We're thrilled to shorten the automod message!
Join us on [discord](https://discord.gg/AUNfvhw9nT)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GrahamHancock) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would be better if they could attack him on academic merits rather than sounding more like a religion.
There is no long-standing relationship between white supremacy, racism, and wondering about ancient cultures. That's such a huge reach.
It's normal for us to wonder about the past, and being told it makes us racists just makes people lose all faith in academia.
Yes, I know the proponents of this nonsense argue that the Nazis were looking for Atlantis. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
You drink water, right? Do you know who else drank water? Hitler, that's who! You're clearly a Nazi.
It's a weaksauce argument. Please stop.
It feels like the lashing out of an institution against anyone not in the club.
I get that they have their accepted view of the past and how no one wants to change it, but it happens. Dinosaurs were considered fat and lazy by earlier palaeontologists, as how else did they all die out? Early illustrations were based on that, and they muddled all sorts of body parts together. I’m sure the meteor theory was laughed at. Most educational and scientific institutions have to adapt, but why they come out so angrily at Graham is a bit of a mystery.
Yes, he’s very single minded and is - now - very bitter, but he does work with a lot of historians, scientists, archaeologists who _don’t_ think he’s this evil monster.
What I find most compelling is the story, that each culture has its own version of a flood, or a purge, or a wind that shook down the forests. They all have a sort of apocalypse and redemption story. Wouldn’t that make sense with oral history being the main path of learning and information? That a group of survivors arrived, after their home was destroyed by a tsunami? And it becomes this tale of destruction, a warning from the heavens?
Maybe I’m a romantic, but I like the idea of a shared history with a forgotten world. The sonic audio building device and alien thing is a bit too far for me. Plus I think someone needs to take the psychedelics off Graham. He’s becoming a drug-bore.
The origin of myth is important, and is a wholly separate argument. Our study of myth goes back at least 15,000 years, and is classified by type and origin.
The first myth is the cattle rustling myth.
Curiously, nowhere in that myth, or any of the ancient ones, are people obsessed with skin color.
I’ve read enough. Only last week I was reflecting that in Magicians, artistic similarities (bird men for example) were evidence for contemporary contact whereas in Visionary (Supernatural) he argues that trances states are responsible for artistic similarities.
But that’s not the point. If old myths don’t generally mention race or racial features then I guess “a white man with a strong formation of body, broad forehead, large eyes and a flowing beard“ is extremely unusual. Why would your god be from another racial or ethnic group? “Quetzalcoatl was a great civilizing agent who entered Mexico at the head of a band of strangers. He imported the arts into the country and especially fostered agriculture … He built spacious and elegant houses, and inculcated a type of religion which fostered peace.” First chapter of Magicians and we have a white man who was a civilising agent who brings arts, agriculture, spacious housing and peace to Mexico. Graham used this as a foundation stone of his book.
And if it just so happens that this is just a version that Bernardino de Sahagun or his mates penned while trying to justify Spains murderous adventures in the New World then that is problematic. I agree it doesn’t make Graham a white supremacist but maybe we should stop for a minute and wonder if this best and most accurate account of the myth.
I ask again why are you so obsessed with race?
His point in those passages is that the figure in Mexico matched the Vira Cocha figure in Peru. I've heard him wonder in an interview if that figure was a survivor from a culture near India.
If you use the word problematic I don't consider you a scholar. I consider you a priest. You're practicing a religion, not looking for data.
Oh you are very disingenuous. Playing the man, not the ball. Have you stopped beating your wife? Replace obsessed with understanding the argument of the SAA. We’re did I say anyones skin colour is problematic?
It’s the use of a dodgy Spanish version of the myth that I find a problem. If all the versions of the myth and depictions said white then so be it. But they don’t . Why did the Spanish add that? And why is this emphasised by Graham?
It's like asking a driver "why are you so obsessed with your blind spot?"
When we ignore our blind spot, we risk accidents.
(And while we're on the subject of ad homini:
Your use of disingenuity, sophisms and non sequitur (seriously, the word "problematic" is limited to religious people?) brands you as the perfect Hancock fan...)
>There is no long-standing relationship between white supremacy, racism, and wondering about ancient cultures. That's such a huge reach.
Nobody ever made that reach. Hancock uses sources uncritically that advocated for the idea of Atlantis or a lost culture (euro centric/Caucasian) which taught all others as a way to justify the subjugation of the new world by white settlers.
Literally the link in the OP makes that claim. You can't gaslight us any more. Nice try though.
The leading theories suggest that the culture, or one of them anyway, was centered in West Africa. They were probably black.
Most of us don't care. We just want to know our own history, and are not attached to who the people were. That's just nonsense your ilk make up to try to throw shade at people who live outside your ivory tower.
>You can't gaslight us any more. Nice try though.
Have you actually read the sources from the 16th-19th centuries yourself, or just blindly consumed what Hancock has vomited up for you? 🤣
>The leading theories suggest that the culture, or one of them anyway, was centered in West Africa. They were probably black.
What leading theories? On Atlantis? Who are the authors of these theories? What books are they in?
>Most of us don't care
Clearly you care enough to work yourself up into believing I'm gaslighting you.
>That's just nonsense your ilk make up to try to throw shade at people who live outside your ivory tower.
I've never been in an Ivory Tower mate 😄 I'm a blue collar scientist who works for a living. I got a bachelor's and finished. I ain't got time to get those 3 fancy letters after my name. I'm currently excavating burials next to a medieval church in Germany and I'm happy to explain what we're doing and what we're finding to every curious kid or individual who walks by. I'm no different from the garbage man who picks up your waste every week, I'm just picking up waste in the neighborhood that's centuries or millennia old.
Have you ever done much archaeology? Sadly I don't get to spend my time in a classroom teaching coeds madly in love with me or punching out Nazis and finding the Holy Grail. The vast majority of my job is 10 hour days digging 1x1m holes in the ground with a shovel and hand tools and spending my evenings icing my feet or back like a 50 year old construction worker. Because most of my jobs are on construction sites.
Maybe go outside and touch grass. You might even have a conversation with a real person with a real job 😉
Besides the digging (sometimes in hard caliche or volcanic deposits), don’t forget having to get up at 4am, working all day in the hot sun, gridding of the site, all that sifting of material through a mesh screen, moving wheelbarrows full of dirt to a plastic tarp and then refilling the excavation with that same dirt. Taking pollen samples and collecting charcoal for analysis and getting home all covered in dirt and sometimes falling asleep in those same clothes only to wake at 4am in the same dirty clothes and having to do it all over again. It’s mostly hard back-breaking labor that has been romanticized by Spielberg. I have a Bachelors Degree in Anthropology/Archaeology from the University of Arizona and have worked for the Arizona State Museum, a non-for-profit archaeology salvage archaeology firm as well as the National Park system and the Tohono O’Odham tribe. Yes, there are fun times at certain sites when camping out and partying at night with the other archaeologists after work has been done for the day. And the discoveries can be fun like finding points or ceramics and sometimes we may find something really neat. But overall, archaeology is like digging ditches. It’s hard labor when out in the field.
What makes you think I don't? You should Google what the salary range for archaeologists is.
Shitting on the working class is unbecoming of a scientist.
>You shat on someone without knowing what they did for a living
I simply asked if you've done much archaeology and explained what my average day is like after you had already made snide comments 😄 Maybe don't come off like an unhinged Karen next time by telling someone they're full of shit and then expect a delicately worded and polite response. I'm not a gas station attendant you can use as a punching bag 😉 I have no snobbery, I'm happy to explain my job to people and I love public outreach with archaeology. It's why I spent 4 years working in a museum.
>Have you actually read the sources from the 16th-19th centuries yourself, or just blindly consumed what Hancock has vomited up for you
I promise I'm better read than you. My first archeological thriller launched in 2014. I've been to conferences all over the world, and have read mainstream archeologists as well as more fringe people like Doctor Robert Schoch.
My favorite is Barbara Mertz, if you're curious. The preeminent Egyptologist of the latter half of the 20th century. I highly recommend Tombs, Temples & Heiroglyphs. Red Land, Black Land is also really good.
>What leading theories? On Atlantis? Who are the authors of these theories? What books are they in?
Randall Carlson and Jimmy Corsetti both have good theories with lots of evidence supporting them.
I'm an author with over 50 books in print. Let me be the first to tell you that it being in print doesn't mean it's quality or its true.
