quote:

---

Barbara Kay, National Post
Published: Wednesday, July 30, 2008

If there's a God, and He made the world, it wasn't in seven literal days, as creationists affirm. Nor, as many aboriginals profess to believe, did the world begin with "Sky Woman" descending to Earth in the shape of a turtle. If you don't agree, no need to read on.

Such fanciful narratives may serve to transmit cultural values, but they are still myths and, "when science meets mythology, some-thing's got to give, and it shouldn't be the science."

I am quoting here from a certain Professor Chris diCarlo, whom I recently interviewed over the telephone. He will be the keynote speaker at this weekend's annual convention of the Humanist Association of Canada in Toronto. diCarlo is an academic and the author of the enticingly titled How to Become a Really Good Pain in the Ass: A Practical Guide to Thinking Critically.

The man knows whereof he speaks. For refusing to privilege myth over science in the classroom, he was sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.

Mr. diCarlo's troubles began in 2005 while teaching a course in critical thinking at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont., ironically, not long after he'd been named TVOntario's "Best Lecturer." From all reports a beloved and inspiring teacher, diCarlo is a rare bird nowadays: a non-ideological truth-seeker.

Caucasian himself, diCarlo had a T-shirt printed with the logo "We are all Africans" -- a reference to the widely held scientific view that Homo sapiens originated in the African savanna about 200,000 years ago, and then later migrated to other parts of the world.

But his anti-racist message that a disparate humankind evolved from a common genetic ancestry ruffled aborigino-centric feathers in his classroom. The result: an accusation of what is known in academia as a "stolen legacy.

---

here is some bait for you:

[ 30 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Convently, starting a thread dissing FN creation myths but not Christian ones speels trolling at best!

---

quote:

---

If there's a God, and He made the world, it wasn't in seven literal days, as creationists affirm.

---

That said, though, the question of whether diCarlo was in the wrong for wearing a T-shirt saying "We Are All Africans" is worth considering in its own right, and nothing about Snuckles' posting history makes me think his motives were the same as Kay's (though I haven't read all his posts, so I can't be sure). I'd also be interested to know if wearing that T-shirt was really the sole reason for the action against diCarlo.

[ 30 July 2008: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Reallly? You think that is dissing the Christian one? I don't.

What I see there is; dissing creationists, reaffirming that God is a He, and then a continuing on to diss FN's creation myth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
No in fact Christians do not ALL believe the earth was created in 7 days.

---

quote:

---

There was no dissinf of Christians just creationists, and I believe only then to try and get away with her anti-FN and progressives tirade.

---

She did thatonyl, IMV, to make an appearance of balance so no one could come back on her for singling out FN's and progressives.

quote:

---

Actually, the Christian one got dissed first, in the opening sentence:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
yep, and she didn't even diss Christians she dissed the literal creationists.

---

quote:

---

...starting a thread dissing FN creation myths but not Christian ones...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
MSpector the only time Christians were mentioned, in the whole damn article, was in the first sentence the whole rest of it was devoted to anti-FN and progressives tirade. It is not me who is being obtuse.

She did thatonyl, IMV, to make an appearance of balance so no one could come back on her for singling out FN's and progressives.

And what the fuck was the point of the article in the first place? it wasn't news, or even op, but is was propaganda.

---

I read it a bit differently and it's not there for the sake of balance. The intro set up the reader with something that most are familiar with Christian Creationism and then equated the Sky Woman story with it, basically saying that they are the same sort of thing. Then the article goes on to lay out the 'apparent' conflict with those that believe in the 'Sky Woman' story with the academic professor, in this case 'science' and how there is an 'apparent' conflict in academia due to things like political correctness yadda yadda and 'science' is getting the short shift.
The ending pretty much makes her point.
She's accusing FN's people who believe in the Sky Woman type stories of being just like creationists and engaging in a similar conflict as the one between creationism and evolution (that everyone is likely familiar with hence the initial set up to get people thinking along those lines) and suggest that they are bringing down science and academia eg as thieves.

There is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to start...

[ 30 July 2008: Message edited by: ElizaQ ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Now you are saying the author did "diss" the Christian creation myth. You know - the one promoted by those "literal creationists"?

