4 ms·

The Rise of Archaeologists Anonymous

8 points by pannSun 4y ago

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Hopefully there's some online Dr Anonymous Jones to fight these online Nazi archeologists. I couldn't quite figure out what they were saying, apart from the usual 'woke' is bad, reactionary 'science' is being oppressed. Something like, all historical immigration has wiped out the current inhabitants so we should be right-wing and oppose immigration today? It's really not clear, presumably because if they just stated it plainly it would be obviously stupid.
- hax0ron3 4y ago
  I do not know the author's opinions well enough to know whether he is right-wing or not. I do know that he has a Substack: https://stoneageherbalist.substack.com/ https://stoneageherbalist.substack.com/. I do know, however, that "all historical immigration has wiped out the current inhabitants so we should be right-wing and oppose immigration today" is not something that this article is arguing for, at least not explicitly. I myself am neither a left-winger nor a right-winger but I usually dislike it when academia is dominated by dogma rather than by the search for truth. To that extent, at least, I agree with the author.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Yeah, that's some weirdly crypto-nazi stuff: https://stoneageherbalist.substack.com/p/hating-the-saxon-the-academic-battle https://stoneageherbalist.substack.com/p/hating-the-saxon-th... Lots of stuff about Germanic people's ethnic destiny to rule the world, then how people found that problematic after world war II then a weird genetics has proved the woke wrong finale without ever really stating a case clearly. Particularly weird is the treatment of the Normans, who are treated as non-germanic interlopers, barely worth mentioning except as a foil to the noble anglo-saxons.
    - hax0ron3 4y ago
      I read that article earlier and I did not see anything in there that supports the idea that Germanic people should rule the world. My own Slavic ethnicity makes me quite dislike the idea of Germanic people ruling the world so I am pretty sure that I am not biased towards Germanic people in this matter. As for the Normans, I do not remember any mention of them in the article but maybe I should give it a re-read.
      - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        > Both an interest in the English language and in promoting Anglo-Saxon liberties against the Norman yoke found a welcome audience amongst Tudor parliamentarians and Oxford scholars, laying the foundations for the conflict between Crown and Commons. Certainly, by the 17th century there was a growing consensus that the Anglo-Saxons were a people of exceptional liberty, who created free institutions and the common law, and who were later subjugated by the Normans. The Great Struggle through the use of Magna Carta, common law juries, Parliament and the Saxon spirit triumphed over autocratic foreign rule. > The eminent antiquarian William Camden (1551 - 1623) in particular emphasised the founding stock of the Saxon peoples, that powerful Germanic tree from which flowered the English branch. Leaning on Tacitus’ description of the Germans as a peculiar and pure people, untainted by marriage with others, Camden and his colleagues, such as Richard Rowlands, connected England’s Saxon heritage with the Germanic languages and the cluster of northern peoples - the Danes, Germans, Normans and Dutch. This was to have profound consequences for how the nascent British Empire came to view itself, with a magnificent national story of freedom-loving Germanic settlers, capable of self-discipline and self-rule, free from outside interference, England could confidently project its destiny out into the world. This is what others have dubbed ‘Anglo-Saxonism’, the belief in the unique and masterful qualities of the English race, which could be traced back to the primeval forests of Germania. Self-government, free institutions, conventions of liberty, common law and the English language defined Anglo-Saxonism prior to WW2.
        hax0ron3 4y ago
        I see references to other people's beliefs in Germanic/Anglo-Saxon/English/etcetera supremacy. I do not see clear evidence that the author supports such supremacy.
- pannSun 4y ago
  Other than this strawman mischaracterization of the article*, the rest of your comments seem almost entirely unconcerned with whether the author's allegations are true. Are you hoping that, if you can associate him with the wrong people, you can avoid addressing the factuality of the article? How much longer do you think such deflection will keep working? *The claim is not "all historical immigration has wiped out the current inhabitants", but the weaker and obvious claim that "some historical immigration has to varying degrees wiped out the current inhabitants". To dispute that would be to argue that throughout all of its history, all of humanity has been perfectly pacifist.

