A comeback story everyone will love – meet Otto S, an inspirational character

In today’s social media saturated culture, it is easy to find comeback stories. Inspirational narratives of people, from all walks of life, who overcame crushing defeats to go on to glory and accomplishments are meant to motivate us. In this age of the cult of self-motivation, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and making something of yourself, is a mantra we can all abide by.

From the cranky uncle who loudly proclaims that young people today don’t know the value of hard work, to the self-appointed experts that populate talkback radio in Sydney, the self-made man is all around us – if we are to believe these stories. Hey, did not Henry David Thoreau (1817 – 1862) American philosopher, environmentalist and self-help advocate, counsel his audience to build a self-sustaining community of individuals in Walden?

Yes, he did, and he built a paradise for himself and his cothinkers at Concord, Massachusetts. Nothing wrong with that, and reading Walden is all well and good. Except for one inconvenient fact; African Americans, formerly enslaved, were building their own Walden-type community long before Thoreau. Having the self-motivation to escape the violence of enslavement has not entered the Anglophone public consciousness in the same way as Thoreau’s social experiment.

Be that as it may, let’s get on with meeting the inspirational comeback character in our story – Uncle Otto. His full name was Otto Skorzeny, an Austrian-born German military officer. Achieving the rank of Obersturmbannführer (lieutenant colonel) in the Waffen SS, he made a name for himself as a daring, innovative commander, rescuing Mussolini from partisan captivity in 1943, removing Hungarian leader Admiral Miklos Horthy in 1944 when the latter’s pro-Axis sympathies wobbled, and was rewarded with high decorations from Hitler himself.

The Waffen SS, the military branch of the general SS, committed the most heinous atrocities in German-occupied territories, and were direct perpetrators of the Holocaust. A niche occupation and skill set, to be sure, but they did find gainful employment after the end of the Third Reich, as we shall see.

Before the war, Skorzeny had joined the Austrian equivalent of the Nazi party, and agitated for the installation of a pro-Nazi government in that nation. Growing to 6-foot 4 inches tall, a fencing enthusiast with a large scar on his face, he became a dashing, debonair achiever, and favourite commando of Hitler’s. The Waffen SS left burned out villages, piles of corpses, murdered POWs, and ethically cleansed territories in their wake.

Skorzeny’s rescue of Mussolini demonstrated his courage – he and his team used hang gliders to attack the Gran Sasso mountaintop where Mussolini was being held captive. Awarded the Iron Cross military decoration for his paratrooper mission, it seemed that Skorzeny’s career could only hit new and exciting heights.

However, his flourishing career as a licensed killer was coming to an end. Alas, Nazi Germany faced a crushing military defeat and combined Allied occupation. What was to become of our multinational murderer? Never fear, because our Uncle Otto found a new benefactor, who helped him repurpose his skill set for new outlets.

Captured by American forces, he was put on trial for war crimes in a military tribunal, and acquitted. In 1947, Uncle Otto escaped captivity, along with his fellow former SS officers – by dressing in American uniforms. It should have been within the intelligence capabilities of the American army to predict this tactic, after all, during the Battle of the Bulge, Skorzeny and his team penetrated enemy lines to wreak havoc, by disguising themselves as American soldiers.

Skorzeny’s commando tactics gained widespread popularity after the war, and were subsequently widely imitated by the imperialist powers.

Be that as it may, Skorzeny and his fellow ex-SS officers made their way to Franco’s Spain. General Franco, an Axis-allied commander, remained in power long after the end of the war. Spain became a sanctuary for Skorzeny, who reinvented himself as a businessman, with an eccentric habit of keeping Nazi memorabilia around.

It was a new world in the post-1945 Cold War. The new state of Israel, victorious over the displaced Palestinians, had a new worry. Egypt, led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, posed a revolutionary and Arab nationalist challenge to the Zionist state. Allegedly, German rocket engineers were employed by Cairo to pass on their skills. Tel Aviv was concerned about the long range striking capabilities of Cairo.

Enter the Mossad, the Israeli secret service, with a plan. Assassinate the German scientists. And guess who they employed as their professional hit man? None other than Otto Skorzeny, former Waffen SS officer. Several German rocket engineers were quietly killed by the new Mossad employee.

In return, Mossad claimed that Skorzeny’s criminal record, and his wanted status as a fugitive on the run by the Nazi-hunting Simon Wiesenthal centre, was expunged.

Skorzeny got involved in numerous extreme right wing causes, helping to rehabilitate the reputations of Nazi collaborators and war criminals. His Mossad activities only came to light long after his death. Dying of lung cancer in Madrid in 1975, his funeral featured numerous ex-Nazis, giving the Roman salute and singing WW2-era German songs.

Ex-Nazi rocket scientists found long term employment in the United States after the end of WW2. For instance, Kurt Debus, former SS officer and rocket engineer, escaped from the chaos of war torn Europe, and found refuge in America, where he headed NASA’s Launch Operations Centre (later renamed the Kennedy Space Centre). A white immigrant had a good opportunity to restart their career in the racially segregated United States.

No, of course I am not seriously suggesting taking the example of a former Nazi officer as a basis for inspiration. I am suggesting that behind every story of a self-made person is an entire network of social and political relationships that provide an interconnecting basis for individual achievement.

When the United States (and Britain) rejected providing sanctuary for fleeing European Jewish refugees during the war, but went out of their way to covertly ensure sanctuary for Nazi collaborators and ex-SS personnel, such behaviour opens a window into the character of imperial powers.

Out-of-control hippos, Pablo Escobar and corporate crime

In the popular 1983 gangster epic Scarface, one of the first things our antihero Tony Montana (played by Al Pacino) does when he hits the big time, is purchase a wild tiger. A pet in his mansion, the purchase indicates that Montana is now rich enough to indulge his fantasies, all part of the ‘American dream’. The small time street hoodlum is now a major drug kingpin.

That scene acquired contemporary relevance when learning of a particular ecological problem bequeathed to the citizens and government of Columbia by real life narcotrafficker, the late Pablo Escobar. Shot dead by Colombian police in 1993, his impact on the ecology is still being felt today.

In what way? By hippos which he imported while an ultrawealthy drug lord. Let’s have a look at what scientists have called an ecological time-bomb.

Founder and leader of the violent Medellin narcotics trafficking cartel, Escobar waged a war of terror against the Colombian government authorities, the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrilla group, and innocent people who got in the way. The cartel and the ultrarightist death squads – autodefensas – who acquired a cut of the cartel’s profits in exchange for eliminating political and law enforcement opponents.

