For those unlikely few still reading this thread, it's clear that moloch-hai doesn't know about the 19th century "race science" pseudo-scientific theory that classified Finns as Mongolians. For those who want to confirm that I am not making shit up, here are some resources:
From "Conflict and Compromise in Multilingual Societies: Finland" at https://books.google.com/books?id=s8eNDR6YDlwC&lpg=PA148&ots... you can read how Castrén's philological analysis appeared to give scientific justification for a long-suspected Asian origin for Finns, with the 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica entry stating the Finns were "no doubt ethnically, if not also linguistically connected" to "the 'Mongolian' race." See also Turanian theory at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turanism ("a pseudoscientific pan-nationalist cultural and political movement").
> Racial prejudice against Finns sprang from a belief that they were related to Mongolians. Some 19th century scientists cited the Finns' exotic language, which is completely unrelated to other European languages, as evidence that Finns were racially unrelated to Europeans as well. It was said that they descended from a tribe that migrated from Mongolia. At a time when federal law barred all immigration from Asia, a federal immigration committee investigated the Finns' racial background, examining them for such physical characteristics as small eyes, high cheekbones, round heads, or stocky stature. Historian Marianne Wargelin:
> "After the 1907 strike, they tried to make the Finns be seen as Asians. There was an Asian exclusion act, and if the Finns could be seen as Asians, they could get them kicked out of the country."
> In 1908, Federal authorities tried to use the act to deny citizenship to 16 Finnish men. A Duluth judge ruled in favor of the Finns; in keeping with the racist tenor of the times, he wrote that Finns had white skins and thus could not be denied citizenship. But the case's echoes lingered for years.
That moloch-hai doesn't know this is fine - there's no reason to know all of the crappy science people have published.
That moloch-hai would rather jump to the conclusion that I'm making shit up - willing to trust personal views over doing research or ask for pointers - is a sign of bad scholarship.
My point remains true. There is no need for a modern paper on the origins of Finns to revisit this racist 19th century conclusion as if it might be viable. There is a lot of evidence that it isn't true, and ignoring the old Mongolian conclusion would not make the modern paper "anti-science."
Similarly, if the connection between Carthaginian has no persuasive evidence, while there are more persuasive connections with other origins, then I don't see why every modern paper on an ancient rune find would need to present the Carthaginian model as if it were viable. That would not make the modern paper "anti-science."
We've banned this account for posting flamewar comments and ignoring our request to stop.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
