The Politics Thread

[antrin]

4 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

David Olusaga perceptive!!  He used skull shape (yes the same pseudo science the Nazi party used) to try and pretend that Cheddar man was from sub-Saharan Africa. Ch4 ran with his story for a year until DNA evidence proved he was had eastern Mediterranean heritage. Perceptive no, divisive yes. 

I think YOUR post is “divisive”.

I’d really love to read whatever you picked up that strange stew of ideas from!!

in reality, the skull shapes that archaeologists uncover ARE literally wonderful indicators of our predecessors.  Used and respected by scientists the world over… not just by fruitcakes, nazis and racists.

Prof Chris Stringer is THE world’s pre-eminent expert on the subject, having developed/changed/expanded his(and our) understanding of the emergence of humans from Africa around into Europe and across the world. 
He’s in one of the pix in this useful Cheddar article.  Which is from the Natural History Museum - a pretty credible source on such things.

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/cheddar-man-mesolithic-britain-blue-eyed-boy.html

The article also explains that it was dna (not the skull shape)from the Cheddar deposits that certified that the person uncovered was more than likely to be from Southern Sahara (NOT the East Mediterranean) as most of that population in Europe would have been at that time.

Also genetic markers (info extracted from mitochondria/dna) suggest he was dark-skinned.

If you believe Olusoga was wrong for following that evidence, think again. Skull shapes are very REAL indicators about different developments of humanity.   From my understanding of him he always follows the science.

The nazis also used motor vehicles. Are you going to dismiss every other human that drives a car?

 

Edited September 26, 2023 by antrin

[ALBIONSAINT]

6 minutes ago, antrin said:

I think YOUR post is “divisive”.

I’d really love to read whatever you picked up that strange stew of ideas from!!

in reality, the skull shapes that archaeologists uncover ARE literally wonderful indicators of our predecessors.  Used and respected by scientists the world over… not just by fruitcakes, nazis and racists.

Prof Chris Stringer is THE world’s pre-eminent expert on the subject, having developed/changed/expanded his(and our) understanding of the emergence of humans from Africa around into Europe and across the world. 
He’s in one of the pix in this useful Cheddar article.  Which is from the Natural History Museum - a pretty credible source on such things.

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/cheddar-man-mesolithic-britain-blue-eyed-boy.html

The article also explains that it was dna (not the skull shape)from the Cheddar deposits that certified that the person uncovered was more than likely to be from Southern Sahara (NOT the East Mediterranean) as most of that population in Europe would have been at that time.

Also genetic markers (info extracted from mitochondria/dna) suggest he was dark-skinned.

If you believe Olusoga was wrong for following that evidence, think again. Skull shapes are very REAL indicators about different developments of humanity.   From my understanding of him he always follows the science.

The nazis also used motor vehicles. Are you going to dismiss every other human that drives a car?

 

You think my post is divisive, how so? 
 

I picked up the “stew of ideas “ from the article below and other articles in the years that followed this nonsense being used by lefty liberals to try and pretend that sub-Saharan Africans have always lived in Britain. They haven’t and to be honest it’s actually a great disservice to the black community that have contributed to the U.K. over the decades. 

[antrin]

10 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

You think my post is divisive, how so? 
 

I picked up the “stew of ideas “ from the article below and other articles in the years that followed this nonsense being used by lefty liberals to try and pretend that sub-Saharan Africans have always lived in Britain. They haven’t and to be honest it’s actually a great disservice to the black community that have contributed to the U.K. over the decades. 

You were the one who used “divisive” to describe Olusoga as divisive, when he was stating the truth as accepted by the relevant scientists.  I'd thought that would be obvious…?

 

Now, whilst I appreciate and enjoy a lot of stuff in New Scientist, the snapshot you posted from it to verify your stew of ideas, offers nothing substantial. 
(Genuinely, I often read and enjoy New Scientist.)

The slender NS clip you offer admits that the majority of scientists “state as fact” that the Cheddar Gorge population had dark brown skin (and blue eyes).  So Olusoga is running with mainstream, not being divisive, at all.
And then the NS writing equivocates…:

”one of the geneticists who performed the research says the conclusion is less certain”.   One of them…   Less certain…

That’s science for you.  We humans go with a truth until evidence teaches us a difference, which is what has happened at Cheddar and across Europe.  Currently the overwhelming majority of archaeologists believe that in regard to Cheddar (and the emerging from Africa population spreading across Europe at the time) people were dark skinned.

Then there’s the final waffle: “according to others we are not even close to knowing…”.

