we all like to go on a hunting trip
but we're allways happy to return to the cave where the women are
Ah...but if a farmer comes along and builds a snug little house with plank or smooth stone floors that you can keep clean and that no wild animal can enter, a nice legume and grain patch and a few fruit trees so you don't have to walk 5-10 miles a day foraging, some cows for milking so you don't have to nurse the children till they're 4 years old, and maybe even some wool from sheep and linen from flax so you don't have to just wear furs...well, you might find the little woman is in that house, not waiting in the cave. Not that the farmer wouldn't go hunting occasionally too, of course, it's just that he wouldn't be alternating all his time between hunting, raiding nearby groups, and laying around telling stories with his buddies. He'd be farming too.
Originally Posted by
epoch
You have an observable bias favoring political correctness. That is a tunnel vision just as any bias. Most of us are aware of our biases. I'm not sure if you are, though.
Originally Posted by
bicicleur
I'm sorry, Lebrok, but I have the same impression
Just want you to be aware of that
I think there's some confusion here. To me, political correctness is when you espouse an opinion because it's the majority opinion in your culture, or in some cases the prevailing opinion of the center left political spectrum, not because you believe it, but because it's expedient to do so. If you believe in something that the larger culture now believes and say so, you're not being "politically correct", you're being honest about your opinions.
I think I know LeBrok well enough to say that he's an honest man, and the opinions he states stem from his belief system. For what it's worth, I would say the same thing about myself.
If you go with the definition of the term as "language, actions, or policies seen as being
excessively calculated to not
offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society", I don't think he's "politically correct", and neither am I.
If you take it to mean being against racism and religious bigotry, and for dealing with other human beings out of respect for our common humanity, and giving people equal rights, then I guess I'm politically correct. I wouldn't call that political correctness, however. I'd call it common decency. One could also call it simple Christianity.
However, for what it's worth, I'm totally against the kind of thought control that is taking over places like college campuses; it's liberal, Marxist fascism and a denial of free speech.
arvistro
I have nothing against farming per se
One of Latvian self identifications is nation of ploughmen. Arāju tauta. Despite being mostly WHG genetically (Altentoft gave what 0.x% of ENF to us?).
But, when it goes like - only farmers are capable of this or that innovation or passing language.. Nah.. Especially when farmer is treated as genes not as profession, then it feels like "only Whites are capable of.." statements.
With all due respect, I think you've misinterpreted what's been written. I don't want to rehash the whole argument here because it's not the thread for it, and we've gone over it all before ad nauseam. To summarize it briefly, although the hypothesis didn't originate with me, I do think there is some validity to the idea that hunter-gatherers adopt farming with great difficulty, and it may be not just because it is a culturally different life style, but also because there may be some variation in allele frequencies relating to the ability to focus for long periods of time, plan, delay gratification, and do repetitive tasks between the two groups, which were selected for over time.
I'm not saying those differences were there in the first groups of hunter-gatherers who started to develop farming. I'm saying they might have been selected for over the thousands of years it took to develop farming and animal husbandry. I also don't think anything in the history of the Neolithicization of Europe disproves that. It took a long time for hunter--gatherers to adopt farming there as everywhere else. There's no indication that after a few generations whole bands of hunter-gatherers just suddenly adopted farming, which used to be the model of cultural diffusion. So far it looks as if there was a hiatus of at least a thousand years, and when it took place, it seems to have taken place in the context of at least some gene flow.
I wouldn't take Allentoft's ENF number very seriously. He thinks it's all down to Kostenki.
Arvistro:Baltics was the only region in Europe where pots arrived without agriculture.
Also
Pottery originated before the Neolithic period, with ceramic objects like the Gravettian culture Venus of Dolní Věstonice figurine discovered in the Czech Republic date back to 29,000–25,000 BC,[7] and pottery vessels that were discovered in Jiangxi, China, which date back to 20,000 BC.[8]
Early Neolithic pottery have been found in places such as Jomon Japan (10,500 BC),[9] the Russian Far East (14,000 BC),[10] Sub-Saharan Africa and South America.
Agreed.