Matt D. afn02065 at freenet.ufl.edu
Thu Jun 29 11:13:34 MDT 1995

I said:

>> I think Lisa has been more than forebearing in her responses (i.e. she
>> to my recollection, used the words "idiots" or "ignoramuses" or even
>> "stalinoid lysenkoite obscurantists").
>	But of course, _you_ have no such compunctions...

Sorry.  I was playing with vocabulary words and didn't mean to imply that
anyone here is an i1, i2, or slo.  I really am trying to be more careful in
my phrasing--will seek to do even better in the future.

>> Even fans of "socialist" science should be aware the Lysenkoism was
>> repudiated in the post-Stalin S.U.  So unless you buy the Kruschev
>> Counterevolution favored by Mao and Co. after '67, even scientists in a
>> socialist society realize that Lamarck vs. Darwin-Mendel is an answered
>> question.
>	What's being talked about here doesn't necessarily follow from any
>of that. I sure hope you're not doing science that has anything to do with
>human safety! Based on what I read below, tho, I don't think you're a

You are correct about my not being a scientist.  I'm sure folks noted
(though I've snipped it here) my apples-and-oranges mixing of the e. coli
example and gametic modes of reproduction.

>  FWIW, some folks have suggested that ice-age Europeans (whoever the
>> people who were in Europe during the ice age may have been) were pretty tall
>> and robust.  This is mostly based on evidence from fossils in Greece, if I
>> recall correctly.  I think that fellow they found in the Alps (was it? the
>> 10,000-year-old man?) was only 5' or less, though.
>	Don't confuse a guy who perishes on a glacier field with someone
>living in the ICEAGE. The 'iceman' (sounds like a beer commercial) was a
>BRONZEAGE resident of the Alps. A BIG DIFFERENCE!!
>	As a matter of fact, that period was *WARMER* than the one we are
>in right now. (However, with global warming...!!)

Thank you for the clarification!  Really, I'm not claiming to be any sort of

>  Contemporary
>> hunter-gatherers generally tend to be rather short, don't they--thinking of
>> some Discovery Channel South American aborigines the name of which I can't
>> remember.  There is that African tribe (again no names, sorry) that's
>> supposed to be pretty tall.
>	They are called the MASAI. And they are a PEOPLE -- _not_ a
>'tribe'. Calling a people a tribe is INSULTING and COLONIALIST.

Masai, yes.  Thanks again.  I'd beg to differ that my use of the word tribe
was colonialist (or insulting) but I suppose it's something to look out for.
 Keep up the good work! :)

>>  But their (nomadic?) herders, aren't they?
>	In talking about iceage hunters, who hunted GIANT GROUNDSLOTHS,
>GIANT DEER, MAMMOTHS/MASTODONS, and had their choice of MILLIONS of
>raindeer, horses and Bison to eat, we are talking about a QUALITATIVELY
>different nutritional situation here...
>	And as for hunter-gatherers, I believe they come in ALL sizes.

Yes, it is clear that you believe this.  It is not so clear (to me?) that
these "all sizes" inlude, on the average, heights as tall as irst-worlders.
Lisa may have some good info on this?

-- Matt D.

     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list