---

Oh, mspector, perhaps you should read my posts a little more critically. This snippet you quoted from the sentence I wrote was indeed in reference to snuckles who started this thread, not in reference to Barbara Kay.

Full paragraph reads:

quote:

---

You got here slightly before me stargazer, I mean wth? Quoting Barbra Kay and the National Post? Starting a thread dissing FN creation myth, in the title of the thread, but not the Christian one, spells trolling, at best!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Oh, mspector, perhaps you should read my posts a little more critically. This snippet you quoted from the sentence I wrote was indeed in reference to snuckles who started this thread, not in reference to Barbara Kay.

Full paragraph reads:

quote:You got here slightly before me stargazer, I mean wth? Quoting Barbra Kay and the National Post? Starting a thread dissing FN creation myth, in the title of the thread, but not the Christian one, spells trolling, at best!

---

In this post, I correctly quoted what you originally wrote. Then you went back and added the words, "in the title of the thread".

Your dishonest subterfuge doesn't matter anyway, because the argument was over the interpretation of the first sentence in the Kay article, not the title thread.

Was that the response you were looking for, Snuckles?

quote:

---

From the National Post article:
Pandering to aboriginals' stolen-legacy gambits has become commonplace, I'm informed by my "moles" studying Canadian history at various universities. One is now job-hunting in the academy, so I'll call her Lori, not her real name.

Lori feels her academic freedom has been constrained by academics' obsession over the empowerment of "oppressed" groups at the expense of historical fact: "When aboriginality comes into the mix, academics fall all over themselves to compromise their core secularism."

She indignantly reports that more than one of her professors suggested she teach native creation stories -- not as anthropological lore but alongside the Bering Strait theory -- to accommodate aboriginal sensibilities.

---

quote:

---

When history teachers can't -- or won't -- distinguish between allegory and fact to avoid accusations of stolen legacies, they are denying an entire generation of students their intellectual inheritance: the unbiased pursuit of objective truth. We could help students -- and principled teachers -- to reclaim what's rightfully theirs by asking: Who is the real thief here?

---

I'm sorry, what paper do you write for again, Ms. Kay?

Edited to add: re the feud between M.Spector and remind: (mod hat on) Cut it out. If either of you read the article you would see that the fuckwad Ms. Kay focuses her wrath on First Nations and their hijacking of the Canadian academy, and maybe even Canadian rational thought (tm) and how They Must Be Stopped.

[ 30 July 2008: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]

mspector, I edited the post, apparently at the same, as your intitial post in response to me occured, as I only saw your response after I edited it. So you can piss off with your false accusations of subterfuge, I had no need to to use subterfuge, nor would I ever, and the content of the post is exactly the same.

Stargazer even responded to what I was saying in respect to snuckles starting this thread, all I did was clean up spelling and syntax. In no way did my edit change what I was saying in respect to snuckle's actions in starting this thread.

Nor, as you should have seen, did my initial non-edited edited post say anything about Kay's dissing Christians which you tried to also accuse me of and frankly you are now trying to bluster your way out of having pie on your face.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
mspector, I edited the post, apparently at the same, as your intitial post in response to me occured, as I only saw your response after I edited it.

---

quote:

---

...the content of the post is exactly the same.

---

quote:

---

...all I did was clean up spelling and syntax. In no way did my edit change what I was saying in respect to snuckle's actions in starting this thread.

---

quote:

---

Convently, starting a thread dissing FN creation myths but not Christian ones speels trolling at best!

---

quote:

---

Starting a thread dissing FN creation myth, in the title of the thread, but not the Christian one, spells trolling, at best!

---

quote:

---

Reallly? You think that is dissing the Christian one? I don't.

What I see there is; dissing creationists, reaffirming that God is a He, and then a continuing on to diss FN's creation myth.

---

You're trying to pretend that you were actually arguing about the thread title? And I have "pie on my face"??

quote:

---

And I will no longer respond to your stalking and meta debate.

