Graham Hancock called racist for asking questions

I didn't know this but apparently Graham Hancock has a Netflix show and native tribes didn't want him filming in the grand canyon... So he's not.

In addition to defying Indigenous histories and more than a century of established archaeological research in North America, Hancock’s theories are especially damaging because they fuel long-held racist beliefs that seek to erase the violence of colonization and slavery upon which the United States was founded, say Hancock’s detractors.

Here's the link if you want to copy it. LOL oh ATS. You struggling limp rust bucket...


amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org... s_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQGsAEggAID#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17198755007470&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguard ian.com%2Fus-news%2Farticle%2F2024%2Fjul%2F01%2Fnetflix-ancient-apocalypse-canceled



Questioning things is apparently racist and trying to understand the world is offensive.

Good work America soon everyone will be a mindless borg

a reply to: 5thHead

I love to hear him speak, AND I think he has some good data to share. Conclusions I might not be on board with, but at this point he is more likely spot on than the "narrative" we have been suffering.

a reply to: 5thHead

a quote from your post taken from The Guardian:
In addition to defying Indigenous histories and more than a century of established archaeological research in North America, Hancock’s theories are especially damaging because they fuel long-held racist beliefs that seek to erase the violence of colonization and slavery upon which the United States was founded, say Hancock’s detractors.

Such BS off the top of some leftist head at the Guardian. If they were schooled on the major issue not mentioned is that some native folks in that area possibly killed off the giants of that era as has been suggested elsewhere. Historical facts, with good evidence should be allowed outside of racism issues, especially when this would be reversed racism on the Indians' part.

Different Native Nations have in their oral histories stories of red headed giants who were OMG pale skinned.

The consulting with Native Nations about filming on land they consider sacred probably should have been done, at the very least it's a respectful courtesy. Calling Hancock racist is way out of bounds. You don't have to agree with his theories, but faking "being woke" by established anthropologists who got the Clovis first deal wrong for what? 100 yrs or so?

Just insane.

Here is a video of the accused



Most of the other stuff I saw on yvid is just more people trashing him saying things without giving examples. Basically just calling him names, hit piece crap.

The funny thing is that the people trying to shut up Graham Hancock are the ones pushing the "colonialist" narrative. The msn narrative. The kings history.

🌎

a reply to: 5thHead

Well they really have to don't they?
Credentials revoked, peer reviewed papers tossed, bazillions of text books re-written, tenures reevaluated?

Total dumpster fire faces them an they ain't havin' it.

Whether Hancock or others in time eventually force us to rewrite history there's no escaping it, it's gonna happen.
Hopefully at least start officially before I'm pushing up daisies.

originally posted by: 5thHead
Questioning things is apparently racist and trying to understand the world is offensive.

Questioning, in and of itself, is not racist.

Trying to genuinely understand the world is not offensive.

The question Graham Hancock's "ideas" raise for me is, who is racist?

The God-fearing and equally ignorant, people of 19th century American, who genuinely believed in the veracity of the bible, and who latched onto erroneous sources and used that to explain the Native tribes, claiming that they must be one of the Lost Tribes, because they had no concept of time before the Bible?

Or those with a little knowledge (which we all know can be a dangerous thing) that said the Native Americans could not possibly be responsible for the evidence of an organised and complex culture that they had found across the continent because these people were "savages". It must have been Cortez? Or Hindus? Or fallen angles? Viking? Or this lost race, these giants, these people of the bible, who had founded this ancient civilisation and the Native Americans were either, late interlopers who forced them out, massacred them all, or they were their degenerate off-spring?

Then, of course, there are the likes of Andrew Jackson, later President Jackson (I think), who spin this all up and use it to justify taking back the land from the "savages" based on the lost race myth and the presumption that those of white European stock were less degenerate examples of the lost tribes/race/whatever?

It's all rubbish, made up, repeatedly demonstrated to be a combination of ignorance and racism with a large, heaped spoonful of profiteerism.

But, in their favour, not one of them was capable imagining the true antiquity of humanity.

