After accusations were made that I am a religious zealot, and was hijacking the post, I decided to lay low for a while. I would however like to make a few comments before this AoM closes.
I am sorry that you were offended by the label I gave you, my feeling is though that the way you answered using material from a book of personal opinions, rather than by offering solid evidence, and the way in which you dodged around my responses and challenges all were akin to the actions of a zealot - the involvement of 'God' in your work places it in a religious category. Perhaps you do not agree that you are a zealot, and on that, I can accept we need not really agree. My real 'issue' with you is simply that you pick and choose which points to respond to or acknowledge seemingly based on preserving your personal hypothesis (just like fundamentalist Christians and many other religious groups) making scientific debate extremely hard. It is not my intention to offend and perhaps a better term exists, perhaps we can say you are very passionate and also very selective.
It was suggested by one of the posters to this thread that Bruce Fenton is an Australian. I do not know if this is true but his website says he was born in Cheltenham UK and graduated from Anglia Ruskin University UK in 2002. I therefore suggest he be very careful when claiming knowledge of Aboriginal people. I have great-great grandparents buried in this country (Australia) went to school with Aboriginal children, worked for many years with Aboriginal people, lived and worked on the Pitjantjatjara Aboriginal Homelands for 3 years – and can confidently state that I am a million miles away from ever understanding Aboriginal people or their culture.
I am not sure where the suggestion came from that I am Australian, I am English-Trinidadian, I live in Australia and my partner is Australian. As for being careful when claiming knowledge of Aboriginal people, not knowing what this comment refers to, I can only say that I am always careful when discussing cultural issues. My 'Into Africa' book does not discuss any Aboriginal cultural issues, at least I struggle to think of any that were raised in the book (correct me if I am wrong). Outside of the book, I have participated in conversations about Aboriginal culture, though always keeping in mind that my knowledge of this area is very limited.
Bruce is quite emphatic that there is archaeological evidence that links early Aboriginals to intercontinental migration. However, in his report on the Ecuador Llanganates Jungle Megaliths he does not appear to attribute the construction of these structures to the native Ecuadorian people. From; The Megalithic Constructions in the Ecuadorian Jungle are Not Natural Features
If he applied the same standards to himself, as he applies to me, then he would surely be guilty of ‘gross Western arrogance’ for not attributing the original Ecuadorians with the ability to construct these monuments.
It is widely accepted that there is archaeological evidence that links Aboriginals to intercontinental migration - Australoid skulls have been found across Asia and the Americas (just one example). In the articles that I have written about the Llanganates megalithic site, I note that no known Ecuadorian culture can be associated with the building of the site or attributed to the artefacts. That is not at all any kind of ‘gross Western arrogance’, it is a statement of fact. The people that built the site were indeed indigenous 'first Americans' that lived in the region prior to the arrival of the Clovis culture and later waves of human groups.
I must also say I am a little confused when reading his article; Did Consciousness Manifest the Physical Universe? Here he notes the impossible probability that the universe, and the elements necessary for life to exist, could have assembled by accident. The above is basically what I have claimed when proposing the God Gametes theory. But because I used the word ‘God’ Bruce has totally dismissed my claim and called me a religious zealot.
Why is this article confusing? Do you find it confusing that just because I speculate on the role consciousness played in the origin of the universe I should not be allowed to ask for evidence relating to your own claims about universal origins or find disagreement with your statements? My problem with you was avoidance of the difficult answers I offered, and the avoidance of tough questions that I asked - because these required you to rethink your claims and you were seemingly not willing to do so. That is why I found it futile to carry on a discussion - it felt the same as a discussion with a born again Christian fundamentalist, and I find such debates futile. If I have misjudged you, then you have my apologies - I only have our limited exchange on which to base my opinion.
Do please keep in mind that 'Did Consciousness Manifest the Physical Universe?' is not part of my book material and as such not part of my AOM discussion. If you would like to comment directly on the article itself, or any of the website articles, I will respond appropriately.
So it was not a ‘creator’ or a ‘God’ who twiddled the knobs – it was ‘primal consciousness’.
As I have stated earlier in this post, I do not believe it is possible to explain the origins of the universe or of life on earth. We lack an explanation for the existence of matter, energy and complex structures throughout the greater universe. And while we cannot explain the existence of ancient technology here on earth we need to acknowledge a disconnect with our ancient past.
My AOM role is not to explore the origins of the universe, it is to discuss the Into Africa theory of human origins. I have all kinds of thoughts about the nature of reality and the workings of consciousness, but these would fit better in a separate thread.
We suggest that we currently are able to explain the existence of ancient technology on earth, humans made it all. Whether that be stone-age hammers or maglev trains. As per our previous conversation, there are a number of spurious claims about high technology in the stone-age, but on closer examination, these few examples seem to fall apart. This is also perhaps an area beyond my book topics, though I do see that it has some links to it as the presence of a highly advanced technological civilization before Homo sapiens would surely impact our later evolution.
My concern, and the reason for my writing again, is the difficulty I believe Bruce’s interpretation can cause. To explain let me point to two issues:
First, while the non-aboriginals who have made Australia their home have embraced Aboriginal people and their culture as part of their modern heritage, Aboriginal people do not appear to accept non-aboriginal occupation of the Australian continent. They will for example call our national day (Australia Day) ‘Invasion Day’ and claim we ‘stole their land’.
I find it comical to read that 'the non-aboriginals who have made Australia their home have embraced Aboriginal people and their culture' this is not reflected in reality, I do not know how anybody could make that statement in all seriousness. There has long been a full on agenda to stamp out Aboriginal culture - it may have softened in more recent years but there is a long way to go before anybody can claim the elder cultures here are being embraced. Australian Aboriginal people are rather resigned to the illegal occupation of their lands, in the same way, that Palestinians are resigned to it, both cultures retain pockets of resistance but neither expects to regain their lands and take back rightful control of their conquered nations. Australia day sits right on the date of the invasion of this continent, what should the indigenous people call it? It marks the beginning of the invasion and the theft of vast sections of their lands. How else would you like them to see this? As a citizen of the British crown, I am under no illusions about the fact we invaded and stole lands, attempted a genocide, took slaves, failed to reach any legal treaty and continue to maintain an illegal occupation under the correct understandings of international law.
The second point is this. The Australian Aboriginal people, as with indigenous people from many other places around the world, have difficulty adjusting to a modern western way of living. There are countless resources I could point to here but the below Wikipedia article on Indigenous Australians mentions some of the issues – (see bottom of article for Aboriginal issues relating to life expectancy, education, employment, health, crime and imprisonment and substance abuse.)
Australian Aboriginals had their own modern way of living, as a conquered people they have been forced to renounce that way of life and instructed to adapt to the ways of the victors - like it or lump it. I know of no vanquished people that were happy about being conquered and instructed to become just like those that invaded their lands. It is also a fact that in many cases highly discriminative policies are impacting Aboriginal people - the percentage of indigenous people being imprisoned is INSANE.
I do not discount the remarkable ingenuity of the Aboriginal people. Their survival on the harsh Australian continent was remarkable – but any rational interpretation of our current situation would suggest that they should attempt to adjust to a modern 21st century life style – not the other way around.
In respect to your last several statements, including this one above, I now feel as though I am talking to Pauline Hanson. Your disbelief of Australian Aboriginal culture is at the root of all modern cultures seems to be rooted in your negative perceptions of the native populace, rather than having anything to do with evidence. The evidence is fully against your position, and my current book is only the beginning of the end for those that think this way - the second book will be, 'case closed'.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 27-Jun-17 22:51 by Bruce R. Fenton.