What can you do to stop racism?

[charter.rights]

how about bannock?

Yes, you can thanks the Scots for that too...

very generous the scots are to the great unwashed...

Scones are not the same thing as bannock. Corn bread and real bannock is a native invention.

[M.Dancer]

Scones are not the same thing as bannock. Corn bread and real bannock is a native invention.

Yes...invented in the 19th century...

[charter.rights]

Yes...invented in the 19th century...

Real bannock is as old as corn agriculture in N.A....about 7000 year ago.

Corn flour ground from hominy corn. Bean flour and wood ash as a leavening agent and any animal fat they had on hand. That is the real stuff.

The corn and bean flours were replaced with wheat flours when the Europeans arrived because it was less work and was almost always available as a European staple. However, wood ash was still used as a leavening agent for some time until baking powder was readily available in the late 19th century.

Edited November 10, 2010 by charter.rights

[M.Dancer]

Real bannock is as old as corn agriculture in N.A....about 7000 year ago.

Corn flour ground from hominy corn. Bean flour and wood ash as a leavening agent and any animal fat they had on hand. That is the real stuff.

The corn and bean flours were replaced with wheat flours when the Europeans arrived because it was less work and was almost always available as a European staple. However, wood ash was still used as a leavening agent for some time until baking powder was readily available in the late 19th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bannock_(food)#Indigenous_North_Americans

[charter.rights]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bannock_(food)#Indigenous_North_Americans

Nope.

[Who's Doing What?]

Individual racism that is subtle and harder to identify includes: Assuming that a person who is not white was not born in Canada and does not belong here e.g. “So where are you from?”

So should I take offense if I am asked if I am "Canadian"?

I was asked that. Less than two weeks ago. My job put me in contact with a large international group.

The girl that asked me was from Iran who was here to get a good education and then planned on returning home.

Now most of my family has been on this continent for over 200yrs. I am a direct decendant of a "Native" American. (unless you believe they spang out of the earth they are immigrants too.) So I took absolutly no offense to being asked if I was "Canadian" since I believe I am just about as Canadian as you can get. But most of my heritage is English, Irish and Scottish.

I mean no offense when I ask "Where are you from?" Ofcourse I tend to phrase it as "Where does your family come from?"

We Are a multicultural country. Everybody comes from somewhere. YEs even the "Natives" who not only come from atleast 2 migrations from Asia but some also have European blood from 14,000yrs ago.

So to ask someone where they are from, is not an insult but a chance to share their culture. Perhaps discuss issues/events past or present occuring in their former homeland.

If I were to add up all the time I have spent talking to people about where they or their family are from I would have easily a month or two on my hands(including sleeping). It is part of what makes this country great.

[charter.rights]

YEs even the "Natives" who not only come from atleast 2 migrations from Asia but some also have European blood from 14,000yrs ago.

I see you subscribe to the "Kennewick Man was a European" myth. He wasn't

You might want to do some research to see how that was actually debunked, as well as the idea that natives came from Asia. That doesn't explain evidence that aboriginal people have been in the Americas for over 60,000 years AND the migration patterns suggest they came from the south and moved north. And of course archaeologist have only been looking beyond the Bearing Strait theory for about 20 years. Who knows what they will dig up in the next 20....

[M.Dancer]

That doesn't explain evidence that aboriginal people have been in the Americas for over 60,000 years...

No archaeologist with any credibility accepts the flimsy evidence that claim is based on.

It's right up there with chariots of the gods...

[wyly]

What is more funny than a bunch of white privileged guys sitting around talking about what is not racist. You guys haven't a clue and that is part of the white privilege that was eluded to. Because the white male dominant society sets the definitions and the laws we can easily justify our own racist tendencies and have others of our same kind patting us on the back for it.

this may come as a surprise to you but white people don't have the exclusive rights to racism, it exists in all cultures...

[wyly]

I see you subscribe to the "Kennewick Man was a European" myth. He wasn't

You might want to do some research to see how that was actually debunked, as well as the idea that natives came from Asia. That doesn't explain evidence that aboriginal people have been in the Americas for over 60,000 years AND the migration patterns suggest they came from the south and moved north. And of course archaeologist have only been looking beyond the Bearing Strait theory for about 20 years. Who knows what they will dig up in the next 20....

yes Kennewick man was most probably native...it was never a "myth" that's your personal embelishment...

