True History Of America with Graham Hancock | Russell Brand

so I found myself endlessly in opposition with archaeologists because I feel I need to point up their failures and their mistakes and to help the public to understand that we're not dealing with the Word of God here we're dealing with the word of fragile human beings who are their own egos and their own careers to pursue and who may pursue mistaken lies and unfortunately these are the people who we've entrusted with interpreting our past to us and if they've got our past wrong then it's only us through our own actions who are going to perhaps put it right and that's one of the things that I've done in this new book which is called America before not yeah Graham was now a Berlin no no it is not sure what to say I'm gonna say why it failed force well I'll tell you why Russell because because I've taken a lot of stick for this I've been taught or chuckling I've taken a lot of stick for this in particular which is called the Clovis first model the Clovis first model is a model of the peopling of the Americas and it is a notion which has been taught in schools is based on archeology and it's been taught to every American and indeed and me there was a bridge made a vice and they crossed over the ice bridge and then the bridges gotten out it got too hot and that's how they got there you saved me a huge amount of talking popped over the ice bridge there's nothing else to worry about next well exactly that's it and and and basically people were taught that there had been no human beings in America before thirteen thousand years ago because there was a particular combination of lowered sea levels and an opening up of a ice-free corridor between the in the North American ice cap that allowed people to pour through into the Americas then by tonight and I'm not no no there's the ice bridge which is Beringia but then you cross but ok Beringia is now the bering straits Beringia connected at one time siberia to alaska it was above water it was an ice bridge sea level was for sure lower then than it is today ok and it was an ice bridge but then when you cross that ice bridge what did you find you find yourself confronting the North American ice cap which is two miles deep a mountain of ice two miles deep blocks your path you're stuck in this bit of land between Siberia and Alaska you can't go further but then around 13,000 years ago because of global warming a corridor opens up in the middle of the North American ice cap that allowed people to trickle through it into the resource-rich Great Plains of North America and for more than 60 years it was the position of archaeology that the first human beings to enter the Americas were those humans who came across the Bering Land Bridge 13,000 years ago found that ice-free corridor and entered the Americas because of that position it was impossible to consider that it was not even worth thinking about America in the role of the origins of human civilization why should the Americas have had anything to do with the origins of human civilization if human beings had only been in the Americas for 13,000 years whereas they'd been in Europe for 60,000 or 70,000 years and by the way recently there's just just been a new piece of news the last couple of days anatomically modern human remains in Europe dating close to 200 thousand years ago have been have been found and they'd been in Asia for 60 or 70,000 years Australia for at least as long but in America for only 13,000 years so why would we look for the origins of civilisation in America and that's a whole avenue of inquiry concerning this vast landmass of the Americas were just cut off by archaeological dogma and this has happened more more often than it should in the world of archaeology we're fixed ideas have been have been held in place by powerful intellects by powerful figures in the field figures who have the power to withdraw funding from other figures so archeologists who opposed Clovis first who did have evidence of earlier peopling of the Americas had great difficulties with their careers they were unable to get research funding they were humiliated at conferences they were publicly mocked they were accused of making up their evidence and their information and naturally in that climate as an archaeologist you're not very keen to break the existing model it's better to work within it refine it file things away and have no arguments so why is there thinking shifted thinking shifted because the the new evidence has become overwhelming and this is how it is with every paradigm shift it doesn't it doesn't happen because some brilliant guy says how things are different it happens because little by little drip by drip new evidence keeps coming in that can't be explained by the the existing paradigm and at a certain point it becomes clinically insane to go on defending the existing paradigm when the evidence that contradicts it is so overwhelming that it can't any longer be ignored and those who are presenting the evidence can't be diminished by accusing them of being pseudo scientists or fabricating their evidence or Fanta cysts you know that's the the typical kind of ad hominem attack that has been applied to archaeologists who've challenged the existing model and there I can give you several several names of individuals who did that and who paid the price for doing so you make you angry yeah it does it does make me it does make me angry because because we're trusting these people with our past and and they are presenting themselves to us as this pure and unsullied unsullied body of entirely objective scientists who simply who simply can't make mistakes if you say to an archaeologist you present yourself to me this way they'll deny it but in terms of the general public bits the clovis work first went essentially unquestioned for 60 years and it was completely completely wrong I mean I am constantly accused of being a pseudo scientist by archaeologists if you go to my Wikipedia page you'll find the almost the very first word about Graham Hancock is that he's a pseudo scientist I can't think of anything more pseudo scientific than the Clovis first model which was based on an incredibly limited data set huge conclusions were based on a very limited data set and anything that contradicted that data set set was rejected that is pseudoscience for me do you think as I do that we are entering a time where people are people in general but there aren't there's a certain bifurcation occurring where there are people that are open to other possibilities they were willing to reject mainstream models and modalities seems to me that there are certain people of a conservative mindset this conservatism seems present not only in archaeology but in most disciplines so they become doctrinaire sort of as a necessary way of preserving themselves you know their importance but it feels to me that what you wear your wave start where you've started from gram is a sense that there's magic magic as in the sense of power that we don't understand yet uninvestigated all around us different possibilities a certain beauty and you're very passionate about that and it hurts you that it's something that people are closed-minded about thank you for seeing that way yes I guess I guess that's true I do I do feel passionate about it but I feel particularly passionate about is the is the lack of dialog that there is around serious issues in our society units either one way or another you I take one point of view or you take the other point of view Nick we end up constantly with this this duality and opposition and I find myself being forced into that duality and opposition because if archaeologists and their friends in the media every time they refer to me insult me and say that I'm a fraud and a liar and I make stuff up and I'm a pseudo scientist naturally I'm a human being I I react it makes me it makes me want to point out their failings and their weaknesses as well what I'd much prefer would be to have kind of some kind of open and easy dialogue where it's not even where it's not even couched as a debate which one side must win and one side must lose but where it's couched as a discussion about the past let's open our minds to other possibilities about the past just as we should also open our minds to other possibilities about the present this schism that you're describing is not only in scientific disciplines it's across society as a whole people get locked into very rigid positions and they confuse their position with reality and with fact and it isn't it's a position it's a choice that everybody's made people are not very comfortable with the mystery I think because it's in a sense when you unravel from the position of that there is a mystery within each of us we don't really know ourselves we don't understand and the automatic procedures that are continually occurring we don't understand our own identity how unthinkingly we commit to a persona without knowing its provenance yeah I I feel that as you embrace the mystery or become willing to investigate the mystery one of the that a corollary to that is a kind of willingness to step outside of all the frameworks in a sense thanks for watching this podcast and going all the way to the end of it was usually kinda to click the Belmont up a little over there and there subscribing so that we can infiltrate your serenity and peace of mind with jangling bells and parties

Channel: Russell Brand

Views: 559,802

Rating: 4.8318281 out of 5

Keywords: Russell Brand, Brand Russell, BrandThe, Russell Brand video, Russell Brand news, Russell Brand revolution, Russell Brand podcast, Under The Skin, Under The Skin podcast, Graham Hancock, Graham Hancock podcast, history of america, lost cities, ancient civilisations, history podcast, American history, archaeology, archaeology podcast

Id: RD0QpNuzoIg

Length: 9min 41sec (581 seconds)

Published: Tue Jul 16 2019