Cocaine hippos

Escobar became an extraordinarily wealthy man as a result of his entrepreneurial spirit and self-motivation – a gangster capitalist. He built a luxurious hacienda, outside of a town called Doradal. Escobar built artificial lakes, airports, horse stables and – imported hippos. Yes, he imported four hippos, which are of course native to sub-Saharan Africa.

The hippo, while classified as a herbivore, will occasionally eat meat. Escobar built a menagerie on his estate, and employed people to look after them. Interestingly, he never imported lions, tigers or carnivores generally, stating that meat-eating animals were expensive and difficult to sustain. Hippos are semi aquatic mammals; but nevertheless they adapted to their new environment in Colombia. While spending much of their time in the water, hippos are not actually good swimmers.

Escobar opened his extensive collection of animals to the public, along with donating a portion of his profits to charitable works. He wanted to improve his image with the public. Being responsible for car bombings and blowing up airplanes does not endear you to the people.

In 1993, with Escobar dead and his hacienda in the hands of the authorities, the latter found homes for all the exotic animals in Escobar’s menagerie. Except the hippos – they were too difficult to move. So the Colombian government left them there, where eventually they would die. After all, his hacienda was located some 250 kilometres away from the capital Bogotá.

What could possibly go wrong?

The problem is that hippos breed. No, not as fast as rabbits, but they can breed at a steady pace.

The hippos multiplied. An adult female hippo can produce a calf every 18 months, and over a life span of 40 or 50 years, she can successfully birth a calf 25 times. The river Magdalena became their main transportation freeway. Well, now the hippos number about 170, eating their way through tonnes of vegetation, and – apologies in advance – defecating tonnes of dung that can reach toxic levels in still ponds and lakes.

In their native sub-Saharan Africa, droughts regularly dry up the rivers, thus limiting the range and breeding of the hippos. Not so in Colombia, where they can travel over hundreds of miles all year round.

Hippos are not exactly cute and cuddly creatures; they are known to attack humans who encroach on their territory in Africa. While deadly encounters with people in Colombia have been rare, there have been numerous incidents involving wayward hippos. Car crashes, hippos pushing into schools and urban environments – their food requirements are substantive, and farmers face the hungry hippo menace to their crops.

There have been calls to simply cull the hippos, but that creates its own problems. Shooting them dead may seem like a simple solution, but hippos are classified a vulnerable species by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Sterilisation is a better way to control their numbers. But that is not as simple as it sounds.

First, finding the animals is not easy. All the extra rainfall in recent years, due to a warming climate, means more grassland – an oversupply of food for hungry hippos. Second, each hippo weighs 3 tonnes, so it is not as easy as taking your pet cat or dog to the local vet. Third, sedating the hippo is dangerous. It takes a difficult darting process to ensure the animal is unconscious.

Chemical castration, while used successfully on many other species, is impractical in the case of hippos. It takes multiple doses, administered over months by darting, to even have a chance of being effective.

Fourth, the procedure is invasive, because the testicles are located inside the hippo’s body. The surgeon not only has to sedate the hippo, but cut through thick layers of fat to remove mango-sized gonads.

A Colombian team of scientists is steadily tracking and sterilising feral hippos – a thankless and laborious task.

It is easy for Hollywood to glamourise gangsters and narcotraffickers as a kind of gold-hearted antiheroes. The ‘good’ professional gangster, such as ones played by Robert De Niro, take steps to avoid violence against civilians, while only using violence against ‘bad’ criminals who are only getting what they deserve. The ‘bad’ gangster, sadistic and cruel, makes a useful foil to the ‘good’ Al Pacino/Robert De Niro gangster, who typifies the single-minded pursuit of wealth, with violence a morally ugly but necessary tactic in their chosen profession.

Escobar is dead and gone, but the consequences of his predatory actions are still being felt today. The public has to deal with, and pay for, cleaning up the harmful effects of Escobar’s malfeasance. There are corporate criminals today, whose enterprises involve a toxic culture, and whose actions must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Genocide awareness, hyper-nationalism among the long distance diaspora, the Volhynia massacres, and nationalist resentments

Growing up as an Australian of Armenian origin (Armenians from Egypt), I became aware of the concept of genocide, and its impact on social identity, from an early age, I was the only Armenian at school, so explaining what it was to be Armenian to Anglo-majority kids was quite frustrating – especially when they couldn’t even pronounce my name.

Be that as it may, I dealt with issues of diaspora, identity and exile for as long as I can remember. No, I couldn’t articulate those topics as a child. However, the importance of genocide commemorative activities, the weight of history, and their role in forming ethnic identity has been a constant theme in my life.

That is why I am going to elaborate on a topic which may seem distant from me, but is actually close to my experience.

Ukrainian nationalism, Poland and the Volhynia massacre

First, a declaration; I have no interest in promoting or demoting Ukrainian, or Polish or any type of hyper-nationalism. It is of no interest to me to advance any nationalist agenda, or propagate the views of Kyiv, Warsaw or the Kremlin.

This does not make me indifferent to hypernationalism, especially when the latter has destructive impacts on interethnic cooperation.

Poland is a staunch supporter of Kyiv in its current conflict with Moscow. Poland has taken in thousands of Ukrainian refugees displaced by the Russian invasion. On the international front, Warsaw vociferously defends the position of Kyiv in defiance of Moscow and its allies. For instance, Warsaw has denounced the role of Tehran, viewing the latter’s close political and military ties with Moscow as enabling and prolonging the suffering of Ukrainians.

However, Poland has an ongoing dispute with Kyiv, one that derails Ukraine’s plans to join the European Union.

The Polish government insists that Kyiv must accept responsibility for the massacres of Poles in 1943 in the Volhynia region. The latter is a historic region of central-eastern Europe, occupied by Poles, Ukrainians, Russians and other ethnicities. In 1943, the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and its associated Ukrainian Insurgent Army massacred thousands of Poles, intent on creating an ethnically pure post-Communist Ukrainian state. Collaborating with German forces, the antisemitism of the Ukrainian nationalists found common ground with the Nazi occupiers.

In Zelensky’s Ukraine, these collaborators are venerated as heroes. Warsaw has demanded that the Volhynia killings be officially recognised as genocide by the Kyiv authorities. In exchange, Warsaw promises to drop its objections to Ukraine joining the European Union.

