Re: paleonet Geopolitical Units

[Bill Chaisson <chaisson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>Two extra points and I finish with all these nonsense:
>
>"To ignore existing geopolitical units (e.g. Spain) runs counter to 
>this need, and sets a dangerous trend. We cannot pretend, for 
>example, that (at present) Tibet is not part of China, or that 
>northern Ireland is not part of the U K.  This does not mean that we 
>dont respect (or agree with) the views of those opposed to their 
>current status.
>We are all involved in politics, whether we like it or not, but 
>please lets keep it out of our science.
>Chris King"
>
>1. "Be part" ds not mean "be"
>
>2. How can you accept an unbalance geopolitical position like the 
>North of Irealnd being part of UK and respect the feeling of their 
>identities?
>
>3. As I said the soultion is to use geogrphical naming...
>

This argument represents a triumph of dogma over any attempt at the 
objective analysis of consequences of historical events.

The present hegemony is a result of one people defeating another in a 
series of military conflicts and economic over-matchings. It is not 
much different from examining biogeographic distributions and 
explaining why some species are more widespread than others. We are 
know that fitness is not some eternal inherent quality; it is a 
function of contingency. And contingencies change.  The Romans, you 
might have noticed, no longer rule Europe, the Middle East and North 
Africa.

Again, I don't have a problem with political discussions entering in 
to the realm of science, but there is no place for dogma-political or 
scientific-and the just-so stories that flow from them, on this list.

Bill
-- 
_____________________________
William P. Chaisson
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Dept. Earth & Environmental Sciences
University of Rochester
Rochester, New York  14627
607-387-3892