---

[ 31 July 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

Anishnabek myths encourage critical thought. One is challenged to think for themselves and learn for themselves. And, besides being a human responsibility, critical thought is an important value. Ms. Kay shouldn’t profess to understand the intricacies of things that most of society still struggles to understand.

quote:

---

I'll take the myths that have been around for thousands of years over the myths we've developed in the last couple of centuries any day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Reallly? You think that is dissing the Christian one? I don't.

What I see there is; dissing creationists, reaffirming that God is a He, and then a continuing on to diss FN's creation myth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by It's Me D:
I'll take the myths that have been around for thousands of years over the myths we've developed in the last couple of centuries any day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Stop your trolling Sven. You history with FN posts is horrid. Just stop now.

---

Look. What I don't understand is how myths of virtually every sort (particularly Xian myths) get trashed here all the time (including by me) but some people seem to feel that aboriginal myths get a pass simply because...they are aboriginal?

The professor was making a point that substantial and growing scientific evidence indicates that all humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago (which is probably contrary to every creation myth that exists). This upset some FNs at the school and the professor was--astoundingly--punished for it.

It's a legitimate debate about academic freedom.

I criticize Xian creationist myths (like teaching "Intelligent Design" in schools) in the same manner.

However, I can’t provide you with any of the creation story as I’ve never been given it, as a knowledge keeper. In other words I’m not the one to be sharing it. And I suspect, neither is Ms. Kay. Using knowledge that you haven’t been given permission to use is very dangerous. That’s why there are knowledge keepers for certain types of information.

A little knowledge can do just as much harm as no knowledge at all. I also suspect that knowledge that Ms. Kay is using shouldn’t be used by her, nor in such a way, until she’d earned that knowledge. And that in itself should be a lesson worth learning. Ms. Kay is simply being a troll of another kind.

Myths, at least the Anishanbe myths that I know, have a lot to teach us. Even in the practices of preserving them there’s lessons to be learned.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sknguy:
However, I can’t provide you with any of the creation story as I’ve never been given it, as a knowledge keeper. In other words I’m not the one to be sharing it. And I suspect, neither is Ms. Kay. Using knowledge that you haven’t been given permission to use is very dangerous. That’s why there are knowledge keepers for certain types of information.

---

If people wish to keep their myths to themselves, fine. But, when, for example, Xian creationists want to have “Intelligent Design” taught in schools, they are trying to impose the “truth” of their myth on others.

Here, we have the believers of a different creation myth telling an academic institution that academics should not be making an assertion that the origin of all humans is Africa because the assertion conflicts with the “truth” of their myth.

I guess the question here is: Should academics be prohibited from asserting that scientific evidence points to a conclusion that all humans originated in Africa?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sknguy:
Do we want the universities to be like the residential schools as well? Debunking myth and culture?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sknguy:
I personally agree with the science behind the evolution of humans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
All this thread does is reinforce some old and weird Scandinavian myths.

---

How does this thread "reinforce" Scandinavian myths?

The creation of humans according to Norse mythology (from the link):

"According to Norse myth, the beginning of life was fire and ice, with the existence of only two worlds: Muspelheim and Niflheim. When the warm air of Muspelheim hit the cold ice of Niflheim, the giant Ymir and the icy cow Audhumla were created. Ymir's foot bred a son and a man and a woman emerged from his armpits, making Ymir the progenitor of the Jotun, or giants. Whilst Ymir slept, the intense heat from Muspelheim made him sweat, and he sweated out Surtr, a giant of fire. Later Ymir woke and drank Audhumbla's milk. Whilst he drank, the cow Audhumbla licked on a salt stone. On the first day after this a man's hair appeared on the stone, on the second day a head and on the third day an entire man emerged from the stone. His name was Búri and with an unknown giantess he fathered Bor, the father of the three gods Odin, Vili and Ve.

When the gods felt strong enough they killed Ymir. His blood flooded the world and drowned all of the giants, except two. But giants grew again in numbers and soon there were as many as before Ymir's death. Then the gods created seven more worlds using Ymir's flesh for dirt, his blood for the Oceans, rivers and lakes, his bones for stone, his brain as the clouds, his skull for the heaven. Sparks from Muspelheim flew up and became stars.

