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

On Sun, 29 May 2005 23:23:37 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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.

So sue me. :-)

Don't you recognise a quote when you see one?
>
>> 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.

You seem to have an innocent belief in the infalibility of history.
Not only is history written by the victors, its also written by the
survivors.

>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 ...

I thought there were more than that.

> ... 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.

Very true.

> 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.

Don't you remember you recent arrival in this news group? You arrived
pronouncing possible norse presence in NA (beyond LAM) as lies,
rubbish, a racist theory debated only by Kooks? Don't you remember how
you promulgated your list of factors which make up Kookery so you
could use it label people whose ideas you did not like? I would be
careful before you start preaching about the dangers of leading with a
hypothesis.

>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.

Hmm. You are leading the argument into the trackless swamps.
>
>> 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?

It has nothing to do with claims she is a racist. Stop trying to
confuse the issue.

> 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.

Do you really regard this as a proper argument by means of which you
can show Inger to be wrong?

> 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.

So,you consider that she plays looseley with the facts is grounds to
call her a racist?

At this point I can see you have been taking lessons from Steve
Marcus. I'm not going to go on responding to an ever expanding tail of
allegations. I'm stopping right here.




Eric Stevens

.

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: 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: ATTN JMS: Humans build communities
    ... >> Then I guess he hasn't heard what they say about Swedes in Norway ... The Norwegians are just changing around the jokes the Finns ... there are plenty of Finnish jokes about Swedes. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: Dano-Norwegian
    ... But this level of precision may be of little concern to anyone but ... given the history. ... 'Dano-Norwegian' is the most common term in the anglophone world I would ... to the Norwegians now! ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Immgrating to Sweden
    ... >>> I've gotten the impression that Swedes are more outgoing, ... >>made friend with Norwegians you can count on them to an extant you can't ... > much outgoing, and too many extroverts, would not necessarily be a ...
    (soc.culture.nordic)