It would be better if a soft artificial lens could be attached to the
ciliary muscles of the human eye in early adulthood. Then there would be
no long sight, short sight, astigmatism, presbyopia or cataract.
I guess this is just too hard to do surgically at the moment. I'm sure
people would pay £100,000 per eye if it was possible.
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what with all the hybrids out there...)
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of race?
A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what with all
the hybrids out there...)
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of
race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what
with all the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit.
A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we*
are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome
whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens.
https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/dtcgenetictesting/neanderthaldna/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-ancient-neanderthal-dna-still-influences-our-genes-today-180962285/
This proved to be a double edged sword during Covid. Some ancient DNA
was found to mediate a much higher risk of nasty complications.
On 25/04/2023 10:48 am, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of
race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what
with all the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit.Does that *really* wind people up?
A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we*
are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens.
Its effect on me is decidedly "ho-hum".
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of race?
A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what with all
the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit.
A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we*
are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome
whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens.
https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/dtcgenetictesting/neanderthaldna/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-ancient-neanderthal-dna-still-influences-our-genes-today-180962285/
This proved to be a double edged sword during Covid. Some ancient DNA
was found to mediate a much higher risk of nasty complications.
On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 13:51:47 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/04/2023 10:48 am, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of
race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what
with all the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit.
A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we*
are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome
whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens.
Does that *really* wind people up?
Its effect on me is decidedly "ho-hum".
Well, he did say it winds up white supremacists. So unless you are outing yourself as one, it shouldn't wind you up.
On 26/04/2023 03:25 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 13:51:47 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/04/2023 10:48 am, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of
race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what
with all the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit.
A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we* >>>> are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome
whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens.
Does that *really* wind people up?
Its effect on me is decidedly "ho-hum".
Well, he did say it winds up white supremacists. So unless you are outing
yourself as one, it shouldn't wind you up.
I doubt that any statement designed to be offensive or irritating can be *that* finely tuned!
On 26/04/2023 03:25 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 13:51:47 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/04/2023 10:48 am, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of
race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what
with all the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit.
A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we* >>> are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome
whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens.
Does that *really* wind people up?
Its effect on me is decidedly "ho-hum".
Well, he did say it winds up white supremacists. So unless you are outing yourself as one, it shouldn't wind you up.I doubt that any statement designed to be offensive or irritating can be *that* finely tuned!
On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 16:40:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2023 03:25 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 13:51:47 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:I doubt that any statement designed to be offensive or irritating can be
On 25/04/2023 10:48 am, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of
race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what
with all the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit.
A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we* >> >>> are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome
whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens.
Does that *really* wind people up?
Its effect on me is decidedly "ho-hum".
Well, he did say it winds up white supremacists. So unless you are
outing yourself as one, it shouldn't wind you up.
*that* finely tuned!
Oh, I don't know. I think, for example, that the statement "our
ancestors lived in Africa and had dark skin" would be highly >irritating/offensive to a white supremacist,
On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 16:40:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:lives.
On 26/04/2023 03:25 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 13:51:47 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/04/2023 10:48 am, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of >>>>>> race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what >>>>>> with all the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit.
A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we* >>>>> are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome >>>>> whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens.
Does that *really* wind people up?
Its effect on me is decidedly "ho-hum".
Well, he did say it winds up white supremacists. So unless you are outing yourself as one, it shouldn't wind you up.
I doubt that any statement designed to be offensive or irritating can be
*that* finely tuned!
Oh, I don't know. I think, for example, that the statement "our ancestors lived in Africa and had dark skin" would be highly irritating/offensive to a white supremacist, whereas the rest of us just say "oh really, how interesting" and get on with our
On 27/04/2023 12:52 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 16:40:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2023 03:25 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 13:51:47 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/04/2023 10:48 am, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of >>>>>>> race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what >>>>>>> with all the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit.
A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we* >>>>>> are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome >>>>>> whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens.
Does that *really* wind people up?
Its effect on me is decidedly "ho-hum".
Well, he did say it winds up white supremacists. So unless you are outing >>>> yourself as one, it shouldn't wind you up.
I doubt that any statement designed to be offensive or irritating can be >>> *that* finely tuned!
Oh, I don't know. I think, for example, that the statement "our ancestors
lived in Africa and had dark skin" would be highly irritating/offensive to a >> white supremacist, whereas the rest of us just say "oh really, how
interesting" and get on with our lives.
It certainly doesn't annoy me and obviously not you either.
Whether it annoys anyone else is a very much a matter of opinion. Have
you ever heard anyone express annoyance at the idea? I haven't.
On 27 Apr 2023 at 14:57:56 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/04/2023 12:52 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 16:40:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2023 03:25 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 13:51:47 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/04/2023 10:48 am, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of >>>>>>>> race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what >>>>>>>> with all the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit.
A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we* >>>>>>> are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome >>>>>>> whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens.
Does that *really* wind people up?
Its effect on me is decidedly "ho-hum".
Well, he did say it winds up white supremacists. So unless you are outing >>>>> yourself as one, it shouldn't wind you up.
I doubt that any statement designed to be offensive or irritating can be >>>> *that* finely tuned!
Oh, I don't know. I think, for example, that the statement "our ancestors >>> lived in Africa and had dark skin" would be highly irritating/offensive to a
white supremacist, whereas the rest of us just say "oh really, how
interesting" and get on with our lives.
It certainly doesn't annoy me and obviously not you either.
Whether it annoys anyone else is a very much a matter of opinion. Have
you ever heard anyone express annoyance at the idea? I haven't.
I have read quite few people to say it cannot possibly be true, becase it doesn't fit their concept of how things should be. And that it is probably invented by liberals, like climate change.
On 27/04/2023 10:37 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 14:57:56 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/04/2023 12:52 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 16:40:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2023 03:25 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 13:51:47 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/04/2023 10:48 am, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of >>>>>>>>> race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what >>>>>>>>> with all the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit.Does that *really* wind people up?
A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we*
are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome >>>>>>>> whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens. >>>>
Its effect on me is decidedly "ho-hum".
Well, he did say it winds up white supremacists. So unless you are outing
yourself as one, it shouldn't wind you up.
I doubt that any statement designed to be offensive or irritating can be >>>>> *that* finely tuned!
Oh, I don't know. I think, for example, that the statement "our ancestors >>>> lived in Africa and had dark skin" would be highly irritating/offensive to a
white supremacist, whereas the rest of us just say "oh really, how
interesting" and get on with our lives.
It certainly doesn't annoy me and obviously not you either.
Whether it annoys anyone else is a very much a matter of opinion. Have
you ever heard anyone express annoyance at the idea? I haven't.
I have read quite few people to say it cannot possibly be true, becase it
doesn't fit their concept of how things should be. And that it is probably >> invented by liberals, like climate change.
What evidence do you have to support your support for the assertion that
is *is* true (that there is annoyance at the idea)?
A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we*
are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome
whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens.
Only anecdote. I have read such opinions as I mention above. I'm pretty sure I
have read posts on here doubting the truth of the assertion that we are all descended from Africans. (I suppose a pure bred Neanderthal would have a case,
but I am not sure there are many of them about.)
On 2023-04-28 19:47:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
Only anecdote. I have read such opinions as I mention above. I'm pretty
sure I have read posts on here doubting the truth of the assertion that
we are all descended from Africans. (I suppose a pure bred Neanderthal
would have a case,
but I am not sure there are many of them about.)
Neanderthals are descended from African predecessors, specifically homo ergaster,
via h. heidelbergensis. Feel free to look round the relevant wikipedia
pages
On 2023-04-28 19:47:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
Only anecdote. I have read such opinions as I mention above. I'm pretty sure I
have read posts on here doubting the truth of the assertion that we are all >> descended from Africans. (I suppose a pure bred Neanderthal would have a case,
but I am not sure there are many of them about.)