One day when the gods were walking they found two tree trunks. They transformed them into the shape of humans. Odin gave them life, Vili gave them mind and Ve gave them the ability to hear, see, and speak. The gods named them Ask and Embla and built the kingdom of Middle-earth for them and to keep the giants out the gods placed a gigantic fence made of Ymir's eyelashes around Middle-earth."

"Scandinavians believed there are 'nine worlds' (níu heimar), that many scholars summarize as follows:

■ Ásgarðr, world of the Æsir.
■ Vanaheimr, world of the Vanir.
■ Miðgarðr, world of humans.
■ Muspellheim, world of the primordial element of fire.
■ Niflheimr, world of the primordial element of ice
■ Hel, underworld, world of the dead.
■ Álfheimr, world of the Álfar (elves).
■ Svartalfheim or Nidavellir, world of the Dvergar (Norse dwarves).
■ Jötunheimr, world of the Jötnar (giants).

Note the boundaries between Niflheim, Jötunheimr, Hel, Niðavellir, Svartálfaheimr, and several other significant places like Utgarðr remain uncertain."

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
Absent any response from the students in this "story", I think there's plenty more to this than what is printed.

---

Look Sven, you're a smart guy, you know it's not even remotely as simple as you put it.

Xian myths have been forced upon people. Xian thinking is the norm. When academic institutions include the beliefs of minority groups, it can hardly be seen on the same same level as Xian creationism. It is especially important given the small number of anishnawbe people and the fact that their history and culture is largely ignored.

Do you honestly think or believe that anishnawbe people are trying to force the world to change according to the various beliefs? Surely you can see how this differs from Xian thinking.

You must know that there is not, and never will be, the sacrifice of science to any anishnawbe teachings/beliefs. Not only is this not desired, FN history and beliefs are actively suppressed.

But I know you know this...

I know that you know this distinction. This is why I also know that your questions are neither innocent, nor coming from a place which could possibly believe the voices of a very marginalized group are ready to kick science to the curb.

Edited because my spelling sucks right now.

[ 31 July 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

[ 31 July 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
When academic institutions include the beliefs of minority groups...

---

If I'm reading your post correctly, are you saying that academics should include FN creation myths as possible legitimate alternatives to genetic anthropology?

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
IMV, you're not reading it correctly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I would very much like to hear it.

---

quote:

---

I know that you know this distinction. This is why I also know that your questions are neither innocent, nor coming from a place which could possibly believe the voices of a very marginalized group are ready to kick science to the curb.

---

quote:

---

Considering fossils, migratory patterns, tool and material manipulation patterns, and the National Genographic Project, Dr diCarlo says that all evidence clearly points to a common ancestry, from Africa. During one lecture in his course on Critical Thinking he was explaining this to his students. An aboriginal woman was firmly opposed.

Here is how Dr diCarlo remembers the exchange:

“How do you really know that?” she asked him. “Some people say that, others refute it. Carbon dating is flawed. And now there’s evidence that there may have been people before then … My people don’t believe in what you’re saying.”

After recognizing the validity of a portion of the student’s arguments, Dr diCarlo spoke to her final statement:

“I understand that some of your people do not — would not — accept this, and I would maintain that they’re wrong.”

Considering the fact that he was teaching a course on critical thinking, Dr diCarlo then made a suggestion that nicely illustrated what the course was about:

“If you will accept evidence, then I will bring in the evidence that I have now, and you could bring in your evidence, that counters it, from an Aboriginal point of view. Then we could put it all on the table, and this would be a great basis for debate.”

The tone was not sarcastic but, rather, a sincere attempt to perform the function for which the University employs him — to teach students about critical thinking.

---

[ 31 July 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

And there wasn't even anything like this scene in the picture.

From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I think creationist myths are anti-intellectual, whether they are FN or non-FN.

---

Then I'm afraid you don't really understand Anishnabek creation legends, or Anishnabe myth in general.

Mr. DiCarlo Phd. should know better than to challenge someone about their beliefs. I mean really... way to sustain the mistrust for academia. But then again, academics haven't been so nice to First Nations' cultures in the past.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Does that include the science that says that North American aboriginals' forebears traversed the Bering Strait when it was still an icy land mass 13,000 years ago?

