Boom -
I think its as much to do with the rareness of such finds in general that make them newsworthy, however they may be touted in the headlines. (Also, I believe that there have also been a number of ancient finds in Asia which cast some doubt on the premise, and subsequent finds in Africa which change the evolutionary timetable on that continent. Truth be told we will likely always be modifying the evolutionary picture in light of new finds.)
Actually, the last I've heard of a find indicating the orgin of mankind, being anywhere but Africa, was in the fifties.
It's not that people go, "Hey! We're really from China!" Just that a timetable is drawn up, something is found elsewhere to foul it up, something else is found to change the dates around. It's not a question of what happened but when it happened.
Or so I gather. I spent a summer leading a train tour through a redwood forest, and a couple of times was corrected on finer points of geology. "This couldn't have been underwater 200 million years ago. The earth wasn't created until 6500 years ago."
Craven- The train tracks run both ways. I have found that many people despise certain traits in others that they possess themselves!
I think that if a person expects goodness in people, he will find it. If he chooses to focus on the bad in people, he will find that too. It is all a matter of perspective!
cavfancier wrote:Yeah, that test really makes one think about how we define 'race' these days...
But... I thought Japanese, Koreans and Chinese would all be considered "Asian", wouldn't they?
A quick question, if I may, snood: what is your position on affirmative-action?
Booman wrote:So even though this news is never given a lot of publicity, for some reason, I think it's pretty clear, to anyone paying attention, that we are all truly Family.
Absolutely right. All the people belong to the same biologic species. Therefore, there is no need in specific Black, White or Green-with-yellow-spots studies. Such sciences as anthropology, history and the like should replace them.
patio - not to duck the question, or anything, but... I've beat that question to death along with dozens of other A2Kers, and if you're really interested in what I think, a quick search through past threads will net you volumes of clear statements. It's not a subject I can deflect with a canned answer, and its not something we could address here and have any hope of staying on topic.
If you're really interested in what I think, and not baiting for a public skirmish over a very tender area of American social policy, another option for you is to take it up with me on PM.
snod --
No, it's not that I want to drag that topic out to be discussed -- believe me, believe me -- it just popped into my head when I read, "But... I thought Japanese, Koreans and Chinese would all be considered "Asian", wouldn't they?"
Because I do think that race is a rather arbitrarily defined concept, and I do think it tends to set people apart who should be working together (I think of the two rival Judean liberation groups fighting each other in the movie "The Life of Brian" and, in response to an appeal for them to unite against the common enemy all throwing down arms and shouting, "The Judean People's Front!") -- but I also think that, because the notion of race has had such a profound impact on American history and culture(s), such groupings "Asian" and "African" become very real -- just as scientifically there is no such thing as "whiteness" but in sociological terms it is a very real thing, indeed.
Anyway, that's why I asked. I've no wish at all for this to run off into another public grudge match on affirmative action.
Interesting thread.
I got 13 on the Asian test, "pretty good".
How did I do it? If they don't look Mexican at all, they're Japanese. If they look slightly Mexican, they're Chinese. When in doubt (and they have a round face), they're Korean.
Maybe they are all Asians, but they have a long history of discrimination among each other. I think that's telling.
And, for that matter, China was only made contiguous my despotic rulers.
I got 10/18. Some were easy. Fact is though, if you dye your hair, pierce your nose, make faces and change your last name to "Moonbeam", nobody is gonna be able to tell, or really care, where you're from.
cjhsa wrote:I got 10/18. Some were easy. Fact is though, if you dye your hair, pierce your nose, make faces and change your last name to "Moonbeam", nobody is gonna be able to tell, or really care, where you're from.
Curious- the ones that were "easy"... can you share why?
I can't say really. I guess I've lived on the "left coast" long enough to kinda figure it out. Some just looked Japanese or Chinese, the others I guessed were Korean. Obviously that method didn't always work.
It helps a ton if you know their names. I also noticed there were no Vietnamese on that quiz.
since i could not tell, i sent the quiz to Ashcroft, his results were 100% terrorists....
Quote:BillW wrote:
I see this class as an awareness study, and if it hurts - then awareness has been achieved!!!!!!!!
steissd wrote: "This awareness is unnecessary, it keeps the old wounds fresh not permitting them to heal. The ancestors of some American Whites were slaveowners, the ancestors of some of American Blacks were cannibals, while in Africa; so what? None of the Americans is either a slaveowner or a cannibal (except psychos of any race) any more.
It is necessary to leave bygones to professional historians, and to proceed toward society of universal prosperity and justice for all."
Would be nice if it were history. History isn't defined by Bush as being yesterday the way he said it should be. History is left to being at least 50 years ago. Sorry steissd, this stuff is happening today - read the article. That isn't history, that's current events!!!!
dyslexia wrote:since i could not tell, i sent the quiz to Ashcroft, his results were 100% terrorists....
You're a bad, bad subversive, and I'm afraid I must report you to the authorities...
Steissed - just for the record, did you even bother to read the link that this thread is about?
snood, It just doesn't make sense when other minorities have positive feedback on their cultural courses, but white studies must necessarily be negative. Why keep accentuating the negative of white? That is counter-productive to the progress we have experienced during the past half century in the US and elsewhere, and I'm a 'minority.' c.ii.
