Reply to: Revisionism again

[vetran]

We did… Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond has a pretty good exploration of how people started in Africa and then populated the world

OK so it's a long time ago, and Saxons, Normans etc have also invaded since then so our heritage is a right old mismatch but fundamentally we all come from migrants

I agree we are all from migrants, we had to start somewhere.

Every creation story we have suggests we evolved in Africa.

1. God slapped mud together then created eve as an afterthought was somewhere in Africa 6000 years ago.
2. Mitochondrial Eve who was a prototype human got pregnant in Africa. ~150,000 years ago.

Both were probably of darker skin. After a few hundred thousand years in europe skins got lighter.

The difficulty seems to be that this article suggests the takeover was when the beaker people (light skin) were about, a few hundred million years after Pangea split so how did these darker skins get here from Africa? Cunard weren't trading then.

The Normans were Norsemen, The Picts, Scots, celts and angles travelled here as well.

[SueEllen]

We did… Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond has a pretty good exploration of how people started in Africa and then populated the world

OK so it's a long time ago, and Saxons, Normans etc have also invaded since then so our heritage is a right old mismatch but fundamentally we all come from migrants

That implies the only people who don't come from migrants are people where scientists think is the birth of humanity. However when their genes were looked at it was discovered that they migrated as well so they have a diverse gene pool.

[Andy2022]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ok-claims.html

• It also claims 'every single British person comes from a migrant'

We did… Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond has a pretty good exploration of how people started in Africa and then populated the world

OK so it's a long time ago, and Saxons, Normans etc have also invaded since then so our heritage is a right old mismatch but fundamentally we all come from migrants

[vetran]

You're just saying your morality is superior to the savages so you get to decide what is and isn't an acceptable cultural practice for the savages to engage in.

Assuming that they were Christians (a lot of Africa were well before Europe) then their commandments forbade most of those.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/a...thern%20Europe.

Maybe we can see 'christian' morality as superior? That however came from the middle east.

Humanist & Atheists came to roughly the same conclusions a little bit later.

I see no place for that behaviour in civilised society. Odd that you do.

By all means dress up in loincloths and dance (see the Maoris who the west positively encourage) just as we painted our faces and screamed at the equinox. Sacrificing virgins or opponents is out however.

[NotAllThere]

You really don't have any concept of either history or reality, do you...

So... the fact that it was told in the style of a joke, including didn't cue you in to the possibility that it might not have any grounding in history or reality?

Jolly good.

[Lance]

You're just saying your morality is superior to the savages so you get to decide what is and isn't an acceptable cultural practice for the savages to engage in.

That's not what i said. It might be what you inferred, but that says more about you than it does about me.

I stand by what i said. And if you're not sure what I mean, go and read it again.

[TheGreenBastard]

Cultural change by coercion is fundamentally bad, even if you think it is morally justifiable.

This doesn't make any sense. You're coerced to do many things, like not speed, paying taxes. As institutions govs are entirely in the coercion business.

[JustKeepSwimming]

No it's not fundamentally bad. It all depends on the cultural thing that is being changed. As morals change some cultural items may become more or less 'good'. But culture is by it's very nature enforced anyway so forcibly changing it is morally neutral.

Some examples that are relevant to todays morality
1) Banning of cannibalism
2) Banning FGM
3) Abolition of slavery
4) Legalisation of homosexuality (100 years ago this was different)

You're just saying your morality is superior to the savages so you get to decide what is and isn't an acceptable cultural practice for the savages to engage in.

[SueEllen]

if i think what is an insult? i was merely trying to ascertain why he was so miserable and humourless. nowt wrong wi' that.

Why are you so nasty and miserable?

[sadkingbilly]

I’m Welsh and so is my wife. And you SKB are indeed a sad little man if you think that’s an insult.

if i think what is an insult? i was merely trying to ascertain why he was so miserable and humourless. nowt wrong wi' that.

[David71]

Why is Wales so hilly? They took so much land from the English they had to put it somewhere...

If Wales was flattened out it would be bigger than England

[malvolio]

Why is Wales so hilly? They took so much land from the English they had to put it somewhere...

You really don't have any concept of either history or reality, do you...

[NotAllThere]

I’m Welsh and so is my wife. And you SKB are indeed a sad little man if you think that’s an insult.

Why is Wales so hilly? They took so much land from the English they had to put it somewhere...

[vetran]

I’m Welsh and so is my wife. And you SKB are indeed a sad little man if you think that’s an insult.

you are catching on!

[Lance]

Cultural change by coercion is fundamentally bad, even if you think it is morally justifiable.

No it's not fundamentally bad. It all depends on the cultural thing that is being changed. As morals change some cultural items may become more or less 'good'. But culture is by it's very nature enforced anyway so forcibly changing it is morally neutral.

Some examples that are relevant to todays morality
1) Banning of cannibalism
2) Banning FGM
3) Abolition of slavery
4) Legalisation of homosexuality (100 years ago this was different)