In post-World War 2 Australia, anticommunist refugees from Eastern Europe found refuge – as well as in Canada, Britain and the United States. They imported not only their respective languages and cuisine, but also their ultranationalist reading of modern history. Long distance hypernationalism found a home in Australia, with each community struggling to find acceptance in the wider Anglophone society.

Social cohesion

I am not a ‘voice’ for Poland against Ukraine, or Ukraine against Russia – I have no interest in recycling any kind of hypernationalist division. But I do have a number of questions pertaining to the implementation of multiculturalism, or to use an expression currently in vogue – social cohesion.

How does hypernationalism contribute to social cohesion? It does not. In fact, the hyperventilating nationalism of right wing communities sabotages the very social cohesion they claim to adhere to. Regurgitating migrant-based nationalist resentments has a corrosive effect on building a multicultural, socially cohesive society.

Solidarity with Palestine is not antisemitic

In junior high school, I had a ‘friend’ – a person who would be called toxic in today’s terminology – who constantly verbally bullied me in class. Knowing that I was a supporter of the Palestinians, he would constantly raise the topic of the Entebbe raid. The 1976 Israeli operation to free hijacked hostages was an obvious success for Tel Aviv, and while it was in the past from the vantage point of the 1980s, it was in the recent past.

His behaviour was intended to intimidate and demoralise me, and raising Entebbe was one of his ploys. The other, knowing that my background is Egyptian (Armenians from Egypt) was to loudly praise the 1967 Six Day War, during which Israeli forces defeated the Egyptian and Syrian armies. He was, as I realised later, a malignant narcissist, and mocking my ethnic heritage was his way of inciting others against me.

He disappeared from my life a long time ago, but there is a lingering misconception which still pervades the mainstream media. Palestinian nationalism, and the protests in support of a Palestinian state, are not antisemitic. Please stop circulating the tired old cliche that anti-Zionism, and criticism of Israeli state policies, is automatically antisemitic.

The false equation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism is designed to delegitimise the Palestinian cause, and smear Palestine supporters as deranged fanatics driven by irrational hatred. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Monuments to Estonian Nazi collaborators in Toronto, Canada

We should be worried about antisemitism, but not from the Palestinians. Jewish organisations in Toronto, Canada, demanded (and succeeded) in forcing the removal of Estonian Waffen SS personnel from a monument at an Estonian-Canadian children’s summer camp. Hailing the veterans of the Estonian SS as freedom fighters, the authorities were worried by the false heroising of SS personnel as ‘freedom fighters’ rather than antisemitic and racist killers.

What kind of example do we set when we teach children (and adolescents) that the violently antisemitic Waffen SS and their Baltic collaborators were high-minded and noble fighters for freedom? When we minimise the crimes and predatory ideologies of wartime Nazi collaborators, we are not only whitewashing history, but also helping to rehabilitate the doctrines of the ultranationalist Right.

Of course the far right of yesteryear has changed; like all political ideologies, the ultranationalist mindset mutates and adapts to changing circumstances. Islamophobia is the preferred version of bigotry for the imperial powers, and we have all witnessed what decades of normalising Islamophobia produces. Let’s not ignore the role of mainstream political parties in encouraging and recycling Islamophobic talking points.

The most urgent task is to break down the divides between ethnic groups that hamper multiethnic cooperation.

The Olympics, geopolitics and sporting nationalism

Another Olympics – Paris 2024 – has finished. This particular Olympics has been extensively marked by social media conflagrations – whether it be the inclusion of breakdancing and the poor performance of Australian b-girl Raygun, or the manufactured controversy over the gender of Algerian boxer Imane Khelif.

Both these episodes demonstrate the dangers of social media hysteria. However, I wanted to focus on a lesser publicised yet important issue – the Olympics, and sport generally, cannot be separated from geopolitics.

Politics cannot spoil the Olympics, as Louise Guillot suggested in this article in Politico magazine. Why not? Because the Olympics and political considerations have always been inseparable. Guillot, writing prior to the Olympics, wished that this nasty thing called geopolitics and its attendant squabbles did not interfere with the lofty, noble pursuit of peacefully competitive sports between nations.

Unfortunately for Guillot, geopolitical conflicts always impinge on the sporting field. Indeed, the very foundation of the Olympics as we understand them, could not help but be impacted by competing geopolitical agendas.

Baron Pierre De Coubertin, the ‘founding father’ of the modern Olympics, was given over to fantasising about the diversion of warmaking energies by conflicting states into the peaceful arena of public sporting competition. Warring nations would at least temporarily suspend their hostilities, and compete on an equal footing in the sporting fields.

Whether he was idealistic or naive I do not know. What is for certain is the De Coubertin consciously co-opted the Ancient Greek Olympics, and revived them as a pan-European project, seeking a pan-Hellenic legitimacy to the burgeoning ideological currents of European colonial nationalisms.

European powers, undertaking their own colonial adventures in Africa, Asia and other parts of the world, required a globalising cultural project as well. No empire can survive on sheer force alone. Sporting competitions, while venerating the individualistic ethos of physical achievement, can also bring colonial nations together through a veneer of peaceful respectability.

British, German and French philhellenic supporters desired to build an imagined community. No, Europe is not imaginary, but its continuity with Ancient Greek traditions of philosophy, science, mathematics and sport is a synthetic history. Greek nationalism, fighting for an independent state in the nineteenth century, not only sought to break away from the Islamic Ottoman Turkish empire, but also to participate in this emergent club of powerful European states.

The modern Olympics were a demonstration of muscular European Christianity, drawing from the example of the Greeks and Romans of ancient times. Modern European nations appropriated the legacy of Ancient Greece. Reviving the Olympics was a practical way to construct an imagined continuity with the eastern Mediterranean, and the propaganda value of such games did not go unnoticed.

Sporting nationalism manifests itself in various ways, not just through competing methods for tallying medals. The Paris 2024 Olympics, depending on how you count the medals, was the most successful one for Australia. Counting according to gold medals, Australia was fourth with 18 gold – 53 medals in total. The US and China were equal on 40 gold medals each, but the US collected 126 medals in total, compared to 91 for China.

Episodes from Olympic history provide a window into the present. Understanding the past is an endlessly fascinating pursuit, and it helps us to comprehend the hidden world of powerplays and subterfuge which impacts public life until today.