8 points by pannSun 4y ago

Hopefully there's some online Dr Anonymous Jones to fight these online Nazi archeologists. I couldn't quite figure out what they were saying, apart from the usual 'woke' is bad, reactionary 'science' is being oppressed. Something like, all historical immigration has wiped out the current inhabitants so we should be right-wing and oppose immigration today? It's really not clear, presumably because if they just stated it plainly it would be obviously stupid.

hax0ron3 4y ago
I do not know the author's opinions well enough to know whether he is right-wing or not. I do know that he has a Substack: https://stoneageherbalist.substack.com/ https://stoneageherbalist.substack.com/. I do know, however, that "all historical immigration has wiped out the current inhabitants so we should be right-wing and oppose immigration today" is not something that this article is arguing for, at least not explicitly. I myself am neither a left-winger nor a right-winger but I usually dislike it when academia is dominated by dogma rather than by the search for truth. To that extent, at least, I agree with the author.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Yeah, that's some weirdly crypto-nazi stuff: https://stoneageherbalist.substack.com/p/hating-the-saxon-the-academic-battle https://stoneageherbalist.substack.com/p/hating-the-saxon-th... Lots of stuff about Germanic people's ethnic destiny to rule the world, then how people found that problematic after world war II then a weird genetics has proved the woke wrong finale without ever really stating a case clearly. Particularly weird is the treatment of the Normans, who are treated as non-germanic interlopers, barely worth mentioning except as a foil to the noble anglo-saxons.
  - hax0ron3 4y ago
    I read that article earlier and I did not see anything in there that supports the idea that Germanic people should rule the world. My own Slavic ethnicity makes me quite dislike the idea of Germanic people ruling the world so I am pretty sure that I am not biased towards Germanic people in this matter. As for the Normans, I do not remember any mention of them in the article but maybe I should give it a re-read.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      > Both an interest in the English language and in promoting Anglo-Saxon liberties against the Norman yoke found a welcome audience amongst Tudor parliamentarians and Oxford scholars, laying the foundations for the conflict between Crown and Commons. Certainly, by the 17th century there was a growing consensus that the Anglo-Saxons were a people of exceptional liberty, who created free institutions and the common law, and who were later subjugated by the Normans. The Great Struggle through the use of Magna Carta, common law juries, Parliament and the Saxon spirit triumphed over autocratic foreign rule. > The eminent antiquarian William Camden (1551 - 1623) in particular emphasised the founding stock of the Saxon peoples, that powerful Germanic tree from which flowered the English branch. Leaning on Tacitus’ description of the Germans as a peculiar and pure people, untainted by marriage with others, Camden and his colleagues, such as Richard Rowlands, connected England’s Saxon heritage with the Germanic languages and the cluster of northern peoples - the Danes, Germans, Normans and Dutch. This was to have profound consequences for how the nascent British Empire came to view itself, with a magnificent national story of freedom-loving Germanic settlers, capable of self-discipline and self-rule, free from outside interference, England could confidently project its destiny out into the world. This is what others have dubbed ‘Anglo-Saxonism’, the belief in the unique and masterful qualities of the English race, which could be traced back to the primeval forests of Germania. Self-government, free institutions, conventions of liberty, common law and the English language defined Anglo-Saxonism prior to WW2.
      - hax0ron3 4y ago
        I see references to other people's beliefs in Germanic/Anglo-Saxon/English/etcetera supremacy. I do not see clear evidence that the author supports such supremacy.
pannSun 4y ago
Other than this strawman mischaracterization of the article*, the rest of your comments seem almost entirely unconcerned with whether the author's allegations are true. Are you hoping that, if you can associate him with the wrong people, you can avoid addressing the factuality of the article? How much longer do you think such deflection will keep working? *The claim is not "all historical immigration has wiped out the current inhabitants", but the weaker and obvious claim that "some historical immigration has to varying degrees wiped out the current inhabitants". To dispute that would be to argue that throughout all of its history, all of humanity has been perfectly pacifist.