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

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> says in
news:sd8k91tgv3r1e03mq1bjhd57hukfb41t13@xxxxxxx:


>>"
>> In what way would it affect YOU if you had to admit that
>> the Swedes and the Norwegians not only were active during
>> the Migration Age up to end of Viking Age in Europe but
>> also had more impact on the North American History then
>> what the later arriving Brits, French and Spainards
>> officially given them credit for?
>>"
>>
>>See, because if I was going to pick and ethnocentric fight
>>I might say the above.
>
> But that is a perfectly logical remark by Inger. Right now it is
> generally accepted that the Swedes and Norwegians were generally
> inactive in the migration age, had no significant presence in NA
> at the time and hence can have had no impact on NA history
> compared with that the later Brits, French and Spaniards
> officially give them credit for.

Official use English or British. Brits can be construed as defamatory
slang.

> However, if it can be shown
> that, contrary to present belief, the Swedes and Norwegians were
> active in NA then it follows that they must have had more impact
> on NA history compared with that the later Brits, French and
> Spaniards officially give them credit for. This is simply a
> logical conclusion which hangs on whether or not the Swedes and
> Norwegians were active in NA.

History is history my boy, either it is known now or it is not
history, you cannot blame the British for misrepresenting history
that is not present, you can contrive or revise a history based on
facts, but there has to be a core element of that history prior to
that. When there is no written context that is authentic to the place
and period it is prehistory or natural history. In which case she is
also wrong, in the prehistoric context there is also no evidence of a
significant impact of Norse on native american culture, but that is
something the archaeologist have to show. And given the fact we have
two american archaeologist in the group and they both seem to contest
that prehistory, I would conclude that its not something they would
conclude was significant. More finds may change that opinion.
My point to you is that in professional science we have a different
standard, if you try to lead your hypothesis with a foregone
conclusion, you are not practicing science but faith. And when that
faith involves a people you aspire to have a greater past because of
your relationship to that people, and you want everyone to bow to
your faith, that is racism.

>>I don't seen the norse mentioned above in her paragraph.
>>She is talking about Norwegians and Swedes past the viking age
>>and North American History.
>
> Norse is simpler to write than Norwegians and Swedes

That is what she wrote. She did not write greenlanders, icelanders,
gotlanders, danish, she wrote Norwegians and Swedes. By 1456 the two
entities had already separated, and were rejoin under queen
Margerate. You could have referred to them as Danish, but I think
everyone would agree that greenland was under inuit control in 1456,
and whatever claim the danish had, was null and void, abandoned.

> Inger's style of presenting her arguments earns her a fair
> proportion of what she gets. However, IMHO labelling her a
> 'racist' for her historical beliefs is going too far, especially
> when your own objections smack of racism.

Wrong, it is the way she confronted Peter that showed her hand, once
again as Peter reminds us about past incidences. You still don't get
it. Let me clarify this for you so that you can understand. Inger has
confused buffulo and wild ox for kettle, squirrels, clams, . . . . .
.. what does also this confusion mean?
One does not look at a single event, but deliberacy in actions, she
is trolling everything she can find to try to bring support for her
belief or her faith. If one is not lead by a belief, a faith, or
whatever you want to call it, there is no reason to dredge highly
questionable ties into the argument. Her reason for dragging these
can be directly tied to her desire to get people to follow her
forgone conclusion [conclusion may be a nice word for it alternative
you could call it a 5 letter word that starts with F].

>>That is your opinion, in every instance I see her use this
>>mode of argument, I am going to point it out, for if nothing
>>else her fellow Swede can see what their society is producing.
>
> Fine, but you have to realise that every time you start trying
> to counter someone's argument as to who did what by making value
> judgements about which ethnic group (race) made the most
> valuable contribution to the history of the country you are
> entering into potentially racist arguments.

What that means is that 'singled' out group needs to retract to a
solid foundation and restate their case in an objective manner, and
we, fellow scientist (although I am not an archaeologist so I will
defer to holo-american archaeologists judgement on this), will then
examine this evidence, and if presented properly, support that which
can be supported. I should remind you that she did not say Norse, the
norse are a people-nation, Norwegians and Swedes are a political
nation. There are kickapoo living in Texas, they are thrice
(Kickapoo, Texans and Americans).