---

I'm sure that in the past there were many migration routes. And I suspect that the creation myths might contribute something of an understanding of this. You know, it's really annoying that people only seem to key on only parts of the Anishnabek creation legends. Particularly those concerning the creation of Turtle Island and Sky Woman, as though these were all there is. There is much more to the creation legends, of which Turtle Island and Sky Woman represent just two periods.

quote:

---

sknguy: it's really annoying that people only seem to key on only parts of the Anishnabek creation legends. Particularly those concerning the creation of Turtle Island and Sky Woman, as though these were all there is. There is much more to the creation legends, of which Turtle Island and Sky Woman represent just two periods.

---

Methinks Prof. DiCarlo isn't such a critical thinker himself. Can't even move himself to get more information other than the typical mainstream culturally appropriated talking points. Ever hear of a thing called "research", doctor? Aka "reading works you haven't read already to gain new information and insight". Or not.

Sigh. The language has changed, but the overall agenda to silence, minimize and marginalize FN/Aboriginal voices remains. Not surprising , of course, nor is the legitimacy that some posters in this thread give the learned professor.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Stick to science and what they are doing finding, and leave any creation myth dialogue out of the equation, IMV.

---

quote:

---

The woman never returned to his classroom. Instead, she complained to the University, along with two other students who were opposed to his “religiously insensitive” position on evolution. The objections apparently focused on Dr diCarlo’s comments on religion and evolution, but also indicated concern about fair grading and “talking about sex in class.”

Dr diCarlo told me about being called into a meeting with the Associate Dean, where he was confronted, in what he calls a “vague manner,” about the students’ complaints. The concern about his talking about sex during a lecture baffled him. “I knew I was being pulled for something pertaining to religion, but what was this talking about sex about?” Later, while talking about the incident with a colleague, it came to him, “I think he must have been referring to homosexuality.”

Dr diCarlo had explained to his class that evidence seems to suggest homosexuality to be, in part at least, a genetic propensity, and that this could possibly provide a better understanding of this aspect of human nature — that it is not a ‘life choice’ but inherent, and therefore should not be considered morally problematic.

---

quote:

---

Sigh. The language has changed, but the overall agenda to silence, minimize and marginalize FN/Aboriginal voices remains. Not surprising , of course, nor is the legitimacy that some posters in this thread give the learned professor.

---

Most of all though I have to thank Papal Bull for this,

quote:

---

All this thread does is reinforce some old and weird Scandinavian myths.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sknguy:
I'm sure that in the past there were many migration routes. And I suspect that the creation myths might contribute something of an understanding of this.

---

Oh, really? Please tell how any creation myth (Xian, FN, or otherwise) could possibly tell us anything about migration routes. And, yes, please be specific.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sknguy:
You know, it's really annoying that people only seem to key on only parts of the Anishnabek creation legends. Particularly those concerning the creation of Turtle Island and Sky Woman, as though these were all there is. There is much more to the creation legends, of which Turtle Island and Sky Woman represent just two periods.

---

That's interesting. How can you possibly say that when you said the following above?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sknguy:
However, I can’t provide you with any of the creation story as I’ve never been given it, as a knowledge keeper.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
It's highly unlikely an FN student would complain about being taught homosexuality is genetic.

---

Why is it "highly unlikely" that a FN student would complaint about being taught homosexuality is genetic?

Seriously. How can you even say something like that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
I'd also like to know who these students were, and then I'd like to hear the appropriate outrage heaved at these Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Methinks Prof. DiCarlo isn't such a critical thinker himself.

---

That makes sense if you have a definition of "critical thinker" that is unique. Please share it.

diCarlo offered, at least according to him, the complaining students to compare the evidence (the evidence he's seen that all humans originated in Africa and the students evidence that such an assertion is wrong) and then debate it. That is critical thought.

Or, do you think that all creation myths (FN, Xian, and otherwise) should be given equal weight with science as a matter of course...and that there is no debate over the matter?

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Stick to science and what they are doing finding, and leave any creation myth dialogue out of the equation, IMV.