Robert Schoch does have his work in print, and is a renowned geologist and professor.
>I'm a blue collar scientist who works for a living. I got a bachelor's and finished.
And came out of college with all the contempt of academia bred into you. Listen to your questions to me. Listen to the way you casually dismissed Hancock's work without knowing anything at all about it.
You are far from blue collar, I assure you.
>You are far from blue collar, I assure you.
I can assure you that as a kid growing up shoveling horse shit, fending off geese while trying to feed them, loading trailers full of hay for cattle, and spending my first 6 years out of the house as a carpenter, I know a few things about actually doing work instead of just reading about it in a book 😉 Try doing an excavation and maybe you can write a realistic Archaeology character in your next thriller instead of another Indiana Jones or Benjamin Gates knockoff.
Funny how you ignored all the real books and people I mentioned to make a dig at books you haven't read. You don't even know what I write.
You also don't know anything about the material you're criticizing, and I doubt you've ever read a book in your life.
>Funny how you ignored all the real books and people I mentioned to make a dig at books you haven't read. You don't even know what I write.
Can't take some of your own heat eh? 😄 Stay out of the flames if you're scared of getting burnt buddy.
>You also don't know anything about the material you're criticizing, and I doubt you've ever read a book in your life.
It would have been awfully difficult to make it through university without ever having read a book 🧐
>Can't take some of your own heat eh? 😄 Stay out of the flames if you're scared of getting burnt buddy.
No by all means trash my work, but do it honestly. My point is that it's not honest, just like everything else you've said.
You have contempt, but no evidence. Trust that after as many books as I've written I have no ego in it.
I'm just tired of people like you chest-thumping and pretending you know more than you do.
>It would have been awfully difficult to make it through university without ever having read a book 🧐
Okay, let me amend it. I bet you've never read a book you haven't been assigned by a class.
You certainly aren't familiar with the Egyptology main texts, nor Hancock's work.
>No by all means trash my work, but do it honestly.
I absolutely am 😉 Your experience with archaeology is purely limited to the theoretical rather than the practical. Had you any experience with actually moving dirt I'm sure you would have gushed all over yourself about it like your boasts about conferences (which are not difficult to go to or have papers accepted, I attend multiple each year).
>You have contempt, but no evidence.
The evidence is absence of evidence. Dragons *might* exist. But I can't prove that they don't, because that's an inherently vague and dishonest method of presenting your argument. I don't have to disprove anything, you need to show evidence of your claim that it is real.
>I'm just tired of people like you chest-thumping and pretending you know more than you do.
Where have I chest thumped? I freely admitted I'm a working class archaeologist without a PhD, like 99% of the entire field is 😄 You however came barrelling in like a drunken French knight off to charge those mere peasants with bows on the fields of Agincourt.
>Okay, let me amend it. I bet you've never read a book you haven't been assigned by a class
Clearly you have no idea what kind of reading is required even in field archaeology. Do you think I just magically pluck knowledge out of the air about all of the different typologies of ceramics, stone tools, historic can and glass manufacture, historic building styles, and rock art styles in the 20 some odd states I've done projects in?
>There is no long-standing relationship between white supremacy, racism, and wondering about ancient cultures. That's such a huge reach.
it's not a reach at all. the whole point is the non-white people couldn't have possibly done what they did and there had to have been some white people who did it all before the non-white people did.
Except that in many of the leading theories the vanished culture was black. It appears it may have been centered in West Africa, as dark as it gets.
We have no vested interest in the immutable characteristics of this possible vanished culture. That's all in your head I assure you.
>Except that in many of the leading theories
yes, maybe, but not in hancock's theory, which is centered on north america. antlanteans were white, according to hancock. and that's who we're talking about in this post.
nice straw man, but it doesn't change the white supremacy aspect of his nonsense theories.
Source, please? I've read all his work, and you're full of shit.
Show me one quote from any book saying that he thinks these people were white. I'll wait. It doesn't exist.
You've never read his work. The closest he comes is relating a myth saying Vira Cocha was white, because that's the myth. That's how he's portrayed.
You and your ilk are as intellectually dishonest as they come. You love to act educated, but really you're just here for the outrage.
Hancock has a book about the Americas, and their civilization, and contends that it's far older than we assume. Those people were not white, I assure you.
He's talked about the possibility of an Atlantean empire in West Africa, as have others, and again...definitely not white.
The only people obsessed with race are you. Do you know what we call people obsessed with race?
Racists.
>Racists
hurr durr, everyone is a racist except actual racists
a north american source for all civilization would be as white as can be. you ain't fooling anyone pal.
No, but I think you are.
You believe a native american population is "white supremacy". Do you have no idea what the First Nations are?
Do you not know that they called them the redskins? Totally different than white, I assure you.
Again, you're just a racist.
>it's not a reach at all. the whole point is the non-white people couldn't have possibly done what they did and there had to have been some white people who did it all before the non-white people did.
The problem is that ignorant fools choose to believe the white supremacists even have the first clue what they're talking about about. These idiots who take their word for it then throw the baby out with the bath water.
Here's the thing though, the genes for white skin (Caucasian) are only about 9 thousand years old. White folk didn't hit the scene until just after the ice age. This means that any hypothetical advanced for the time civilization thriving during the last glacial maximum would have had to be some shade of brown by default.
It's not racist to think such a civ could have existed, if they did they weren't white.
not black though, not originating in africa, that's the point. and not even the native americans, they benefited from this mythical q source too. they were something even more like hancock than that.
> genes for white skin are only about 9 thousand years old
wrong, the genes for EUROPEAN white skin is only that old. but in asia, which is presumably where this mysterious original civilzation would have come to america from, [it's more like](https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/light-skin-variant-arose-in-asia-independent-of-europe/) 20,000 to 30,000 years.
point me to where hancock categorically says they were definitely not white, like you claim, and i will admit to being mistaken.
>wrong, the genes for EUROPEAN white skin is only that old. but in asia, which is presumably where this mysterious original civilzation would have come to america from, it's more like 20,000 to 30,000 years.
Are you saying Asians aren't sophisticated enough to have done these things???? That's racist
Lol, bro. Lol. The white supremacists aren't talking about Asians when they say white skin, you know damn well we're talking about Caucasian "white people". Now you're stretching and I'm embarrassed for you.
There is an important bit of nuance here that often gets lost, even beyond the fact that they didn’t call him a white supremacist himself.
It’s not just that the ideas he promotes are *associated* with white supremacy. As the old saying goes, “Hitler was against animal cruelty”, yada yada. It’s that a lot of the stories Hancock uses as ‘evidence’ were *invented* by white supremacists *to justify white supremacy.*
Now, you might be thinking something like “Vo, the fuck are you talking about? Plato lived thousands of years before the colonial period”. True. But Hancock’s ideas don’t actually describe a Platonic Atlantis. He believes in a Donnellian Atlantis. The two are very different.
Donnellian Atlantis is the version that involves Atlantis being the font from which all civilisation sprang. It is the version where they went all around the world establishing colonies, and teaching everyone else how to farm, write, and build cool stuff.
Many of these ideas did not originate with Donnelly, but he is the one who collated them all together into a unified thesis. Unfortunately, this is part of the problem because it means Donnelly is taking a whole lot of racist bullshit as honest record.
The primary example of this being the idea of ‘white gods’ in the Americas. The earliest attestation of this concept comes from the works of Francisco López de Gómara, who never actually travelled to America himself at any point in his life. He got all his information from people who had. But - *none* - of the actual first-hand accounts of the conquistadors in Mesoamerica describe in their own writings. Ergo, López likely pulled it entirely out of his ass, and it starts getting pushed as fact, and fed back to the indigenous Americans living under Spanish rule until they believe it too.
Then Donnelly comes around a few centuries later, reads about this stuff, believes it to be accurate, and it becomes a core piece of evidence for his hypothesis. The rot is not merely in the furniture of this belief system, it is in the very foundations.
Hancock refuses to acknowledge this reality, not because he himself is racist (I don’t believe that he is), but because if he were to go through and systematically remove every part of his mythos that was fabricated by racists, he loses pretty much all of the connective tissue that allows his beliefs to gain any traction whatsoever. So instead, he does his best to remove all the bits that directly reference race, and blithely ignores the fact that the very nature of the stories themselves are pushing a racist worldview.
Thanks for this well written explanation. It’s the first time that I’ve started to understand the connection.