What am I talking about? The 1960 Rome Olympics. Why is that important? The Smithsonian magazine, earlier this month, published an extensive feature by Erik Ofgang, which illuminates a hitherto unseen aspect of the interplay between geopolitics and sport. Both superpowers of the Cold War were obsessed with accumulating gold medals – fair enough. However, the United States went further, and ventured into ethically questionable conduct.

In an article entitled “At the 1960 Olympics, American Athletes Recruited by the CIA Tried to Convince Their Soviet Peers to Defect”, the article matter-of-factly explains how the Olympics is a perfect opportunity for espionage and intelligence gathering. Convincing high profile Soviet athletes to defect was a prominent propaganda tactic, designed to demonstrate the ‘superiority’ of American capitalism and the alleged American commitment to individual liberty.

Let’s have a listen to the words of historian Barbara Keys from Durham University and an expert on international relations. She states that the Olympics provide a “terrific opportunity” for espionage. She continued; “You get lots of high-level people, high-level leaders, diplomats, businessmen, celebrities convening all in one place. It’s kind of a spy candy shop.”

There are no ethical qualms here, just a straightforward rationale; what’s wrong with turning the Olympics into a soft power battleground? One athlete from the 1960 Soviet team who was targeted by the athletes-turned-spies was triple jumper and sprinter Igor Ter-Ovanesyan. Ukrainian born, (Armenian father), he met athletes from the American team. They tried to convince him to defect – citing American supermarkets, cars, playboy magazine and movies as assets to be enjoyed by Soviet defectors. Ter-Ovanesyan said no.

A former CIA case officer and now academic, Doug Patteson, stated that it is naive to think that spying activities do not occur at the Olympics. The latter is not just a platform for international goodwill, but an opportunity to score geopolitics points. It seems that politics of a surreptitious and sinister kind is perfectly acceptable at the Olympics.

In fact, in the lead up to the 1960 Olympics, the CIA recruited a person for the job of encouraging defections from the Soviet teams – Mykola Lebed. Who was he? A Ukrainian ultranationalist and Nazi collaborator, he was guilty of gruesome torture and war crimes during World War 2, responsible for the killings of Jews, Russians and Poles. Deemed a useful intelligence asset in the opening years of the Cold War, he found sanctuary and employment in the United States.

Back in 1947, US army counterintelligence described Lebed as a well-known sadist. However, pathological sadism is no barrier for gainful employment by the CIA.

Given all this focus on intelligence gathering by the various colonial nations which participate in the Olympics, a question does occur. Why was intelligence gathering spectacularly unsuccessful in Munich 1972, when 11 Israeli athletes were kidnapped and murdered by the Black September terrorist group? Did not espionage agencies gather intelligence on the preparations for this specific attack on the Olympics?

Let’s conclude by returning to Paris 2024. A particular athlete – a wrestler to be exact – won his fifth gold medal at the Olympics. He’d won his previous four gold medals since beginning Olympic competition since making his debut in Greco-Roman wrestling at Athens 2004. In every Olympics since then, he won gold. His name is Mijain Lopez, an Afro-Caribbean competitor from Cuba.

His achievement is unparalleled, yet never received saturation publicity that accompanied the accomplishments of Phelps, or Thorpe, or Bolt. Staying loyal to Cuba, he has remained through all the trials and tribulations of that island nation against the punitive American blockade.

Resisting the shallow temptations of American mass consumerism, he decided that it is more important to be true to oneself and the background that made such achievements possible, in contrast to dissident celebrity athlete superstar Nadia Comaneci. May I venture a suggestion? Perhaps he did not want to migrate to a nation that practices the cult of violence overseas, rejoicing in the hyper-individualist pursuit of gratification that requires the suffering of others.

While ancient DNA has shed new light on human evolution, do not dismiss the importance of fossil discoveries

Ancient DNA is providing transformative insights into the journey of hominin evolution. Palaeontologists and geneticists have uncovered a branching mosaic picture of hominin ancestors.

No longer is the linear, single line from transitional forms to Homo sapiens the dominant image. However, digging up old bones and identifying fossils is still the sure fire way of advancing our understanding of human evolution, and steadily filling in the multi branching picture of our hominin ancestors.

Homo floresiensis, so-called ‘hobbits’, were first identified in 2003 from fossils in Liang Bua cave on the Indonesian island of Flores. The latter is an island between Australia and south east Asia. Approximately 3 feet six inches tall, they made stone tools, and while they had small brains, they coped with predatory pressures and may have even used fire. The findings were publicised in 2004.

Being diminutive, scientists were unsure at first if they were indeed a separate hominin species, or a badly deformed human. Some palaeontologists suggested they were descended from Australopithecus afarensis – Lucy’s species. (That discovery was made fifty years ago this year).

Other scientists have more plausibly suggested that Homo floresiensis is a descendant, dwarfed in stature, from the nearby Asian Homo erectus, from Java. Short and stocky in stature, the fossils of the now extinct homo erectus have largely been found in Indonesia and China.

Ok, let’s pause here and get a pet peeve out of the way.

Let’s stop calling Homo floresiensis ‘hobbits’. The fictional characters from the Lord of the Rings trilogy are very entertaining, to be sure, but they are a distraction from the serious issue of ancestral hominin evolution.

Africa – and China – have a wealth of hominin fossils. East African nations, such as Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania became famous in the 1970s for the multiple fossil finds that threw open the doors, so to speak, on early hominin evolution. The Leakeys, both Louis and Mary, became celebrity fossil hunters of sorts, giving lectures and writing books about paleoanthropology. Their son, Richard Leakey, who passed away in 2022, followed in his parents’ footsteps, and became a prominent anthropologist in his own right.

Indonesia is not a place you would think of as having fossils of interest to palaeontologists, but yet it does. The discovery of Homo floresiensis was significant because it further buttressed the picture of humans sharing the world with other hominin species.

The floresiensis find also demonstrated a singularly interesting case of island dwarfism. Did the floresiensis species arrive on the island as dwarves, or did they undergo endemic dwarfism? Numerous researchers have sought to answer this question, by examining how an isolated species with no predators to defend against on an island, could undergo rapid dwarfism.

This question is steadily being answered, and while interesting, represents a first step. This brings us to a recent and important fossil discovery on the Flores island.

East of the original 2004 findings in Liang Bua cave, a region called Mata Menge, a tiny upper arm bone was discovered in the So’a Basin. The adult humerus, along with fossilised bones and teeth found in 2016 in Mata Menge, indicate an adult of no more than 100cm in height – an ancestor shorter than Homo floresiensis.

