[ Show ]
[ Shrink ]
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 08:26
Subject: Evolutionary theory not necessarily racist at all..
In reply to:
's message, "Re: Huh???" on 08:19
With regards to the theory of Norman's about some races evolving from the neanderthals (the natural evolute of the homoerectus) and some having come from a crossing of homoerectus with the genetic material of the Builders and Nephilim...
My first point is that it depends on how you choose to look at the matter. I have the feeling that if this same theory were expounded by the scientific community as the result of definite evidence, you would see it in terms of pure scientific fact and not attempt to ascribe any racist or discrminatory/demeaning ideaology to it.
On the other hand, since Paulsen is the one who expressed it, you choose to call him racist solely on the fact that you see some kind of a racial slur or stigma implied in the possibility of some of the human race evolving naturally from homoerectus through neanderthalis as opposed to a crossing of homoerectus with the Builders.
Why would this be a slur?
For one thing Norman's theory provides an adequate explanation for the missing link and it also provides an explanation for an obvious difference in certain things like bone structure, physiology and quality of social and cultural understanding among the many races of the world.
As regards the australian aborigine which you have mentioned as one of the races he feels have come from the neanderthalis evolution: All I can tell you is what my personal experiences with aborigines are as I am frequently in contact with them here. There are some I have met who are truly wonderful, loving and gracious souls. You might call them 'evolved'. A few I have been friends with and they proved to be the most loyal and selfless of friends. On the other hand, for the most part, the aborigines I come across are criminally inclined or dispossessed of their sanity. There are many reasons for this.
It is important to keep in mind that their situation is the outcome of a number of factors that fall outside of the evolutionary debate which we are discussing here.
For one thing, when white people colonised this land the aborigines had lived here for hundreds of thousands of years, having migrated from asia. What took place was a situation similar to what happened in America with the native peoples there. White people introduced alcohol and sugar and disease which claimed the health, sanity and lives of many. On top of this many were killed and ostracized from their tribal lands and so developed a naturally bitter and resentful attitude in the cultural psyche of the aborigine based on their fear and distrust of the white man.
So you see that its difficult to evaluate to what extent the disintergration of aboriginal culture can be assigned to their supposed evolution from neanderthalis and how much of it is the result of the damage that the colonization has done.
One thing to consider is that even before the colonization the aborigines lived together as seperate tribes, each being in possession of vast areas of the land. This meant that there was no concept of a national identity as such and each of the different tribes had frequent conflicts with one another. This is somewhat similar to what happened in America - each indian tribe consdering itself a nation in its own right.
My point in all this is that even if its true that some of the human race is the natural evolute of neanderthals and some is the evolute of Builders' DNA crossing, why would you necessarily consider that a racist ideology? It doesnt imply that at all. Racism is the outcome of personal hatred and dislike expressed in discrimination against those of another race. To inquire into the roots and origins of respective races and draw scientific conclusions based on personal revelation and empirical evidence is not inherently racist, even if the evidence points to a divergence such as Norman has posited.
Human bone structure and the evolution of the brain has little to do with the fact that the divine spark is present in the hearts of all beings. While some might say that because of a higher evolutionary status those comprising the evolution of homosapiens like caucasians and asians etc are more evolved spiritually and intellectualy, that very same degree of intelligence can lead to a misuse of it and a decline into a far worse state, that of a consciously, malignantly criminal state of mind.
The Builders themselves fell prone to this happening, since the Nephilim were fallen brothers of their own race.
To regard Norman's evolutionary theory flatly in terms or a racist or otherwise negative ideology is IMO a shallow and ignorant thing to do. You are choosing to do so because you dont like the guy, so whatever it is that he says and does is going to fall prey to your vulture eye.
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |