The title is paraphrased; the researcher's exact words were "some dude from 300,000 years ago"

[removed]

Interesting sure, but Graham Hancock is widely considered a pseudo-science hack. Grain of salt with him.

[removed]

Hominin are ancient humans. The terms are loosely interchangeable. Right?

No evidence or explanations, just a bunch of angry people downvoting. Scientism is getting out of hand.

Generally these days hominin are considered human. Basically all the species in genus Homo, but not older ones like Australopithecus, which would be more properly considered a human ancestor

Didn’t think growler bears were fertile?

There's little evidence of anyone talking about generations (in the sense of societal generations) before the 19th century.

Despite that, there is plenty of evidence of people complaining about Kids These Days, even though they didn't call them, for instance, Boomers, Millennials, or Gen Z.

Only a few decades ago people did not believe Vikings made it to the americas then they excavated L'ans aux Meadows in NFLD. Inuit legends speak of encountering tall white men when they settled northern Canada. Petroglyphs Provincial Park in Ontario has glyphs of a Viking ship and Norse gods. The park is in the middle of Canada; thus, Vikings had to have travelled inland. I found a rune on a beach on Lake Erie near Point Pelee.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. It made me think of something, of why the dems and republicans essentially swapped voter bases over time (or why this general dynamic in any given scenario would take place). In the beginning, Republicans had the black vote and the northern vote predominantly. Dems had a lock on the south. It's only natural to eventually want to expand your constituency and absorb those voters who traditionally haven't supported you. Thus, Dems finding ways to appeal more to blacks and northern whites, and Republicans finding ways to appeal more to southern whites. All while probably trying to retain their original voter base. And there you have a general framework of why, over time, 2 political parties can essentially swap places on the policies they support and the constituencies that support them.

[removed]

Oh right, thanks

Well it's giving distinct names to each of our generations and then apportioning general characteristics to them or blame for things they do/have done.

Watch ancient apocalypse on Netflix. Graham has some very interesting ideas.

Hominins are human. Hominids includes all Hominidae including chimps.

Gotcha. I'm somewhat involved in the biology field so it seems a bit like the debate of what exactly constitutes a species amongst animals. Grizzly bears and polar bears create fertile offspring but are clearly different animals, being the easiest example. Thanks for the info. Early humans is one of the most interesting fields of study to me, I just can't handle all the mystery and questions we will never have answers to!

World War One specifically but the late 19th Century to the early 20th century more broadly. I'm not German but from 1871 when Germany became one country to either the end of Weimar Germany in 1933 or the beginning of the Second World War in 1939 are good markers of the period I mean.

There is just a lot going on in terms of colonialism, technological growth, ideologies, the international politics before WWI and the consequences of the war. A lot of class based stuff as well. In the UK there was all kinds of reform going on, the Labour party becoming important and other countries catching up with the British Empire economically.

[removed]

There is a distinction between hominID and hominIN. neanderthals and denisovans are frequently considered to be hominins, which implies a closer relationship with homo sapiens; hominids are more distant relatives. As noted above, chimps and bonobos are hominids.

How do you even agedate a footprint to 300k years a go? How do they differentiate the age of the rock itself from the footprint?

Thanks for correcting me.

Yeah the correct term for human species is hominin. This includes the likes of neanderthals, denisovans etc but excludes other great apes.

Hominid is used to describe all the great apes.

There are next-to-no academic historians who do.

Certainly, they might say that a historical figure has a major effect on history, but the idea that, say, the French Revolution or World War II would have just not happened if Robespierre or Hitler had been stillborn is seriously devalued these days.

Suffice to say, that the causes of the French Revolution and World War II both went beyond the simple will of one man.

Is there a precedent for a state which was taken over from within by criminals in a democratic way? There are all sorts of dictatorships, but usually those took over by a coup. The question refers to a nation where a gang, gangs, or an assortment of criminals, took over by exploiting democracy and employing populism slowing over years to convince everyone they should vote for them, e.g. by cutting deals with the media, finding ways to use institutions for their criminal activity like laundering money, etc.

I have on mind an example but want to hear your thoughts first.