Along with the upper arm bone, two fossilised teeth were discovered, and this dentition ties the floresiensis species more closely to Homo erectus ancestors. Teeth provide all sorts of information about the taxonomy of the ancestral species, as well as evidence of function.

It is worthwhile to note that the original researchers of 2003-04 did not actually set out to discover a new ancestral hominin species. They were attempting to answer how ancient people traveled from mainland Asia to Australia. Digging in caves, such as Liang Bua in Indonesia, provides essential clues as to how and by what route the migration occurred.

Indeed, there is a growing body of evidence from West Papua – specifically the Raja Ampat archipelago – which indicates the route of ancient seafarers from Asia into the Pacific islands. These mariners became the ancestors of indigenous people across West Papua to Aotearoa New Zealand.

Homo floresiensis is extinct, but its impact is still being felt today. That is because it helped revolutionise the way we think about human evolution. It is not a simple, linear progression, but a multi networking branching web of life. Ancient DNA has only added to the complex mosaic of ancestral hominins. There was no single ‘garden of Eden’, not in Africa or the Middle East. It is the ongoing and changing story of migratory ancestral hominins that makes human evolution the greatest story ever told – one that is currently unfolding.

The Kamala Harris nomination demonstrates the United States’ inability to understand biracial people and ethnic mixing

I try to avoid writing too much about American politics. Not because it is uninteresting, but because we should focus our energies on the rest of the world, where the majority of the world’s people live. The Anglophone club of nations is overwhelmingly dominated by the North Americanisation of culture, and this skews our understanding of global politics. As American media companies have gone global, they have promoted a vision of the world that asserts the primacy of US politics and culture.

Let’s consider the following; Brazil, India, Russia and China combined constitute the majority of the global population. Their economic and cultural assertiveness is increasing, and we in Australia would be foolish to ignore it.

Having acknowledged the above, we can say that we cannot be indifferent to the American elections and their choice of leadership. The United States financial oligarchy exerts an inordinate influence on the global financial architecture, and the persons who make economic and political decisions have consequences for the rest of us.

Of course we must evaluate US candidates by the policies they advocate. However, there are decisions in the US political process which expose the kind of priorities that undergird American capitalist society.

There has been a tsunami of commentary on the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, and I do not wish to recycle all that information here. In the immediate aftermath of the assassination, Trump was asked by African American journalists what he thought of Kamala Harris.

He questioned her identity – ‘is she Indian or black?’ He went on to ask ‘when did she turn black?’ Gasps from the audience indicated the outrage at his sneering comments. But this incident indicates a deeper malaise.

His obnoxious remarks about a mixed race person are woefully ignorant. But they are not out of place in American society. Trump is uninformed about race and racial politics – but that is not his fault. His idiocy is the product of American capitalism’s obsessive quest to compartmentalise people into fixed, allegedly immutable biological categories called races.

Races are definitely are real, and part of the wider society, but they are not genetically based. Races are socially and ideologically constructed divisions, and racism is all too real.

Let’s unravel this multifaceted topic.

Harris is an intelligent, confident strong biracial woman – a refreshing change from the obnoxious MAGA cesspit, which consists of has-been faker celebrities, washed up ex-actors, white supremacist weasels and vacuous talking heads who substitute political analysis with conspiracy theories.

Kamala has discussed and written about her background on numerous occasions. Her father was a Jamaican born man, who came to the United States to study economics at Berkeley campus. Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, from the South Indian state of Tamil Nadu, arrived at Berkeley to study biochemistry. She became a biomedical scientist.

Harris spoke about the intellectual impact on her parents of both being born in former British colonies. Berkeley campus was a melting pot of student activism and radical politics. This was a place where the working class Left and radical black antiracist civil rights movements overlapped. Political discussions about racism, imperialism and anticolonialism were common.

There was no artificial debate or barriers erected between ‘class vs race’ into which the contemporary Trotskyist Left frequently deteriorates. (For the record, I have decades of experience in the Trotskyist Left, so apologies in advance to comrades and friends).

The 1960s was an era of the One drop rule – a policy which dated from the anti-miscegenation laws of the early 1600s, when America was still a series of British colonies. Preserving whiteness was an obsessive concern of the slaver-plantation squattocracy, so a person was considered black if they had even one African American ancestor.

Race, a purely subjective perception, became encoded into the legal and economic framework of American capitalism. Being of mixed race, or biracial, presented a problem. How much blackness makes a person black? One parent? One grandparent? This is the mess US capitalism has got itself in, because it cannot handle the reality of mixed ethnicities.

Halle Berry, the famous actor, is herself biracial, and chooses to identify as black. No one can question her choice, but then a question arises – what about her daughter Nahla? Is she 75 percent white? Or should she be pigeonholed into the category of blackness?

Harris’ parents divorced, and Kamala was raised by her mother, in conjunction with friends and neighbours in an extended network of support. Gopalan taught her children the importance of education, integrity, cooperation, respect for people regardless of ethnic background, family values.

Here is another talking point that MAGA Republicans fail to understand – a single mother understands the importance of family, and taught family values to her children, in a web of community relationships. The term family values need not be a code word for social conservatism.

With the selection of Tim Walz as Harris’ running mate, now we can begin the difficult and rigorous discussion about the policies for which Kamala stands. Let’s not descend into a lovefest for the Harris-Walz campaign ticket. Harris has the backing of venture capitalists and Silicon Valley tech giants. This undoubtedly will influence her political decisions.

Harris has spoken about building bridges with big business, policies that continue the practices of the Biden administration. Being friendly to hydraulic fracturing (fracking), an environmentally destructive process of mining makes Harris appealing to the large energy companies. As attorney general in California, Harris continued to incarcerate African Americans in huge numbers, and defied attempts to reduce the overall prison population.

Another Trump presidency is a horrific scenario to contemplate. His racism makes him reprehensible. We can defend Harris against the obnoxious and insidious attacks against her background and character by the MAGA Republicans, and maintain a vigorously critical examination of her party’s policies.

The European Union adopts a besieged fortress mentality – a mirror image of Tory Brexit

Let’s start with a thought experiment which will provide a basis for this article regarding the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. There is a political state that is preaching against the inclusion of outsiders, and adopts harsh militaristic measures to ensue their exclusion. Motivated by a paranoid xenophobia, the laws being passed serve to isolate the political state, while domestically disseminating anti-immigrant propaganda.

What state am I talking about?

Is it:

A) Formerly Communist Albania led by its long term isolationist leader Enver Hoxha?