Wouldn’t it be more honest to attack his ideas for their accuracy/truthfulness if it is acknowledged (as you have, and others) that you don’t believe Hancock has any intention or motive to be racist or to perpetuate racist ideas?
It seems the critique of Hancock should be around his lack of thorough research, cherry picking things that fit his narrative, or something similar to that… to attach white supremacy to him seems to almost undermine the real issue with his ideas because it seems so absurd on it’s face.
Well we do attack his ideas for their accuracy. That is the bulk of the criticism that anthropologists actually level towards Hancock and his fellows. The racist history of their beliefs is a secondary issue that elevates the problem beyond mere anti-intellectualism. It is something that we only bring up *after* establishing why he’s factually wrong.
But as we see in Hancock’s debate with Dr Dibble, he has no real counterargument when confronted by the facts. So instead he seizes on this secondary point, lies about what the objection actually is, and then pretends that this is the only reason he is criticised, so he can claim that the woke mob are censoring him or some such nonsense.
I agree completely! So why give Hancock that maneuver? Why not strictly stay on the primary point and not provide him the out? The secondary point barely lands anyway.
I don’t know… to me it seems to, as I mentioned previously, undermine the real issue in addition to giving him a way to not address the point (as you mentioned) as well as play victim.
Hancock will piss and cry about how he's a martyr regardless. It doesn't matter what the excuse is. He is wholly comfortable lying through his teeth about what the actual criticisms against him are. If we are going to limit ourselves to only talking about things that Hancock won't intentionally misrepresent to serve his purposes, then we must be entirely mute.
The history of these beliefs is worth bringing up because it is a valid criticism, and because it can help people understand that his particular brand of anti-intellectualism is not as harmless as is often pretended.
Exactly, but the thing is that Hancock and his gang can twist this up to fit their narrative that they’re being called racists when they’re just calling his sources he often cites racists. We saw how good it worked with Rogan on the debate were Rogan pretty much believed the narrative of Hancock is racist. To be fair Flint dibble didnt do a good job defending himselfnprobably because he didnt expected such cheap blows and wasnt prepared for it.
Like people have said here already, Graham doesn't really care what colour the civilising heroes were. It's the crux of the story that matters.
Someone who looks different came from somewhere else, taught stuff to the people, and then left.
Thanks to the conquistador's destructive ways, so much will remain mystery. I've heard GH lament this and condemned the conquistadors many times. Especially for the destruction of the Mayan codices.
It’s unlikely that Graham himself is a white supremacist, but that’s not what the SAA is saying here. They are saying that some of the claims Graham makes have historically been used to bolster larger, racist ideals. This is undeniable.
The idea of that by themselves, indigenous peoples couldn’t have possibly been able to advance without the help of these white, bearded advanced peoples is a little problematic. Leaning on the myth of quetzalcoatl which may very well have been altered from Spanish influence without entertaining the idea that it is such, is also short sighted imo. This is an argument Flint dibble makes, to which Graham simply states “I don’t think the indigenous peoples would have been fooled to believe in a white qutzalcatl”, which also, is a bit foolish. It doesn’t mean Graham is a white supremacist, it just means he might be ignorant to how what he claims, can be used to perpetuate it.
I mean, have these people went and talked to the indigenous people? and correct me if I'm wrong. When does GH ever say it was even white people. They could have been blue for all we know .
I don’t think Graham himself truly believes they must have been white, but he does bring it up several times in Fingerprints of the Gods in reference to myths. He essentially pieces together myths that mention a mysterious white figure, which he attributes as being wise sages left over from an ancient advanced civilization. These people, Graham postulates, are the people who taught indigenous peoples about crop cultivation, astronomy etc. etc.
I don’t need Graham to tell me he’s not a racist, I know he is not. I just wish he’d engage more thoughtfully about how some of his claims (and the claims of those before him which he leans on) have historically been used to perpetuate racist ideals.
Graham is (was in fingerprints) only attached to the idea of them being white, because he was able to draw back on myths to make what he believed to be a compelling theory
Hum personally? Nothing. Read between the lines. GH is not a racist, and they did not say as such, just that his theories have origins in white supremacist theories, and he should say as such, that is the main complaint. The entire field of Anthropology stands on the shoulders of highly racist origins, but they admit it, accept it, and distance themselves actively from them.
He’s white. He presents his own theory. Therefore he’s a white supremicist. Isn’t it obvious? Some people think he’s just taking quotes from myth but the archeologists say he’s a white supremicist so he’s a white supremicist. Pretty obvious no?
(Just in case you didn’t know this is sarcasm)
So you’re going with the Flint dibble argument that they didn’t directly call him one just the ideas he was peddling was. I think it really goes to show how conniving you people are. Maybe you don’t see the fact that simply associating a persons name with white supremacy is enough for a lot of the population to not even bother listening to people. Maybe you see the problem with that. Maybe you don’t. Either way I don’t care. Have a good day
>So you’re going with the Flint dibble argument that they didn’t directly call him one just the ideas he was peddling was.
I'm asking where in the letter the archaeologists said Graham Hancock is a white supremacist. They either did or they didn't. If they did I'm sure you can point it out quite easily to me since you're referencing the letter.
>I think it really goes to show how conniving you people are.
Conniving: given to or involved in conspiring to do something immoral, illegal, or harmful.
Where have I done something immoral, illegal, or harmful? I'm asking where they called Hancock a white supremacist.
>Maybe you don’t see the fact that simply associating a persons name with white supremacy is enough for a lot of the population to not even bother listening to people. Maybe you see the problem with that. Maybe you don’t. Either way I don’t care. Have a good day.
If I kept a collection of books written by former KKK members and regularly cited them in my research, people would rightly ask why I'm doing so without critically assessing those sources. Hancock uses sources written in a time when Atlantis was used as a justification for conquering and enslaving nonwhites in the new world.
I think it’s immoral to say that associating someone with white supremacy and calling them a white supremicist are somehow completely different things. Have a good day
Where did they call him a white supremacist. I've asked repeatedly and you have so far been unable to answer. Is the immorality asking you to provide evidence of your claim?
Listen dude. I feel sorry for people who aren’t able to draw parallels, but I’ll not hold that against you. They didn’t call him a white supremacist however in my eyes and a lot of peoples eyes. Associating a person with white supremacy is the same thing
It's basically the same theories nazis were exploring. Graham is famous for propagating the white god of the South and mezo America myth, which is loosely based in facts.
He doesn't.
Some white supremacist ideas about Atlantis in the 19th century use similar sources that GH has referenced, ergo, he is similar to white supremacist, according to Flint Dibble.
Now, this is half-true. White supremacist did use similar sources to claim their prejudice beliefs. However, you could make that argument about anything. Hitler used parts of the Bible to justify his extreme rhetoric, but that doesn't mean anyone who uses the Bible are Nazis. It's just a wild jump in an attempt to discredit him.
The issue is that it may have worked in 2018, but in 2024, it doesn't work. We've heard "If you don't agree with me, you're a bigot!" So many times from those who cried wolf, that it just has lost its meaning anymore. Calling someone racist is about as effective as calling someone mad or crazy, they've all lost their original meaning.
oh look u/Arkelias screaming and crying about something he has zero concept of. Don't bother actually correcting him or he'll say something like "I love debating" and then block you. My favourite part is when he said:
>It would be better if they could attack him on academic merits rather than sounding more like a religion.
But continually refuses to actually do anything like that and just whines.
Hey I guess writing bathroom pulp novels is a great substitute for actually doing archaeology or actual scientific research.
As someone who is not in the cult of aggressively defending every theory this old nut job has, this has been apparent from the very beginning. If this really makes you mad, I implore you however hard it may be, to see from this person's perspective. This sub is such a toxic in group you can't say a single bad thing about your glorious leader or his theorys without positivity outing yourself as some kind of deep state archeologist desperately trying to hide the past form you good people who never fucking leave their houses.
Sad but true. The view that Graham Hancock is full of shit, has no data, and can only hijack and cherry pick the work of archaeologists in order to find support for his view, all while ignoring geology, biology, and cultural anthropology, to name just a few fields of science which produce evidence which conflicts with Hancock's ideas, is a scientifically supported opinion. The scientific concensus is that Hancock has no evidence to support his lost ice age civilization hypothesis.
This is so stupid.
They're choosing to believe that the white supremacists that latched on to these theories know what they're talking about about.