---

And, if an academic's scientific assertion that all humans originated from African is challenged by someone who believes in a contrary creation myth, what should the academic do? Say nothing? Conceded that creation myths are equally valid? What?

ETA: By the way, I think diCarlo was "sticking to science". He was challenged and he offered to examine the question scientifically (compare competing evidence). He would not have been "sticking to science" if he had simply conceded the validity of myths.

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

The creation narratives of First Nations people, as well as the western-model scientific narrative are both answers, and both equally valid answers. That this is an apparent contradiction is because they are answer to different questions.

If your questions are “who am I in relation to my people, what is my place and role on the earth, do I even have one, what matters, I know I am an ‘I” but what is my ‘we’,”? then a thoughtful look at the stories and narratives of your people, and talks with older people who are wise in these matters is a place to start. The fact that your DNA shows up somewhere else on the planet may be real, but isn’t useful.

The language of a people’s narrative is hugely rich, with the underlying assumptions, shared values, and ethics which bind a peoples and feed sustain their souls.

( I hardly ever type in all caps but…)

IT IS A THOUSAND TIMES MORE IMPORTANT IF YOU HAVE BEEN SUNDERED FROM YOUR ELDER GENERATION, ROBBED OF THE BASIS OF YOUR CULTURE AND AS AN “I” TORN AND SCATTERED FROM YOUR “WE”.

Ok, I’ll stop shouting, but that was important.

So the answer you get is as good as the question you ask.

I’ll indulge in a bit of self revelation. Oldgoat doesn’t have a “we”. I stand as an “I”. The wisdom of my ancestors, who’s bare feet felt the forest floors of the dark and magnificent woods, and who built henges is lost in the mists of time. I also have a Judeo-Christian creation narrative to draw on, but have consciously rejected it. There are bits I can take, but not much.

The scientific narrative, with its different methods answers different questions. As a member of the white settler group, who hasn’t felt what I was talking about in my little shout above, I look at these question too, and personally find value in that kind of curiosity.

I think you can indulge in both, with respect and without conflict, if your clear on “what is my question and why am I asking it”.

A university course should be clear on what its parameters are, what is it asking and what does it purport to answer and what not.

I should also add that the Xtian creation myths of the dominant culture (while interesting) are tainted in the context of this particular discussion, because Christianity was unabashedly used as an instrument of oppression cultural genocide, and naked theft and murder. I do not therefore view their value equally with FN creation narratives.

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Sven, fuck off.

---

Excellent rebuttal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Sven, fuck off.

---

Stargazer... ahh, your way with words...

Ghislaine, in hockey more severe penalties are reserved for the third one into a fight. Stop being a pain in the ass trouble maker. Ta very much.

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

Anyway, maybe we can start over from the last thoughtful post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Please tell how any creation myth (Xian, FN, or otherwise) could possibly tell us anything about migration routes. And, yes, please be specific.

---

quote:

---

And, if an academic's scientific assertion that all humans originated from African is challenged by someone who believes in a contrary creation myth, what should the academic do? Say nothing? Conceded that creation myths are equally valid? What?

---

Science currently may show,(as science really does not yet conclusively prove that this is the case, if it ever could/can) peoples may have evolved and migrated out of Africa.

However, I do not believe science can ever definitively prove this is the case, as land masses have risen and fallen, covered by water, and uncovered by water, mountains have risen from formerly flat land, throughout the world's history, and much more ancient civilization rercords could well have, and have most likely, been lost. Moreover, the ancestors of some of the FN's in NA, may have well lived in NA before the last iceage and migrated out, and their ancestors came back, knowing it was here by oral history.

These are the things current science does not yet know, and perhaps will never know. Science has stated that they knew everything before, and have found that indeed they didn't, as new evidence has been discovered.

quote:

---

ETA: By the way, I think diCarlo was "sticking to science".

---

No, he wasn't, nor was he using the absolute extention of rational logic.

ETA: Also science, or rather some social scientists, have been looking at evidence that suggests there may have been FN persons living in and around what is now the Great Lakes area during the last ice age. In fact, they believe that FN persons may have actually lived under the 3 mile high ice sheet in the ice cave complexes.