B) Tory Brexit Britain, or

C) the current European Union?

Timofey Bordachev, scholar at the Valdai Club, proposes the comparison between the EU’s Russophobic policies, and the nearly paranoid nationalism of formerly Communist Albania, led by its partisan leader Enver Hoxha (in power 1945 – 85). Derided as a totalitarian dictatorship, cultivating a national sense of suspicion of anything Western, Hoxha constructed a highly secretive state which rejected any perceived capitalist influences.

Enver Hoxha, in one respect, had good reasons to be highly suspicious of the West. He led a life-and-death struggle of the Albanian partisans against the exterminationist policies of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in World War 2. If the Albanian partisans, and their Yugoslav counterparts had lost, the nations of the Balkans would have been reduced to impoverished colonies, depopulated by their fascist overlords.

Hoxha and the partisans were formed by, and fought in, the crucible of WW2. His vision of a postwar Communist Albania was formed in these years. Loyalty to Stalin was paramount in his ideology – any deviation, such as that of his fellow Yugoslav partisans – was regarded by him with hostility.

Albania in the immediate postwar period refused to join Yugoslavia. The friction with Belgrade resulted in Tirana completely severing relations with their erstwhile Yugoslav comrades. Loyal to Stalin until the end, Hoxha defied the imperialist West, and what he regarded as Yugoslavia’s anti-Stalinist turn to the capitalist nations.

In the aftermath of the 1948 Soviet Yugoslav dispute, Hoxha continued on the Stalinist path, even though that put his regime on a collision course with his more powerful Yugoslav neighbour.

Insistent that Albanians govern themselves, he rejected the intrusion of Western corporations into Albania.

As an example, one can of imported Coca Cola could land an Albanian in prison, the latter an example of the capitalist degeneration Hoxha opposed. There was no McDonald’s, no KFC or Pepsi in Communist Albania. I am not imputing unique powers of observation or sociological judgement to Hoxha, but today we see the impact of decades of ultra processed foods on public health.

Hoxha’s regime was swept up in the general crisis of the Eastern bloc regimes in 1989-91. His extreme isolationism and paranoid suspicion of the West were cited as one of the main reasons for Albania’s rapid socioeconomic transformation and opening up to the club of Western European capitalist states.

Why is this important? Albania’s self-imposed isolation, while of historical interest, also contains lessons for today.

Earlier I mentioned the Valdai Club. What is that? A semi-official Kremlin-linked think tank, its conferences and papers reflect the thinking of Russia’s oligarchy. It is in many ways a counterpart to the US-based Atlantic Council; though the Valdai Club’s participants have never engaged in regime change.

Bordachev, in a recent article, asks if the EU is copying hypersensitive isolationism of communist Albania. While he asks a valid question, his proposed answer of Russophobia leaves a lot to be desired. It is incontrovertible that Russophobic feelings and policies have increased among European Union member states since the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

However, that answer is the equivalent of taking the wrong off-ramp from the motorway. The EU’s xenophobic paranoia is targeted at nonwhite refugees and asylum seekers. Demonised in the corporate media as a threat, parasites living off the public purse, the EU nations have spent billions militarising the Schengen zone borders. The Mediterranean has been transformed into a maritime barrier that dwarfs the former Berlin Wall by comparison.

It is not only the rich nations of Western Europe that have relentlessly promoted a toxic debate about the supposed threat of migration and refugees. Hungary, led by long term ultrarightist president and Russian ally Viktor Orban, has spent his political career propagating a besieged fortress mentality among his fellow Europeans.

Officially adopting the far right conspiracy theory of the ‘great replacement’, Orban rails against the influx of Middle Eastern and North African refugees. Since he assumed office in 2010, Orban has portrayed Europe in white Christian nationalist terms, bemoaning the trickle of refugees from Muslim majority nations. Locked in a struggle against the forces of Islam, so Orban tells us, Europe must protect its Christian roots, drawing from an Islamophobic clash-of-civilisations view of history.

Ironically, while Orban never hesitates in advocating anti-Islamic themes and imagery, he deftly attracts investment and economic opportunities from Turkey, cynically manoeuvring to normalise the historic Ottoman Turkish presence in Hungary. In that way, he mollifies concerns about his Islamophobic message for his Turkish partners.

Tory Brexit was, in its own way, a reflection of paranoid hypernationalism turned inward against the European project itself. Rather than questioning the economic and political policies of the EU, Brexit redefined the boundaries of its anti-immigrant fortress.

If EU policies demonised the nonwhite outsider, and cultivated a sense of being under siege, then English Euroskeptics did not take long to apply the same logic to the UK’s position in Europe.

The Yugoslav partisans, and their Albanian allies, fought for a multinational and multiconfessional formation. Their vision, while incorporating nationalist opposition to foreign occupation, looked forward to a state where ethnicities enjoyed multiracial equality. There is a refugee crisis in Europe, but it is not caused by the refugee or migrant arrivals. The crisis is the EU’s fortress mentality which perpetuates the mistreatment and incarceration of refugees.

Universities have been converted into gigantic hedge funds – with a bit of education on the side

What would you change about modern society?

There are many answers to the question above. One simple yet important change we can make is the following: stop running universities, and higher education generally, as profit-hungry hedge funds. Universities are there to provide education, but since the 1990s, they are being run as business enterprises answerable to hedge fund shareholders.

Astra Taylor, writing in The Nation magazine in 2016, relates a joke about Harvard University. Have you heard the latest? Harvard is a hedge fund with a university attached. A light hearted observation, but this subject has a dark underbelly. Decades of neoliberalism have hollowed out universities, turning them into profit maximisation institutions, undermining the quality and role of higher education.

It is not just The Nation magazine writing about this issue. Let’s have a look at one of the Long Reads in The Guardian.

Since the introduction of neoliberal logic into the higher education sector, students have been turned into consumers, courses are marketable products, and university deans are transformed into corporate managers.

William Davies, writing about the deterioration of universities in Britain throughout the fourteen years of Tory government (2010 – 2024), states that “Political insistence that higher education must operate like a market has led to many of the worst pathologies of market societies.” As he explained in his article, the dilapidated state of public services, the increasing number of local government bankruptcies, and cuts in funding for arts are part of a society-wide assault on the public provision of services by governments.

