Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 04:36:16 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> says in
>news:g6uh91pa7vd7ce7o009ra939vpkdreklcs@xxxxxxx:
>
>>>I see, so I am posting post after post of misstatements,
>>>flooding this newsgroup with Norse bunk, right.
>>>
>> By all means take exception to that but it doesn't provide
>> grounds for calling someone a racist.
>
>I am pointing out her racism. You didn't get the meaning of the
>other thread, it is not an issue of being racist, its an issue of
>continuing a racist expression even after it is pointed out that
>it is that.

That it is racist, is your opinion. That your objection is racist, is
mine, and you have supplied the evidence.

Do you think it would not be better to discuss these on the basis of
the facts of the matter rather than the allegations which can be slung
backwards and forwards?

Either the norse did what Inger claimed, or they didn't.

Either the KRS is authentic or it is not.

Either Gloria Farley is right in her identification of runes in the
Missisipi basin, or she is not.

Not one of these matters will be resolved by arguing about racism
whether perceived, real or imaginary.

>I just this week pointed out that she frequently talks
>about how knowledgable her family, swedish colleages, etc, and she
>belittles american archaeologist who study exactly some of the issues
>she blabs about, and there she goes talking about how the british,
>and spanish need to rewrite the history books so that Sweden can have
>some 'magically' more historic role.
> Its one thing to say something that is ethnocentric, its another
>thing not to realize it, and still a third to refuse to correct the
>behavior, and replicate the same several times. That is racism. I am
>from the 'south', I know what it looks like. There is a certain
>stigma associated with saying something repeatedly in our society
>that comes as a result of the tribulations of the civil rights
>movement. When someone uses a quality of language or opinion and
>after the 'hypocrisy' and inaccuracy of an ethnocentric statement is
>pointed out and they go about repeating it as if the critique had
>never been heard, then they epitomize that kind of racism. It may be
>true that Inger is stubborn about everything, but being antisocial
>does not excuse a particularly offensive behavior.

The best way to deal with perceived racist arguments is to stick with
the facts. I agree that it is difficult when people insist in arguing
in racist terms. I would be happier if you stopped using 'racist' or
'racism' as a debating card. This is a 'sci' group after all.



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Waradpande seems to have destroyed PIE already
    ... racism, also schoolbooks, also the Usenet. ... a friend of Eric Stevens, and this Eric Stevens is an ... the evolution and development of civilization took many ... As for "killrating", I hear the term but I have no idea what it refers ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
    ... >>I see, so I am posting post after post of misstatements, ... I am pointing out her racism. ... pointed out and they go about repeating it as if the critique had ... does not excuse a particularly offensive behavior. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Loading