So you haven’t offered evidence-based info to convince me that Olusoga is wrong.  Instead you offer a clip from the pseudo science that you blame him of presenting!

 

So why does the patch of article you offer seem so unsure of itself?  Why should YOU not be wholly convinced by its half-hearted rejection of what the mainstream archaeological world believe?

Well, I'm assuming you're unaware that whilst entertaining and offering excellent snapshots of current “science” gleaned from publications round the world, that the New Scientist is just a popular magazine owned by the Daily Mail and its non-tax-paying, non-domiciled, Frenchie, media tycoon- 

Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere?

Refusing to accept dark-skinned reality is par for the course for anything tainted by the Daily Mail.  If it bolsters up someone’s own less than liberal opinion, then I understand why some people might accept its superficiality.

 

I'm also very happy to align myself with lefty liberals, as well as scientists and historians like David Olusoga 

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by antrin

[Hunterian]

2 hours ago, antrin said:

You were the one who used “divisive” to describe Olusoga as divisive, when he was stating the truth as accepted by the relevant scientists.  I'd thought that would be obvious…?

 

Now, whilst I appreciate and enjoy a lot of stuff in New Scientist, the snapshot you posted from it to verify your stew of ideas, offers nothing substantial. 
(Genuinely, I often read and enjoy New Scientist.)

The slender NS clip you offer admits that the majority of scientists “state as fact” that the Cheddar Gorge population had dark brown skin (and blue eyes).  So Olusoga is running with mainstream, not being divisive, at all.
And then the NS writing equivocates…:

”one of the geneticists who performed the research says the conclusion is less certain”.   One of them…   Less certain…

That’s science for you.  We humans go with a truth until evidence teaches us a difference, which is what has happened at Cheddar and across Europe.  Currently the overwhelming majority of archaeologists believe that in regard to Cheddar (and the emerging from Africa population spreading across Europe at the time) people were dark skinned.

Then there’s the final waffle: “according to others we are not even close to knowing…”.

So you haven’t offered evidence-based info to convince me that Olusoga is wrong.  Instead you offer a clip from the pseudo science that you blame him of presenting!

 

So why does the patch of article you offer seem so unsure of itself?  Why should YOU not be wholly convinced by its half-hearted rejection of what the mainstream archaeological world believe?

Well, I'm assuming you're unaware that whilst entertaining and offering excellent snapshots of current “science” gleaned from publications round the world, that the New Scientist is just a popular magazine owned by the Daily Mail and its non-tax-paying, non-domiciled, Frenchie, media tycoon- 

Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere?

Refusing to accept dark-skinned reality is par for the course for anything tainted by the Daily Mail.  If it bolsters up someone’s own less than liberal opinion, then I understand why some people might accept its superficiality.

 

I'm also very happy to align myself with lefty liberals, as well as scientists and historians like David Olusoga 

 

Does a debate relative to ancestry have to contain any modern political slant at all, I’d suggest not.

There doesn’t seem to be a debate on earth now that avoids people jumping into a camp or ‘side’.

[antrin]

I could just say “he brought it up!”, but the reality is that - History has always been written from an individual (or a sponsor’s) pov.

The presentation of the facts are up for interpretation.

The Rothermere publications are firmly right wing (and not coincidentally) intentionally divisive - as evidenced by the “divide and conquer” and keep the rabble suppressed propagation in their papers.

I merely recommended an upcoming tv series fronted by a respectable academic, via an article mentioning the tv series.  It's about history and today’s politics.  Who we were, directs what we now face.  
 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/26/uk-schools-should-teach-all-four-nations-histories-says-david-olusoga

 

[Albanian Buddy]

Whatever happened to that long haired archaeologist from Renfrew who used to appear on the BBC? 😜 

[beyond our ken]

26 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:

Whatever happened to that long haired archaeologist from Renfrew who used to appear on the BBC? 😜 

she got another job,

If you are thinking of the guy who did the "Coast" programmes, he is now peddling conspiracy theories on right-wing channels.  

[ALBIONSAINT]

11 hours ago, antrin said:

You were the one who used “divisive” to describe Olusoga as divisive, when he was stating the truth as accepted by the relevant scientists.  I'd thought that would be obvious…?

 

Now, whilst I appreciate and enjoy a lot of stuff in New Scientist, the snapshot you posted from it to verify your stew of ideas, offers nothing substantial. 
(Genuinely, I often read and enjoy New Scientist.)

