Consensus is building that the theory of Multi-Culturalism is a Dud

@Ionus,

Well, at least one gene sets Native Americans apart: the gene that renders them unable to metabolize alcohol. My son remarked a few days ago that that gene links Native Americans to the Tibetans.

This paragraph, from an article on the work of Dr. Ting-Kai Li of the University of Indiana, gives American Indians a central Asian origin:

The quest for genes that influence alcohol abuse follows two paths. One goal is to locate genes that predispose a person to alcoholism. The other is to identify genes that help to prevent this from happening. Li and his coworkers have made important advances in this latter category. "We have identified two genes that protect against heavy drinking, and these are particularly prevalent among Asians," Li says. "We have shown that Native Americans, who have a high rate of alcoholism, do not have these protective genes. The one that is particularly effective is a mutation of the gene for the enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase, which plays a major role in metabolizing alcohol. The mutation is found very frequently in Chinese and Japanese populations but is less common among other Asian groups, including Koreans, the Malayo-Polynesian group, and others native to the Pacific Rim. "We've also looked at Euro-Americans, Native Americans, and Eskimos, and they don't have that gene mutation," says Li. Thus, incidentally, the study of genetic mutations and alcoholism links native North-American populations to central Asian ancestors, not to those from China and Japan.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Very few European skeletons. As far as artifacts, do you mean Clovis Points or do you even know what they are? There is a new theory of the Clovis Point. I doubt that you know much about it. What a prejudiced, narrow-minded jingoist you are!

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Some of the original colonies were English but the French, Spanish,
even the Swedes, colonized this continent.

Interestingly, it now appears that long b4
that, and many 1000s of years b4 the Indians arrived,
some Europeans found North America,
according to carbon-dated fossils,
so I 've heard from the National Geographic Channel.

plainoldme wrote:

Besides, the "English" culture of the 1600s, that had had something to do
with the Puritans and Pilgrims (the founders you would recognize)

The Founders of this Republic
were George Washington, James Madison,
Thomas Jefferson, et al (not the Pilgrims of 1620).

plainoldme wrote:

at least insofar as they spoke English,
is not the English culture of today's England.

There HAVE been changes.

plainoldme wrote:

Wouldst thee return to the English of Shakespeare?

No; its better now.
It will get better YET,
when it fully evolves into a completely fonetic language.

Plain,
I must say that u left a good impression on me
with your post of yesterday. U were perfectly
reasonable and a nice person with whom to converse.
U left me thinking (in retrospect) that I misjudged u.
Incidentally: I am innocent of your allegation
that I have said that I am intelligent.
NEVER in my life, have I made that statement.

Plain, I have never begrudged u your philosophy, tho I dispute it,
on the merits. (I think I mentioned that there is a woman, named Eve,
very, very left, to whom I have been magneticly attracted for some years.)
I support laissez faire capitalism, Individualism and libertarianism
with weak n feeble domestic jurisdiction of government but,
I have delighted in debating commies and nazis
for many years n decades, going back to Comrade Murray,
who lived next door to me in the 1940s. Stalin was his favorite guy.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Very few European skeletons.

That can be enuf.

plainoldme wrote:

As far as artifacts, do you mean Clovis Points
or do you even know what they are?

I don 't think so, but I 'm not sure.
Its been a few months since I 've seen that
on the National Geographic Channel.

plainoldme wrote:

There is a new theory of the Clovis Point.
I doubt that you know much about it.

I remember a little about them,
but I 'm no expert.
What is the new theory ?

plainoldme wrote:

What a prejudiced, narrow-minded jingoist you are!

I 'm not narrow minded. I have an open mind.

David

0 Replies

Let's get factual about the first humans in the Americas please. David and Ionis, go ahead and find your references and I'll find mine.

2 Replies

@littlek,

littlek wrote:

Let's get factual about the first
humans in the Americas please. David and Ionis,
go ahead and find your references and I'll find mine.

This was just the National Geographic Channel a few months ago.
I have nothing available; no documentary evidence.
I did not mean necessarily to convince anyone
of anything, just chatting. If that be a default,
then that 's still the best I can do.
I just thawt I 'd mention it.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Watching one National Geographic Special is not the same as a life time of reading on anthropology and archaeology, which I have done.

The European settlers of record were Pilgrims, Puritans, English speaking Roman Catholics, Spanish soldiers of fortune, French fur trappers. We now know there were Vikings before the above barged in. To cite Jefferson et al shows you don't know what pew of this church you should be in. Your citation of them demonstrates that you can not support your own argument.

I really don't care about your personal life and I do not wish to read about.

1 Reply

@littlek,

Standing 100% with littlek on this one.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

david, if you are going to chat, think before you type. You're sitting at a computer. Google this stuff.

Besides, if you aren't trying to convince anyone, why repeat a statement as broad as the one you stuffed in here?

You half remember something from National Geographic but ignore the size of the evidence for a "European" presence* when compared with the overwhelming numbers of indigenous people and their remains on this continent.

That's a strawman argument!

