Comments on: Ghost Dancing in the New Millenium

By: shayne h

shayne h — Sat, 05 May 2007 10:26:57 +0000

in native earth based society and through great change i guess this reliagon was about regaining lost ways and about strength of spirit. due to losing land and tradition this appears to be one way of reclaiming ones power by using the spiral of energy to quell the dominant controllers.

Report this comment

By: buy soma

buy soma — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:14:49 +0000

buy soma…

ok…

Report this comment

By: oneman

oneman — Mon, 08 May 2006 04:45:59 +0000

Ghost Dancer,

While I have a lot of admiration for the 19th c. Ghost Dancers, the movement was decidedly *not* opposed to violence, nor particularly tolerant — remember, Ghost Dancers donned bullet-proof shirts to wear into battle as they fought their war to purge the Europeans from North America. This is not a judgement of the morality or necessity of anyone’s actions. My point above was mainly that a lot of modern fundamentalism arises from the same kinds of frustrations that the Ghost Dance arose from — people witnessing their culture, whatever it may be, under attack by forces well outside their immediate sphere of control.

Report this comment

By: Ghost Dancer

Ghost Dancer — Mon, 08 May 2006 01:40:36 +0000

Fundamental religion is violent, oppressive, intolerant, and breeds apathy.

Report this comment

By: Ghost Dancer

Ghost Dancer — Mon, 08 May 2006 01:36:16 +0000

Ghost Dancing is the antithesis of religious fundamentalism… it is rejection of oppression, greed, apathy, and violence.

Report this comment

By: Pharyngula::You call it what?

Pharyngula::You call it what? — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:18:02 +0000