Neanderthals are descended from African predecessors, specifically homo ergaster,
via h. heidelbergensis. Feel free to look round the relevant wikipedia pages, or elsewhere.
On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 16:40:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:lives.
On 26/04/2023 03:25 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 13:51:47 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:I doubt that any statement designed to be offensive or irritating can be
On 25/04/2023 10:48 am, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of >>>>>> race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what >>>>>> with all the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit.
A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we* >>>>> are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome >>>>> whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens.
Does that *really* wind people up?
Its effect on me is decidedly "ho-hum".
Well, he did say it winds up white supremacists. So unless you are outing yourself as one, it shouldn't wind you up.
*that* finely tuned!
Oh, I don't know. I think, for example, that the statement "our ancestors lived in Africa and had dark skin" would be highly irritating/offensive to a white supremacist, whereas the rest of us just say "oh really, how interesting" and get on with our
On 28 Apr 2023 at 10:25:39 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/04/2023 10:37 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 14:57:56 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote: >>>
On 27/04/2023 12:52 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 16:40:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2023 03:25 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 13:51:47 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/04/2023 10:48 am, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of >>>>>>>>>> race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what >>>>>>>>>> with all the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit. >>>>>>>>> A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we*Does that *really* wind people up?
are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome >>>>>>>>> whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens. >>>>>
Its effect on me is decidedly "ho-hum".
Well, he did say it winds up white supremacists. So unless you are outing
yourself as one, it shouldn't wind you up.
I doubt that any statement designed to be offensive or irritating can be >>>>>> *that* finely tuned!
Oh, I don't know. I think, for example, that the statement "our ancestors >>>>> lived in Africa and had dark skin" would be highly irritating/offensive to a
white supremacist, whereas the rest of us just say "oh really, how
interesting" and get on with our lives.
It certainly doesn't annoy me and obviously not you either.
Whether it annoys anyone else is a very much a matter of opinion. Have >>>> you ever heard anyone express annoyance at the idea? I haven't.
I have read quite few people to say it cannot possibly be true, becase it >>> doesn't fit their concept of how things should be. And that it is probably >>> invented by liberals, like climate change.
What evidence do you have to support your support for the assertion that
is *is* true (that there is annoyance at the idea)?
Only anecdote. I have read such opinions as I mention above. I'm pretty sure I
have read posts on here doubting the truth of the assertion that we are all descended from Africans. (I suppose a pure bred Neanderthal would have a case,
but I am not sure there are many of them about.) I don't know whether they are annoyed by the idea, just that they express doubt about the truth of the proposition. No I can't be bothered to look up examples.
On 28 Apr 2023 at 23:58:39 BST, "Graham Nye" <nospam@thenyes.org.uk> wrote:
On 2023-04-28 19:47:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
... I'm pretty sure I
have read posts on here doubting the truth of the assertion that we are all >>> descended from Africans. (I suppose a pure bred Neanderthal would have a case,
but I am not sure there are many of them about.)
Neanderthals are descended from African predecessors, specifically homo
ergaster, via h. heidelbergensis. Feel free to look round the relevant
wikipedia pages,or elsewhere.
That's interesting. But where did the actual Neanderthal species emerge? If you happen to know it would save me looking it up before admitting that I am wrong.
On 2023-04-29 09:56:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Apr 2023 at 23:58:39 BST, "Graham Nye" <nospam@thenyes.org.uk> wrote: >>
On 2023-04-28 19:47:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
... I'm pretty sure I
have read posts on here doubting the truth of the assertion that we are all
descended from Africans. (I suppose a pure bred Neanderthal would have a case,
but I am not sure there are many of them about.)
Neanderthals are descended from African predecessors, specifically homo
ergaster, via h. heidelbergensis. Feel free to look round the relevant
wikipedia pages,or elsewhere.
That's interesting. But where did the actual Neanderthal species emerge? If >> you happen to know it would save me looking it up before admitting that I am >> wrong.
Neanderthal fossils have been discovered across Europe and western Asia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Neanderthal_sites
A rule of thumb suggests Neanderthals to the west of the Himalayas
and Denisovans to their east.
You can read a discussion of their orgin at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
Presumably they emerged as a sub-species in Eurasia, corresponding with
the fossil sites. But they are descended from African predecessors, as
above.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:kb44dhFbs7aU1@mid.individual.net...
" it would save me looking it up"
Years ago we used to feel priviledged to be able to walk 20 miles
there and back to a "free" public library in order to look things up
for ourselves. Often in the pouring rain.
Whereas nowadays
bb
On 27/04/2023 12:52, Brian W wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 16:40:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2023 03:25 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 13:51:47 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:I doubt that any statement designed to be offensive or irritating can be >>> *that* finely tuned!
On 25/04/2023 10:48 am, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of >>>>>>> race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what >>>>>>> with all the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit.
A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we* >>>>>> are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome >>>>>> whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens.
Does that *really* wind people up?
Its effect on me is decidedly "ho-hum".
Well, he did say it winds up white supremacists. So unless you are outing >>>> yourself as one, it shouldn't wind you up.
Oh, I don't know. I think, for example, that the statement "our ancestors
lived in Africa and had dark skin" would be highly irritating/offensive to a >> white supremacist, whereas the rest of us just say "oh really, how
interesting" and get on with our lives.
I once knew a Nigerian who was reluctant to accept the idea that we are
all "out of Africa". Maybe he hadn't heard of the idea, or wanted
Africanness to be a purely black affair.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
" it would save me looking it up"
Years ago we used to feel priviledged to be able to walk 20 miles
there and back to a "free" public library in order to look things up
for ourselves. Often in the pouring rain.
On 29 Apr 2023 at 12:34:36 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:kb44dhFbs7aU1@mid.individual.net...
" it would save me looking it up"
Years ago we used to feel priviledged to be able to walk 20 miles
there and back to a "free" public library in order to look things up
for ourselves. Often in the pouring rain.
Whereas nowadays
bb
When I were a lad we only had string to hold our trousers up; but no actual trousers.
On 29 Apr 2023 at 13:04:42 BST, "Graham Nye" <nospam@thenyes.org.uk> wrote:
On 2023-04-29 09:56:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Apr 2023 at 23:58:39 BST, "Graham Nye" <nospam@thenyes.org.uk> wrote: >>>
On 2023-04-28 19:47:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
... I'm pretty sure I
have read posts on here doubting the truth of the assertion that we are all
descended from Africans. (I suppose a pure bred Neanderthal would have a case,
but I am not sure there are many of them about.)
Neanderthals are descended from African predecessors, specifically homo >>>> ergaster, via h. heidelbergensis. Feel free to look round the relevant >>>> wikipedia pages,or elsewhere.
That's interesting. But where did the actual Neanderthal species emerge? If >>> you happen to know it would save me looking it up before admitting that I am
wrong.
Neanderthal fossils have been discovered across Europe and western Asia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Neanderthal_sites
A rule of thumb suggests Neanderthals to the west of the Himalayas
and Denisovans to their east.
You can read a discussion of their orgin at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
Presumably they emerged as a sub-species in Eurasia, corresponding with
the fossil sites. But they are descended from African predecessors, as
above.
Point taken. But is should still give some pause to those still quoting Victorian racial theories that there is more genetic diversity in Homo sapiens
sapiens in Africa than in the rest of the world combined. And some African peoples are much closer to us genetically than they are to certain other groups of Africans.
On 28/04/2023 07:47 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Apr 2023 at 10:25:39 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/04/2023 10:37 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 14:57:56 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 27/04/2023 12:52 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 16:40:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2023 03:25 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 13:51:47 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/04/2023 10:48 am, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of >>>>>>>>>>> race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what >>>>>>>>>>> with all the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit. >>>>>>>>>> A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we*Does that *really* wind people up?
are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome
whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens. >>>>>>
Its effect on me is decidedly "ho-hum".
