Author Richard Carrier is a doctoral student and graduate student instructor in ancient history at Columbia University. He can be reached at rcc20@columbia.edu.
posted
These 'news' are eight years old and I highly doubt that Fox News ever presented something like that - IF so then only for April Fools!!
I am sure the 'Alien theory' is discussed for ages just like any other paranormal news.
Posts: 30135 | From: The owner of this website killed ES....... | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the ‘real’ mistake here was to take Australian media-mogul Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News seriously as anything more than a propaganda outlet for the US military-industrial complex in the first place.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Simply put- the TV ratings game- Fox is promoting their new paranormal show so they use the now standard ploy of inserting in "Tvmercials "into the news to self promote their upcoming shows
TVmercials- meaning- using promotional material and inserting it into their news section and thus have it being passed as just another news item
They do this all the time for "news"like for new wonderful(!) drugs,upcoming films,diet products, etc..
Since the 1990's all US TV news now insert promotional material and the line of entertainemnt and news has morphed into infotertainment !
A further proof-just go see their website;in fact all major news media as well as portal websites like MSNBC,Yahoo etc..have entertainement "news" alongside hard news items.
Note -For the big portla website Yahoo-in Canada the 2 most seArched iTems FOR 2007 were:
1- hockey news
2-the escapades of Britney Spear..and her latest diet/drug/legla problems..Paris Hilton was not that far behind..
So there you have it..
Latest news- -the main searches on the net are about Britney Spear continuous legal problems and health related issues(this piece of trash has not produced any new worthy songs for the past years..ans yet..)
-Paris Hilton being disinterited (!)as her grandfather decided to give all his billions to a Foundation in his name.You see pics of her looking contrite, etc..
How can people be so dumb ? This is what RICH PEOPLE DO- they set up Foundations and then all of their family members are nominated to its directory board or officers etc..and they can then pay themselves extravagant salaries,spend as they like and pay ZERO INCOME TAXES as revenues from such Foundatiosn are not TAXABLE..
Posts: 305 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the ''aliens' were black folks then what's the problem; I just knew they would beat the white guys to the scene. Everyone can be happy now... on second thought the Arabs and eurocentrics will protest I'm sure ... who else, oh yeah, the Somalis, who probably worked with the Aztecs.
Evidently no one here read the article when it first appeared several years ago. This is just great (sarcasm intended).
The author feels heavily burdened, needlessly so, to say a rebuttal needs to be offered? wtf... for what! Is he saying, to those whom would believe him, that some people in mainstream academia (?) can't make up their minds as to who built what? Think about it, some folks no matter what will offer solutions to unsolvable enigmas that dart outside mainstream whatever. So what! If one is comfortable with his or her facts then why the need to defend any of it outside that mainstream. Is the author of the article that unsure of himself and current scholarship that he has to prop up his argument by saying reputable scholarship needs to be defended against the new agers? Mainstream can't be scared are they. If they are then go home, prop the feet up, drink a Jim Beam and coke, relax, go to sleep, clear the head, then get out of the business of ''knowing.''
I said it years ago and I'll say it again, what a joke the article was against academia.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
IF IT WAS GREAT, IT MUST HAVE BEEN WHITE: If advanced science, art, or architecture is found in Africa or South America, then Phoenecians, Greeks, Celts, Vikings (or, in the extreme case, space aliens) must be invoked to explain their presence. (Here, whiteness often functions as a relative concept, as "lighter than.") This bias gives rise to a pronounced tendency to date American or African cultures later than warranted, and as a result dating for these regions is constantly having to be revised further back into the past as evidence of greater antiquity piles up.
Now if the aliens were 'black' in color no doubt they would also possess strange prominent features of the head like in Star Trek! LOLPosts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: I think the ‘real’ mistake here was to take Australian media-mogul Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News seriously as anything more than a propaganda outlet for the US military-industrial complex in the first place.
^Agreed. Fox is the worst, most racist, and most right-wing of the mainstream American media corporations.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neith-Athena says, ''Fox is the worst, most racist, and most right-wing of the mainstream American media corporations.''
Off topic just a brief spell.
So to be rightwing automatically means racist? Left wingers are free of this condition altogether? Rather harsh criticism without substantiation behind it if this was your intent. I know some very good conservative people and they have nothing to do with racism.