[...] I guess “intelligent design” and “creation” are just interchangeable terms for exactly the same thing. It’s good to see that settled. Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2992/ Comments: #41528: //’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=”;l[14]=’”‘;l[15]=’ 109′;l[16]=’ 111′;l[17]=’ 99′;l[18]=’ 46′;l[19]=’ 111′;l[20]=’ 114′;l[21]=’ 101′;l[22]=’ 114′;l[23]=’ 98′;l[24]=’ 109′;l[25]=’ 111′;l[26]=’ 115′;l[27]=’ 64′;l[28]=’ 111′;l[29]=’ 116′;l[30]=’ 97′;l[31]=’ 103′;l[32]=’ 108′;l[33]=’ 101′;l[34]=’:';l[35]=’o';l[36]=’t';l[37]=’l';l[38]=’i';l[39]=’a';l[40]=’m';l[41]=’”‘;l[42]=’=';l[43]=’f';l[44]=’e';l[45]=’r';l[46]=’h';l[47]=’a ‘;l[48]=’= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> — 09/24 at 12:11 PM ID explained. #41530: //’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=”;l[18]=’”‘;l[19]=’ 109′;l[20]=’ 111′;l[21]=’ 99′;l[22]=’ 46′;l[23]=’ 111′;l[24]=’ 114′;l[25]=’ 99′;l[26]=’ 110′;l[27]=’ 121′;l[28]=’ 120′;l[29]=’ 64′;l[30]=’ 119′;l[31]=’ 101′;l[32]=’ 114′;l[33]=’ 100′;l[34]=’ 110′;l[35]=’ 97′;l[36]=’:';l[37]=’o';l[38]=’t';l[39]=’l';l[40]=’i';l[41]=’a';l[42]=’m';l[43]=’”‘;l[44]=’=';l[45]=’f';l[46]=’e';l[47]=’r';l[48]=’h';l[49]=’a ‘;l[50]=’= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> — 09/24 at 01:14 PM Rather telling also that they expunged the word “theory”. Couldn’t be going around pointing out that evolution is “just a theory” and then describe your own dogma such could they… The second version is much more “definitive”… #41533: Arun — 09/24 at 02:28 PM Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands. But this is falsifiable! (At least, I think it is, e.g,, a feathered dinosaur falsifies this version of Intelligent Design.) The common Behe-Dembski theme is that as long as there is something with a less than complete explanation from evolution, the door to intelligent design remains open, is it not? The reason for not trying to say anything about the Designer also, is in part, because that opens the door to falsification. #41540: Zeno — 09/24 at 03:54 PM No doubt Elsberry will be accused of “quote mining”, because now the authors of P&P disavow their words. But creationists like to quote out of context, whereas the quote concerning ID is from the book’s actual definition. Too bad the talking points from the Design Institute didn’t arrive in time! #41545: //’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=”;l[11]=’”‘;l[12]=’ 109′;l[13]=’ 111′;l[14]=’ 99′;l[15]=’ 46′;l[16]=’ 111′;l[17]=’ 104′;l[18]=’ 97′;l[19]=’ 121′;l[20]=’ 64′;l[21]=’ 101′;l[22]=’ 100′;l[23]=’ 111′;l[24]=’ 104′;l[25]=’ 114′;l[26]=’ 115′;l[27]=’:';l[28]=’o';l[29]=’t';l[30]=’l';l[31]=’i';l[32]=’a';l[33]=’m';l[34]=’”‘;l[35]=’=';l[36]=’f';l[37]=’e';l[38]=’r';l[39]=’h';l[40]=’a ‘;l[41]=’= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> — 09/24 at 07:24 PM Fins, feathers, and fur? What about flagella, blood clots, and… a third thing? I bet even some avowed IDers might be surprised to see their “theory” credited with such macro structures. #41547: //’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=”;l[10]=’”‘;l[11]=’ 117′;l[12]=’ 100′;l[13]=’ 101′;l[14]=’ 46′;l[15]=’ 117′;l[16]=’ 115′;l[17]=’ 99′;l[18]=’ 110′;l[19]=’ 46′;l[20]=’ 121′;l[21]=’ 116′;l[22]=’ 105′;l[23]=’ 110′;l[24]=’ 117′;l[25]=’ 64′;l[26]=’ 121′;l[27]=’ 114′;l[28]=’ 111′;l[29]=’ 116′;l[30]=’ 115′;l[31]=’ 98′;l[32]=’ 115′;l[33]=’:';l[34]=’o';l[35]=’t';l[36]=’l';l[37]=’i';l[38]=’a';l[39]=’m';l[40]=’”‘;l[41]=’=';l[42]=’f';l[43]=’e';l[44]=’r';l[45]=’h';l[46]=’a ‘;l[47]=’= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> — 09/24 at 08:30 PM I think that might be my favorite creationist quote ever. I wish I had total TV coverage of the Dover trial. It’s going to be awesome. #41550: //’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=”;l[16]=’”‘;l[17]=’ 109′;l[18]=’ 111′;l[19]=’ 99′;l[20]=’ 46′;l[21]=’ 108′;l[22]=’ 105′;l[23]=’ 97′;l[24]=’ 109′;l[25]=’ 103′;l[26]=’ 64′;l[27]=’ 116′;l[28]=’ 104′;l[29]=’ 103′;l[30]=’ 105′;l[31]=’ 114′;l[32]=’ 112′;l[33]=’ 117′;l[34]=’ 114′;l[35]=’ 109′;l[36]=’:';l[37]=’o';l[38]=’t';l[39]=’l';l[40]=’i';l[41]=’a';l[42]=’m';l[43]=’”‘;l[44]=’=';l[45]=’f';l[46]=’e';l[47]=’r';l[48]=’h';l[49]=’a ‘;l[50]=’= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> — 09/24 at 09:31 PM Well crap! Arun beat me to my comment! Oh, well, might as well post anyway. Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands. Here I’ve been saying that ID is no theory at all. It’s simply argument from (pigheaded) ignorance, and has no predictive value. Now they’ve gone and showed me how it’s falsifiable. Even better, given the definition above and the abundance of transitional fossils (remember the “pigheaded” ignorance?), it’s not just falsifiable. IT’S FALSE! #41552: //’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=”;l[8]=’”‘;l[9]=’ 103′;l[10]=’ 114′;l[11]=’ 111′;l[12]=’ 46′;l[13]=’ 103′;l[14]=’ 97′;l[15]=’ 100′;l[16]=’ 101′;l[17]=’ 112′;l[18]=’ 64′;l[19]=’ 102′;l[20]=’ 101′;l[21]=’ 115′;l[22]=’:';l[23]=’o';l[24]=’t';l[25]=’l';l[26]=’i';l[27]=’a';l[28]=’m';l[29]=’”‘;l[30]=’=';l[31]=’f';l[32]=’e';l[33]=’r';l[34]=’h';l[35]=’a ‘;l[36]=’= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> — 09/25 at 01:28 AM Yes, that old draft really was a superb transitional fossil to find on a legal search, documenting the evolution of creationism into intelligent design. #41553: //’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=”;l[14]=’”‘;l[15]=’ 109′;l[16]=’ 111′;l[17]=’ 99′;l[18]=’ 46′;l[19]=’ 111′;l[20]=’ 111′;l[21]=’ 104′;l[22]=’ 97′;l[23]=’ 121′;l[24]=’ 64′;l[25]=’ 49′;l[26]=’ 121′;l[27]=’ 118′;l[28]=’ 101′;l[29]=’ 108′;l[30]=’ 95′;l[31]=’ 110′;l[32]=’ 111′;l[33]=’ 108′;l[34]=’ 97′;l[35]=’:';l[36]=’o';l[37]=’t';l[38]=’l';l[39]=’i';l[40]=’a';l[41]=’m';l[42]=’”‘;l[43]=’=';l[44]=’f';l[45]=’e';l[46]=’r';l[47]=’h';l[48]=’a ‘;l[49]=’= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> — 09/25 at 01:53 AM Fins, feathers, and fur? What about flagella, blood clots, and… a third thing? I bet even some avowed IDers might be surprised to see their “theory” credited with such macro structures. Creationists still claim the eye is irreducibly complex, even though Darwinian evolution predicted exactly how it could have evolved. Trackback: God And Man In Pennsylvania Tracked on: The Education Wonks (72.9.234.70) at 2005 09 24 21:53:35 If we set aside, for the time being, possible issues of constitutionality, why on earth is intelligent design being taught in the science classrooms? Traditionally, our public schools' science curriculum has emphasized teaching pupils the use of … #41556: //’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=”;l[20]=’”‘;l[21]=’ 116′;l[22]=’ 101′;l[23]=’ 110′;l[24]=’ 46′;l[25]=’ 116′;l[26]=’ 101′;l[27]=’ 110′;l[28]=’ 114′;l[29]=’ 101′;l[30]=’ 105′;l[31]=’ 116′;l[32]=’ 110′;l[33]=’ 111′;l[34]=’ 114′;l[35]=’ 102′;l[36]=’ 64′;l[37]=’ 109′;l[38]=’ 97′;l[39]=’ 104′;l[40]=’ 107′;l[41]=’ 110′;l[42]=’ 105′;l[43]=’ 116′;l[44]=’:';l[45]=’o';l[46]=’t';l[47]=’l';l[48]=’i';l[49]=’a';l[50]=’m';l[51]=’”‘;l[52]=’=';l[53]=’f';l[54]=’e';l[55]=’r';l[56]=’h';l[57]=’a ‘;l[58]=’= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> — 09/25 at 05:12 AM The witless, er, witness needs more practice in equivocation. He sure stammered around alot. #41560: //’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=”;l[9]=’”‘;l[10]=’ 109′;l[11]=’ 111′;l[12]=’ 99′;l[13]=’ 46′;l[14]=’ 97′;l[15]=’ 64′;l[16]=’ 110′;l[17]=’:';l[18]=’o';l[19]=’t';l[20]=’l';l[21]=’i';l[22]=’a';l[23]=’m';l[24]=’”‘;l[25]=’=';l[26]=’f';l[27]=’e';l[28]=’r';l[29]=’h';l[30]=’a ‘;l[31]=’= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> — 09/25 at 07:18 AM Question: Is there a place online that has a list of the the ID clainms, along with refutations? I’m looking for comprehensiveness, ease of naviagtion, accessibilty, etc. An encyclopeadic repository of responses to all the ID claims. I checked online, follwed this site’s blogroll, but have not found this fabled place. Does it exist? If not why not? #41561: //’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=”;l[8]=’”‘;l[9]=’ 103′;l[10]=’ 114′;l[11]=’ 111′;l[12]=’ 46′;l[13]=’ 103′;l[14]=’ 97′;l[15]=’ 100′;l[16]=’ 101′;l[17]=’ 112′;l[18]=’ 64′;l[19]=’ 102′;l[20]=’ 101′;l[21]=’ 115′;l[22]=’:';l[23]=’o';l[24]=’t';l[25]=’l';l[26]=’i';l[27]=’a';l[28]=’m';l[29]=’”‘;l[30]=’=';l[31]=’f';l[32]=’e';l[33]=’r';l[34]=’h';l[35]=’a ‘;l[36]=’= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> — 09/25 at 07:32 AM Lila, have you tried the TalkDesign site yet? It also links to TalkOrigins and TalkReason (ID arguments being