Universities have been swept up in this neoliberal logic – everyone is a user, and users should pay. Fair enough, but governments have an obligation to provide taxpayer funded higher education to produce an educated citizenry. Engineering, mathematics, law, medicine – all these pursuits are equally important. So are the social sciences and humanities, because these provide the foundation for tackling the wider socioeconomic and political issues.

Universities are not bastions of politically correct and dogmatic ‘wokeism.’ Right wing commentators and Tory party policymakers deliberately pushed the marketisation of universities as the antidote to these supposedly bloated overarching institutions dependent on the public purse. The culture wars, overlaying the economic attacks on the public sector, have created a constituency that devalues sociology, politics and the humanities generally.

The power of the market grows, not because of a shrinking state sector. The state, through its laws and regulations, cedes power to market forces in areas of society where public participation is highest, such as healthcare and education. The state and market grow simultaneously, with state expenditures on police, surveillance, intelligence gathering and dissent suppression growing exponentially.

By cynically positioning themselves as defenders of higher education against politically charged ‘wokeism’ and loony leftie dogma, the Tory governments, and their right wing counterparts in the United States, have cancelled opposition to public education cuts by splitting the working class voters along educational lines. Why should solid blue-collar types care about universities that teach undergraduates irrelevant ‘Mickey mouse’ courses such as medieval Icelandic poetry?

By importing the MAGA style cultural attacks into British politics, the Tories proceeded to implement an economic programme of commercialising universities begun by Tony Blair’s New Labour. It was New Labour that introduced tuition fees, importing international students (and then allowing anti-immigration cultural anxieties about ‘too many foreigners’ in Britain to flourish), and increasing the numbers of casual/temporary adjunct staff to teach at universities.

Adjunct faculty make up an increasingly precarious section of academia. Long hours, temporary contracts, growing workloads, while vice-chancellors pocket huge pay checks; it is no wonder that militancy is growing among the adjunct staff.

Mae Losasso, writing in Jacobin magazine, observes that opposition to turning universities into knowledge factories is nothing new. Decades ago, American sociologist and economist Thorstein Veblen (1857 – 1929) denounced the push to convert universities into factories of merchantable knowledge. The intrusion of corporate interests into higher education, Veblen warned, would result in the overturning of intellectual ideals.

Britain’s universities have declined precipitously in the years of neoliberal globalisation. However, the elite universities are doing just fine. Oxford, Cambridge – these institutions are still ranked among the top ten universities in Europe.

However, the vast majority of Britain’s universities and colleges are struggling for funds, and have had to cut back courses. Sheffield University, renowned throughout the world for its archaeology course, has proposed abolishing the archaeology department altogether.

It is not just me highlighting the role of universities as gigantic profit-hungry hedge funds. Law professor Victor Fleischer, back in 2015, lambasted Harvard, Stanford, Princeton and Texas universities for hoarding money. While tuition fees for students increase, and saddled with huge debts once they graduate, these institutions have hundreds of millions of dollars in private endowments and shareholding portfolios.

Fleischer asks the pertinent question; what purpose do these endorsements serve? Do they help to sustain an educational institution through financial crises, and help in the provision of education? Or are they there to increase profits for ultrawealthy hedge fund owners?

It is more than high time to stop running universities as bloated hedge funds, and get them back into public education.

Travelling, adventure tourism, and the unavoidable links with politics

What are your future travel plans?

Being in a position to make travel plans is a great privilege. You could name almost any city in the world, and I would like to travel there. Paris, Kampala, Lusaka, Buenos Ares, Kathmandu – every city has its attractions. Being connected to almost every part of the globe is fantastic. You can tour the Okavango Delta in one issue of the National Geographic, and then view the splendours of Petra in Jordan at the Smithsonian magazine.

However, let us examine what travel has become in our current socioeconomic conditions. Tourism has become a profit maximisation project, with tourists performing as bit players in an industry that exploits natural resources. While tourism is not new, and people have travelled to experience awe and wonder in places with cultures foreign to their own, mass tourism has devolved into a corporatist exercise.

Let’s explore what that means for international travel.

Crowds on Mount Everest

In 2019, and subsequently to that, climbers of Mount Everest have shared on social media a rather telling photograph. There is a long queue of people, waiting in line in their heavy jackets, to reach the actual summit of the mountain. Wait a minute – there are crowds when summiting Everest? Yes. The scene resembles, in the words of one commentator, a queue at the Motor Vehicle department.

Everest, throughout the ages, represented an awesome yet unattainable goal. Summiting that mountain was the stuff of legend – only the most resourceful and resilient could even hope to climb that lofty peak. From the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, attaining the claim of summiting Everest was the subject of geopolitical competition.

Not anymore. Now, increasing numbers of socially mobile internet savvy corporate types can indulge their childhood fantasies of summiting that venerable mountain.

To be sure, climbing Everest takes courage and determination. These qualities do not in any way distract us from the adverse environmental impact of mass tourism on the mountain. in an increasingly interconnected world, the American and British investment banker, the advertising executive, the banking consultant – all can now realise their dream of summiting Everest by taking advantage of the tourism industry that nurtures such dreamy, once-in-a-lifetime adventures (hallucinations?)

In a previous article, I wrote about the impact of global economic connections and the expansion of adventure tourism on Everest. The mountainous terrain is no longer the exclusive preserve of the Nepalese Sherpas. In fact, Everest now features the dead bodies of previously highly motivated climbers, tonnes of garbage, empty beer cans, cartons and faeces, and assorted detritus left over by the tourist interlopers.

If you want to climb Everest, nobody can stop you. Just remember the kind of industry that profits from a desire to achieve that objective. No, I am not making a condemnatory judgement on everyone who intends to summit the mountain. We need to balance our individual interests, and whether those dreams of adventure are being manipulated by a destructive and profit-hungry business model.

Billionaire space travel, and Muhammad Faris followed his conscience

Travelling into outer space is the ultimate destination. Numerous TV programmes, documentaries and specials (not to mention sci-fi series) deal with the topic of space travel and exploration. Yuri Gagarin became world famous as the first man in space. Valentina Tereshkova, also from the Soviet Union, was the first woman cosmonaut. Today, we are living in the age of the billionaire space race.

The rivalry between the space barons, as CNN put it, is all very interesting. However, this obsessive focus on which billionaire is going to ‘win’ – Bezos or Branson – misses a crucial dimension of space travel.

The exploration of space began as a quest to understand and answer basic scientific questions about other planets, cosmic objects and the stars. Rocketry was envisioned by pioneering Russian astronomer and scientist Konstatin Tsiolkovsky (1857 – 1935) not as an adventure to satisfy the egomaniacal dreams of the wealthy.