[kimmy]

I'm still hoping to learn more about the wonderful perks I'm entitled to just for being white. Does it work kind of like a Costco card? Are there forms I have to mail in? Are we talking something good? Or are we talking like "your 10th cup is free" type stuff?

-k

[charter.rights]

No archaeologist with any credibility accepts the flimsy evidence that claim is based on.

It's right up there with chariots of the gods...

You mean like Topper, North America's oldest human occupation evidence?

"Three radiocarbon dates were obtained from deep in the terrace at Topper with two dates of 50,300 and 51,700 on burnt plant remains. One modern date related to an intrusion," Stafford says. "The two 50,000 dates indicate that they are at least 50,300 years. The absolute age is not known."

and from the same journal,

"Topper is the oldest radiocarbon dated site in North America," Goodyear says. "However, other early sites in Brazil and Chile, as well as a site in Oklahoma also suggest that humans were in the Western Hemisphere as early as 30,000 years ago to perhaps 60,000."

Again you make statement without any source or backing. Your opinion has no credibility because you never back it up.

Up until 20 years ago archaeologists didn't believe that humans existed in the Americas before the last ice age. But since a number of discoveries have establish that it is highly likely they did (and it competes with the "out of Africa" time-line they have been more earnest in looking for evidence beyond the typical post-glacial geological strata.

Edited November 10, 2010 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

yes Kennewick man was most probably native...it was never a "myth" that's your personal embelishment...

There are many people who make the claim that Kenniwick man was a European, when in fact he was N.A. aboriginal. The myth started when some non-scientist commented in front of a reporter that the skull look like it was Caucasian

Edited November 10, 2010 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

I'm still hoping to learn more about the wonderful perks I'm entitled to just for being white. Does it work kind of like a Costco card? Are there forms I have to mail in? Are we talking something good? Or are we talking like "your 10th cup is free" type stuff?

-k

White Privilege Checklist

[M.Dancer]

White Privilege Checklist

__I can wear a bandana and have my trousers hanging off my ass and not look like a total tosser.

__I turn on History TV for Black History month and not be disapointed there is no bio about Montegu.

__I can look for an ethnic association at my University, and not find one.

[charter.rights]

__I can wear a bandana and have my trousers hanging off my ass and not look like a total tosser.

Wrong. They call themselves Wiggers.

__I can look for an ethnic association at my University, and not find one.

Wrong. They are called cafeterias and student lounges.

[M.Dancer]

Wrong. They call themselves Wiggers.

I was thinking of black youth....racist!

Wrong. They are called cafeterias and student lounges.

So the cafeterias and lounges are uni-racial?

..maybe at Florida A&M University....

[wyly]

There are many people who make the claim that Kenniwick man was a European, when in fact he was N.A. aboriginal. The myth started when some non-scientist commented in front of a reporter that the skull look like it was Caucasian

that's wrong, the person who first speculated Kenniwick maybe european was the archeologist that did the initial examination Dr James Chatters...your version is the myth...

Dr James Chatter-"After first examining the skull, and assuming that the skull was fairly recent, I thought he was someone of European ancestry. This impression was reinforced when I went to the discovery site and saw artifacts from an early homestead among the bones. It seemed he was most likely an early settler."

[wyly]

You mean like Topper, North America's oldest human occupation evidence?

"Three radiocarbon dates were obtained from deep in the terrace at Topper with two dates of 50,300 and 51,700 on burnt plant remains. One modern date related to an intrusion," Stafford says. "The two 50,000 dates indicate that they are at least 50,300 years. The absolute age is not known."

and from the same journal,

"Topper is the oldest radiocarbon dated site in North America," Goodyear says. "However, other early sites in Brazil and Chile, as well as a site in Oklahoma also suggest that humans were in the Western Hemisphere as early as 30,000 years ago to perhaps 60,000."