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
Try just shutting up and listening for a bit, or the next step will be to kick you off this forum too.

---

Um, from the humanities and science forum? For what...specifically?

And this outrageous and false comment cannot go unanswered:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
I know Sven dislikes aboriginal peoples

---

You are saying that on what basis? Because I don’t believe in FN myths and actively assert that such myths regarding the origin of FN peoples conflicts with the scientific evidence regarding the origins of all human beings?

I don’t believe in any creation myths (FN, Hindu, Islamic, Xian, Norse, etc., etc, etc., etc.). But, according to you, because I disagree with FN myths specifically, I “dislike aboriginal peoples”?!?!?! I suppose I “dislike” Xians, too, and any other group that has traditionally believed in creation myths?

Please retract that statement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
and I know what motivates him.

---

There is a resurgance currently occuring of interest and respect for FN spirituality and creation myths, which I think is wonderful - even as a skeptical atheist. It is helping youth feel confident in and find their identity, as well as connect with elders before oral stories and knowledge is lost. As a social worker, I would encourage and assist Aboriginal youth in learning about Mikmaq spiritual practices and finding out people to talk to and learn from if they had been seperated from their culture due to foster homes, etc.

quote:

---

Um, from the humanities and science forum? For what...specifically?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:

Oh you're probably right and I'm sorry if I overreacted, but there are not equal measures of talking and listening going on here which keeps taking the discussion off in very pissy directions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
...there are not equal measures of talking and listening going on here...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Thanks, sknguy.

Methinks Prof. DiCarlo isn't such a critical thinker himself. Can't even move himself to get more information other than the typical mainstream culturally appropriated talking points. Ever hear of a thing called "research", doctor? Aka "reading works you haven't read already to gain new information and insight". Or not.

Sigh. The language has changed, but the overall agenda to silence, minimize and marginalize FN/Aboriginal voices remains. Not surprising , of course, nor is the legitimacy that some posters in this thread give the learned professor.

It's damned annoying though.

---

I think you are misinterpreting him. I know professor diCarlo; he is one of the most progressive persons I have seen and an excellent scientist. He is also a secular humanist, so it is natural that he would not believe in religious creationist theories, be it Christian or First nation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
..I'm going to be away from the board for a while now.

---

quote:

---

A myth is a sacred narrative in the sense that it contributes to systems of thought and values, and that people attach religious or spiritual significance to it.

---

That's an interesting definition. I will continue to classify "modern science" as modern mythology until people stop "attach[ing] religious or spiritual significance to it" (which I imagine wouldn't be possible).

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: It's Me D ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

How convenient to have (A) "correct" and allegedly pertinent information that is contrary to science (or at least supplements science), which is (B) "secret" and therefore (C) unchallengeable.

---

So anyway... you have no idea of the protocols for knowledge keeping nor the importance of the oral history to First Nations people. If I provide you with what little information I can offer about the Creation Legends that info would be incomplete. And likely disrespected by yourself anyway. I myself am not a “knowledge keeper”, as would some academics, like Mr. DiCarlo, feel they have the privilege to be.

EDIT: I just read sanizadeh post. Although I can appreciate Mr. DiCarlo's sincerity, I might suggest that the professor understand a little better the dynamics of Anishnabek cultural struggles.

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: sknguy ]

quote:

---

Science currently may show,(as science really does not yet conclusively prove that this is the case, if it ever could/can) peoples may have evolved and migrated out of Africa.

---

It is more correct to say that the balance of scientific evidence indicates that modern human beings evolved in Africa and migrated from Africa to the rest of the world, rather than evolving independently from previous populations of genus homo in various locations, or some other origin. Science is always a provisional proof, rather than an absolute proof, as it allows for the possibility of contrary evidence that may lead to another theory or paradigm.

quote:

---

However, I do not believe science can ever definitively prove this is the case, as land masses have risen and fallen, covered by water, and uncovered by water, mountains have risen from formerly flat land, throughout the world's history, and much more ancient civilization rercords could well have, and have most likely, been lost.