Well, he did say it winds up white supremacists. So unless you are outing
yourself as one, it shouldn't wind you up.
I doubt that any statement designed to be offensive or irritating can be
*that* finely tuned!
Oh, I don't know. I think, for example, that the statement "our ancestors
lived in Africa and had dark skin" would be highly irritating/offensive to a
white supremacist, whereas the rest of us just say "oh really, how >>>>>> interesting" and get on with our lives.
It certainly doesn't annoy me and obviously not you either.
Whether it annoys anyone else is a very much a matter of opinion. Have >>>>> you ever heard anyone express annoyance at the idea? I haven't.
I have read quite few people to say it cannot possibly be true, becase it >>>> doesn't fit their concept of how things should be. And that it is probably >>>> invented by liberals, like climate change.
What evidence do you have to support your support for the assertion that >>> is *is* true (that there is annoyance at the idea)?
Only anecdote. I have read such opinions as I mention above. I'm pretty sure I
have read posts on here doubting the truth of the assertion that we are all >> descended from Africans. (I suppose a pure bred Neanderthal would have a case,
but I am not sure there are many of them about.) I don't know whether they >> are annoyed by the idea, just that they express doubt about the truth of the >> proposition. No I can't be bothered to look up examples.
As expected.
IOW, your view on the matter is formed in the same way as that of an evolution-doubter: you simply prefer to believe something you would find comfortable if it were true.
On 29/04/2023 03:24 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2023 at 13:04:42 BST, "Graham Nye" <nospam@thenyes.org.uk> wrote: >>
On 2023-04-29 09:56:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Apr 2023 at 23:58:39 BST, "Graham Nye" <nospam@thenyes.org.uk> wrote:
On 2023-04-28 19:47:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
... I'm pretty sure I
have read posts on here doubting the truth of the assertion that we are all
descended from Africans. (I suppose a pure bred Neanderthal would have a case,
but I am not sure there are many of them about.)
Neanderthals are descended from African predecessors, specifically homo >>>>> ergaster, via h. heidelbergensis. Feel free to look round the relevant >>>>> wikipedia pages,or elsewhere.
That's interesting. But where did the actual Neanderthal species emerge? If
you happen to know it would save me looking it up before admitting that I am
wrong.
Neanderthal fossils have been discovered across Europe and western Asia: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Neanderthal_sites
A rule of thumb suggests Neanderthals to the west of the Himalayas
and Denisovans to their east.
You can read a discussion of their orgin at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
Presumably they emerged as a sub-species in Eurasia, corresponding with
the fossil sites. But they are descended from African predecessors, as
above.
Point taken. But is should still give some pause to those still quoting
Victorian racial theories that there is more genetic diversity in Homo sapiens
sapiens in Africa than in the rest of the world combined. And some African >> peoples are much closer to us genetically than they are to certain other
groups of Africans.
"African" isn't really a racial term, though, is it?
It would include a lot of Caucasian people.
On 29 Apr 2023 at 11:51:06 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2023 07:47 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Apr 2023 at 10:25:39 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote: >>>
On 27/04/2023 10:37 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 14:57:56 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 27/04/2023 12:52 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 16:40:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2023 03:25 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 13:51:47 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2023 10:48 am, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of >>>>>>>>>>>> race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what
with all the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit. >>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we*Does that *really* wind people up?
are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome
whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens. >>>>>>>
Its effect on me is decidedly "ho-hum".
Well, he did say it winds up white supremacists. So unless you are outing
yourself as one, it shouldn't wind you up.
I doubt that any statement designed to be offensive or irritating can be
*that* finely tuned!
Oh, I don't know. I think, for example, that the statement "our ancestors
lived in Africa and had dark skin" would be highly irritating/offensive to a
white supremacist, whereas the rest of us just say "oh really, how >>>>>>> interesting" and get on with our lives.
It certainly doesn't annoy me and obviously not you either.
Whether it annoys anyone else is a very much a matter of opinion. Have >>>>>> you ever heard anyone express annoyance at the idea? I haven't.
I have read quite few people to say it cannot possibly be true, becase it >>>>> doesn't fit their concept of how things should be. And that it is probably
invented by liberals, like climate change.
What evidence do you have to support your support for the assertion that >>>> is *is* true (that there is annoyance at the idea)?
Only anecdote. I have read such opinions as I mention above. I'm pretty sure I
have read posts on here doubting the truth of the assertion that we are all >>> descended from Africans. (I suppose a pure bred Neanderthal would have a case,
but I am not sure there are many of them about.) I don't know whether they >>> are annoyed by the idea, just that they express doubt about the truth of the
proposition. No I can't be bothered to look up examples.
As expected.
IOW, your view on the matter is formed in the same way as that of an
evolution-doubter: you simply prefer to believe something you would find
comfortable if it were true.
Well, the fact that it is proved by mitochondrial genetics does help me believe it, too!
On 29 Apr 2023 at 12:34:36 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:kb44dhFbs7aU1@mid.individual.net...
" it would save me looking it up"
Years ago we used to feel priviledged to be able to walk 20 miles
there and back to a "free" public library in order to look things up
for ourselves. Often in the pouring rain.
Whereas nowadays
bb
When I were a lad we only had string to hold our trousers up; but no actual trousers.
On 29-Apr-23 15:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2023 at 12:34:36 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <bi...@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:kb44dh...@mid.individual.net...
" it would save me looking it up"
Years ago we used to feel priviledged to be able to walk 20 miles
there and back to a "free" public library in order to look things up
for ourselves. Often in the pouring rain.
Whereas nowadays
bb
When I were a lad we only had string to hold our trousers up; but no actual trousers.Look on the bright side and knit a string vest.
--
Sam Plusnet
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-65471314
Looks like they've been forced to close due to woke suppliers refusing to work with them.
On 03/05/2023 16:53, Tikli Chestikov wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-65471314
Looks like they've been forced to close due to woke suppliers refusing to work with them.
They are experiencing first hand what it's like to be discriminated
against, so this is an excellent learning opportunity for them.
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:55:36 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 03/05/2023 16:53, Tikli Chestikov wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-65471314They are experiencing first hand what it's like to be discriminated
Looks like they've been forced to close due to woke suppliers refusing to work with them.
against, so this is an excellent learning opportunity for them.
Perhaps I'm out of touch, but I'm a bit suprised at Heineken
and Carlsberg being labelled woke.
'Heineken and Carlsberg have told the pub to stop serving
its lager, while maintenance company Innserve refused to
continue working on site.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-65471314
Looks like they've been forced to close due to woke suppliers refusing
to work with them.
On 03/05/2023 19:02, pensive hamster wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:55:36 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 03/05/2023 16:53, Tikli Chestikov wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-65471314They are experiencing first hand what it's like to be discriminated
Looks like they've been forced to close due to woke suppliers
refusing to work with them.
against, so this is an excellent learning opportunity for them.
Perhaps I'm out of touch, but I'm a bit suprised at Heineken
and Carlsberg being labelled woke.
'Heineken and Carlsberg have told the pub to stop serving
its lager, while maintenance company Innserve refused to
continue working on site.'
I remember the Black and White Minstrel Show on prime time TV when I was
a child. I didn't get the point, and I didn't like the dreadful fake
singing, so maybe I woke early?
On 03/05/2023 19:02, pensive hamster wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:55:36 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 03/05/2023 16:53, Tikli Chestikov wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-65471314They are experiencing first hand what it's like to be discriminated
Looks like they've been forced to close due to woke suppliers
refusing to work with them.
against, so this is an excellent learning opportunity for them.
Perhaps I'm out of touch, but I'm a bit suprised at Heineken
and Carlsberg being labelled woke.