Again you make statement without any source or backing. Your opinion has no credibility because you never back it up.

Up until 20 years ago archaeologists didn't believe that humans existed in the Americas before the last ice age. But since a number of discoveries have establish that it is highly likely they did (and it competes with the "out of Africa" time-line they have been more earnest in looking for evidence beyond the typical post-glacial geological strata.

the archeologist living in my basement says topper has no verifiable evidence...all the evidence can either be explained by natural causes (fire)or through site disruption or lacks valid seriation...

all early claimed discoveries fail one or more of these three questions required for verification...

* Are there artifacts of indisputable human manufacture that are recovered in primary depositional context?

* Is there clear and unambiguous stratigraphy?

* Have multiple radiometric determinations shown indisputable internal consistency?

oldest definitive date for human habitation is 12 750 and 14 290 BP, Paisley Caves

Edited November 10, 2010 by wyly

[M.Dancer]

Again you make statement without any source or backing. Your opinion has no credibility because you never back it up.

We have gone over this at least a couple of dozen times. DO I really nned to trot out again, the rebuttals?

A short synopsys...

http://www.pbs.org/opb/timeteam/sites/topper/diary_adrien.php

[charter.rights]

We have gone over this at least a couple of dozen times. DO I really nned to trot out again, the rebuttals?

A short synopsys...

http://www.pbs.org/opb/timeteam/sites/topper/diary_adrien.php

You didn't read the website you provided, now did you....?

Because if you had you would have seen that it does not dispute Topper but merely raises questions...some of which are pretty sophomoric in my view.

As for wyly's basement dweller. psssstttthhh. There is no credibility coming from him either....

Edited November 10, 2010 by charter.rights

[M.Dancer]

Because if you had you would have seen that it does not dispute Topper but merely raises questions...some of which are pretty sophomoric in my view.

Oh..so those questions do not dispute the claim?

[wyly]

You didn't read the website you provided, now did you....?

Because if you had you would have seen that it does not dispute Topper but merely raises questions...some of which are pretty sophomoric in my view.

As for wyly's basement dweller. psssstttthhh. There is no credibility coming from him either....

I'll take a basement dweller with a degree in archeology expertise over yours...as well as the basement dwellers associate who specializes in aboriginal archeology, he says 13,000 YBP +-300yrs (confirmed with a quick text) is the established mark for america's habitation...

you are the king of myths here...

Edited November 10, 2010 by wyly

[Shwa]

We have gone over this at least a couple of dozen times. DO I really nned to trot out again, the rebuttals?

A short synopsys...http://www.pbs.org/opb/timeteam/sites/topper/diary_adrien.php

Cool link btw...

So basically Topper is what? Under consideration or has it been completely dismissed forever? It seems to me that this article opens the door for the possibility of Topper meeting some sort of standard, the standard changing or the further discovery of other much older sites than the known "definitive dates" as it were.

What is really interesting is that Topper - and any other honest scientific claim for sites older than the Clovis horizon - challenges new archaeology to dig deeper and go beyond the bounds of the establishment view. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

The interesting thing about the first Clovis discovery is that before there was any defintive corroborating evidence it too was just a theory and since the occupation dates keep getting pushed back.

[wyly]

Cool link btw...

So basically Topper is what? Under consideration or has it been completely dismissed forever? It seems to me that this article opens the door for the possibility of Topper meeting some sort of standard, the standard changing or the further discovery of other much older sites than the known "definitive dates" as it were.

What is really interesting is that Topper - and any other honest scientific claim for sites older than the Clovis horizon - challenges new archaeology to dig deeper and go beyond the bounds of the establishment view. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

nothing wrong with looking at all but it has to meet a criteria to be confirmed and it fails...either way it's good research it will either push back the habitation date or it will verify that the earlier dates were correct...

The interesting thing about the first Clovis discovery is that before there was any defintive corroborating evidence it too was just a theory and since the occupation dates keep getting pushed back.

but there was verification process to be followed...my archy in the basement tells me there is an archeologist in the US that is claiming roman habitation, he has absolutely no verification yet wants everyone to take him seriously, do we? Edited November 10, 2010 by wyly