Tsiolkovsky, an expert in aeronautical sciences, advocated space travel to discover the mysteries of cosmic phenomena. The billionaires today have harnessed space travel as an adjunct to their fantasies of ‘conquering’ space.

Muhammad Faris, who passed away earlier this year, was Syria’s only astronaut. Born in Aleppo in 1951, he passed the demanding and stringent tests to successfully pass the Soviet space training programme. Becoming a pilot and cosmonaut, he travelled into space to the Soviet space station, Mir, in 1987. He became a national hero in his native Syria, earning honours and plaudits from the Ba’athist regime.

Yet his story does not end there. Yes, he returned to his homeland, and gave lectures on space travel, rocketry and astronomy. Hailed as a hero, he did not allow adulation to inflate his ego. In 2011-12, with the anti-Ba’athist Syrian uprising, Faris defected to the opposition. He had been a general in the Syrian Air Force, and refused to run bombing missions against his fellow Syrians in rebel strongholds.

Targeted by the Syrian regime, he fled with his family to Turkey, where he lived out the rest of his days. Whether his decision to side with Turkish-backed Syrian opposition groups was right or wrong, I do not know.

What I can say is that he placed his ego in neutral, and spoke out against a regime which was committed crimes against its citizens. His remarkable achievements in space did not negate his sensitivities regarding the plight of his fellow countrymen-women.

Let’s make travel plans for sure. Economic globalisation has made the world more interconnected, but we have to wonder whether this connection has come at the expense of cross-cultural understanding. Indeed, what corporation globalisation has achieved is a kind of consumerist monoculturalism. A McDonald’s and Starbucks on every corner is not necessarily an indication of an interconnected world, but one where we as consumers worship at the altar of profits.

Do not blame indigenous Easter Islanders for ‘ecocide’

What bothers you and why?

Let’s answer the question above with an exploration of a controversy – stop falsely blaming the indigenous Easter Island people, the Rapanui, for their own demise. This requires a bit of background information.

Jared Diamond, professor of geography at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote a book in 2005 called Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. In it, Diamond depicts a people, the Rapa Nui, over exploiting their natural resources, cutting down the trees, denuding the lush landscape, thus undermining their ability to sustain a large population.

Dwindling food and resources resulted in internecine warfare, communal violence, and even cannibalism, from about 1600 onwards.

European settlers arrived in 1722, to be confronted by an indigenous population on a downward spiral of destruction. Diamond coined the word ‘ecocide’, to denote a cautionary tale of a society outstripping its resource base. That is a general overview of Diamond’s case, and I hope that I have done justice to it.

However, this tale of environmental degradation and socioeconomic collapse, while a necessary warning, blames the wrong people. Archaeologists and geographers, working on this question, have instead found an indigenous Polynesian civilisation that was resourceful, cooperative, growing food to feed themselves, and building the mysterious moai – the giant statues that dot the landscape. All this was achieved prior to European colonisation which began in 1722.

This picture is hardly one of a society resembling a Polynesian fight club, with axes, fists, knives, and weapons deployed in an all-gladiatorial contest. This depiction of inherently violent indigenous people has never sat well with me. No, I am not challenging Diamond’s qualifications or expertise. But this myth of the ‘savage Savage’ has always bothered me, in ways I could not elaborate previously.

Diamond, a professor of geography at the University of California, Los Angeles, is correct to warn of the socioeconomic consequences of ecological destruction. What kind of economy can we sustain on a dead planet? However, he has chosen the wrong society upon which to base his ecocide scenario.

Archaeologists and geographers have consistently challenged the simplistic and sometimes quite false view blaming the indigenous Rapanui for their own destruction.

This is not a personal attack on Professor Diamond; he is an outstanding public intellectual and writer. He has published books which have expanded my knowledge. However, what bothers me is the use of the ‘ecocide’ scenario – a term that Diamond coined – to portray indigenous societies as inherently violent and destructive. This depiction is often used to rationalise our own capitalist society’s environmental overexploitation and destructiveness. If all humans are selfish and violent, what’s the point?

The point is that the current billionaire class, to justify their raking in billions, have been allowed to define human nature for the rest of us. No, there is no conspiracy between Professor Diamond and Bill Gates to connivingly misrepresent the Rapa Nui as violent and destructive. There is a growing and strong body of evidence against the simplistic ‘ecocide’ paradigm which has dominated the public discourse.

When the Europeans arrived on the remote island of Rapa Nui (Easter Island), they were mesmerised by the giant moai (statues), and deduced that only a huge population could build them. Since 1600, the indigenous population must have been decimated – how could a small population be capable of constructing such structures over a long period? This assumption made its way unexamined into European writings on archaeology.

Diamond is not the first writer to worry about the alleged covetousness of the Rapa Nui; but he is the first to gain such widespread public acclaim for that work. Numerous archaeologists and field researchers, such as Terry Hunt and Carl Lipo, have pushed back against the ‘ecocide’ scenario. For instance, Lipo performed a complex mathematical analysis of rock samples from Rapa Nui, rock gardens cultivated by the indigenous Rapanui people.

Growing a staple of their diet, the sweet potato, the indigenous people are estimated to have numbered no more than 16 000 prior to 1722. The assumption that Rapa Nui was overpopulated prior to 1722, and therefore subject to internal warfare, is a conventional wisdom derived from faulty bases.

The indigenous islanders were cooperative and resilient, nothing like the all-encompassing state of warfare as depicted by the European colonisers. How were the moai built? You may find a detailed answer here.

Earlier in this article, I used the expression the ‘savage Savage’ to describe Diamond’s portrayal of the Rapanui people. That expression was first used by science writer John Horgan, in the pages of Scientific American.

Dispelling the myth of the ‘Noble Savage’ is one thing; what Diamond, Professors Steven Pinker and Richard Wrangham have done, is recycle an old colonialist trope that the indigenous are savages. They form a cohort of academic hawks; rather than advocate harsh socioeconomic policies at home, they attempt to rationalise their implementation by retroactively projecting their punitive motivations to past societies.

The work of Lipo, Hunt and other researchers upends the ‘ecocide’ narrative, based on solid factual foundations. Critics of the ‘ecocide’ scenario are often accused of being motivated by ideology rather than scientifically rigorous evidence. I hope that this article prompts readers to examine the Easter Island ‘collapse’ skeptics with an open mind.