essentially the same old creationist left-overs warmed up and served to the next generation). You might also want to check out The Wedge document and Lenny Flank’s collection of past creationist encounters. #41562: //’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=”;l[9]=’”‘;l[10]=’ 109′;l[11]=’ 111′;l[12]=’ 99′;l[13]=’ 46′;l[14]=’ 97′;l[15]=’ 64′;l[16]=’ 110′;l[17]=’:';l[18]=’o';l[19]=’t';l[20]=’l';l[21]=’i';l[22]=’a';l[23]=’m';l[24]=’”‘;l[25]=’=';l[26]=’f';l[27]=’e';l[28]=’r';l[29]=’h';l[30]=’a ‘;l[31]=’= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> — 09/25 at 07:41 AM Thanks SEF. I’ll check it out. Wonder why Pharyngula’s blogroll does not link to TalkDesign? Odd… #41563: //’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=”;l[14]=’”‘;l[15]=’ 109′;l[16]=’ 111′;l[17]=’ 99′;l[18]=’ 46′;l[19]=’ 115′;l[20]=’ 108′;l[21]=’ 111′;l[22]=’ 114′;l[23]=’ 101′;l[24]=’ 64′;l[25]=’ 97′;l[26]=’ 100′;l[27]=’ 101′;l[28]=’ 107′;l[29]=’ 105′;l[30]=’ 109′;l[31]=’ 109′;l[32]=’:';l[33]=’o';l[34]=’t';l[35]=’l';l[36]=’i';l[37]=’a';l[38]=’m';l[39]=’”‘;l[40]=’=';l[41]=’f';l[42]=’e';l[43]=’r';l[44]=’h';l[45]=’a ‘;l[46]=’= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> — 09/25 at 07:43 AM Speaking of talkorigins.org (also an excellent place to browse for refutations of ID arguments) one of the documents at that site is the Index to Creationist Claims at http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html It has a list of common Creationist (including ID) claims along with brief refuations and links and references for more in-depth information. #41564: PZ Myers — 09/25 at 08:04 AM The reason it’s not there is structural. My blogroll is automated — it’s rendered from the OPML file in my newsreader, so it’s entirely rss based. TalkDesign doesn’t provide an rss/xml/rdf link, so it doesn’t appear here. If you wanna be on my blogroll, you gotta play the elitist technical game. All the weblog software out there — blogger, moveabletype, expression engine, etc. — all automatically generate a syndication file, but some of the more highly customized web pages do not. PZ Myers Division of Science and Math University of Minnesota, Morris #41565: //’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=”;l[9]=’”‘;l[10]=’ 109′;l[11]=’ 111′;l[12]=’ 99′;l[13]=’ 46′;l[14]=’ 97′;l[15]=’ 64′;l[16]=’ 110′;l[17]=’:';l[18]=’o';l[19]=’t';l[20]=’l';l[21]=’i';l[22]=’a';l[23]=’m';l[24]=’”‘;l[25]=’=';l[26]=’f';l[27]=’e';l[28]=’r';l[29]=’h';l[30]=’a ‘;l[31]=’= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> — 09/25 at 08:59 AM Gotcha. Still… If I had a hard time finding talkorigins.org list of refutations on my own, just by searching Google, I can imagine that may others have the same problem. I’m surprised that an easily accessible, comprehensive list in layman language is not more prominent on the web. I’m worried we’re not doing a great job promoting of the scientific view to regular people (Pharyngula is great, but too esoteric for most folks). #41577: jay denari — 09/25 at 12:56 PM Thought you’d love this letter from the 9/24 Telegram & Gazette in Worcester, MA. He’s obviously been smoking something b/c none of this makes any sense. … The tables have turned on evolution by ROBERT S. MUTO, West Brookfield The tables have been turned on evolution. Its two strongest arguments against creation: 1) no science and 2) faith-based are now being used against itself. Every fossil ever collected shows evidence for instantaneous appearance (not billions of years of development). Transitional species fossils (e.g., reptobirds, fishfrogs) have never been found. Science now considers the seven members of the ape-man progression (Ramapithecus to Neanderthal) to be either entirely ape or entirely human. Piltdown was exposed as a hoax long ago. And besides, every real scientist knows that matter does not come from non-matter. It takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation. And that’s the issue, for if God did create, then the penalty for sin is real and every person is accountable to a holy creator. The Bible details six, 24-hour days of creation, no death prior to sin and a savior, Jesus Christ, who conquers sin. To be saved from sin requires faith in the savior, a faith which acknowledges his death as the only means of life. Evolution is