*Did they show the sculpture that looks like British actor Patrick Stewart? Is that what has you so hot and bothered? That first surfaced in 2002, nearly a decade ago!
http://www.nytimes.com/keyword/kennewick-man

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

I remember reading, sorry no source, that it wasn't just about alcohol, but that Natives have a hard time metabolizing most grains (carbs) as they were not part of their diet. This is why natives have higher rates of diabetes as well.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Watching one National Geographic Special is not the same
as a life time of reading on anthropology and archaeology, which I have done.

Well, the problem is
that I can 't link to it for incorporation
in this discussion, but the facts r whatever thay r,
even if I had never been born nor said anything.
The (inaccessible) program concerned a more
recent discovery addressing the issue.

plainoldme wrote:

The European settlers of record were Pilgrims, Puritans, English speaking Roman Catholics,
Spanish soldiers of fortune, French fur trappers. We now know there were Vikings before the above barged in.

Yes.
Vikings.

plainoldme wrote:

To cite Jefferson et al shows you don't know what pew of this church you should be in.
Your citation of them demonstrates that you can not support your own argument.

Yes; I can 't. TV shows r like that,
but I don 't have to be a hog, and keep it all to myself.
I am willing to share.

plainoldme wrote:

I really don't care about your personal life and I do not wish to read about.

There was a compliment in there for u.

David

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

david, if you are going to chat, think before you type.
You're sitting at a computer. Google this stuff.

I 'm having trouble with my Google,
(but u said u did not wanna read about my personal life.)
I accidentally agreed to Bing and got a horrendus
Tanzinga all of which disabled my pop-up blockers
so that now when I Google, I get plagued with
full screen sized advertisments interrupting my Googling.
When I try to get rid of them, THAY FIGHT BACK.
I think I 'll have to go to the computer hospital.
Its horrible.

plainoldme wrote:

Besides, if you aren't trying to convince anyone,
why repeat a statement as broad as the one you stuffed in here?

I thawt it was worth mentioning.

plainoldme wrote:

You half remember something from National Geographic but ignore the size of the evidence for a "European" presence* when compared with the overwhelming numbers of indigenous people and their remains on this continent.

It was about a discovery;
more recent than the Vikings,
about the first men to reach America,
BEFORE the paleo-Indians, according to carbon-dating.

plainoldme wrote:

That's a strawman argument!

I don 't see it that way.

plainoldme wrote:

*Did they show the sculpture that looks like British actor Patrick Stewart?
Is that what has you so hot and bothered?

No. I don 't think much of him, particularly.
He did a reasonably decent job on Star Trek.
Shatner was better. If he was supposed to
have been a Frenchman, then Y did he have an English accent??
If it had been my choice, there 'd have been
someone better in that role; more Kirk-like.

plainoldme wrote:

That first surfaced in 2002, nearly a decade ago!
http://www.nytimes.com/keyword/kennewick-man

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

who cares about multicuylturslism

africans dont like it they can hgo hom3e

sorry for my bad typing but you got my point

steelers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

0 Replies

@Thomas,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

multiculturalism stinks

Thomas wrote:

It smells just fine for me, a cultural German living in America, with its culture quite different from Germany's. (Indeed, America has many cultures different from Germany's, which is another attractive feature of America's .)

I 've never been to Germany.
Will u enlighten us as to how its culture is different
than it is here ??
I 'd love to know.

David

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

And I argue with you. "For a generation" people have proclaimed that the individual can do what he wants with culture. Really???!!! That statement demonstrates a total lack of historical perspective. What is high culture (and I will argue that the American right hates high culture more than anyone else)

I woud ask u what u mean by "high culture"
but I know that such questions move u to anger,
so I better not.

plainoldme wrote:

and folk culture (which actually still exists)
and low culture (long the dominant American form)

I guess the same principles of abstention apply to those questions too.

plainoldme wrote:

are demarked by fluid boundaries and each has always influenced the other.

Wow! After reacting to your first sentence, I just finished reading the rest of your post.
You, of all people, are tarring others with the brush of historical ignorance.

No need for me to give my concrete examples, is there?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Actually, a lot of people moved from Asia to North America in several waves with some walking during a glaciation.

0 Replies

@Ceili,

That's interesting about the carbs. I didn't know that. Thanks.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

ut the facts r whatever thay r,
even if I had never been born nor said anything.

The facts are that people came here from Asia. There is a theoretical link between southern France and the American southwest that is based on the Clovis Point. To me, the Clovis Point is common knowledge. If you have no idea what it is, google it, as an adult would.

You repeatedly make a fool of yourself but this is an all time low . . . even for you.

If anything is an illustration of a strawman, your reliance on one television show is.

BTW, do you see how tenuous a link between southern France and New Mexico is?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

post # 4,500, 813 is too inane to merit more attention or comment.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

A man who alleges to be a Mensan should know what high culture means. Ditto folk culture and ditto low culture. Look it up.

0 Replies

Consensus is building that the theory of Multi-Culturalism is a Dud

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know