The slender NS clip you offer admits that the majority of scientists “state as fact” that the Cheddar Gorge population had dark brown skin (and blue eyes).  So Olusoga is running with mainstream, not being divisive, at all.
And then the NS writing equivocates…:

”one of the geneticists who performed the research says the conclusion is less certain”.   One of them…   Less certain…

That’s science for you.  We humans go with a truth until evidence teaches us a difference, which is what has happened at Cheddar and across Europe.  Currently the overwhelming majority of archaeologists believe that in regard to Cheddar (and the emerging from Africa population spreading across Europe at the time) people were dark skinned.

Then there’s the final waffle: “according to others we are not even close to knowing…”.

So you haven’t offered evidence-based info to convince me that Olusoga is wrong.  Instead you offer a clip from the pseudo science that you blame him of presenting!

 

So why does the patch of article you offer seem so unsure of itself?  Why should YOU not be wholly convinced by its half-hearted rejection of what the mainstream archaeological world believe?

Well, I'm assuming you're unaware that whilst entertaining and offering excellent snapshots of current “science” gleaned from publications round the world, that the New Scientist is just a popular magazine owned by the Daily Mail and its non-tax-paying, non-domiciled, Frenchie, media tycoon- 

Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere?

Refusing to accept dark-skinned reality is par for the course for anything tainted by the Daily Mail.  If it bolsters up someone’s own less than liberal opinion, then I understand why some people might accept its superficiality.

 

I'm also very happy to align myself with lefty liberals, as well as scientists and historians like David Olusoga 

 

Wow! There is none so blind as those who can not see. Let me get this straight, you don’t believe a retraction from the New scientist a week after it ran with the story (like most mainstream news outlets both left and right wing) is accurate because they are linked to the Daily Mail? Would they of not been better just saying nothing then and not printing a retraction when the research team pointed out that skin colour could not be proven? I don’t have the time or inclination to post links so I thought the screen grab would be enough point in the direction of the NS article. The original research is below (yes from the original research team , not pseudo science as you call it) they are very explicit that they could not be sure of the skin colour. This was not of course reported by the media (why let the truth get in the way of a good story) and the British museum and ch4 then painted the mock up as. Black person knowing fine well they had no proof. So yes David is divisive in my opinion. 

[antrin]

1 hour ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

Wow! There is none so blind as those who can not see. Let me get this straight, you don’t believe a retraction from the New scientist a week after it ran with the story (like most mainstream news outlets both left and right wing) is accurate because they are linked to the Daily Mail? Would they have not been better just saying nothing then and not printing a retraction when the research team pointed out that skin colour could not be proven? I don’t have the time or inclination to post links so I thought the screen grab would be enough point in the direction of the NS article. The original research is below (yes from the original research team , not pseudo science as you call it) they are very explicit that they could not be sure of the skin colour. This was not of course reported by the media (why let the truth get in the way of a good story) and the British museum and ch4 then painted the mock up as. Black person knowing fine well they had no proof. So yes David is divisive in my opinion.

Where to start…?   
 You compared a black professor to nazis because of your mistaken belief that identifying skull shapes was just a nazi fantasy.  The Cheddar people couldn’t be black.

I  gave you an actual link to evidence proving they not only could be, but really were (from dna/mitochondrial specimens collected from sites around Cheddar) and so asked you for similar verification of your pov if you had it.

You gave me a meagre screenshot.  It didn’t add any strength to your pov.  I took what little info was on that image and dismantled your assertions (giving you the get-out that it was probably skewed by its owners’ world view).

 I also have increasingly less desire to look for and post actual factual information as it seems you really don’t want to know.

This latest offering… another scrappy screenshot… doesn’t give me any evidence despite you saying in your new post that you think it “proves something”…

I’d already pointed out that only ONE person of the original research team in your first post wasn’t wholly convinced.  Is this research any different.  Well yes… it gives me a better understanding about your confusion.

It is NOT “original research”.  It's a mere preprint of the front page of some research that hadn’t (at that time) been peer-reviewed.

However I can perhaps assume that it's all great research and would confirm some of what you think it does - and because I’ve read a lot about it, I’d bet it has now been peer-reviewed andI likely wouldn’t disagree, but…

POPULATION REPLACEMENT IN EARLY NEOLITHIC BRITAIN

…has absolutely nothing to with Cheddar man and his associates, who were from the Mesolithic… until, of course, another Ice Age wiped them mostly off of Britain.

It's complicated.

 

I hope this helps?