'Heineken and Carlsberg have told the pub to stop serving
its lager, while maintenance company Innserve refused to
continue working on site.'
I remember the Black and White Minstrel Show on prime time TV when I was
a child. I didn't get the point, and I didn't like the dreadful fake
singing, so maybe I woke early?
On 03/05/2023 19:02, pensive hamster wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:55:36 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 03/05/2023 16:53, Tikli Chestikov wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-65471314They are experiencing first hand what it's like to be discriminated
Looks like they've been forced to close due to woke suppliers refusing to >>>> work with them.
against, so this is an excellent learning opportunity for them.
Perhaps I'm out of touch, but I'm a bit suprised at Heineken
and Carlsberg being labelled woke.
'Heineken and Carlsberg have told the pub to stop serving
its lager, while maintenance company Innserve refused to
continue working on site.'
I remember the Black and White Minstrel Show on prime time TV when I was a child. I didn't get the point, and I didn't like the dreadful fake singing, so
maybe I woke early?
Gollies on the other hand were just toys. I find it hard to see
something cuddly as an insult.
On 04/05/2023 09:59, kat wrote:
Gollies on the other hand were just toys. I find it hard to see
something cuddly as an insult.
There was probably no insult intended at the time they were first
introduced. Indeed, a major firm of jam manufacturers chose them as an emblem. Nevertheless, things move on, and they are unacceptable for
public display these days.
As another example of how things change, there was a road sign on the
A41 60 years ago that read "Caution: Cripples Crossing". That was
replaced with "Caution: Disabled People Crossing", and eventually with a bridge.
On 04/05/2023 09:59, kat wrote:
Gollies on the other hand were just toys. I find it hard to see something
cuddly as an insult.
There was probably no insult intended at the time they were first introduced. Indeed, a major firm of jam manufacturers chose them as an emblem. Nevertheless,
things move on, and they are unacceptable for public display these days.
As another example of how things change, there was a road sign on the A41 60
years ago that read "Caution: Cripples Crossing". That was replaced with "Caution: Disabled People Crossing", and eventually with a bridge.
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 4:10:00 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 04/05/2023 09:59, kat wrote:
Gollies on the other hand were just toys. I find it hard to see
something cuddly as an insult.
There was probably no insult intended at the time they were first
introduced. Indeed, a major firm of jam manufacturers chose them as an
emblem. Nevertheless, things move on, and they are unacceptable for
public display these days.
As another example of how things change, there was a road sign on the
A41 60 years ago that read "Caution: Cripples Crossing". That was
replaced with "Caution: Disabled People Crossing", and eventually with a
bridge.
In the 60's and 70s, there was the term "wog", which Wikipedia
describes as " extremely derogatory in British English", though
in my recollection it was mostly applied to Indians and Pakistanis,
rather than to African or black people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog
'The origin of the term is unclear. ... Many dictionaries[3][4][5][6]
say "wog" probably derives from the golliwog, a blackface minstrel
doll character from a children's book, The Adventures of Two Dutch
Dolls and a Golliwogg by Florence Kate Upton, published in 1895'
On 04/05/2023 16:32, pensive hamster wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 4:10:00 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 04/05/2023 09:59, kat wrote:
Gollies on the other hand were just toys. I find it hard to see
something cuddly as an insult.
There was probably no insult intended at the time they were first
introduced. Indeed, a major firm of jam manufacturers chose them as an
emblem. Nevertheless, things move on, and they are unacceptable for
public display these days.
As another example of how things change, there was a road sign on the
A41 60 years ago that read "Caution: Cripples Crossing". That was
replaced with "Caution: Disabled People Crossing", and eventually with a >>> bridge.
In the 60's and 70s, there was the term "wog", which Wikipedia
describes as " extremely derogatory in British English", though
in my recollection it was mostly applied to Indians and Pakistanis,
rather than to African or black people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog
'The origin of the term is unclear. ... Many dictionaries[3][4][5][6]
say "wog" probably derives from the golliwog, a blackface minstrel
doll character from a children's book, The Adventures of Two Dutch
Dolls and a Golliwogg by Florence Kate Upton, published in 1895'
I was brought up to believe it was an acronym for wily oriental gentleman.
On 4 May 2023 at 20:50:54 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 04/05/2023 16:32, pensive hamster wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 4:10:00 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 04/05/2023 09:59, kat wrote:
Gollies on the other hand were just toys. I find it hard to see
something cuddly as an insult.
There was probably no insult intended at the time they were first
introduced. Indeed, a major firm of jam manufacturers chose them as an >>>> emblem. Nevertheless, things move on, and they are unacceptable for
public display these days.
As another example of how things change, there was a road sign on the
A41 60 years ago that read "Caution: Cripples Crossing". That was
replaced with "Caution: Disabled People Crossing", and eventually with a >>>> bridge.
In the 60's and 70s, there was the term "wog", which Wikipedia
describes as " extremely derogatory in British English", though
in my recollection it was mostly applied to Indians and Pakistanis,
rather than to African or black people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog
'The origin of the term is unclear. ... Many dictionaries[3][4][5][6]
say "wog" probably derives from the golliwog, a blackface minstrel
doll character from a children's book, The Adventures of Two Dutch
Dolls and a Golliwogg by Florence Kate Upton, published in 1895'
I was brought up to believe it was an acronym for wily oriental gentleman.
That is very like "Port Out, Starboard Home" and probably equally apocryphal.
On 04/05/2023 16:32, pensive hamster wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 4:10:00 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 04/05/2023 09:59, kat wrote:
Gollies on the other hand were just toys. I find it hard to see
something cuddly as an insult.
There was probably no insult intended at the time they were first
introduced. Indeed, a major firm of jam manufacturers chose them as an
emblem. Nevertheless, things move on, and they are unacceptable for
public display these days.
As another example of how things change, there was a road sign on the
A41 60 years ago that read "Caution: Cripples Crossing". That was
replaced with "Caution: Disabled People Crossing", and eventually with a >>> bridge.
In the 60's and 70s, there was the term "wog", which Wikipedia
describes as " extremely derogatory in British English", though
in my recollection it was mostly applied to Indians and Pakistanis,
rather than to African or black people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog
'The origin of the term is unclear. ... Many dictionaries[3][4][5][6]
say "wog" probably derives from the golliwog, a blackface minstrel
doll character from a children's book, The Adventures of Two Dutch
Dolls and a Golliwogg by Florence Kate Upton, published in 1895'
I was brought up to believe it was an acronym for wily oriental gentleman.
On 04/05/2023 16:09, GB wrote:
On 04/05/2023 09:59, kat wrote:
Gollies on the other hand were just toys. I find it hard to see something >>> cuddly as an insult.
There was probably no insult intended at the time they were first introduced.
Indeed, a major firm of jam manufacturers chose them as an emblem.
Nevertheless,
things move on, and they are unacceptable for public display these days.
So something which was never insulting becomes insulting just because someone decides it is offensive.
I find that offensive.
As another example of how things change, there was a road sign on the A41 60
years ago that read "Caution: Cripples Crossing". That was replaced with
"Caution: Disabled People Crossing", and eventually with a bridge.
I hope it doesn't have steps.
As another example of how things change, there was a road sign on the
A41 60 years ago that read "Caution: Cripples Crossing". That was
replaced with "Caution: Disabled People Crossing", and eventually with a bridge.
It was always insulting. Perhaps in last quarter of the 19c and first quarter of the 20c it was more patronising; the general view of black people was of happy, smiling half-wits only capable of amusing us in jolly minstrel shows, with big grins and clowning around. That is what it was a direct parody of. At the height of Empire the dogma was all colonial people, especially Africans, were incapable of looking after themselves.