Which brings us to Graham Hancock. Who not only has a great deal more education than all the people considered above. He also has hind-sight to his advantage and the vast body of archaeological, historical and genetic knowledge we have acquired in the last century or so. The ideas that Hancock often promotes, particularly those that he repeats regarding the Native Americans, are not original and do not need to be disproven again. Does repeating them, knowing that they are lies, make him racist? He might not be, but since he seems to be in it for the money I guess that his readership are

As, I might add, do you and I.

Is Graham Hancock as racist as the people already described? If indeed they can be called racist. Racism can be considered symptomatic of general ignorance in some circumstance as can any form of xenophobia. Perhaps, he isn't racist at all, but he knows his readership is.

I'm not sure that makes it any better and it isn't really my call to make anyway.

originally posted by: 5thHead
amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org... s_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQGsAEggAID#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17198755007470&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguard ian.com%2Fus-news%2Farticle%2F2024%2Fjul%2F01%2Fnetflix-ancient-apocalypse-canceled

Read Graham Hancock's response from that link:

“That archaeologists have not found material evidence that would convince them of the existence of a lost civilization of the ice age is not by any means compelling evidence that no such civilization could have existed,” Hancock said in response to the Society for American Archaeology’s letter.

So he's saying in other words, they can't prove it didn't happen the way I hypothesize, therefore, maybe it did".
But can't you say that about many other alternate hypotheses which also cannot be proven wrong?
So what makes Hancock's hypothesis any better than any other alternate hypothesis which also can't be proven wrong?
Nothing as far as I can tell, which is why even his own statement saying he hasn't been proven wrong, doesn't mean he's right.

Maybe it's not very good evidence from a scientific perspective, but his hypotheses even go against the oral history in some cases:

According to Hancock, the ancient pyramid Gunung Padang in Indonesia and the ruins of Nan Madol in Micronesia were both built by an “advanced civilization” more than 20,000 years ago during the last ice age. However, present-day Pohnpeians say their oral histories passed down through generations describe the city of Nan Madol as being built by their ancestors beginning around 1,000 years ago – a timeline supported by historians and archaeologists.

I think I might feel somewhat offended if my oral traditions said my ancestors built Nan Madol 1000 years ago, and some guy came along and said or implied my ancestors were too stupid to do it, must have been built by an advanced civilization 20,000 years ago. I mean, that's the kind of claim you should really have evidence to support, yet instead of offering such evidence, Hancock seems to say "nobody can prove me wrong so maybe it happened the way I fantasize". He may even be technically correct to say that, but it's not a very scientific approach and I can see how some people might be offended.

I can't prove that you didn't have a sex change operation 10 years ago, but my lack of ability to prove that false doesn't make it a good theory. This is sort of the argument Hancock is making, but what other argument can you make when you lack evidence to support your theory? If you had evidence, you'd present that instead.

I keep coming back to that show that modeled how long our sky scrapers would last if humans disapeared tomorrow.

Dont remember the exact time frame but decade ish and it would all be gone.

So 12k+ years ago, prior to giant glaciers sliding over the ground would either remove all evidence or push said evidence into areas we would never look, due to complexity of the digs, or expense.

*shrugs* his theories for that time frame have as much validity as "established" science, the attacks on him are to much in my opinion.

As mentioned if it was my history I might have more questions but racist, absurd to call that man that slur.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I can't prove that you didn't have a sex change operation 10 years ago, but my lack of ability to prove that false doesn't make it a good theory. This is sort of the argument Hancock is making, but what other argument can you make when you lack evidence to support your theory? If you had evidence, you'd present that instead.

Hancock is a writer and while he has some credentials as a researcher in the social sciences his subsequent choices have led to his books being firmly, and quite correctly, placed in the entertainment genre. He writes about his "ideas", which are largely the same ideas thrown about by 19th century antiquarians who knew no better.

What can be said about his books, I should imagine, is that they aren't boring, therefore I presume Tom DeLonge is among his readership. If you ask any of the publishers of these non-boring books, they will tell you it is not in their remit to fact check, they're in the entertainment business not academic publishing, they care about sales. End of. Hancock and his antiquatedly sourced "ideas" which may not have been racists when they were conceived, in repetition, in the here and now, are and Hancock, if not his readers, is sufficiently well educated to know better and to know exactly what he is doing.