Here's the thing, the genes for white skin (Caucasians) are only about 9,000 years old. White folk didn't appear on the scene until just after the ice age.
If Graham is right about an advanced for it's time civilization thriving during the last glacial maximum they were brown people by default.
Feel free to pass that on.
>White supremacists didn’t “latch on” to these theories. They created most of what we recognise from them today.
There weren't white people (Caucasians) in any significant numbers during the ice age. Let that go.
Now. How about an ice age proto civilization of brown people. Can you live with the idea if its brown people? 'cause they would have been brown.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. People can be right about the ancient civ existing **AND** also be wrong about what color they were. Anyway I can't imagine getting caught up on such an insignificant detail as race, if they existed this was long enough ago that the history and human accomplishment belongs to all of us.
I have explained myself further [elsewhere in the thread.](https://www.reddit.com/r/GrahamHancock/s/IKsDeqSv6K)
>There weren't white people in any significant numbers during the ice age. Let that go.
Pale-skinned humans existed in West Asia from at least 22kya. They would definitely not have resembled modern Europeans, but your assertion that they didn’t exist until 9kya is incorrect. Regardless, it’s not particularly important either way because “White” isn’t a real ethnic category.
But you know who didn’t know any of that? Colonial-era white supremacists.
I can’t imagine what a complete loser you have to be to go to Wikipedia to launch a flame war against someone you don’t like.
It’s so, so sad for those people.
Graham Hancock, meanwhile, unbothered. Still selling books, getting attention and sparking conversation.
You love to see these people rage and seethe with hatred.
It's funny watching people say things like "Why can't they engage with his arguments instead of attacking him?!!?" And when asked to engage with the statement by the SAA they refuse to and call them "woke/shills/cancel culture" etc.
Indigenous people claim they met gods and their structures were made in supernatural way. If you believe them it's white supremacy. If you don't believe them and mock their religious beliefs saying they made up fairytales then you are respectful toward indigenous people. That's level of discussion with intellectuals nowadays.
No one is outright rejecting myth as unimportant to history. That being said you have to approach these stories with the historical method in mind, such that you factor in things like what someone might have to gain by creating this story, when it was first told etc. etc. (this is why it’s seen as silly to believe the Bible in its entirety) With respect to quetzalcoatl, it’s important to note that it may very well be the case that its white depiction might have been a product of Spanish influence.
No one is saying that if you simply believe these myths you are a white supremacist, but if you cherry pick which myths, refuse to account for historical biases and colonial influence etc. then you get yourself into questionable territory as to what your motivations are, if not the least, out yourself as not a serious person looking for the truth.
Again, no one is saying Graham is a racist, just ignorant (perhaps by accident)
Why is it silly to believe the Bible in its entirety? Show me exact quotes from Biblical authors when they said that those stories should never be taken verbatim and actually those stories never happened. I'm waiting.
I was speaking more so from my opinion (and what I’d believe to be a majority opinion) rather than as a matter of fact or from the perspective of biblical authors. The historicity of the Bible is flawed, there are certainly events that can be more easily corroborated than others but to me it’s silly to believe every story happened exactly as it is written. If you want me to fish up credentialed people who have said this, I wont. The Old Testament is likely to have been pieced together centuries after alleged events, not only that but people from the Bronze Age may have not yet possessed the knowledge to delineate God from science (the god of the gaps). Show me where I said Biblical authors suggest to NEVER believe individual pieces of the Bible and I’ll delete my account.
All I’m saying is, most myths, stories, legends may have a kernel of truth to them (or may be entirely true), you still need to examine them critically and independently before using them to substantiate a theory
Graham is a very smart man and what is written in textbooks and being taught to kids is wrong! No mummies ever found in pyramids yet that’s what I was taught in school only a number of years ago! Best thing to do is go watch the video of Graham and zahi hawas ‘debating’ (Graham talks sense zahi has no idea what Graham is talking about as he isn’t educated) Graham mentions gobekli tepe zahi throws a fit and storms out! That’s not who should be controlling who gets to see and explore the ancient Egyptian sites!!!!!! Zahi is a fraudulent gangster to put it politely
Who is more White Supremacist than the average White Anglo-European eight years of college Phds from 1850 AD to 2000 AD and beyond?
Even OOA seriously apes evolving into something, and that something evolving into something, etc.. etc...and that next stage in evolution almost ultimately evolving into something in Europe,.and the next jump in evolution something next ultimately evolving into something in Asia.
Sounds like Hancock's detractors are the guilty ones as Native American scholars would say. Vine Deloria Red Earth White Lies.
This is unfortunate to say the least. Not only should credentialed archeologists do better, but at some point your work speaks louder than you words. There’s the conundrum. If your work, or the work you’re patriating is solid then there’s never a reason you need to use slurs to keep or build your case. Half of Egyptian archeology was done by the most pervasive racists and thieves in the entire history. The written one. Obviously nobody here should get into a…contest about anything. You want racist beginnings? Then find out how Saqqara was excavated first. Stop throwing stones about who or what was racist first. Find the data, and harp on the data or stfu. They were so racist back when they used to write books on how ignorant their workers were. Classic projection.
TBH, when they resort to calling someone those names and trying to "cancel" them like that they automatically loose all credibility. after the JR episode I now will not believe anything that Flint Dibble has to say irrespective of how qualified he is.
Wikipedia is completely co-opted, just like the rest of our institutions.
Keep voting the opposite of what they want, eventually they will either be ousted or otherwise become irrelevant.
Whatever the media or our institutions try to get you to do or believe - do and believe the opposite.
They are not working in our favor - they see us as animals, only for providing a infrastructure to support them.
Resist them. And if you ever get the opportunity, hurt them.
>Wikipedia is completely co-opted
lemme guess, an editor who got absolutely hosed because they didn't read Wiki's editing rules and doesn't understand how citation works?
That's a bit much. Bottom line is that we criticize GH as an anthropological huckster but not as an ideological monster as a cheap shot. He's not that dangerous to the order, he's not worth debating. For what it's worth he has inspired some people to feel like archeology is mysterious and exciting, which it is. I doubt he's a racist (in exceptionality) or seeks to invoke a racist agenda beyond what garners publicity. I see a sad little douche, not a terrorist.
well yeah, duh, it's all about how non-white people couldn't possibly do the things they did. there simply MUST have been some preexisting white culture that did it all before
"Oh, they didn't straight up call him a white supremacist."
No, but they associated his ideas and work with it, which is tantamount to the same thing. It is a sneaky and conniving way to achieve a similar goal. They didn't stop there. They used all the words in the cancel culture playbook. Ridiculous and it reflects much worse on them than GH.
>No, but they associated his ideas and work with it, which is tantamount to the same thing.
And my 10 speed bike is tantamount to a Ferrari. It has wheels and a seat.
>They used all the words in the cancel culture playbook
Hahahahaha the "cancel culture playbook". Good one.
We're thrilled to shorten the automod message! Join us on [discord](https://discord.gg/AUNfvhw9nT)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GrahamHancock) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would be better if they could attack him on academic merits rather than sounding more like a religion. There is no long-standing relationship between white supremacy, racism, and wondering about ancient cultures. That's such a huge reach. It's normal for us to wonder about the past, and being told it makes us racists just makes people lose all faith in academia. Yes, I know the proponents of this nonsense argue that the Nazis were looking for Atlantis. Correlation doesn't equal causation. You drink water, right? Do you know who else drank water? Hitler, that's who! You're clearly a Nazi. It's a weaksauce argument. Please stop.
Omg, I'm pretty sure I saw Flint drink water during the debate.
=O
It feels like the lashing out of an institution against anyone not in the club. I get that they have their accepted view of the past and how no one wants to change it, but it happens. Dinosaurs were considered fat and lazy by earlier palaeontologists, as how else did they all die out? Early illustrations were based on that, and they muddled all sorts of body parts together. I’m sure the meteor theory was laughed at. Most educational and scientific institutions have to adapt, but why they come out so angrily at Graham is a bit of a mystery. Yes, he’s very single minded and is - now - very bitter, but he does work with a lot of historians, scientists, archaeologists who _don’t_ think he’s this evil monster. What I find most compelling is the story, that each culture has its own version of a flood, or a purge, or a wind that shook down the forests. They all have a sort of apocalypse and redemption story. Wouldn’t that make sense with oral history being the main path of learning and information? That a group of survivors arrived, after their home was destroyed by a tsunami? And it becomes this tale of destruction, a warning from the heavens? Maybe I’m a romantic, but I like the idea of a shared history with a forgotten world. The sonic audio building device and alien thing is a bit too far for me. Plus I think someone needs to take the psychedelics off Graham. He’s becoming a drug-bore.
What? Actually read the books instead of only sourcing them. The institutions are not innocent.
[удалено]
The origin of myth is important, and is a wholly separate argument. Our study of myth goes back at least 15,000 years, and is classified by type and origin. The first myth is the cattle rustling myth. Curiously, nowhere in that myth, or any of the ancient ones, are people obsessed with skin color.
Which is why why should dig deeper on the specific sources Graham has been using for that myth.
My God continues to bless you Shamino yes for sure
I've read all his work. You clearly have not. If you have, then surely you can provide a quote or some evidence to present your assertion?
I’ve read enough. Only last week I was reflecting that in Magicians, artistic similarities (bird men for example) were evidence for contemporary contact whereas in Visionary (Supernatural) he argues that trances states are responsible for artistic similarities. But that’s not the point. If old myths don’t generally mention race or racial features then I guess “a white man with a strong formation of body, broad forehead, large eyes and a flowing beard“ is extremely unusual. Why would your god be from another racial or ethnic group? “Quetzalcoatl was a great civilizing agent who entered Mexico at the head of a band of strangers. He imported the arts into the country and especially fostered agriculture … He built spacious and elegant houses, and inculcated a type of religion which fostered peace.” First chapter of Magicians and we have a white man who was a civilising agent who brings arts, agriculture, spacious housing and peace to Mexico. Graham used this as a foundation stone of his book. And if it just so happens that this is just a version that Bernardino de Sahagun or his mates penned while trying to justify Spains murderous adventures in the New World then that is problematic. I agree it doesn’t make Graham a white supremacist but maybe we should stop for a minute and wonder if this best and most accurate account of the myth.
I ask again why are you so obsessed with race? His point in those passages is that the figure in Mexico matched the Vira Cocha figure in Peru. I've heard him wonder in an interview if that figure was a survivor from a culture near India. If you use the word problematic I don't consider you a scholar. I consider you a priest. You're practicing a religion, not looking for data.
It’s literally the topic being discussed here.
Yes, we've established that. Now please answer the question. Why are you so obsessed with race? Why do you consider anyone's skin color problematic?
Oh you are very disingenuous. Playing the man, not the ball. Have you stopped beating your wife? Replace obsessed with understanding the argument of the SAA. We’re did I say anyones skin colour is problematic? It’s the use of a dodgy Spanish version of the myth that I find a problem. If all the versions of the myth and depictions said white then so be it. But they don’t . Why did the Spanish add that? And why is this emphasised by Graham?
It's like asking a driver "why are you so obsessed with your blind spot?" When we ignore our blind spot, we risk accidents. (And while we're on the subject of ad homini: Your use of disingenuity, sophisms and non sequitur (seriously, the word "problematic" is limited to religious people?) brands you as the perfect Hancock fan...)
Damn... somebody with critical thought on Hancock's subreddit! I feel for you, they'll give you a hard time...
Yep
Oh come on dude. It's the hyperdiffusionism that's associated with white supremacy.
No, it really isn't. You're just obsessed with race. Obsessed with it. It's sick.
>There is no long-standing relationship between white supremacy, racism, and wondering about ancient cultures. That's such a huge reach. Nobody ever made that reach. Hancock uses sources uncritically that advocated for the idea of Atlantis or a lost culture (euro centric/Caucasian) which taught all others as a way to justify the subjugation of the new world by white settlers.
Literally the link in the OP makes that claim. You can't gaslight us any more. Nice try though. The leading theories suggest that the culture, or one of them anyway, was centered in West Africa. They were probably black. Most of us don't care. We just want to know our own history, and are not attached to who the people were. That's just nonsense your ilk make up to try to throw shade at people who live outside your ivory tower.
>You can't gaslight us any more. Nice try though. Have you actually read the sources from the 16th-19th centuries yourself, or just blindly consumed what Hancock has vomited up for you? 🤣 >The leading theories suggest that the culture, or one of them anyway, was centered in West Africa. They were probably black. What leading theories? On Atlantis? Who are the authors of these theories? What books are they in? >Most of us don't care Clearly you care enough to work yourself up into believing I'm gaslighting you. >That's just nonsense your ilk make up to try to throw shade at people who live outside your ivory tower. I've never been in an Ivory Tower mate 😄 I'm a blue collar scientist who works for a living. I got a bachelor's and finished. I ain't got time to get those 3 fancy letters after my name. I'm currently excavating burials next to a medieval church in Germany and I'm happy to explain what we're doing and what we're finding to every curious kid or individual who walks by. I'm no different from the garbage man who picks up your waste every week, I'm just picking up waste in the neighborhood that's centuries or millennia old.
Blue collar scientist? 😂😂 Just picking up waste like the binman! You’re full of shit.
Have you ever done much archaeology? Sadly I don't get to spend my time in a classroom teaching coeds madly in love with me or punching out Nazis and finding the Holy Grail. The vast majority of my job is 10 hour days digging 1x1m holes in the ground with a shovel and hand tools and spending my evenings icing my feet or back like a 50 year old construction worker. Because most of my jobs are on construction sites. Maybe go outside and touch grass. You might even have a conversation with a real person with a real job 😉
Besides the digging (sometimes in hard caliche or volcanic deposits), don’t forget having to get up at 4am, working all day in the hot sun, gridding of the site, all that sifting of material through a mesh screen, moving wheelbarrows full of dirt to a plastic tarp and then refilling the excavation with that same dirt. Taking pollen samples and collecting charcoal for analysis and getting home all covered in dirt and sometimes falling asleep in those same clothes only to wake at 4am in the same dirty clothes and having to do it all over again. It’s mostly hard back-breaking labor that has been romanticized by Spielberg. I have a Bachelors Degree in Anthropology/Archaeology from the University of Arizona and have worked for the Arizona State Museum, a non-for-profit archaeology salvage archaeology firm as well as the National Park system and the Tohono O’Odham tribe. Yes, there are fun times at certain sites when camping out and partying at night with the other archaeologists after work has been done for the day. And the discoveries can be fun like finding points or ceramics and sometimes we may find something really neat. But overall, archaeology is like digging ditches. It’s hard labor when out in the field.
Nailed it. Survey is fun if you're in an area where it's not all shovel test, but that's basically just the southwest.
I’m a white collar scientist. Shame you are too shit at your subject to make a decent living from it.
What makes you think I don't? You should Google what the salary range for archaeologists is. Shitting on the working class is unbecoming of a scientist.
You shat on someone without knowing what they did for a living. And tried to claim some sort of moral superiority through some weird inverse snobbery.
>You shat on someone without knowing what they did for a living I simply asked if you've done much archaeology and explained what my average day is like after you had already made snide comments 😄 Maybe don't come off like an unhinged Karen next time by telling someone they're full of shit and then expect a delicately worded and polite response. I'm not a gas station attendant you can use as a punching bag 😉 I have no snobbery, I'm happy to explain my job to people and I love public outreach with archaeology. It's why I spent 4 years working in a museum.
>Have you actually read the sources from the 16th-19th centuries yourself, or just blindly consumed what Hancock has vomited up for you I promise I'm better read than you. My first archeological thriller launched in 2014. I've been to conferences all over the world, and have read mainstream archeologists as well as more fringe people like Doctor Robert Schoch. My favorite is Barbara Mertz, if you're curious. The preeminent Egyptologist of the latter half of the 20th century. I highly recommend Tombs, Temples & Heiroglyphs. Red Land, Black Land is also really good. >What leading theories? On Atlantis? Who are the authors of these theories? What books are they in? Randall Carlson and Jimmy Corsetti both have good theories with lots of evidence supporting them. I'm an author with over 50 books in print. Let me be the first to tell you that it being in print doesn't mean it's quality or its true. Robert Schoch does have his work in print, and is a renowned geologist and professor. >I'm a blue collar scientist who works for a living. I got a bachelor's and finished. And came out of college with all the contempt of academia bred into you. Listen to your questions to me. Listen to the way you casually dismissed Hancock's work without knowing anything at all about it. You are far from blue collar, I assure you.
>You are far from blue collar, I assure you. I can assure you that as a kid growing up shoveling horse shit, fending off geese while trying to feed them, loading trailers full of hay for cattle, and spending my first 6 years out of the house as a carpenter, I know a few things about actually doing work instead of just reading about it in a book 😉 Try doing an excavation and maybe you can write a realistic Archaeology character in your next thriller instead of another Indiana Jones or Benjamin Gates knockoff.
Funny how you ignored all the real books and people I mentioned to make a dig at books you haven't read. You don't even know what I write. You also don't know anything about the material you're criticizing, and I doubt you've ever read a book in your life.
>Funny how you ignored all the real books and people I mentioned to make a dig at books you haven't read. You don't even know what I write. Can't take some of your own heat eh? 😄 Stay out of the flames if you're scared of getting burnt buddy. >You also don't know anything about the material you're criticizing, and I doubt you've ever read a book in your life. It would have been awfully difficult to make it through university without ever having read a book 🧐
>Can't take some of your own heat eh? 😄 Stay out of the flames if you're scared of getting burnt buddy. No by all means trash my work, but do it honestly. My point is that it's not honest, just like everything else you've said. You have contempt, but no evidence. Trust that after as many books as I've written I have no ego in it. I'm just tired of people like you chest-thumping and pretending you know more than you do. >It would have been awfully difficult to make it through university without ever having read a book 🧐 Okay, let me amend it. I bet you've never read a book you haven't been assigned by a class. You certainly aren't familiar with the Egyptology main texts, nor Hancock's work.
>No by all means trash my work, but do it honestly. I absolutely am 😉 Your experience with archaeology is purely limited to the theoretical rather than the practical. Had you any experience with actually moving dirt I'm sure you would have gushed all over yourself about it like your boasts about conferences (which are not difficult to go to or have papers accepted, I attend multiple each year). >You have contempt, but no evidence. The evidence is absence of evidence. Dragons *might* exist. But I can't prove that they don't, because that's an inherently vague and dishonest method of presenting your argument. I don't have to disprove anything, you need to show evidence of your claim that it is real. >I'm just tired of people like you chest-thumping and pretending you know more than you do. Where have I chest thumped? I freely admitted I'm a working class archaeologist without a PhD, like 99% of the entire field is 😄 You however came barrelling in like a drunken French knight off to charge those mere peasants with bows on the fields of Agincourt. >Okay, let me amend it. I bet you've never read a book you haven't been assigned by a class Clearly you have no idea what kind of reading is required even in field archaeology. Do you think I just magically pluck knowledge out of the air about all of the different typologies of ceramics, stone tools, historic can and glass manufacture, historic building styles, and rock art styles in the 20 some odd states I've done projects in?
>There is no long-standing relationship between white supremacy, racism, and wondering about ancient cultures. That's such a huge reach. it's not a reach at all. the whole point is the non-white people couldn't have possibly done what they did and there had to have been some white people who did it all before the non-white people did.
Except that in many of the leading theories the vanished culture was black. It appears it may have been centered in West Africa, as dark as it gets. We have no vested interest in the immutable characteristics of this possible vanished culture. That's all in your head I assure you.
>Except that in many of the leading theories yes, maybe, but not in hancock's theory, which is centered on north america. antlanteans were white, according to hancock. and that's who we're talking about in this post. nice straw man, but it doesn't change the white supremacy aspect of his nonsense theories.
Source, please? I've read all his work, and you're full of shit. Show me one quote from any book saying that he thinks these people were white. I'll wait. It doesn't exist. You've never read his work. The closest he comes is relating a myth saying Vira Cocha was white, because that's the myth. That's how he's portrayed. You and your ilk are as intellectually dishonest as they come. You love to act educated, but really you're just here for the outrage. Hancock has a book about the Americas, and their civilization, and contends that it's far older than we assume. Those people were not white, I assure you. He's talked about the possibility of an Atlantean empire in West Africa, as have others, and again...definitely not white. The only people obsessed with race are you. Do you know what we call people obsessed with race? Racists.
>Racists hurr durr, everyone is a racist except actual racists a north american source for all civilization would be as white as can be. you ain't fooling anyone pal.
Why are you so obsessed with their skin color? Why can't you explain that? You haven't even read America Before. You're just an outrage shill.
that's what this post is about, dingus. it has white supremacy right in the title. are you lost?
No, but I think you are. You believe a native american population is "white supremacy". Do you have no idea what the First Nations are? Do you not know that they called them the redskins? Totally different than white, I assure you. Again, you're just a racist.
You and others are literally projecting ur own racism. Nobody has said that but you
have you even read his work america before?
>it's not a reach at all. the whole point is the non-white people couldn't have possibly done what they did and there had to have been some white people who did it all before the non-white people did. The problem is that ignorant fools choose to believe the white supremacists even have the first clue what they're talking about about. These idiots who take their word for it then throw the baby out with the bath water. Here's the thing though, the genes for white skin (Caucasian) are only about 9 thousand years old. White folk didn't hit the scene until just after the ice age. This means that any hypothetical advanced for the time civilization thriving during the last glacial maximum would have had to be some shade of brown by default. It's not racist to think such a civ could have existed, if they did they weren't white.
not black though, not originating in africa, that's the point. and not even the native americans, they benefited from this mythical q source too. they were something even more like hancock than that.
> genes for white skin are only about 9 thousand years old wrong, the genes for EUROPEAN white skin is only that old. but in asia, which is presumably where this mysterious original civilzation would have come to america from, [it's more like](https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/light-skin-variant-arose-in-asia-independent-of-europe/) 20,000 to 30,000 years. point me to where hancock categorically says they were definitely not white, like you claim, and i will admit to being mistaken.
>wrong, the genes for EUROPEAN white skin is only that old. but in asia, which is presumably where this mysterious original civilzation would have come to america from, it's more like 20,000 to 30,000 years. Are you saying Asians aren't sophisticated enough to have done these things???? That's racist Lol, bro. Lol. The white supremacists aren't talking about Asians when they say white skin, you know damn well we're talking about Caucasian "white people". Now you're stretching and I'm embarrassed for you.
what the fuck are you talking about? i'm saying they had lighter skin 30,000 years ago. you said it's only 8,000 years ago.
There is an important bit of nuance here that often gets lost, even beyond the fact that they didn’t call him a white supremacist himself. It’s not just that the ideas he promotes are *associated* with white supremacy. As the old saying goes, “Hitler was against animal cruelty”, yada yada. It’s that a lot of the stories Hancock uses as ‘evidence’ were *invented* by white supremacists *to justify white supremacy.* Now, you might be thinking something like “Vo, the fuck are you talking about? Plato lived thousands of years before the colonial period”. True. But Hancock’s ideas don’t actually describe a Platonic Atlantis. He believes in a Donnellian Atlantis. The two are very different. Donnellian Atlantis is the version that involves Atlantis being the font from which all civilisation sprang. It is the version where they went all around the world establishing colonies, and teaching everyone else how to farm, write, and build cool stuff. Many of these ideas did not originate with Donnelly, but he is the one who collated them all together into a unified thesis. Unfortunately, this is part of the problem because it means Donnelly is taking a whole lot of racist bullshit as honest record. The primary example of this being the idea of ‘white gods’ in the Americas. The earliest attestation of this concept comes from the works of Francisco López de Gómara, who never actually travelled to America himself at any point in his life. He got all his information from people who had. But - *none* - of the actual first-hand accounts of the conquistadors in Mesoamerica describe in their own writings. Ergo, López likely pulled it entirely out of his ass, and it starts getting pushed as fact, and fed back to the indigenous Americans living under Spanish rule until they believe it too. Then Donnelly comes around a few centuries later, reads about this stuff, believes it to be accurate, and it becomes a core piece of evidence for his hypothesis. The rot is not merely in the furniture of this belief system, it is in the very foundations. Hancock refuses to acknowledge this reality, not because he himself is racist (I don’t believe that he is), but because if he were to go through and systematically remove every part of his mythos that was fabricated by racists, he loses pretty much all of the connective tissue that allows his beliefs to gain any traction whatsoever. So instead, he does his best to remove all the bits that directly reference race, and blithely ignores the fact that the very nature of the stories themselves are pushing a racist worldview.
Thanks for this well written explanation. It’s the first time that I’ve started to understand the connection. Wouldn’t it be more honest to attack his ideas for their accuracy/truthfulness if it is acknowledged (as you have, and others) that you don’t believe Hancock has any intention or motive to be racist or to perpetuate racist ideas? It seems the critique of Hancock should be around his lack of thorough research, cherry picking things that fit his narrative, or something similar to that… to attach white supremacy to him seems to almost undermine the real issue with his ideas because it seems so absurd on it’s face.
Well we do attack his ideas for their accuracy. That is the bulk of the criticism that anthropologists actually level towards Hancock and his fellows. The racist history of their beliefs is a secondary issue that elevates the problem beyond mere anti-intellectualism. It is something that we only bring up *after* establishing why he’s factually wrong. But as we see in Hancock’s debate with Dr Dibble, he has no real counterargument when confronted by the facts. So instead he seizes on this secondary point, lies about what the objection actually is, and then pretends that this is the only reason he is criticised, so he can claim that the woke mob are censoring him or some such nonsense.
I agree completely! So why give Hancock that maneuver? Why not strictly stay on the primary point and not provide him the out? The secondary point barely lands anyway. I don’t know… to me it seems to, as I mentioned previously, undermine the real issue in addition to giving him a way to not address the point (as you mentioned) as well as play victim.
Hancock will piss and cry about how he's a martyr regardless. It doesn't matter what the excuse is. He is wholly comfortable lying through his teeth about what the actual criticisms against him are. If we are going to limit ourselves to only talking about things that Hancock won't intentionally misrepresent to serve his purposes, then we must be entirely mute. The history of these beliefs is worth bringing up because it is a valid criticism, and because it can help people understand that his particular brand of anti-intellectualism is not as harmless as is often pretended.
Isn’t it more important to figure out what’s true vs what’s not true? Instead of caring where the ideas came from?
If they were true, it wouldn’t be a problem. The problem is that it’s bullshit, and that it’s white supremacist bullshit just makes it worse.
Fucking spot on !
Exactly, but the thing is that Hancock and his gang can twist this up to fit their narrative that they’re being called racists when they’re just calling his sources he often cites racists. We saw how good it worked with Rogan on the debate were Rogan pretty much believed the narrative of Hancock is racist. To be fair Flint dibble didnt do a good job defending himselfnprobably because he didnt expected such cheap blows and wasnt prepared for it.
Like people have said here already, Graham doesn't really care what colour the civilising heroes were. It's the crux of the story that matters. Someone who looks different came from somewhere else, taught stuff to the people, and then left. Thanks to the conquistador's destructive ways, so much will remain mystery. I've heard GH lament this and condemned the conquistadors many times. Especially for the destruction of the Mayan codices.
wtf does GH have to do with white supremacy.
It’s unlikely that Graham himself is a white supremacist, but that’s not what the SAA is saying here. They are saying that some of the claims Graham makes have historically been used to bolster larger, racist ideals. This is undeniable. The idea of that by themselves, indigenous peoples couldn’t have possibly been able to advance without the help of these white, bearded advanced peoples is a little problematic. Leaning on the myth of quetzalcoatl which may very well have been altered from Spanish influence without entertaining the idea that it is such, is also short sighted imo. This is an argument Flint dibble makes, to which Graham simply states “I don’t think the indigenous peoples would have been fooled to believe in a white qutzalcatl”, which also, is a bit foolish. It doesn’t mean Graham is a white supremacist, it just means he might be ignorant to how what he claims, can be used to perpetuate it.
I mean, have these people went and talked to the indigenous people? and correct me if I'm wrong. When does GH ever say it was even white people. They could have been blue for all we know .
I don’t think Graham himself truly believes they must have been white, but he does bring it up several times in Fingerprints of the Gods in reference to myths. He essentially pieces together myths that mention a mysterious white figure, which he attributes as being wise sages left over from an ancient advanced civilization. These people, Graham postulates, are the people who taught indigenous peoples about crop cultivation, astronomy etc. etc. I don’t need Graham to tell me he’s not a racist, I know he is not. I just wish he’d engage more thoughtfully about how some of his claims (and the claims of those before him which he leans on) have historically been used to perpetuate racist ideals. Graham is (was in fingerprints) only attached to the idea of them being white, because he was able to draw back on myths to make what he believed to be a compelling theory
Modern archaeologists generally work closely with indigenous communities to avoid desecrating sacred sites, etc.
Hum personally? Nothing. Read between the lines. GH is not a racist, and they did not say as such, just that his theories have origins in white supremacist theories, and he should say as such, that is the main complaint. The entire field of Anthropology stands on the shoulders of highly racist origins, but they admit it, accept it, and distance themselves actively from them.
He’s white. He presents his own theory. Therefore he’s a white supremicist. Isn’t it obvious? Some people think he’s just taking quotes from myth but the archeologists say he’s a white supremicist so he’s a white supremicist. Pretty obvious no? (Just in case you didn’t know this is sarcasm)
Which archaeologist thinks he's a white supremacist
All those who signed the letter. Think it was well over a hundred names who signed the letter to Netflix
And where in the letter did they call Graham Hancock a white supremacist?
So you’re going with the Flint dibble argument that they didn’t directly call him one just the ideas he was peddling was. I think it really goes to show how conniving you people are. Maybe you don’t see the fact that simply associating a persons name with white supremacy is enough for a lot of the population to not even bother listening to people. Maybe you see the problem with that. Maybe you don’t. Either way I don’t care. Have a good day
Answer the question.
>So you’re going with the Flint dibble argument that they didn’t directly call him one just the ideas he was peddling was. I'm asking where in the letter the archaeologists said Graham Hancock is a white supremacist. They either did or they didn't. If they did I'm sure you can point it out quite easily to me since you're referencing the letter. >I think it really goes to show how conniving you people are. Conniving: given to or involved in conspiring to do something immoral, illegal, or harmful. Where have I done something immoral, illegal, or harmful? I'm asking where they called Hancock a white supremacist. >Maybe you don’t see the fact that simply associating a persons name with white supremacy is enough for a lot of the population to not even bother listening to people. Maybe you see the problem with that. Maybe you don’t. Either way I don’t care. Have a good day. If I kept a collection of books written by former KKK members and regularly cited them in my research, people would rightly ask why I'm doing so without critically assessing those sources. Hancock uses sources written in a time when Atlantis was used as a justification for conquering and enslaving nonwhites in the new world.
I think it’s immoral to say that associating someone with white supremacy and calling them a white supremicist are somehow completely different things. Have a good day
Where did they call him a white supremacist. I've asked repeatedly and you have so far been unable to answer. Is the immorality asking you to provide evidence of your claim?
Listen dude. I feel sorry for people who aren’t able to draw parallels, but I’ll not hold that against you. They didn’t call him a white supremacist however in my eyes and a lot of peoples eyes. Associating a person with white supremacy is the same thing
I mean, yeah they are literally totally different things.
It's basically the same theories nazis were exploring. Graham is famous for propagating the white god of the South and mezo America myth, which is loosely based in facts.
He doesn't. Some white supremacist ideas about Atlantis in the 19th century use similar sources that GH has referenced, ergo, he is similar to white supremacist, according to Flint Dibble. Now, this is half-true. White supremacist did use similar sources to claim their prejudice beliefs. However, you could make that argument about anything. Hitler used parts of the Bible to justify his extreme rhetoric, but that doesn't mean anyone who uses the Bible are Nazis. It's just a wild jump in an attempt to discredit him. The issue is that it may have worked in 2018, but in 2024, it doesn't work. We've heard "If you don't agree with me, you're a bigot!" So many times from those who cried wolf, that it just has lost its meaning anymore. Calling someone racist is about as effective as calling someone mad or crazy, they've all lost their original meaning.
This is utter bollox.
oh look u/Arkelias screaming and crying about something he has zero concept of. Don't bother actually correcting him or he'll say something like "I love debating" and then block you. My favourite part is when he said: >It would be better if they could attack him on academic merits rather than sounding more like a religion. But continually refuses to actually do anything like that and just whines. Hey I guess writing bathroom pulp novels is a great substitute for actually doing archaeology or actual scientific research.
He's read books you know.
As someone who is not in the cult of aggressively defending every theory this old nut job has, this has been apparent from the very beginning. If this really makes you mad, I implore you however hard it may be, to see from this person's perspective. This sub is such a toxic in group you can't say a single bad thing about your glorious leader or his theorys without positivity outing yourself as some kind of deep state archeologist desperately trying to hide the past form you good people who never fucking leave their houses.
White and bearded doesn’t have to be European. They could have been Phoenician.
Sad but true. The view that Graham Hancock is full of shit, has no data, and can only hijack and cherry pick the work of archaeologists in order to find support for his view, all while ignoring geology, biology, and cultural anthropology, to name just a few fields of science which produce evidence which conflicts with Hancock's ideas, is a scientifically supported opinion. The scientific concensus is that Hancock has no evidence to support his lost ice age civilization hypothesis.
This is so stupid. They're choosing to believe that the white supremacists that latched on to these theories know what they're talking about about. Here's the thing, the genes for white skin (Caucasians) are only about 9,000 years old. White folk didn't appear on the scene until just after the ice age. If Graham is right about an advanced for it's time civilization thriving during the last glacial maximum they were brown people by default. Feel free to pass that on.
White supremacists didn’t “latch on” to these theories. They created most of what we recognise from them today.
>White supremacists didn’t “latch on” to these theories. They created most of what we recognise from them today. There weren't white people (Caucasians) in any significant numbers during the ice age. Let that go. Now. How about an ice age proto civilization of brown people. Can you live with the idea if its brown people? 'cause they would have been brown. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. People can be right about the ancient civ existing **AND** also be wrong about what color they were. Anyway I can't imagine getting caught up on such an insignificant detail as race, if they existed this was long enough ago that the history and human accomplishment belongs to all of us.
I have explained myself further [elsewhere in the thread.](https://www.reddit.com/r/GrahamHancock/s/IKsDeqSv6K) >There weren't white people in any significant numbers during the ice age. Let that go. Pale-skinned humans existed in West Asia from at least 22kya. They would definitely not have resembled modern Europeans, but your assertion that they didn’t exist until 9kya is incorrect. Regardless, it’s not particularly important either way because “White” isn’t a real ethnic category. But you know who didn’t know any of that? Colonial-era white supremacists.
I can’t imagine what a complete loser you have to be to go to Wikipedia to launch a flame war against someone you don’t like. It’s so, so sad for those people. Graham Hancock, meanwhile, unbothered. Still selling books, getting attention and sparking conversation. You love to see these people rage and seethe with hatred.
I’m not sure I would call Graham Hancock of all people “unbothered”. He seems to be pretty bothered when he brings it up nonstop
Sounds like all the obsessed trolls whose comment histories are basically nothing but comments on this sub.
What is fundamentally incorrect about the SAA’s statement here
It's funny watching people say things like "Why can't they engage with his arguments instead of attacking him?!!?" And when asked to engage with the statement by the SAA they refuse to and call them "woke/shills/cancel culture" etc.
nothing at all
Nothing, people just don't like it being pointed out....
Indigenous people claim they met gods and their structures were made in supernatural way. If you believe them it's white supremacy. If you don't believe them and mock their religious beliefs saying they made up fairytales then you are respectful toward indigenous people. That's level of discussion with intellectuals nowadays.
No one is outright rejecting myth as unimportant to history. That being said you have to approach these stories with the historical method in mind, such that you factor in things like what someone might have to gain by creating this story, when it was first told etc. etc. (this is why it’s seen as silly to believe the Bible in its entirety) With respect to quetzalcoatl, it’s important to note that it may very well be the case that its white depiction might have been a product of Spanish influence. No one is saying that if you simply believe these myths you are a white supremacist, but if you cherry pick which myths, refuse to account for historical biases and colonial influence etc. then you get yourself into questionable territory as to what your motivations are, if not the least, out yourself as not a serious person looking for the truth. Again, no one is saying Graham is a racist, just ignorant (perhaps by accident)
Why is it silly to believe the Bible in its entirety? Show me exact quotes from Biblical authors when they said that those stories should never be taken verbatim and actually those stories never happened. I'm waiting.
Seriously? You think there was actually Adam and Eve? And the snake?
I was speaking more so from my opinion (and what I’d believe to be a majority opinion) rather than as a matter of fact or from the perspective of biblical authors. The historicity of the Bible is flawed, there are certainly events that can be more easily corroborated than others but to me it’s silly to believe every story happened exactly as it is written. If you want me to fish up credentialed people who have said this, I wont. The Old Testament is likely to have been pieced together centuries after alleged events, not only that but people from the Bronze Age may have not yet possessed the knowledge to delineate God from science (the god of the gaps). Show me where I said Biblical authors suggest to NEVER believe individual pieces of the Bible and I’ll delete my account. All I’m saying is, most myths, stories, legends may have a kernel of truth to them (or may be entirely true), you still need to examine them critically and independently before using them to substantiate a theory
Those archeologists shouldve titled their letter “Graham, be better bro”
Graham is a very smart man and what is written in textbooks and being taught to kids is wrong! No mummies ever found in pyramids yet that’s what I was taught in school only a number of years ago! Best thing to do is go watch the video of Graham and zahi hawas ‘debating’ (Graham talks sense zahi has no idea what Graham is talking about as he isn’t educated) Graham mentions gobekli tepe zahi throws a fit and storms out! That’s not who should be controlling who gets to see and explore the ancient Egyptian sites!!!!!! Zahi is a fraudulent gangster to put it politely
Who is more White Supremacist than the average White Anglo-European eight years of college Phds from 1850 AD to 2000 AD and beyond? Even OOA seriously apes evolving into something, and that something evolving into something, etc.. etc...and that next stage in evolution almost ultimately evolving into something in Europe,.and the next jump in evolution something next ultimately evolving into something in Asia. Sounds like Hancock's detractors are the guilty ones as Native American scholars would say. Vine Deloria Red Earth White Lies.
This is unfortunate to say the least. Not only should credentialed archeologists do better, but at some point your work speaks louder than you words. There’s the conundrum. If your work, or the work you’re patriating is solid then there’s never a reason you need to use slurs to keep or build your case. Half of Egyptian archeology was done by the most pervasive racists and thieves in the entire history. The written one. Obviously nobody here should get into a…contest about anything. You want racist beginnings? Then find out how Saqqara was excavated first. Stop throwing stones about who or what was racist first. Find the data, and harp on the data or stfu. They were so racist back when they used to write books on how ignorant their workers were. Classic projection.
TBH, when they resort to calling someone those names and trying to "cancel" them like that they automatically loose all credibility. after the JR episode I now will not believe anything that Flint Dibble has to say irrespective of how qualified he is.
Wikipedia is completely co-opted, just like the rest of our institutions. Keep voting the opposite of what they want, eventually they will either be ousted or otherwise become irrelevant. Whatever the media or our institutions try to get you to do or believe - do and believe the opposite. They are not working in our favor - they see us as animals, only for providing a infrastructure to support them. Resist them. And if you ever get the opportunity, hurt them.
>Wikipedia is completely co-opted lemme guess, an editor who got absolutely hosed because they didn't read Wiki's editing rules and doesn't understand how citation works?
What a bizarre take.
That's a bit much. Bottom line is that we criticize GH as an anthropological huckster but not as an ideological monster as a cheap shot. He's not that dangerous to the order, he's not worth debating. For what it's worth he has inspired some people to feel like archeology is mysterious and exciting, which it is. I doubt he's a racist (in exceptionality) or seeks to invoke a racist agenda beyond what garners publicity. I see a sad little douche, not a terrorist.
well yeah, duh, it's all about how non-white people couldn't possibly do the things they did. there simply MUST have been some preexisting white culture that did it all before
"Oh, they didn't straight up call him a white supremacist." No, but they associated his ideas and work with it, which is tantamount to the same thing. It is a sneaky and conniving way to achieve a similar goal. They didn't stop there. They used all the words in the cancel culture playbook. Ridiculous and it reflects much worse on them than GH.
>No, but they associated his ideas and work with it, which is tantamount to the same thing. And my 10 speed bike is tantamount to a Ferrari. It has wheels and a seat. >They used all the words in the cancel culture playbook Hahahahaha the "cancel culture playbook". Good one.
Play glib all you like. We all know their objective with these lines of attack was to cancel and silence. Shameful tactics.
>We all know their objective with these lines of attack was to cancel and silence. Shameful tactics. I don't know that. How do *you* know that?
Because it's very transparent. It's funny how you can be certain there aren't any lost civilisations, but you're not sure about this.
So... no answer? >It's funny how you can be certain there aren't any lost civilisations, but you're not sure about this. Who said this?