not science but a faith which attempts to conceal its accountability. #41582: jay denari — 09/25 at 01:39 PM PS: Here’s my response. Let’s see when/if it gets published… The letter from Robert Muto on Sept. 24 shows woeful ignorance of the nuances science has to deal with, but I only have space to address some of it. His statement about “the ape-man progression” is completely untrue; no respectable scientists say those species are either human OR ape. Those species are ANCESTORS of today’s humans and/or apes, having some traits that have been passed down to both humans and apes. “(E)very real scientist knows that matter does not come from non-matter.” That’s true. Scientists have never said that it did. Evolution theorizes that some simple forms of matter gradually become more complex over eons, small changes happening occasionally while other forms stayed simple. If you believe matter doesn’t come from non-matter, how can you promote a concept of special creation? How is that anything but matter from non-matter? “Every fossil ever collected shows evidence for instantaneous appearance…” Mr. Muto, that could be said about ANY object of any kind anywhere if you take it out of context. The whole point of evolutionary science is to take those isolated fossils and GIVE them a context, to show how they’re probably connected to each other based on the fossils themselves. The process enables people to ask intelligent questions and find reasonable answers — and correct those answers if later finds suggest better answers. Those are things an assumption of special creation makes impossible; the concept of creation as you envision it eliminates the possibility of any rational exploration of life at all. I for one would much rather find my own answers and trust those who look for answers than have them spoon-fed to me by those who would suppress curiosity. #41583: //’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=”;l[8]=’”‘;l[9]=’ 103′;l[10]=’ 114′;l[11]=’ 111′;l[12]=’ 46′;l[13]=’ 98′;l[14]=’ 109′;l[15]=’ 117′;l[16]=’ 104′;l[17]=’ 116′;l[18]=’ 115′;l[19]=’ 97′;l[20]=’ 100′;l[21]=’ 110′;l[22]=’ 97′;l[23]=’ 112′;l[24]=’ 64′;l[25]=’ 104′;l[26]=’ 98′;l[27]=’ 114′;l[28]=’:';l[29]=’o';l[30]=’t';l[31]=’l';l[32]=’i';l[33]=’a';l[34]=’m';l[35]=’”‘;l[36]=’=';l[37]=’f';l[38]=’e';l[39]=’r';l[40]=’h';l[41]=’a ‘;l[42]=’= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> — 09/25 at 01:42 PM Lila asked for a site with an easily accessible comprehensive list of resources refuting the various ID Creationist claims. Try Infidels: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=92385 RBH #41634: coturnix — 09/26 at 06:44 AM Annalee has been touched by his noodly appendage: http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/25793/ #41648: just john — 09/26 at 08:04 AM I had what I thought was a brilliant notion last night, and formulated it into a question I’ve posted in talk.origins and the HuffPo and a couple other newsgroups. So far, there’s been no response. (To be fair, it was just a few hours ago.) So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? Here’s a question for you proponents of Intelligent Design: Since ID claims to be a NEW movement — only a couple years old — how about telling us what made you convert to it, and what you believed beforehand? This is a legit question to ask, and I’m sure you guys are just bursting with inspirational stories about how you saw the light, right? (My apologies for plugging it here, too. But I really wanna know! After all, ID fans aren’t afraid of questions, are they?) #41722: //’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=”;l[21]=’”‘;l[22]=’ 109′;l[23]=’ 111′;l[24]=’ 99′;l[25]=’ 46′;l[26]=’ 111′;l[27]=’ 111′;l[28]=’ 104′;l[29]=’ 97′;l[30]=’ 121′;l[31]=’ 64′;l[32]=’ 101′;l[33]=’ 99′;l[34]=’ 52′;l[35]=’ 101′;l[36]=’ 118′;l[37]=’ 105′;l[38]=’ 116′;l[39]=’ 99′;l[40]=’ 97′;l[41]=’:';l[42]=’o';l[43]=’t';l[44]=’l';l[45]=’i';l[46]=’a';l[47]=’m';l[48]=’”‘;l[49]=’=';l[50]=’f';l[51]=’e';l[52]=’r';l[53]=’h';l[54]=’a ‘;l[55]=’= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> — 09/26 at 04:26 PM “Pharyngula is great, but too esoteric for most folks” Perhaps the discussions are, but the cussing is down-to-earth. Page 1 of 1 pages Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. [...]