Perhaps from the 30s to
the 50s we genuinely forgot what golliwogs *were*, but we definitely used "wog" as a derogatory term for non-whites. But by the time of the American civil rights movement in the 1960s people who read the newspapers with big words found golliwogs embarrassing. About that time, perhaps a little later, I
remember criticism of Robertson's jam for using golliwogs. And who but the National Front campaigned to mock criticism as a "woke" criticism of a great British institution?...
On Thu, 04 May 2023 16:09:52 +0100, GB wrote:
As another example of how things change, there was a road sign on the
A41 60 years ago that read "Caution: Cripples Crossing". That was
replaced with "Caution: Disabled People Crossing", and eventually with a
bridge.
"Cripples Crossing" could be a local crossroads rather than a warning.
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 4:10:00 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 04/05/2023 09:59, kat wrote:
Gollies on the other hand were just toys. I find it hard to see
something cuddly as an insult.
There was probably no insult intended at the time they were first
introduced. Indeed, a major firm of jam manufacturers chose them as an
emblem. Nevertheless, things move on, and they are unacceptable for
public display these days.
As another example of how things change, there was a road sign on the
A41 60 years ago that read "Caution: Cripples Crossing". That was
replaced with "Caution: Disabled People Crossing", and eventually with a
bridge.
In the 60's and 70s, there was the term "wog", which Wikipedia
describes as " extremely derogatory in British English", though
in my recollection it was mostly applied to Indians and Pakistanis,
rather than to African or black people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog
'The origin of the term is unclear. ... Many dictionaries[3][4][5][6]
say "wog" probably derives from the golliwog, a blackface minstrel
doll character from a children's book, The Adventures of Two Dutch
Dolls and a Golliwogg by Florence Kate Upton, published in 1895'
On 2023-05-05, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 04 May 2023 16:09:52 +0100, GB wrote:
As another example of how things change, there was a road sign on
the A41 60 years ago that read "Caution: Cripples Crossing". That
was replaced with "Caution: Disabled People Crossing", and
eventually with a bridge.
"Cripples Crossing" could be a local crossroads rather than a
warning.
There are least two streams named "Cripple Creek" in the USA. The one
in Colorado was so named because of frequent livestock injuries while crossing it.
On 4 May 2023 at 20:28:35 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 04/05/2023 16:09, GB wrote:
On 04/05/2023 09:59, kat wrote:
Gollies on the other hand were just toys. I find it hard to see something >>>> cuddly as an insult.
There was probably no insult intended at the time they were first introduced.
Indeed, a major firm of jam manufacturers chose them as an emblem.
Nevertheless,
things move on, and they are unacceptable for public display these days.
So something which was never insulting becomes insulting just because someone
decides it is offensive.
I find that offensive.
It was always insulting. Perhaps in last quarter of the 19c and first quarter of the 20c it was more patronising; the general view of black people was of happy, smiling half-wits only capable of amusing us in jolly minstrel shows, with big grins and clowning around. That is what it was a direct parody of. At the height of Empire the dogma was all colonial people, especially Africans, were incapable of looking after themselves. Perhaps from the 30s to the 50s we genuinely forgot what golliwogs *were*, but we definitely used "wog" as a derogatory term for non-whites. But by the time of the American civil rights movement in the 1960s people who read the newspapers with big words found golliwogs embarrassing. About that time, perhaps a little later, I
remember criticism of Robertson's jam for using golliwogs. And who but the National Front campaigned to mock criticism as a "woke" criticism of a great British institution?
So unless one has been living in a very remote part of this country I don't buy the idea that one could fail to notice the controversy about golliwogs and
their history. Now support for a parody of Nigger Minstrels just labels what kind of person one is. Of course it is a free country, and one is free to be that kind of person if one wants.
On 04/05/2023 21:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
It was always insulting. Perhaps in last quarter of the 19c and first quarter
of the 20c it was more patronising; the general view of black people was of >> happy, smiling half-wits only capable of amusing us in jolly minstrel shows, >> with big grins and clowning around. That is what it was a direct parody of. >> At the height of Empire the dogma was all colonial people, especially
Africans, were incapable of looking after themselves.
The British Empire obviously didn't take that view about India. Indian administrators were the backbone of several colonies.
Perhaps from the 30s to
the 50s we genuinely forgot what golliwogs *were*, but we definitely used
"wog" as a derogatory term for non-whites. But by the time of the American >> civil rights movement in the 1960s people who read the newspapers with big >> words found golliwogs embarrassing. About that time, perhaps a little later, I
remember criticism of Robertson's jam for using golliwogs. And who but the >> National Front campaigned to mock criticism as a "woke" criticism of a great >> British institution?...
The black footballer turned comedian Charlie Williams strongly defended
the Robertson Golly.
The British Empire obviously didn't take that view about India. Indian administrators were the backbone of several colonies.
Colin Bignell
On 4 May 2023 at 20:28:35 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 04/05/2023 16:09, GB wrote:
On 04/05/2023 09:59, kat wrote:
Gollies on the other hand were just toys. I find it hard to see something >>>> cuddly as an insult.
There was probably no insult intended at the time they were first introduced.
Indeed, a major firm of jam manufacturers chose them as an emblem.
Nevertheless,
things move on, and they are unacceptable for public display these days.
So something which was never insulting becomes insulting just because someone
decides it is offensive.
I find that offensive.
It was always insulting. Perhaps in last quarter of the 19c and first quarter of the 20c it was more patronising; the general view of black people was of happy, smiling half-wits only capable of amusing us in jolly minstrel shows, with big grins and clowning around. That is what it was a direct parody of. At the height of Empire the dogma was all colonial people, especially Africans, were incapable of looking after themselves. Perhaps from the 30s to the 50s we genuinely forgot what golliwogs *were*, but we definitely used "wog" as a derogatory term for non-whites.
But by the time of the American
civil rights movement in the 1960s people who read the newspapers with big words found golliwogs embarrassing. About that time, perhaps a little later, I
remember criticism of Robertson's jam for using golliwogs. And who but the National Front campaigned to mock criticism as a "woke" criticism of a great British institution?
So unless one has been living in a very remote part of this country I don't buy the idea that one could fail to notice the controversy about golliwogs and
their history. Now support for a parody of Nigger Minstrels just labels what kind of person one is. Of course it is a free country, and one is free to be that kind of person if one wants.
As another example of how things change, there was a road sign on the A41 60
years ago that read "Caution: Cripples Crossing". That was replaced with >>> "Caution: Disabled People Crossing", and eventually with a bridge.
I hope it doesn't have steps.
On 05/05/2023 12:04, billy bookcase wrote:
"Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message
news:Q2SdnfDKcs9RLMn5nZ2dnZeNn_ednZ2d@giganews.com...
after themselves.
The British Empire obviously didn't take that view about India. Indian
administrators were the backbone of several colonies.
Colin Bignell
Colonial Service
quote:
The overall size of the Colonial Service changed greatly through the
20th century. In 1900 there were only about 1,000 overseas posts.
The effects of independence on HM Overseas Civil Service personnel
The approach of independence in each territory had fundamental effects
on HMOCS personnel there, depending on the outlook of the emerging local
rulers and the stage of general social and economic development. In the
case of Ceylon, which became independent as the Dominion of Ceylon in
February 1948, the relatively few Colonial Service staff were smoothly
replaced by local counterparts
unquote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Service
Indian Civil Service
Quote:
With the passing of the Government of India Act 1919, the Imperial
Services headed by the Secretary of State for India, were split into
two - All India Services and Central Services.[22]
Before the First World War, 95% of ICS officers were Europeans; after
the war, the British government faced growing difficulties in recruiting
British candidates to the service......between 1915 and 1924, 44% of new
appointments to the ICS were filled by Indians.[23]
unquote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Civil_Service
Opening shops and building railways maybe, but that was about it.
Ghandi was a lawyer in South Africa. A lot of the Indians expelled from Uganda were bankers.
"Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message news:Q2SdnfDKcs9RLMn5nZ2dnZeNn_ednZ2d@giganews.com...
after themselves.
The British Empire obviously didn't take that view about India. Indian
administrators were the backbone of several colonies.
Colin Bignell
Colonial Service
quote:
The overall size of the Colonial Service changed greatly through the
20th century. In 1900 there were only about 1,000 overseas posts.
The effects of independence on HM Overseas Civil Service personnel
The approach of independence in each territory had fundamental effects
on HMOCS personnel there, depending on the outlook of the emerging local rulers and the stage of general social and economic development. In the
case of Ceylon, which became independent as the Dominion of Ceylon in February 1948, the relatively few Colonial Service staff were smoothly replaced by local counterparts
unquote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Service
Indian Civil Service
Quote:
With the passing of the Government of India Act 1919, the Imperial
Services headed by the Secretary of State for India, were split into
two - All India Services and Central Services.[22]
Before the First World War, 95% of ICS officers were Europeans; after
the war, the British government faced growing difficulties in recruiting British candidates to the service......between 1915 and 1924, 44% of new appointments to the ICS were filled by Indians.[23]
unquote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Civil_Service
Opening shops and building railways maybe, but that was about it.
On 10:20 5 May 2023, Adam Funk said:
On 2023-05-05, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 04 May 2023 16:09:52 +0100, GB wrote:
As another example of how things change, there was a road sign on
the A41 60 years ago that read "Caution: Cripples Crossing". That
was replaced with "Caution: Disabled People Crossing", and
eventually with a bridge.
"Cripples Crossing" could be a local crossroads rather than a
warning.
There are least two streams named "Cripple Creek" in the USA. The one
in Colorado was so named because of frequent livestock injuries while
crossing it.
Not forgetting Neil Young's song "Cripple Creek Ferry" on his excellent
album "After The Goldrush" in 1970.
On Thu, 04 May 2023 16:09:52 +0100, GB wrote:
As another example of how things change, there was a road sign on the
A41 60 years ago that read "Caution: Cripples Crossing". That was
replaced with "Caution: Disabled People Crossing", and eventually with a
bridge.
"Cripples Crossing" could be a local crossroads rather than a warning.
On 04/05/2023 21:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 May 2023 at 20:28:35 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 04/05/2023 16:09, GB wrote:
On 04/05/2023 09:59, kat wrote:So something which was never insulting becomes insulting just because someone
Gollies on the other hand were just toys. I find it hard to see something >>>>> cuddly as an insult.
There was probably no insult intended at the time they were first introduced.
Indeed, a major firm of jam manufacturers chose them as an emblem.
Nevertheless,
things move on, and they are unacceptable for public display these days. >>>
decides it is offensive.
I find that offensive.
It was always insulting. Perhaps in last quarter of the 19c and first quarter
of the 20c it was more patronising; the general view of black people was of >> happy, smiling half-wits only capable of amusing us in jolly minstrel shows, >> with big grins and clowning around. That is what it was a direct parody of. >> At the height of Empire the dogma was all colonial people, especially
Africans, were incapable of looking after themselves. Perhaps from the 30s to
the 50s we genuinely forgot what golliwogs *were*, but we definitely used
"wog" as a derogatory term for non-whites. But by the time of the American >> civil rights movement in the 1960s people who read the newspapers with big >> words found golliwogs embarrassing. About that time, perhaps a little later, I
remember criticism of Robertson's jam for using golliwogs. And who but the >> National Front campaigned to mock criticism as a "woke" criticism of a great >> British institution?
So unless one has been living in a very remote part of this country I don't >> buy the idea that one could fail to notice the controversy about golliwogs and
their history. Now support for a parody of Nigger Minstrels just labels what >> kind of person one is. Of course it is a free country, and one is free to be >> that kind of person if one wants.
One isn't if one runs a pub sporting them. It appears that it's legal to discriminate against a doll, but not an actual person.
On 04/05/2023 21:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 May 2023 at 20:28:35 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 04/05/2023 16:09, GB wrote:
On 04/05/2023 09:59, kat wrote:
Gollies on the other hand were just toys. I find it hard to see
something
cuddly as an insult.
There was probably no insult intended at the time they were first
introduced.
Indeed, a major firm of jam manufacturers chose them as an emblem.
Nevertheless,
things move on, and they are unacceptable for public display these
days.
So something which was never insulting becomes insulting just because
someone
decides it is offensive.
I find that offensive.
It was always insulting. Perhaps in last quarter of the 19c and first
quarter
of the 20c it was more patronising; the general view of black people
was of
happy, smiling half-wits only capable of amusing us in jolly minstrel
shows,
with big grins and clowning around. That is what it was a direct
parody of.
At the height of Empire the dogma was all colonial people, especially
Africans, were incapable of looking after themselves. Perhaps from the
30s to
the 50s we genuinely forgot what golliwogs *were*, but we definitely used
"wog" as a derogatory term for non-whites. But by the time of the
American
civil rights movement in the 1960s people who read the newspapers with
big
words found golliwogs embarrassing. About that time, perhaps a little
later, I
remember criticism of Robertson's jam for using golliwogs. And who
but the
National Front campaigned to mock criticism as a "woke" criticism of a
great
British institution?
So unless one has been living in a very remote part of this country I
don't
buy the idea that one could fail to notice the controversy about
golliwogs and
their history. Now support for a parody of Nigger Minstrels just
labels what
kind of person one is. Of course it is a free country, and one is free
to be
that kind of person if one wants.
One isn't if one runs a pub sporting them. It appears that it's legal to discriminate against a doll, but not an actual person.
On 05/05/2023 12:04, billy bookcase wrote:
"Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message
news:Q2SdnfDKcs9RLMn5nZ2dnZeNn_ednZ2d@giganews.com...
after themselves.
The British Empire obviously didn't take that view about India. Indian
administrators were the backbone of several colonies.
Colin Bignell
Colonial Service
quote:
The overall size of the Colonial Service changed greatly through the
20th century. In 1900 there were only about 1,000 overseas posts.
The effects of independence on HM Overseas Civil Service personnel
The approach of independence in each territory had fundamental effects
on HMOCS personnel there, depending on the outlook of the emerging local
rulers and the stage of general social and economic development. In the
case of Ceylon, which became independent as the Dominion of Ceylon in
February 1948, the relatively few Colonial Service staff were smoothly
replaced by local counterparts
unquote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Service
Indian Civil Service
Quote:
With the passing of the Government of India Act 1919, the Imperial
Services headed by the Secretary of State for India, were split into
two - All India Services and Central Services.[22]
Before the First World War, 95% of ICS officers were Europeans; after
the war, the British government faced growing difficulties in recruiting
British candidates to the service......between 1915 and 1924, 44% of new
appointments to the ICS were filled by Indians.[23]
unquote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Civil_Service
Opening shops and building railways maybe, but that was about it.
Ghandi was a lawyer in South Africa. A lot of the Indians expelled from Uganda were bankers.
On 05/05/2023 08:30, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 04 May 2023 16:09:52 +0100, GB wrote:
As another example of how things change, there was a road sign on the
A41 60 years ago that read "Caution: Cripples Crossing". That was
replaced with "Caution: Disabled People Crossing", and eventually with a >>> bridge.
"Cripples Crossing" could be a local crossroads rather than a warning.
I definitely remember collection boxes consisting of a 3 ft high model
of a child and the slogan "Action For the Crippled Child".
Nowadays, disabled people have reclaimed the word "cripple" and proudly
refer to themselves as Crips.
Yes. It is a bit like black people using the N word about themselves.
Nobody else is permitted to do it.
There has been no legal case against the display of the dolls yet. And there may not be one. But one does wonder if an avowed Britain First supporter is a suitable person to be a Licensee.
Nowadays, disabled people have reclaimed the word "cripple" and proudly
refer to themselves as Crips.
