Here's just one question they can now answer I think:
How far back in prehistory was strong long-term endogamy, p 144, the rule rather than a series of exceptions, for most if not all prehistoric populations everywhere, and contraposed to the exceptional instances and periods of mixing that Reich likes to harp on as having been the rule instead?
Here's another:
What is right or wrong with a claim, that seems to fairly jump out of Reich's text by implication, that strongly endogamous prehistoric populations, all of them, were mistaken, misguided, or immoral, or both or all three?
Here's another:
Does a claim that they were not populations as pure as they each may have thought they had been beg the question of the meaning of the term "purity"; or constitute a fallacy of reasoning regarding a distinction between a prehistoric meaning and a modern meaning of purity, or not?
Here's another:
What is right or wrong with a claim, that seems to fairly jump out of Reich's text by implication, that strongly endogamous prehistoric populations, all of them, were mistaken, misguided, or immoral, or both or all three?
Here's another:
Does a claim that they were not populations as pure as they each may have thought they had been beg the question of the meaning of the term "purity"; or constitute a fallacy of reasoning regarding a distinction between a prehistoric meaning and a modern meaning of purity, or not?
No comments:
Post a Comment