 

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by antrin

[ALBIONSAINT]

It’s not complicated. David is a race baiter who is very very divisive. I can’t be spoon feeding you research, I gave you the screen grabs of the original research to look up. It seems that you are somewhat confused, let me just quote you directly from the lead researcher “ we do not have the technology at present to determine skin colour “ now how is that complicated. If you really love the fantasy history that David recommends you should buy a copy of Brilliant black British history. The rewriting of history and verified  science does not help anyone. As I mentioned earlier it most certainly doesn’t help the black citizens of our country. 

[antrin]

12 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

It’s not complicated. David is a race baiter who is very very divisive. I can’t be spoon feeding you research, I gave you the screen grabs of the original research to look up. It seems that you are somewhat confused, let me just quote you directly from the lead researcher “ we do not have the technology at present to determine skin colour “ now how is that complicated. If you really love the fantasy history that David recommends you should buy a copy of Brilliant black British history. The rewriting of history and verified  science does not help anyone. As I mentioned earlier it most certainly doesn’t help the black citizens of our country. 

I KNOW that it’s not complicated. Even though you keep trying to twist the point of the debate.

Do you still believe Cheddar man et al were around in the Neolithic?!  Cheddar man was dark-skinned as were all his locally located compatriots at that time.

You refuse to accept that reality and try to peddle race-hate through falsehoods and avoiding the facts I’ve presented.  And yet you accuse others of being “race-baiters”!  (Sic).

I don’t care about a silly kids book.  What does it have to do with Cheddar Man and /or Olusoga?  Why were you reading it?  And why did you post the bad reviews of that possibly  crap book by divisive posters and not post  it’s preceding series of positive reviews from established book critics?

And why didn’t you post all the highly positive reviews of Olusoga’s  kids book on the same subject - positive reviews by both critics and readers?  See?  I can do research.

My part in this conversation is complete.  

Just watch the upcoming tv series.  You might learn something.

why should I believe YOU writing that a research leader said something when I asked you for links to the sources of your fantasy?

 

 

[Albanian Buddy]

Jeezy peeps. 

[antrin]

David Olusoga worrying about divisiveness and his concern about the UK’s potential to break up further.  He thinks we may be able to avoid such schisms.

I believe he has a new BBC tv series on the subject coming up…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66923085

[faraway saint]

Was there a wee by election in Scotland recently? 

Got to be a win for the SNP? 

[StanleySaint]

Now now that's a bit naughty!

[Slarti]

Was there a wee by election in Scotland recently? 
Got to be a win for the SNP? 

Nah, Labour won and doubled their number of Scottish MPs.

[faraway saint]

8 minutes ago, Slarti said:

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

Was there a wee by election in Scotland recently? 
Got to be a win for the SNP? 

Nah, Labour won and doubled their number of Scottish MPs.

Man, that's a surprise. 🤔

[ALBIONSAINT]

On 9/28/2023 at 12:21 AM, antrin said:

I KNOW that it’s not complicated. Even though you keep trying to twist the point of the debate.

Do you still believe Cheddar man et al were around in the Neolithic?!  Cheddar man was dark-skinned as were all his locally located compatriots at that time.

You refuse to accept that reality and try to peddle race-hate through falsehoods and avoiding the facts I’ve presented.  And yet you accuse others of being “race-baiters”!  (Sic).

I don’t care about a silly kids book.  What does it have to do with Cheddar Man and /or Olusoga?  Why were you reading it?  And why did you post the bad reviews of that possibly  crap book by divisive posters and not post  it’s preceding series of positive reviews from established book critics?

And why didn’t you post all the highly positive reviews of Olusoga’s  kids book on the same subject - positive reviews by both critics and readers?  See?  I can do research.

My part in this conversation is complete.  

Just watch the upcoming tv series.  You might learn something.

why should I believe YOU writing that a research leader said something when I asked you for links to the sources of your fantasy?

 

 

So a BBC producer has admitted that creating a fantasy history where black people have been in the Britain for two thousand years is okay because that’s how you influence people at present! I feel sorry for anyone who is nieve enough to believe this nonsense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[W6er]

9 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

So a BBC producer has admitted that creating a fantasy history where black people have been in the Britain for two thousand years is okay because that’s how you influence people at present! I feel sorry for anyone who is nieve enough to believe this nonsense.

 

 

 

It stems from the Parekh Report which suggested 'rethinking the national story:

 

Quote

Overview

The nations of Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) are viewed as being 'at a turning point in their history'. Two scenarios are presented:

1. Narrow, inward-looking countries unable to forge agreement between themselves or between the regions and communities from which they are composed.

