I speak with a broad swath of the public, sometimes in depth, and not always by choice.
I've had workplace reasons to speak with a whole spectrum of objectionable people, many of whom would likely derail and then lock this thread if I mentioned them, including some of the most objectionable categories of people on Earth. Racists, if anything, are at the shallow end of the pool.
(I also speak with a lot of great folks, too. It's not like I'm interviewing alleged war criminals in the Hague 24/7.)
I suspect anyone who really cares has long ago figured it out.
You're completely missing the point. Netflix is an entertainment service, and puts out shows that they think people will watch. Hancock is a popular author. Millions of people watch or listen to Joe Rogan. I mentioned Rogan as an example of Hancock being known to many people, and thus giving a certain base audience for a show.
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether you, me, or any other individual or subset of individuals, think Hancock or Rogan is "legit."
The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) objected to the classification of the series as a documentary and requested that Netflix reclassify it as science fiction. The SAA also stated that the series: "repeatedly and vigorously dismisses archaeologists and the practice of archaeology with aggressive rhetoric, willfully seeking to cause harm to our membership and our profession in the public eye; ... the theory it presents has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies; does injustice to Indigenous peoples; and emboldens extremists"
Accusing someone of racism is an easy and cheap way to (try to) discredit them - even if it is entirely unfounded, which in this case it is. I've been reading GH for 25 years, and haven't caught even a tiny whiff of bigotry (except his dislike of close-minded archeologists!)
And no, the hypothesis that there is an unknown antediluvian civilization is not itself a racist idea. I mean, if our definition of racism is "a racist once said something similar," then what isn't racist? I mean, let's not even get into the myth of progress, how some have interpreted evolutionary theory, etc etc.
Perhaps the archeologists should, instead, address the content of his series?
I dunno about @Whizbang Dustyboots but if you work in any country in Asia which is seen as like, a destination for "colonial" types, so like especially Singapore, you're knee-deep in racists (many of whom will be married to Asian people).
Equally if you work in the charity sector, whatever part of that sector, no matter how leftist, with the possible exception of youth/LGBTQ stuff, you will meet bunch of amazing racists with axes to grind (often 55+ in age to be fair). Some of them would be good people if it wasn't for the amazing racism.
Yes it is. And just saying it isn't it just bloody silly. It's all about how local civilizations couldn't have made things they could easily and obviously have made. I've been following him on and off for 30 years with increasing disgust.
Literally every single thing Hancock has ever suggested has been either prima facie ridiculous, or debunked very easily.
You say you've been "reading him for 25 years" though, so you've been reading and accepting conspiracy theories and psuedo-science for 25 years, so I guess it's unsurprising that you're mysteriously claiming the laughable stuff he outputs isn't laughable.
I would suggest that the term "misinformation" doesn't apply, especially when we're talking about theories on prehistory. It isn't "misinforming" to share a different view on human origins, because there's no factual account of it.
LOL, I completely disagree about your take on Graham Hancock - which is clearly lacking in any actual exposure to his ideas, beyond (I'm guessing) a cursory viewing of a few minutes of his documentary. Hogwash, in other words!
I mean, by your logic--cancelling Netflix because they have a show on that has ideas you don't agree with--you might as well put me on the ignore list, because I like and read Graham Hancock, and probably lots of other things that you'd find to be "conspiracy theories" and "nutty."
With no insult, I'm considering it. If you're going to push pseudo-science, and tell someone who knows way more about than you (and started off kinda buying into his stuff, before I actually studied archaeology) that they're talking "hogwash", I'm not sure your input is helpful lol.