Study of modern DNA shakes up ideas of when and where contact happened.
I read an article, a recent one, about a kind of tree being “discovered” by some European research team. Within the article, it said the people who lived in that particular forest had known about that kind of tree for ages. They had multiple names for it, uses, etc.
Yet without any irony at all … They attributed the “discovery” to this European researcher.
It’s the same reason much of our knowledge of some ancient European and African cultures comes from the romans: they were the first, and in many cases only society to save written accounts of those cultures. By taking a written account of something and publishing that account, it becomes available to the rest of humanity. That said, it is still important to honor the original native names and note that something was previously known by the natives of the area prior to its formal documentation.
I mean yeah the researcher discovered it in the name of science and probably took all measures to properly categorize the species and name it and stuff.
I mean yeah, you just said it… the researcher didn’t discover a thing, they categorized it.
Which doesn’t sound nearly as noble and cool does it?
Also, nothing is done “in the name of science”. Science is a process of observation, not a philosophy or ideology. It isn’t a religion or a monarchy. You would no sooner do something “in the name of addition” than you would for science.
You’re such a joy to talk to.
