Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
My word, is the far right really that thick?
#1
Just saw the thread on the BNP, and thought I would highlight another "choice" site for hilarity - the green arrow. I stumbled upon this rubbish when I was trying to research my local BNP candidate during the election (as it helps to discredit them if you know what they are about). Check out this for funny; http://www.thegreenarrow.co.uk/writers/o...g-the-myth .

I say funny, because if I didn't laugh, I'd cry, and die a little inside. I am amazed that this sort of filth is not banned (if you see the article as reasonable, you should check out the rest of the website (there are a couple of other archaeological articles and they can be found through the search engine).

Are we as archaeologists and historians going to sit by and let this website, essentially spread lies? Is there anything we can do as a collective to stop them?:face-thinks:

WARNING : Link leads to a revisionist and BNP supporting site
Reply
#2
Good gawd... I think they may be. I read enough to see a badly researched. poorly constructed, self referencing (and throw the odd real reference in that proved nothing) a cracking piece of nonsense that also made me laugh, then see the crazy nods of frothiong agreement.

sadly, I feel there is nothing we can do to stop this other than to say... if there is an archaeologist in the UK that thinks this article is good... then please step forward now.... you are not worthy of the name.
Reply
#3
Oh great link, I now have a BNP website on my Browser history...
Reply
#4
No surprise there. you can remove it of course... or show where it came from. this misuse of archaeology by the BNP must be highlighted, but I fear will have no affect on them
Reply
#5
Eh? I thought I was being explicit about where it goes. Maybe I should have put a warning up! Sorry! We should get more educated about the far right though - it's not enough to sit in a pub and just say; "the BNP are bad m'kay" - we have to say why and give illustrative points. This is why they are getting more votes. People don't see the real face of the BNP, just the "acceptable" mask they show the public.
Reply
#6
I too was clear that the website I was about to view would contain extreme pro BNP views.. (but I have added a warning as well just to make it clear)

It is clear that the arguments are flawed in the extreme.. much like the druid argument concerning reburial as well.

To take a single part of the premise..

Discuss.. and see if you can see the flaws... (no prizes... but an example of the warped logic in action)

Quote:We have already, with some experts help, found that 700,000 years ago, skeletal remains showed that early man, in Caucasoid (European) form, had communities that were stable and that prospered.

Even at the proposed 100,000 years ago, the amount of time that the fossil records apparently show regarding human beings from Africa emigrating, is far too late to have had a genetic impact on people already here. The gap is some 600,000 years.

We know that humans have not changed that much in that time period. Skeletons have been unearthed showing large frames (6 feet tall), large brains, and tools which enabled them to kill prey, and create suitable and permenant living conditions.

Here we see a classic example of talking about 'experts' (unnamed) producing data ... which then becomes a supporting 'fact' for the next statement, which of course the reasonable sounding "Even at" and 'apparently' to give the impression of understanding the principal that all scientific archaeological debate needs a degree of doubt... but then creates a sweeping (again unsupproted) statement that we already know things (a fab vague word) have not changed much. what things? the price of tetley tea? And then the baffling and again unsupported 6ft large brained skeletons which goes on to prove the next paragraph... etc... ad infinitum. You could go through each sentance and dicredit it, however the shout would come back saying, ah... you are part of the liberal namby pamby conspiracy to deny our caucasian past..etc... blah blah... and on it would go.

We could however just agree collectively that the BNP indigenous briton campaign is so laughable and flawed... that it deserves no more that a simple reply...

Yer talking sh!te
Reply
#7
Had a good trawl through the website and the links therein yesterday. In total, the vast majority of the info is comprised of misguided, child-like sh*te and thanks are due to Kajemby for drawing attention to the websites in question. It has to be said that the "archaeological" ingredient of this recipe is but one of a cacophany of toxins brought together in one mixing bowl. Might I propose a multi-disciplinary approach to responding to this web-phenomena? I may disagree with the garbage spouted therein but I value the right for anyone to spout it. I also feel that exposure is usually a great way to invite "vigorous" debate and as such, a way forwards would be to invite a much larger community (as opposed to archaeologists alone) to get involved in any proposed dialogue......:face-thinks::face-huh:
Reply
#8
Got quite a way through the article but found I had to stop and run to the bog and vomit, It's absolute drivel!
Reply
#9
You made it that far Wink

as Troll says...

Quote:I may disagree with the garbage spouted therein but I value the right for anyone to spout it. I also feel that exposure is usually a great way to invite "vigorous" debate and as such, a way forwards would be to invite a much larger community (as opposed to archaeologists alone) to get involved in any proposed dialogue.

Though it makes them look ridiculous... it does not make them feel so... indeed the comments at the end apart from one sole (and brave voice) saying.. er... think about this! ... all the comments were nodding furiously going... yes... this is what we want to hear... and they won't be able to agree with anything that questions their mis conceptions and drivelology
Reply
#10
Sorry, only read the first two paragraphs and got disgusted and closed the window
Lucy
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Three Word Days deadlylampshade 598 93,515 25th May 2017, 01:06 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  Three Word Sitedays BAJR 254 34,888 15th March 2011, 01:34 AM
Last Post: GnomeKing
  Is detectorist a real word? stonecirclegirl 9 2,106 13th February 2007, 06:22 PM
Last Post: BAJR Host

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)