3 ms·
Well, sorry about my unclear writing. I was trying to say that your argument is just a variation of "bad Europeans killed peaceful Indians" narrative, only app
by yongjik 13y ago
Well, sorry about my unclear writing. I was trying to say that your argument is just a variation of "bad Europeans killed peaceful Indians" narrative, only applied to a bigger picture.
And just like that narrative, your story doesn't tell why those hominids would be less inclined to kill competitors (after all, having big brains than chimpanzees didn't make us saints). You just assumed it because it suits the narrative you chose.
- jrs99 13y agoi don't make any real conclusions here. I'm sorry if I sounded like this is the only thing I can accept. It's not. I only suggest a possibility. There's a possibility that this group of hominids killed each other in some kind of civil war or died in some drought. And i hope this isn't a revelation, but the narrative is real. Bad europeans did kill peaceful indians. That doesn't mean that all europeans are bad and all indians were peaceful. But largely, that narrative is hard to deny. All kinds of humans have done bad things to people who really just wanted to be left alone. To me, though it may not be the whole story, it's a true fact. I merely suggest that it is a very real possibility that humans hunted this hominid group down and slaughtered them all while the hominids wanted to be left alone. I don't see how you can not consider that scenario if you are wondering how a group of hominids became extinct.