I watch all the news, CNN, FOX and a couple of others and other than Fox being conservative and leaning to the right how does this equate with racism? Does this modern day racism from Fox equal the conservative racism of a bygone era? If so, how so. I might add some conservative non-racists see the leftwing persuasion as a socialist leaning outfit. I don't see it that way, but some do. All I'm saying is this isn't a cut and dried explanation; lots of in-between answers. One thing I can agree on is the off-topic hit as noted above.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bump. We should not equate conservatives with racism. The left is just as racist - but a little more deceptive at it.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said it was cut-and-dry, and indeed conservatism does not equal racism. Leftists can be just as bad, or even worse because of their hypocrisy. But look at Strum Thurmond and al., so you cannot tell me that there is not a strong correlation between conservatism and racism in the U.S.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I agree you didn't say cut and dried, I did. I put that in simply to patch up loose ends.
''But look at Strum Thurmond and al., so you cannot tell me that there is not a strong correlation between conservatism and racism in the U.S.''
Of course Strom Thurmond (et al) was a conservative but this didn't turn him into a racist. Being a racist is who he was. There is no school for either. You have it or you don't—and his conservatism/racism, at least on the domestic level, certainly didn't prevent him from bedding down with teenage maid Carrie Butler (who worked on the Thurmond plantation) and being the father of Essie Mae Washington Williams. Make no mistake, running for president in 1948 on a segregationist ticket defined who he was, not conservatism. Too bad he couldn't have died much, much sooner than he did.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Bump. We should not equate conservatives with racism. The left is just as racist - but a little more deceptive at it.
This is perhaps the first time you said something accurate that I can agree with.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If 'conservatism' is what the term means, meaning maintaining the status quo, than it is definitely more inclined to be reactionary. Using the Thurmond example; Trent told the man this:
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either," Lott said at last week's party."
Was Mr. Lott a racist? Well, those remarks would indicate that.
Was Mr. Lott a conservative? Self-proclaimed one.
Was Mr. Thurmond a racist? Well, being a strong proponent of segregationism would be a strong indicator of this.
Was Mr. Thurmond a conservative? Again, self-proclaimed.
What about the KKK and white supremacist figures:
Are they racist? Duh.
Are they more inclined to be 'progressives' or "conservatives" in this day and age?
Yes, conservatism need not be equated with racism. For instance, there is Ron Paul, who professes to be a conservative, though I have yet to come across anything on him that would suggest that he is racist.
So, the question is: are the most reactionary segments of the society *inclined* to be 'conservatives' or 'progressives'? You decide.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, so WHO could give an accurate opinion about things that people would accept? Seems if one "expert" gives his/her opinion it is laughed at. What person would be taken seriously when they opine about who built the pyramids?
Posts: 13440 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Ron Paul really seems like a bright spark. I watched him on YouTube, so refreshing, so real, so honest, so wise.
Are there many (white) men in the U.S. like Ron Paul or is he just a flash in the pan?
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMO there are more but most are (imo) following the smell of cash and lobbyists. Sad to say. I don't think he would be elected, the media is doing everything they can to censor him and doing a great job of that. Still, I know many planning on voting for him and I hope (if anything) it sends the message that people want to follow the constitution more instead of these goats.
Posts: 13440 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by With a name like Smuckers:
Ok, so WHO could give an accurate opinion about things that people would accept? Seems if one "expert" gives his/her opinion it is laughed at. What person would be taken seriously when they opine about who built the pyramids?
^The one who *accepts* that the aboriginal populations of the Nile Valley built it, as made obvious by the older 'proto-type' pyramid traditions therein [starting out as mastabas, and then step pyramids] appearing first in the Upper Nile Valley, and not some kooky fantasy about extraterrestrial workers who decided to drop by in the Nile Valley, of all other locations on the globe, construct the pyramids, and then take a hike and never come back - that's WHO!
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey I totally agree, the aliens story is pretty kooky, but it seems it's always argued exactly what credentials the person must have to be believed, not just in this topic.
Posts: 13440 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Neith-Athena says, ''Fox is the worst, most racist, and most right-wing of the mainstream American media corporations.''
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f:
Off topic just a brief spell.
So to be rightwing automatically means racist? Left wingers are free of this condition altogether?
No, and no.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: If 'conservatism' is what the term means, meaning maintaining the status quo, than it is definitely more inclined to be reactionary. Using the Thurmond example; Trent told the man this:
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either," Lott said at last week's party."
Was Mr. Lott a racist? Well, those remarks would indicate that.