---

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but given that mountain building (aside from volcanoes) and continental drift occur on time scales of tens of millions of years, I'll go with the current genetic and archaeological/paleontological evidence that genus homo emerged around 2.5 million years ago and homo sapiens sapiens emerged less than 200,000 years ago. However agriculture may have first developed well before 10,000 years ago and not necessarily in the middle east (assuming agriculture is an essential element of civilization).

quote:

---

Moreover, the ancestors of some of the FN's in NA, may have well lived in NA before the last iceage and migrated out, and their ancestors came back, knowing it was here by oral history.

---

If you mean the last glacial period they may well have been here and there is evidence pro and con. If you mean the Pleistocene, highly unlikely. At this point, migration from the Americas and back is shear speculation, aside from the more recent introduction of the sweet potato to Polynesia and chicken to South America (prior to European exploration and colonization).

quote:

---

These are the things current science does not yet know, and perhaps will never know. Science has stated that they knew everything before, and have found that indeed they didn't, as new evidence has been discovered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by It's Me D:
That's an interesting definition. I will continue to classify "modern science" as modern mythology until people stop "attach[ing] religious or spiritual significance to it" (which I imagine wouldn't be possible).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
The creation narratives of First Nations people, as well as the western-model scientific narrative are both answers, and both equally valid answers. That this is an apparent contradiction is because they are answer to different questions.

---

quote:

---

Here is how Dr diCarlo remembers the exchange:

“How do you really know that?” she asked him. “Some people say that, others refute it. Carbon dating is flawed. And now there’s evidence that there may have been people before then … My people don’t believe in what you’re saying.”

---

quote:

---

I should also add that the Xtian creation myths of the dominant culture (while interesting) are tainted in the context of this particular discussion, because Christianity was unabashedly used as an instrument of oppression cultural genocide, and naked theft and murder. I do not therefore view their value equally with FN creation narratives.

---

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
So what should he have done? Lied?

---

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

quote:

---

Except that science isn't a narrative, it's a method. The conclusions drawn by this method could be called narratives I suppose, but they're not sacred ones- they're subject to revision in the face of new data.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agent 204:
I wouldn't say that he can't. But when dealing with the mythology of a people who have been oppressed by one's own culture, and when part of that oppression involved active suppression of their mythology, the need to be diplomatic is greater than when dealing with Christian mythology, I'd say.

---

Why? It wasn't a course on aboriginal mythology; it was a course on critical thinking. How could a course whose goal is to teach people to not accept unsubstantiated claims at face value not critically examine these narratives in the face of available evidence?

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

Archaeologists have long debated the possible existence of a culture older than Clovis in North and South America.

Predecessors of the Clovis people may have migrated south along the North American coastline. According to researchers Michael Waters and Thomas Stafford of Texas A&M University, new radiocarbon dates place Clovis remains from the continental United States in a shorter time window (13,050 to 12,800 years ago)[10], while radiocarbon dating of the Monte Verde site in Chile place Clovis like culture there as early as 13,500 years ago and remains found at the Channel Islands of California place coastal Paleoindians there 12,500 years ago. This suggests that the Paleoindian migration could have spread more quickly along the coastline south, and that populations that settled along that route could have then began migrations eastward into the continent.

In 2004, worked stone tools were found at Topper in South Carolina that have been dated by radiocarbon techniques to 50,000 years ago[11], although there is significant dispute regarding these dates.[12]. A more substantiated claim is that of Paisley Caves, where rigorous carbon-14 and genetic testing appears to indicate that humans related to modern Native Americans were present in the caves over 1000 14C years before the earliest evidence of Clovis. A study published in Science presents strong evidence that humans occupied sites in Monte Verde, at the tip of South America, as early as 13,000 years ago. [13] If this is true then humans must have entered North America long before the Clovis Culture - perhaps 16,000 years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Why? It wasn't a course on aboriginal mythology; it was a course on critical thinking. How could a course whose goal is to teach people to not accept unsubstantiated claims at face value not critically examine these narratives in the face of available evidence?

---

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

quote:

---

sounds like science is sacred to some.

---

He is being named Humanist of The Year by the Humanist Association of Canada.