2. Alternatively, they could become a community of citizens and communities' at the level of Britain as a whole and also within every region, city, town or neighbourhood. If this is the preferred choice, it will be necessary to:

* Rethink both 'the national story and national identity';
* Understand the transitional nature of all identities;
* Achieve a balance between cohesion, difference and equality;
* Address and eliminate all kinds of racism;
* Reduce the inequalities in material benefits;
* Build a 'human rights culture'.

 

Source: https://www.hrmguide.co.uk/diversity/parekh_report.htm

If you are to create an inclusive, multicultural nation then the argument is we would need to have a shared history and identity. Given that prior to WWII the UK was almost 100% white with a few thousand non-white people in some of the major cities, then that perhaps requires a bit of 'creativity'.

[ALBIONSAINT]

3 hours ago, W6er said:

 

It stems from the Parekh Report which suggested 'rethinking the national story:

 

 

Source: https://www.hrmguide.co.uk/diversity/parekh_report.htm

If you are to create an inclusive, multicultural nation then the argument is we would need to have a shared history and identity. Given that prior to WWII the UK was almost 100% white with a few thousand non-white people in some of the major cities, then that perhaps requires a bit of 'creativity'.

Careful now, stating facts can result in you being accused of race hate as the lefty liberal types have no way to argue around facts so they revert to trying to undermine your position. 

[Hunterian]

16 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

Careful now, stating facts can result in you being accused of race hate as the lefty liberal types have no way to argue around facts so they revert to trying to undermine your position. 

That comment regarding lefties is divisive in itself. Either you are able to take another view point or you are not.

My take on this would be whilst we obsess about how far different folk of colour go back that we take our eye off the present ball.

By this I mean that slavery is a big talking point but past slavery. Modern slavery is happening now, to all colours.

The more we look at differences the easier to control we are.

[ALBIONSAINT]

4 minutes ago, Hunterian said:

That comment regarding lefties is divisive in itself. Either you are able to take another view point or you are not.

My take on this would be whilst we obsess about how far different folk of colour go back that we take our eye off the present ball.

By this I mean that slavery is a big talking point but past slavery. Modern slavery is happening now, to all colours.

The more we look at differences the easier to control we are.

What has this topic got to do with slavery? It could be Chinese, Indian or Eskimo, they didn’t ever ever represent a large population of Britain. 

[ALBIONSAINT]

7 minutes ago, Hunterian said:

That comment regarding lefties is divisive in itself. Either you are able to take another view point or you are not.

My take on this would be whilst we obsess about how far different folk of colour go back that we take our eye off the present ball.

By this I mean that slavery is a big talking point but past slavery. Modern slavery is happening now, to all colours.

The more we look at differences the easier to control we are.

Even when that point of view is not based on reality? 

[W6er]

12 minutes ago, Hunterian said:

That comment regarding lefties is divisive in itself. Either you are able to take another view point or you are not.

My take on this would be whilst we obsess about how far different folk of colour go back that we take our eye off the present ball.

By this I mean that slavery is a big talking point but past slavery. Modern slavery is happening now, to all colours.

The more we look at differences the easier to control we are.

Indeed! Unfortunately we're all guilty of this - our phones and clothes are mostly produced in Third World sweatshops.  I vowed to buy secondhand clothes in a bid to appease my conscience, but browsing umpteen shops in the West End I found nothing I'd want to wear and that would fit me. 

 

32 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

Careful now, stating facts can result in you being accused of race hate as the lefty liberal types have no way to argue around facts so they revert to trying to undermine your position. 

Absolutely. Nowadays people tend to pick a 'side' and then ultimately resort to calling one another 'libtards' or 'fascists', or whatever. I have been accused of both at one time or another. That's another reason why I cannot be bothered 'debating', most people are never going to change their opinion anyway, so it just becomes a matter of pride and not wanting to 'lose' an argument.

Edited October 10, 2023 by W6er

[antrin]

5 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

Careful now, stating facts can result in you being accused of race hate as the lefty liberal types have no way to argue around facts so they revert to trying to undermine your position. 

You need to give yourself a wee wake-up, as YOU went very quiet (after making arsey comments about a tv presenter) based on your erroneous belief that being able to differentiate and identify skulls was a Nazi practice. - when it is an accepted part of science.  I stated facts - you shut up.

You then tried to argue the point based on your mistaken lack of knowledge of the facts.  You thought that the Cheddar Man remains were of the latest influx of “humans” to the Uk, when he was from before the last ice age.

Facts, dear boy, just facts.  Careful now….

(I haven”t looked at the cartoon you offer in support of your latest effort.  I might tomorrow.  I’m hoping it's a thousand times better than your previous, half-arsed, shooting-yourself-in-the-foot efforts).