Report this comment

By: bill benzon

bill benzon — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:25:09 +0000

Ghost Dancing in the USA

Report this comment

By: Ozma

Ozma — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:39:23 +0000

mmmm,

nn.
;)

Report this comment

By: oneman

oneman — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 20:13:49 +0000

Fixed the typo in the headline.

Report this comment

By: IshMEL

IshMEL — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:04:49 +0000

Mellenium?

Report this comment

By: oneman

oneman — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:02:54 +0000

I don’t really see it as a contradiction, because I think that “anti-modern” movements are not about modernity per se, but about the effect that some aspects of modernity has on some members of society. But technology is a part of modernity, and it is at least a significant aspect of many of the debates — e.g. the way the media prevents parents from controlling the influences their children are exposed to. WHat I think is interesting in this connection is how certain aspects of modernity, including technology, get “utilitized” (not “utilized”) — that is, are exempted from the lsit of negative influences on the grounds that “they are just tools” — while other elements get constructed as ideological. For instance, in the US right now, there are people pushing for stronger regulations on things like video games, the Internet, and comic books — some people would like to see at least some games or types of games banned outright! — than we have on *guns*! The rationale, for many, is that guns are “just tools”, while video games are actively ideological in their influence. Now, I don’t want to assert that guns, or video games, should or should not be strongly regulated; rather, I find the selection process itself interesting.

Report this comment

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:49:51 +0000

“Embracing coveted portions of what one opposes in the service of returning an old order” doesn’t seem to me to be a very felicitous characterization of revitalization movements since often (although not in every case) it is not the technologies of the present social order that are being opposed. Speaking of a context with which I’m familiar, Christian fundamentalists are adept at utilizing the Internet and other recent communication technologies to promote the morality associated with a certain interpretation of the Scriptures and with an imagined reconstruction of various historical eras. It isn’t the technology most Christian fundamentalists object to, but the divergence of the present social order in the US from a partially imagined historical moral construct. To what extent recent technologies are a product of current communally accepted values and whether the utilization of these technologies by revitalization movements are inherently inconsistent are other questions.

Report this comment

By: Letter from Hardscrabble Creek

Letter from Hardscrabble Creek — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Ghost Dancers From Savage Minds, a joint anthropology blog, some thoughts on Ghost Dancers of the 21st century . [S]such movements are never about a pure “return to the past” but are, rather, an attempt to “rescue” the past and re-deploy it to create a more satisfying present and future. The Ghost Dance and its political-spiritual cousins are

Report this comment

By: Critical World Blog

Critical World Blog — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Blogroll Preemptive Karma: The naughty, naughty poor Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » Ghost Dancing in the New Mellenium

Report this comment