******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
"Clovis spear and megafauna extinction, which is at the heart of all these debates. If you think that Paul Martin was right, then make your case." Frankly, "Paul Martin" isn't the quintessential argument about the Clovis people you seem to think he is. There actually are better renditions of this issue of the Clovis people--one of them being Flannery--that do not use a "noble savage" framework. I am convinced that Flannery's contentions regarding the systemic nature of human roles in megafaunal extinctions have significant merit: for a human role and not for some racist agenda. As in most scientific inquiry, no one has a last word, especially in such issues as the historical record. I do not hold fast to any theory on this issue, but do find the evidence compelling from a matter of research and scholarship. Moreover, that humans might have had a direct impact even in primitive times on the environment is not hard to understand. We are witnessing this very thing now. The major difference of couse is the magnitude and extent of the human role under capitalism. However, humans since our advent have had tremendous effect. We are no t large like dinosaurs, but our propensity for technological innovation--in service to SURVIVAL and not "communalism" --make our "footprints" even more devastating. Why would we think such an effect is devoid of signficance (since you do not seem to like the term "immunity") just because earlier humans did it? Since we began in Africa (yes, I am aware that there are some who argue against THAT theory, too, but absent stronger evidence, I will stick with it), humans have significantly altered how the world works. You really believe that it is just a matter of "making a case"? If you want to hear that case, read it yourself. It's hard enough to make such a case reasonable when there are actually open minds about it. It takes actually reading books, studying the field, understanding its science and not simply reading a few refutations of the likes of Jared Diamond (! Geez!) because you don't understand all the "technical" discourse. I don't challenge your strong appraisal of the use of environmentalism as a racist argument and I don't need to "make [my] case". That's for you to figure out. I am just agreeing with you that you might not actually have the technical expertise to argue the science about the fossil record even as I can agree with your political points regarding the use of science to engage in questionable interpretations of it. _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
