So we have hit peak peasants?
belive it or not this problem has happened before in human history.
The proper solution is to stop fucking over the peasants but in practice thats rarely implimented.
So we have hit peak peasants?
Oh, did the peasants instead kill the elites until they stopped fucking around?belive it or not this problem has happened before in human history.
The proper solution is to stop fucking over the peasants but in practice thats rarely implimented.
Oh, did the peasants instead kill the elites until they stopped fucking around?
School Official said:“We did talk about it, but we were looking at the symbolism more as a tree of life, than a tree of death,” Martin Osborne said.
Not an expert myself but using a traditional Conifer seems like a terrible tree to hang people from IMHO.
Please when have communists ever had a brain? If they had a brain they wouldn't be communist.It's kind of weird that people would associate an evergreen tree with lynching, given that their preferred climate isn't in the southern US.
We do have them here in Texas, but they're not really the norm.
If someone says that bamboo is a tree . . .I bet the "logic" here is just that it's a tree.
"There's an assumed hierarchy here between scientific and indigenous ways of knowing that's ethically troubling."
Pomo is Mage: the Ascension IRL, no surprise there.
That reminds me of a documentary I watched some twenty years, about a dig in really old burial site in USA, where phenotype of the skeletons didn't really match the natives. Then a native advocacy group had the dig stopped and NG bombed the site with airdropped sandbags ''to protect it''. I am history and archaeology nerd, so I know that airdropping heavy objects onto burial site is not how you protect it, it is how you destroy it , no matter what the talking heads on screen claim. It seem native advocacy organizations are very touchy about anything contradicting their myths.So from NotTheBee we have an archeological conference about paleogenetics, extracting DNA from ancient bones to identify migration patterns. Apparently it's "Problematic" that sometimes DNA evidence contradicts folklore stories of where a people came from.
So if the science contradicts their woke way of describing people, they're arguing that really there's no reason we should just presume scientific DNA evidence is more legitimate than their oral tradition or an ancient Chinese Map showing that they always owned the entire South China Sea (and all of Asia, North America, the entire Indian sub-continent, etc.).
Paleogeneticists are instructed to be careful that science doesn't end up “controlling the narrative," as another scientific discipline falls to the woke warriors.
Paleogeneticism, the science by which genetic material is extracted from the skeletal remains of ancient peoples so that it may be examined for clues to the past, has sparked a revolution in our understanding of the very earliest inhabitants of our planet.notthebee.com
It's not that surprising. "We were here first" is basically a, if not the, major foundation of all property rights and claims to territory. How much narrative is based on European colonists stealing land from the natives that were here first? What if DNA evidence from various burials showed that, actually, the Chinese were here first and the native american tribes genocided them only a few years before Columbus and took over their cities?Yeah
That reminds me of a documentary I watched some twenty years, about a dig in really old burial site in USA, where phenotype of the skeletons didn't really match the natives. Then a native advocacy group had the dig stopped and NG bombed the site with airdropped sandbags ''to protect it''. I am history and archaeology nerd, so I know that airdropping heavy objects onto burial site is not how you protect it, it is how you destroy it , no matter what the talking heads on screen claim. It seem native advocacy organizations are very touchy about anything contradicting their myths.
I mean isn't the current one being railed against that the first natives migrated from Siberia or something?It's not that surprising. "We were here first" is basically a, if not the, major foundation of all property rights and claims to territory. How much narrative is based on European colonists stealing land from the natives that were here first? What if DNA evidence from various burials showed that, actually, the Chinese were here first and the native american tribes genocided them only a few years before Columbus and took over their cities?
Obviously that's a ridiculously extreme and case but the hyperbole is to make a point. Imagine the fallout for various territory claims and political posturing that would lead to, nevermind the way existing narratives would be changed.
Had an English professor 4 years ago come into class with a Tim Hortons coffee, big smug look on his face.
He goes on to tell how he is so happy, because he has his coffee. Not coffee happy, but that the girl who has to serve him at Tim Hortons is a girl he drove from the college.
She was religious and pro-life..... he did the smug It pleases him she dropped out of school because of him driving her from the school..... and now she has to wait on him.
A real piece of fecal matter..... As I confronted him in private, on it he tried to fail me.
End result I did not fail, As I was a non traditional student, and know how to make bureaucracy work for me.
- Pointing out that I was taking the class to improve my college writing, after being out of school for over a decade, but had already passed the equivalent of his class at a college which was more prestigious than our college. Why if I failed, it must be because of the only thing that is different.
Which is the professor !
Advantage of being a non traditional student, with experience at different college and university systems( I am retired military, so took classes all over the place).
Moral of the story, I did not fail the class, but was unable to have the professor removed from teaching.
I did enjoy the fact the professor would flee if he saw me......... I do not like bullies or bigots, and that was what he is was
Just one more example of how the regressive left can be just as anti-science as the young earth creationists they like to conflate everyone on the right with. Or the "climate change deniers" as they like to call those of us skeptical of their anthropogenic global warming nonsense which just happens to favor an authoritarian globalist agenda.So from NotTheBee we have an archeological conference about paleogenetics, extracting DNA from ancient bones to identify migration patterns. Apparently it's "Problematic" that sometimes DNA evidence contradicts folklore stories of where a people came from.
Well, that last part is pretty stupid, but I can certainly understand why Natives tend to be pretty touchy about digging up what they assume to be the bones of their ancestors. After all, how'd you like it if someone dug up your relatives? And given the rather insensitive way such work has been done in the past, yeah, Native tend to be pretty touchy about it, and it isn't about contradicting their myths. As far as they know and are concerned, the lands their tribes most recently occupied before white folks came along and relieved them of it were their ancestral homeland going back to the beginning of time. Most tribes did not have a written language and kept track of their history by oral tradition, so while they may have some stories about how their tribe might have moved around a bit before settling in an area, a lot of tribes have what are essentially creation myths which put them in basically where the tribes were at prior to European colonization. One I happen to remember off the top of my head is, I believe from the Hidatsa, who apparently believe their ancient forebears climbed up a vine that was under Devil's Lake and simply moved westward from there to the Missouri River where they were at when Lewis and Clark encountered them. So as far as they know or care, those ancient burial sites are theirs, and they lack the curiosity to dig them up and learn whatever can be learned from them because as far as they are concerned, they already know everything they are interested in knowing. I'm not saying they're right, I'm just saying that this is where they are coming from, and not from some idea that their myths will be contradicted. There is also the idea that white people cannot be trusted, and might try to lie about their historical claim on their lands as part of an effort to erase their heritage and culture, or to essentially justify what the US and other whites did to them (which I'll note some people here have actually done).That reminds me of a documentary I watched some twenty years, about a dig in really old burial site in USA, where phenotype of the skeletons didn't really match the natives. Then a native advocacy group had the dig stopped and NG bombed the site with airdropped sandbags ''to protect it''. I am history and archaeology nerd, so I know that airdropping heavy objects onto burial site is not how you protect it, it is how you destroy it , no matter what the talking heads on screen claim. It seem native advocacy organizations are very touchy about anything contradicting their myths.
That happened when they moved the old graveyard, with most of my ancestors ending up in the ossuary.After all, how'd you like it if someone dug up your relatives?