Yes. It is a bit like black people using the N word about themselves.
Nobody else is permitted to do it.
"Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message news:Ib-dnWohR8_3dsn5nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 05/05/2023 12:04, billy bookcase wrote:
"Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message
news:Q2SdnfDKcs9RLMn5nZ2dnZeNn_ednZ2d@giganews.com... after
themselves.
The British Empire obviously didn't take that view about India.
Indian administrators were the backbone of several colonies.
Colin Bignell
Colonial Service
quote:
The overall size of the Colonial Service changed greatly through
the 20th century. In 1900 there were only about 1,000 overseas
posts.
The effects of independence on HM Overseas Civil Service personnel
The approach of independence in each territory had fundamental
effects on HMOCS personnel there, depending on the outlook of the
emerging local rulers and the stage of general social and economic
development. In the case of Ceylon, which became independent as the
Dominion of Ceylon in February 1948, the relatively few Colonial
Service staff were smoothly replaced by local counterparts
unquote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Service
Indian Civil Service
Quote: With the passing of the Government of India Act 1919, the
Imperial Services headed by the Secretary of State for India, were
split into two - All India Services and Central Services.[22]
Before the First World War, 95% of ICS officers were Europeans;
after the war, the British government faced growing difficulties in
recruiting British candidates to the service......between 1915 and
1924, 44% of new appointments to the ICS were filled by
Indians.[23]
unquote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Civil_Service
Opening shops and building railways maybe, but that was about it.
Ghandi was a lawyer in South Africa. A lot of the Indians expelled
from Uganda were bankers.
Indeed. But they weren't employed as Colonial Administrators
And Ghandi, like Nehru was of course called to the Bar at The Inner
Temple; as was explained to Pamela previously.
bb
On 05/05/2023 08:30, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 04 May 2023 16:09:52 +0100, GB wrote:
As another example of how things change, there was a road sign on the
A41 60 years ago that read "Caution: Cripples Crossing". That was
replaced with "Caution: Disabled People Crossing", and eventually with
a bridge.
"Cripples Crossing" could be a local crossroads rather than a warning.
I definitely remember collection boxes consisting of a 3 ft high model
of a child and the slogan "Action For the Crippled Child".
Nowadays, disabled people have reclaimed the word "cripple" and proudly
refer to themselves as Crips.
Yes. It is a bit like black people using the N word about themselves.
Nobody else is permitted to do it.
On 05/05/2023 11:05, Pamela wrote:
On 10:20 5 May 2023, Adam Funk said:
On 2023-05-05, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 04 May 2023 16:09:52 +0100, GB wrote:
As another example of how things change, there was a road sign on
the A41 60 years ago that read "Caution: Cripples Crossing". That
was replaced with "Caution: Disabled People Crossing", and
eventually with a bridge.
"Cripples Crossing" could be a local crossroads rather than a
warning.
There are least two streams named "Cripple Creek" in the USA. The one
in Colorado was so named because of frequent livestock injuries while
crossing it.
Not forgetting Neil Young's song "Cripple Creek Ferry" on his excellent
album "After The Goldrush" in 1970.
And this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cripplesease
...though there's no lake nearby, let alone an 'enormous' one.
[And the main shopping street in Penzance is called "Market Jew Street".]
On 29 Apr 2023 at 16:50:01 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 29/04/2023 03:24 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2023 at 13:04:42 BST, "Graham Nye" <nospam@thenyes.org.uk> wrote: >>>
On 2023-04-29 09:56:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Apr 2023 at 23:58:39 BST, "Graham Nye" <nospam@thenyes.org.uk> wrote:
On 2023-04-28 19:47:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
... I'm pretty sure I
have read posts on here doubting the truth of the assertion that we are all
descended from Africans. (I suppose a pure bred Neanderthal would have a case,
but I am not sure there are many of them about.)
Neanderthals are descended from African predecessors, specifically homo >>>>>> ergaster, via h. heidelbergensis. Feel free to look round the relevant >>>>>> wikipedia pages,or elsewhere.
That's interesting. But where did the actual Neanderthal species emerge? If
you happen to know it would save me looking it up before admitting that I am
wrong.
Neanderthal fossils have been discovered across Europe and western Asia: >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Neanderthal_sites
A rule of thumb suggests Neanderthals to the west of the Himalayas
and Denisovans to their east.
You can read a discussion of their orgin at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
Presumably they emerged as a sub-species in Eurasia, corresponding with >>>> the fossil sites. But they are descended from African predecessors, as >>>> above.
Point taken. But is should still give some pause to those still quoting
Victorian racial theories that there is more genetic diversity in Homo sapiens
sapiens in Africa than in the rest of the world combined. And some African >>> peoples are much closer to us genetically than they are to certain other >>> groups of Africans.
"African" isn't really a racial term, though, is it?
It would include a lot of Caucasian people.
No, but virtually all south of the Sahara would be called "black" if they had the temerity to get on a boat to England.
On 29 Apr 2023 at 11:51:06 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2023 07:47 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Apr 2023 at 10:25:39 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote: >>>
On 27/04/2023 10:37 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 14:57:56 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 27/04/2023 12:52 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 16:40:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2023 03:25 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 13:51:47 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2023 10:48 am, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of >>>>>>>>>>>> race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what
with all the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit. >>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we*Does that *really* wind people up?
are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome
whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens. >>>>>>>
Its effect on me is decidedly "ho-hum".
Well, he did say it winds up white supremacists. So unless you are outing
yourself as one, it shouldn't wind you up.
I doubt that any statement designed to be offensive or irritating can be
*that* finely tuned!
Oh, I don't know. I think, for example, that the statement "our ancestors
lived in Africa and had dark skin" would be highly irritating/offensive to a
white supremacist, whereas the rest of us just say "oh really, how >>>>>>> interesting" and get on with our lives.
It certainly doesn't annoy me and obviously not you either.
Whether it annoys anyone else is a very much a matter of opinion. Have >>>>>> you ever heard anyone express annoyance at the idea? I haven't.
I have read quite few people to say it cannot possibly be true, becase it >>>>> doesn't fit their concept of how things should be. And that it is probably
invented by liberals, like climate change.
What evidence do you have to support your support for the assertion that >>>> is *is* true (that there is annoyance at the idea)?
Only anecdote. I have read such opinions as I mention above. I'm pretty sure I
have read posts on here doubting the truth of the assertion that we are all >>> descended from Africans. (I suppose a pure bred Neanderthal would have a case,
but I am not sure there are many of them about.) I don't know whether they >>> are annoyed by the idea, just that they express doubt about the truth of the
proposition. No I can't be bothered to look up examples.
As expected.
IOW, your view on the matter is formed in the same way as that of an
evolution-doubter: you simply prefer to believe something you would find
comfortable if it were true.
Well, the fact that it is proved by mitochondrial genetics does help me believe it, too!
On 29/04/2023 05:56 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2023 at 16:50:01 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 29/04/2023 03:24 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2023 at 13:04:42 BST, "Graham Nye" <nospam@thenyes.org.uk> wrote:
On 2023-04-29 09:56:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Apr 2023 at 23:58:39 BST, "Graham Nye" <nospam@thenyes.org.uk> wrote:
On 2023-04-28 19:47:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
... I'm pretty sure I
have read posts on here doubting the truth of the assertion that we are all
descended from Africans. (I suppose a pure bred Neanderthal would have a case,
but I am not sure there are many of them about.)
Neanderthals are descended from African predecessors, specifically homo >>>>>>> ergaster, via h. heidelbergensis. Feel free to look round the relevant >>>>>>> wikipedia pages,or elsewhere.
That's interesting. But where did the actual Neanderthal species emerge? If
you happen to know it would save me looking it up before admitting that I am
wrong.
