Posted on 12/04/2006 12:38:58 PM PST by blam
GGG Ping.
Neanderthals were humans.
Guess this will be passed off as textbook science soon because some researcher or professor guesses this is what happened.
I remember my professors in the late 70's teaching us, as indisputable fact, that (a) world hydrocarbon energy supplies would be all but gone by 2000 (that was always a convenient date), and (b) there would be mass world starvation due to insufficient foodstuffs by the same date.
Like global warming and evolution, this was nothing but a bandwagon of fools parading as science.
No way this will end up in schoolbooks, but the only reason why is because it reinforces the notion that it's beneficial to recognize the differences between the sexes!
All things are possible, but this is really educated guesswork. And one thing in academia is that people have to keep thinking up new ideas, because it's publish or perish.
Management will be happy, but the AFL-CIO and Teamsters object.
The article claims that sex roles did not exist until they were invented as part of a food-gathering technique.
Laughable.
And we thought that the UAW was progressive. Yabba Dabba Doo!
Thank you kind sir.
We are apparently supposed to believe that people used to hunt in undifferentiated packs.
As if a typical hunting party might have included a 20 year old man, a 60 year old woman, two five year old boys and a pregnant woman.
And then, one special day, some guy came up with the concept of a hunting party composed only of younger but postpubescent men.
Preposterous.
Oh, that can't be right. The world is only 4000 year old.
Yeah, but they would always start their doomsday scenarios with, "Given the resources we have today..." or some other weasel-words.
No more, and no less an "accident" as the location of your birth. Call it Gods will, call it an accident, it makes no difference, you were still born there.
Primitive humans, however, sought their food in completely undifferentiated mobs, until someone did a cost-benefit analysis and decided that the Return On Investment of sex-based roles might have help the band's bottomline.
Seriously: My daughter's textbook already covers this. But I suppose it's in the textbook due to a Marxian "Division of Labor" theory and did not actually have supporting evidence. Now, perhaps, they think they may have some evidence. Does it matter? They were teaching it to children as a fact, even when it was just a theory.
"Seriously: My daughter's textbook already covers this. But I suppose it's in the textbook due to a Marxian "Division of Labor" theory and did not actually have supporting evidence......"
Yet ANOTHER reason my kids won't go to gubmit schools......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.