Hypocrisy in the Journey of Man
I realized today while watching the documentary, Journey of Man that the host neglects a giant factor. He mentions how man left Africa and and traveled towards modern Australia. He makes an assumption that the people left Africa due to some harsh and unsurvivable conditions. He claims the people that made it out of Africa were the strongest and fittest for survival and that is how they made the long and seemingly impossible trek. However, he fails to mention where modern day Africans come from. Surely they are closer in genetic relation to the original African man because they are closer geographically and biologically (skin color, body build) than to the Indian man in whom he found a connection gene proving descent from Africans. So if not all the people that were originally in Africa left, wouldn't that mean that the ones that stayed and populated Africa are actually the strongest genetically speaking because they stayed and survived whatever harsh conditions are presumed to have run the others out of the region.
On another note, the host at some points says the original man and his direct descendants, the Bush people, are the oldest and strongest lineage of the universal family tree. But at other times he mentions how his branch of the tree is "wayyy up there" seemingly putting his heritage on superior footing to that of the bush people. He also claims that "although is American, his family originates in northern Europe." This directly contradicts the basis of his whole argument that man originated in Africa. By saying the Bush people are the trunk of man's family tree, it seems as though he is basically saying that they are merely the closest form or apes in human form more so than giving them the prestige of genetic superiority as proven by their continued existence. How do we know that his statements are actually based on science or his pursuit to show that the European race is superior because those people are "nearer to his heart." He haughtily claims that the "European evidence is based on science" while evidence of others is through oral tradition. This seems to debase the evidence of non-Europeans for being mere folklore. Is the Journey of man merely the newest legitimation of white supremacy?
On another note, the host at some points says the original man and his direct descendants, the Bush people, are the oldest and strongest lineage of the universal family tree. But at other times he mentions how his branch of the tree is "wayyy up there" seemingly putting his heritage on superior footing to that of the bush people. He also claims that "although is American, his family originates in northern Europe." This directly contradicts the basis of his whole argument that man originated in Africa. By saying the Bush people are the trunk of man's family tree, it seems as though he is basically saying that they are merely the closest form or apes in human form more so than giving them the prestige of genetic superiority as proven by their continued existence. How do we know that his statements are actually based on science or his pursuit to show that the European race is superior because those people are "nearer to his heart." He haughtily claims that the "European evidence is based on science" while evidence of others is through oral tradition. This seems to debase the evidence of non-Europeans for being mere folklore. Is the Journey of man merely the newest legitimation of white supremacy?
posted by Kristian at 2:44 PM
2 Comments:
The host stated that all the people of the world, including the people of modern Africa, descended from the Bush people. But this does NOT mean that modern Africans are the closest genetically to the Bush people. Africans have the same color skin and body build as the Bush people because they are closest to them geographically NOT because they are closest genetically. Isolated groups of people seperated from the rest of society, are the closest genetically to the Bush people. This because they breed amongst each other so while some mutations might occur there are not that many. Modern Africans would have many more mutations due to interacting with the rest of the world. Egyptians and people from the kingdom of Kush interacted with Greeks, Romans, Arabs. During the exploration era when Europe was colonizing the world, the explorers interacted with Africans. These interactions with diverse groups of people greatly increase the probability a modern African would inherit a mutation, that isolated tribes would not inherit. Therefore the isolated tribes are closer genetically to the bush people.
Also just because the Bush have been around a long time does not mean that they are genetically superior, if anything their isolation has caused them to become inferior. Mutations are how the human race evolves. A mutation causes a change in a person. If that mutation hurts them such as a giving them cystic fibrosis and causing them to die at an early age, then it is unlikely that the mutation frequency will increase in the population. However, if the mutation causes someone to be immune to AIDS or Malaria, then it would be beneficial to have that mutation and it would increase in frequency in the population. Therefore, mutations improve our genes, not always, but the benefical ones are the ones that get passed on. I argue that today the human race in general, not Europeans specifically, are superior to the Bush people.
I wholly agree with your points on the hypocrisy in Journey of Man. It surprised me how quickly I angered when Wells essentially claimed the superiority of his "European" method of scientific evidence vs. oral tradition, as you mentioned. Even when his Eurocentrism was confronted, as in the interview with the Aboriginal artist, the 'documentary'(could it really be classified as one?) managed to brush off the artist's opinion while slyly insinuating his inability to comprehend such advanced thoughts as genetics.
Post a Comment
<< Home