Neanderthal fossils have been discovered across Europe and western Asia: >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Neanderthal_sites
A rule of thumb suggests Neanderthals to the west of the Himalayas
and Denisovans to their east.
You can read a discussion of their orgin at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
Presumably they emerged as a sub-species in Eurasia, corresponding with >>>>> the fossil sites. But they are descended from African predecessors, as >>>>> above.
Point taken. But is should still give some pause to those still quoting >>>> Victorian racial theories that there is more genetic diversity in Homo sapiens
sapiens in Africa than in the rest of the world combined. And some African >>>> peoples are much closer to us genetically than they are to certain other >>>> groups of Africans.
"African" isn't really a racial term, though, is it?
It would include a lot of Caucasian people.
No, but virtually all south of the Sahara would be called "black" if they had
the temerity to get on a boat to England.
Eh?
Are they not black - or should that be "Black" - already?
[We aren't talking about Boers and former Rhodesian farmers.]
On 29/04/2023 03:26 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2023 at 11:51:06 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2023 07:47 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Apr 2023 at 10:25:39 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 27/04/2023 10:37 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 14:57:56 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/04/2023 12:52 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 16:40:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 26/04/2023 03:25 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 13:51:47 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2023 10:48 am, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of
race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what
with all the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit. >>>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we*Does that *really* wind people up?
are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome
whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens. >>>>>>>>
Its effect on me is decidedly "ho-hum".
Well, he did say it winds up white supremacists. So unless you are outing
yourself as one, it shouldn't wind you up.
I doubt that any statement designed to be offensive or irritating can be
*that* finely tuned!
Oh, I don't know. I think, for example, that the statement "our ancestors
lived in Africa and had dark skin" would be highly irritating/offensive to a
white supremacist, whereas the rest of us just say "oh really, how >>>>>>>> interesting" and get on with our lives.
It certainly doesn't annoy me and obviously not you either.
Whether it annoys anyone else is a very much a matter of opinion. Have >>>>>>> you ever heard anyone express annoyance at the idea? I haven't.
I have read quite few people to say it cannot possibly be true, becase it
doesn't fit their concept of how things should be. And that it is probably
invented by liberals, like climate change.
What evidence do you have to support your support for the assertion that >>>>> is *is* true (that there is annoyance at the idea)?
Only anecdote. I have read such opinions as I mention above. I'm pretty sure I
have read posts on here doubting the truth of the assertion that we are all
descended from Africans. (I suppose a pure bred Neanderthal would have a case,
but I am not sure there are many of them about.) I don't know whether they
are annoyed by the idea, just that they express doubt about the truth of the
proposition. No I can't be bothered to look up examples.
As expected.
IOW, your view on the matter is formed in the same way as that of an
evolution-doubter: you simply prefer to believe something you would find >>> comfortable if it were true.
Well, the fact that it is proved by mitochondrial genetics does help me
believe it, too!
I am not disputing evolutionary theories.
I am pointing out that you are using the same approach as some of those
who reject evolution: that is, believing something you find you would
find comfortable if it were true.
On 5 May 2023 at 20:44:48 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 29/04/2023 05:56 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2023 at 16:50:01 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote: >>>
On 29/04/2023 03:24 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2023 at 13:04:42 BST, "Graham Nye" <nospam@thenyes.org.uk> wrote:
On 2023-04-29 09:56:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Apr 2023 at 23:58:39 BST, "Graham Nye" <nospam@thenyes.org.uk> wrote:
On 2023-04-28 19:47:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
... I'm pretty sure I
have read posts on here doubting the truth of the assertion that we are all
descended from Africans. (I suppose a pure bred Neanderthal would have a case,
but I am not sure there are many of them about.)
Neanderthals are descended from African predecessors, specifically homo
ergaster, via h. heidelbergensis. Feel free to look round the relevant >>>>>>>> wikipedia pages,or elsewhere.
That's interesting. But where did the actual Neanderthal species emerge? If
you happen to know it would save me looking it up before admitting that I am
wrong.
Neanderthal fossils have been discovered across Europe and western Asia: >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Neanderthal_sites
A rule of thumb suggests Neanderthals to the west of the Himalayas >>>>>> and Denisovans to their east.
You can read a discussion of their orgin at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
Presumably they emerged as a sub-species in Eurasia, corresponding with >>>>>> the fossil sites. But they are descended from African predecessors, as >>>>>> above.
Point taken. But is should still give some pause to those still quoting >>>>> Victorian racial theories that there is more genetic diversity in Homo sapiens
sapiens in Africa than in the rest of the world combined. And some African
peoples are much closer to us genetically than they are to certain other >>>>> groups of Africans.
"African" isn't really a racial term, though, is it?
It would include a lot of Caucasian people.
No, but virtually all south of the Sahara would be called "black" if they had
the temerity to get on a boat to England.
Eh?
Are they not black - or should that be "Black" - already?
[We aren't talking about Boers and former Rhodesian farmers.]
The person who said African wasn't really a racial term is still clinging to the hundred plus year old nonsense that included terms like "caucasian" in the
mistaken belief that it is any more valid than any other type of racial classification.
On 5 May 2023 at 20:43:19 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 29/04/2023 03:26 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2023 at 11:51:06 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote: >>>
On 28/04/2023 07:47 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Apr 2023 at 10:25:39 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 27/04/2023 10:37 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 14:57:56 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/04/2023 12:52 pm, Brian W wrote:I have read quite few people to say it cannot possibly be true, becase it
On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 16:40:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 26/04/2023 03:25 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 13:51:47 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2023 10:48 am, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
(BTW would people be happier with the term "subspecies" instead of
race? A biologist's view of a species is pretty woolly anyway, what
with all the hybrids out there...)
Not a great help. Even cultivar would be stretching it a bit. >>>>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful way to wind up white supremacists is to point out that *we*
are the impure hybrids with around 1-2% Neanderthal DNA in our genome
whereas native Africans are essentially pure species Homo sapiens.
Does that *really* wind people up?
Its effect on me is decidedly "ho-hum".
Well, he did say it winds up white supremacists. So unless you are outing
yourself as one, it shouldn't wind you up.
I doubt that any statement designed to be offensive or irritating can be
*that* finely tuned!
Oh, I don't know. I think, for example, that the statement "our ancestors
lived in Africa and had dark skin" would be highly irritating/offensive to a
white supremacist, whereas the rest of us just say "oh really, how >>>>>>>>> interesting" and get on with our lives.
It certainly doesn't annoy me and obviously not you either.
Whether it annoys anyone else is a very much a matter of opinion. Have >>>>>>>> you ever heard anyone express annoyance at the idea? I haven't. >>>>>>>
doesn't fit their concept of how things should be. And that it is probably
invented by liberals, like climate change.
What evidence do you have to support your support for the assertion that >>>>>> is *is* true (that there is annoyance at the idea)?
Only anecdote. I have read such opinions as I mention above. I'm pretty sure I
have read posts on here doubting the truth of the assertion that we are all
descended from Africans. (I suppose a pure bred Neanderthal would have a case,
but I am not sure there are many of them about.) I don't know whether they
are annoyed by the idea, just that they express doubt about the truth of the
proposition. No I can't be bothered to look up examples.
As expected.
IOW, your view on the matter is formed in the same way as that of an
evolution-doubter: you simply prefer to believe something you would find >>>> comfortable if it were true.
Well, the fact that it is proved by mitochondrial genetics does help me
believe it, too!
I am not disputing evolutionary theories.
I am pointing out that you are using the same approach as some of those
who reject evolution: that is, believing something you find you would
find comfortable if it were true.
No!! I am believing something that (at least pending a major new scietific discovery) *is* true; I have no emotional investment in it being true. In fact
until I bothered to read the evidence behind it I found it pretty unlikely that we were all descended from so remarkably few Africans.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 51:49:43 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,044 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