> It doesn't matter to the resolution of the question of the
> historical role of the Norse in NA whether or not " An ancient
> sled dog on a sled team strolling across the canadian ice
> deserves more credit for the discovery of american than 'your'
> sweden." This discussion should not be about Brownie points. It
> should be about what actually happened.

Is the sweat of a Jomon cool the brow differently from that of a
Swede? Is a premature death any different an outcome for either?
And yet this continent was full of Native peoples, and yet somehow
this group is obsessed with the 18 mention on a potentially fradulent
stone or the 'putative' escape of greenlanders in 1456.
How much more interesting it is in the grand scheme of things that
the most ancient people in both south american and baja california
look more like africans and austronesians, and nearly as old look
like Ainu, Jomon and Siberians. There could have been as few as 10
individuals who founded the population in south america, if HLA is a
clue, not nearly as important as a group of people who, unverfiyably,
got to Minnisota without a clue as to why or what happened after they
got there. Surely the contrast in devotion is obvious to you. The
first is, after all, real bonafida american archaeology (as in the
name of the group) and the second has this shroud of misinformation
and racism surrounding it, and has little to no bonafida archaeology
associated with it.
The first sled dogs may have helped the Inuit to make it to
greenland, where they still live, the spirit of those dogs and their
ability to survive in the north is a cultural adaptation of the
Inuit, as well as a biological wonder worthy of tribute. As the
Scandinavian explorers in Antartica taught the British, as they
understood the value of these dogs to explorers. Were they alive and
were you to ask them I think you would know what the answer would be.
People who run sled dog teams take the death of their dogs as a
person would take the death of a family member, so essential they are
to survival in the high arctic in the premodern age. Discovery is not
a thought process, its an manifestation of the spirit, a willingness
to go where one has not gone before, and to develope that which is
undeveloped. It pays no attention to race or phyla.

> It is a fixation, but not necessarily a fixation motivated by
> ethnocentrism.

The other alternative is insanity.

> All of this came out of a discussion of the KRS
> many years ago. The possible role of Ivar Bardson was being
> discussed and with one exception the sources quoted by
> contributors had Ivar Bardson heading to Greenland and never
> returning. The exception was that I found an encyclopaedia
> refrence which referred to Ivar Bardson returning to Sweden (or
> was it Norway?).
>
> I made the comment to Inger that maybe the author of that
> article knew something that the rest of us did not know. That
> was the start. Inger was off looking for the evidence to justify
> the claim of Bardson's survival, and she found it. One thing led
> to another and Inger is still hunting down a trail which seems
> to have been largely unexplored by others. What set Inger going
> was not ethnocentrism but scholastic curiosity.

I see so that is the license to play loosely with the facts.
Or do you want to now take responsibility for her. Its good for
people to investigate, it is also good for them to approach their
finds in an interogative state. The fact that Bardson returned has
already made it to popular science TV, there is nothing new there.

>>There is no instance were you can say that precolumbian North
>>American white 'tribes' except for the people on greenland.
>
> I can't, but some of the early explorers did.

>>Making a claim about 'your' peoples accomplishment in another
>>peoples land because of ignorance of skin color variation is
>>interpretable as racism.
>
> If skin colour was the only link, you might be right, but even
> then the claim of racism is arguable.

That's right, it taints the reports as being guided by a false
perception. Unless there is direct corrobarating evidence in the
report, such as a claim about language or a claim about europeanish
customs in the same report. I can call a person black or negro.
Who am I talking about? Papua New Guineans, How about Solomon
Islanders, Tasmanians, San, Mbuti, baka, Bantu, . . . .
If I call someone black can you tell me with a 86% confidence what
part of the world the ancetral node that their parents come from?
Of course you can't. But if you see an africa you might be able to
guess, +/- 50 miles where their ancestors come from, based on
cultural elements, morphology, etc. Skin color is the least of the
arguments you would use.