Was Mr. Lott a conservative? Self-proclaimed one.
Was Mr. Thurmond a racist? Well, being a strong proponent of segregationism would be a strong indicator of this.
Was Mr. Thurmond a conservative? Again, self-proclaimed.
What about the KKK and white supremacist figures:
Are they racist? Duh.
Are they more inclined to be 'progressives' or "conservatives" in this day and age?
Yes, conservatism need not be equated with racism. For instance, there is Ron Paul, who professes to be a conservative, though I have yet to come across anything on him that would suggest that he is racist.
So, the question is: are the most reactionary segments of the society *inclined* to be 'conservatives' or 'progressives'? You decide.
^Spot on.
quote:Originally posted by Young H*O*R*U*S: Yeah, Ron Paul really seems like a bright spark. I watched him on YouTube, so refreshing, so real, so honest, so wise.
Are there many (white) men in the U.S. like Ron Paul or is he just a flash in the pan?
I wouldn't feel confortable saying many since such are definitely in the minority, although many is a relative term and so, though they may be spread out the chances of finding one is far more favorable than the chances of Zahi Hawass coming out tommorow, and stating that "the ancient Egyptians were without a doubt tropical Africans who called themselves 'black', and that ancient Egypt was unified from the South" all in one statement.
Seriously though, I wouldn't suppose they are too rare though, I've talked to some old wise white men, (an informed Indian man, black men, black women, white women, an asian woman, etc etc).
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
If 'conservatism' is what the term means, meaning maintaining the status quo, than it is definitely more inclined to be reactionary. Using the Thurmond example; Trent told the man this:
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either," Lott said at last week's party."
Was Mr. Lott a racist? Well, those remarks would indicate that.
Was Mr. Lott a conservative? Self-proclaimed one.
Was Mr. Thurmond a racist? Well, being a strong proponent of segregationism would be a strong indicator of this.
Was Mr. Thurmond a conservative? Again, self-proclaimed.
What about the KKK and white supremacist figures:
Are they racist? Duh.
Are they more inclined to be 'progressives' or "conservatives" in this day and age?
Yes, conservatism need not be equated with racism. For instance, there is Ron Paul, who professes to be a conservative, though I have yet to come across anything on him that would suggest that he is racist.
So, the question is: are the most reactionary segments of the society *inclined* to be 'conservatives' or 'progressives'? You decide.
Update: As it turns out, even Ron Paul may not be an exception; I hear that he has been known for his racist comments, to the point of denouncing Martin Luther King Jr., while praising David Duke, who is a notorious white supremacist figure. Apparently racist David Duke has returned the support to Ron Paul, to point of offering advice to Ron Paul, which in his viewpoint would give Ron Paul chance to shore up his votes and possibly win. Ron's "bigoted past" was recently posted by The New Republic.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We should not equate conservatives with racism
Yes We Should
Are some of you Familiar with the Republican Southern Strategy ?
In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the focus of the Republican party on winning U.S. Presidential elections by securing the electoral votes of the U.S. Southern states, often by exploiting racial anxiety among white voters.
Wille Horton
Republicans America Most Dirtiest Players in The Political Game
Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: We should not equate conservatives with racism. The left is just as racist - but a little more deceptive at it.
I agree 100% with you. leftists are more racists and devilish than any party!! Just an example from Du Bois' writings of his experience from communist party. They did not allowed any Black person with same right as even from Eastern European Immigrants!! They are the master of all racists!
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another example is Cynthia McKinney. She was 'expelled' from Democratic party because she asked the wrong questions. If you are an American, please vote the Republican Party and not the racist party (Democratic party )
quote: Another example is Cynthia McKinney. She was 'expelled' from Democratic party because she asked the wrong questions. If you are an American, please vote the Republican Party and not the racist party (Democratic party)
The Republican and the Democratic Party is really all just one Party so it doesn't really matter so the question is really which group would best represent our Interest.
Just Remember the Conservative News Station Fox News supports the Theory that Aliens Built the the Pyramids of Egypt
Were they legal Aliens or Illegal Aliens Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Correction. It's not the same party but two different parties with differences, but also with some similarities or contradictions that create those similarities. I call the two parties two sides of the same dirty coin.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
ahh yes the old Alien-done-it stance. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You mean the Aztecs! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
... who else, oh yeah, the Somalis, who probably worked with the Aztecs. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic