Very interesting and in-depth analysis of Mesolithic human activity in Upper Deeside ; BUT spoilt by the political lecture about the influx of illegal aliens coming over the English Channel!
It is a shame that two to three sentences out of a forty minute lecture are generating the responses here. The past is inherently political, especially the story of the movement of different groups of people into the British and Irish Isles at different times. For example, the original publication of the Cheddar Man genome led to online commentary arguing that he had been killed by the original white settlers of England because he was an immigrant. Using moments like this lecture to raise awareness of the potential politics of the past is part of my job. It was not meant to be 'patronising'. Not knowing the background of the audience and lecturing without being able to read the reactions of a live audience makes it difficult to pitch things sometimes. If I misjudged the tone on this occasion that is a shame: I had enjoyed the lecture and the chance to engage with people. I'll make no comment on 'humility' when it is others who are making public accusations about my work and character.
First of all great lecture, and as a graduate student, I want to thank Professors like you for being an inspiration to younger generations of aspiring academics, especially in the biological and behavioral sciences. Secondly, I can understand and appreciate your desire to help inform the public, and also to fight against xenophobia, but I think the reaction of some of the commenters is understandable. Not due to the nature of your comments - again I genuinely appreciated the lecture and your desire to inform the public about xenophobia - but rather because of our political climate. The media is overwhelmingly pro-migration and very "woke" these days, so almost everyone is familiar with these talking points. Certainly any educated audience, or any audience that is generally interested in scientific, philosophical, or other academic topics. I am a leftist, and a biracial American, and leftists often emphasize the importance of allowing non-European and indigenous peoples to maintain their culture, their traditions, their ethnic identity, and political control over their historical & national homelands. Leftists will praise Islamic, African, Native American, etc. cultures and praise efforts to preserve their heritage and identity, but they do not apply the same standards to Europeans cultures. If Europeans want to maintain their identity, and their heritage, and control over their borders and political institutions, this is seen as racist, and in most contexts these people would even be labeled "white nationalists" in the current political climate. It seems like a double standard that it is important for Arab or Hispanics to maintain their culture, but for some reason European culture is too racist or too white or too oppressive. This seems like a position rooted in emotion and ideology, rather than reason and moral principles. Or to present another angle on the matter: hundreds of years ago, many Europeans fled from regions like the UK, Ireland, and the Low Countries to move to America because they were facing violence, persecution, disease, hunger, and religious intolerance. Literally hundreds of thousands of people were dying throughout Europe. There were wars. Famine. Religious persecution, and in some areas even serfdom (although I suppose mostly in the east). Anyway, anyone familiar with the historical records know that it is a matter of objective fact that most settlers in the US were working class and impoverished individuals, often from oppressed religious groups. Furthermore, the vast majority of these people were not engaging in outright war, or conquering Native American villages (or South African, Australian, etc.) Most of them weren't conquerors or rapists or slavers. They were normal people, looking to settle peacefully, and build a new life. Yes many terrible things happened, but in most cases people were just immigrating from Europe to North America, and settling peacefully and living normal lives. They weren't killing or raping or enslaving. They were literally refugees who were fleeing war and poverty, and generally settling peacefully, and living an agrarian existence. Today we don't call these people refugees or migrants. We call it colonialism, and we say that these people were racist and evil, and all Europeans and white people today are guilty for this episode of history. But at the same time leftists extol the values of multiculturalism and "diversity" and mass immigration into the west. In fact, leftists will even use hyperbolic language, and describe these people as "brave", "heroes", etc. I'm actually not entirely opposed to immigration. I think people should be able to live where they want, but I just think it's a ridiculous double standard and completely inconsistent narrative. If migration is good, then migration is good when Europeans move to Africa and when Africans move to Europe. If migration is bad, then similarly, it is bad when Europeans migrate to Africa, and it is bad when African's migrate to Europe.
Fabulous talk, thank you so much
Very interesting and in-depth analysis of Mesolithic human activity in Upper Deeside ; BUT spoilt by the political lecture about the influx of illegal aliens coming over the English Channel!
@RNM45 I use the legal term rightly; 'illegal alien'- a term used to describe those persons that have no right of abode in the United Kingdom!
It is a shame that two to three sentences out of a forty minute lecture are generating the responses here. The past is inherently political, especially the story of the movement of different groups of people into the British and Irish Isles at different times. For example, the original publication of the Cheddar Man genome led to online commentary arguing that he had been killed by the original white settlers of England because he was an immigrant. Using moments like this lecture to raise awareness of the potential politics of the past is part of my job. It was not meant to be 'patronising'. Not knowing the background of the audience and lecturing without being able to read the reactions of a live audience makes it difficult to pitch things sometimes. If I misjudged the tone on this occasion that is a shame: I had enjoyed the lecture and the chance to engage with people. I'll make no comment on 'humility' when it is others who are making public accusations about my work and character.
First of all great lecture, and as a graduate student, I want to thank Professors like you for being an inspiration to younger generations of aspiring academics, especially in the biological and behavioral sciences. Secondly, I can understand and appreciate your desire to help inform the public, and also to fight against xenophobia, but I think the reaction of some of the commenters is understandable. Not due to the nature of your comments - again I genuinely appreciated the lecture and your desire to inform the public about xenophobia - but rather because of our political climate. The media is overwhelmingly pro-migration and very "woke" these days, so almost everyone is familiar with these talking points. Certainly any educated audience, or any audience that is generally interested in scientific, philosophical, or other academic topics.
I am a leftist, and a biracial American, and leftists often emphasize the importance of allowing non-European and indigenous peoples to maintain their culture, their traditions, their ethnic identity, and political control over their historical & national homelands. Leftists will praise Islamic, African, Native American, etc. cultures and praise efforts to preserve their heritage and identity, but they do not apply the same standards to Europeans cultures. If Europeans want to maintain their identity, and their heritage, and control over their borders and political institutions, this is seen as racist, and in most contexts these people would even be labeled "white nationalists" in the current political climate. It seems like a double standard that it is important for Arab or Hispanics to maintain their culture, but for some reason European culture is too racist or too white or too oppressive. This seems like a position rooted in emotion and ideology, rather than reason and moral principles.
Or to present another angle on the matter: hundreds of years ago, many Europeans fled from regions like the UK, Ireland, and the Low Countries to move to America because they were facing violence, persecution, disease, hunger, and religious intolerance. Literally hundreds of thousands of people were dying throughout Europe. There were wars. Famine. Religious persecution, and in some areas even serfdom (although I suppose mostly in the east). Anyway, anyone familiar with the historical records know that it is a matter of objective fact that most settlers in the US were working class and impoverished individuals, often from oppressed religious groups. Furthermore, the vast majority of these people were not engaging in outright war, or conquering Native American villages (or South African, Australian, etc.) Most of them weren't conquerors or rapists or slavers. They were normal people, looking to settle peacefully, and build a new life. Yes many terrible things happened, but in most cases people were just immigrating from Europe to North America, and settling peacefully and living normal lives. They weren't killing or raping or enslaving. They were literally refugees who were fleeing war and poverty, and generally settling peacefully, and living an agrarian existence. Today we don't call these people refugees or migrants. We call it colonialism, and we say that these people were racist and evil, and all Europeans and white people today are guilty for this episode of history.
But at the same time leftists extol the values of multiculturalism and "diversity" and mass immigration into the west. In fact, leftists will even use hyperbolic language, and describe these people as "brave", "heroes", etc. I'm actually not entirely opposed to immigration. I think people should be able to live where they want, but I just think it's a ridiculous double standard and completely inconsistent narrative. If migration is good, then migration is good when Europeans move to Africa and when Africans move to Europe. If migration is bad, then similarly, it is bad when Europeans migrate to Africa, and it is bad when African's migrate to Europe.