>>The use or fabrication of incorrect information in support of
>>a ethnocentric based challenge to history, the use of tainted
>>information that relies on racial qualifiers, the postulation
>>that the contribution of ones home country is somehow greater
>>than everyone elses, despite all evidence to the contrary.
>
> Apart from the fact that I think you are wrong about Inger's
> ethnocentrism (but what about your own?), I think this kind of
> argument has no place in a scientific discussion.

Because you are uncomfortable with it, if Inger's claims of abuse and
sexmail can be brought here, why shouldn't it be?

> Surely you are not arguing that fixity of belief is due only to
> racism or ethnocentrism?

And so that passage of hers above is key to this belief, most of the
time she is very good at hiding her racism, that is why I call her
cryptoracist, but sometimes she lets it slip.

> Others pick holes in Inger's arguments very effectively without
> finding it necessary to repeatedly call her a racist. Why is it
> you cannot?

Very simple eric, her modality of operation exudes a propogandistic
modality of debate, with such a modality there is an assumption of an
alterior or vested motive. If she then begs the question of why
people would be hurt by giving more credance to her home country,
then that becomes a motivation.
Have I ever asked people to give credance to Texas for all the
presidents from my state, the fact that a Texan saved the american
banking system during the great depression. Have I pointed out that
Johnson Space center is here, from were most of the space missions
are under surveliance, or that Texas root stocks saved the french
wine industry, or how our rice is crossed to produced more
environment tolerant rice strains. How about asking everyone to give
credance to the worlds largest medical center (where I work) or
asking them to give homage to the republic which without the war with
Mexico would not have gotten the whole west for the US. What if I
then changed this a little, what if I said, Texas was a nation first,
and we had no compulsion to obey the laws regarding slavery. What if
then said that Texas was responsible for the fall of New Spain, and
later the defeat of Napolean. For this you should also pay homage.
Its no longer pride anymore its a kind of ignorant bigotry isn't it.

You know I was in a conversation friday with a person who was a
pentacosts, and I asked him if he believe that rolling on the floor
and speaking in Tongues was really something of biblical
spirituality, at this he touted 'god will not forgive you for
insulting the holy spirit'. Within a few minutes he was professing
that the reason that all the buddist were disappearing was because
god set out to kill them, and that 1/3rd of the worlds buddist died
in the Christmas Tsunami in indonesia. Aside from the fact it was
acutely wrong, I had a moral to teach the individual.
At that point I brought to him the story of the stone age
Andamanese, who on their culture saw the signs of tsunami and fled,
without loss of life, and I ask him 'this groups of people were
entirely saved, and they are complete pagans, they were throwing
stones at the helicopter that tried to deliver aid, but god must have
blessed them that they should survive'? He was speachless. He has
been reading the bible for one year, I have read the entire book
several times and the new testiment and added books on average about
20 times. And yet he knows more than I, lol. His helper, who was a
honduran indigeonous was laughing at him. He asked me what my
religion was, and I proclaimed the last temple I was in was
buddhist(true), and the last ceremony was also buddhist (true,just to
let him ponder the statement that buddhist were losing its members to
this and that). The pentocosts had him in study of other religions, I
wonder what they were teaching him?
Can you imagine how the American archaeologist in this group weigh
her inability to accept critique?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
    ... >> generally accepted that the Swedes and Norwegians were generally ... >> at the time and hence can have had no impact on NA history ... >significant impact of Norse on native american culture, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
    ... >>> also had more impact on the North American History then ... Swedes and Norwegians are substantially Inger's own people and one ... What is to be gained or lost by giving credit to sweden for what ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: How Polyglot the old country was , was Home Depot Courts Hispanics
    ... Swedes and Norwegians that neither of them trust the Danes. ... The Danes refuse to discuss the ... muttering something about how "those idiots wouldn't know a ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Chillies or what?
    ... City, is it fair to call Tucson "a Mexican settlement"? ... Not all of them are as American as the Swedes of Minnesota, ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Chillies or what?
    ... City, is it fair to call Tucson "a Mexican settlement"? ... Not all of them are as American as the Swedes of Minnesota, ...
    (alt.usage.english)