Re: Amerindian navigators and Eurocentrism in scholarship

[yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)]

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano (bortiz@earthlink.net) wrote:
: In article <5vbqv2$dlp$1@news.trends.ca>, yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri
: Kuchinsky) wrote:

: This is the crux of the problem. The only citations you make are to
: secondary, tertiary or even quaternary sources usually Carter or
: Heyerdahl. You then disclaim all further responsibility by repeating over
: and over that all of us should go to Carter or Heyerdahl to get the data.
: You have the cart before the horse, *You, Yuri are the one making the
: claim*

Well, it's actually Carter who is making the claim.

: *it is your responsibility to provide the evidence to support the
: claim* *This evidence is composed of PRIMARY SOURCES, not of citations to
: Carter or Heyerdahl* Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
: not paraphrased research of unknown quality. In this particular case it
: seems that you have been even more irresponsible because you cited an
: article by Carter which *you haven't read*

This is false. I've cited an article by Carter that I've read. And I've
quoted from it.

: How then do you know, except by
: a childlike faith in Carter's accuracy and scholarship which the rest of
: us don't have, that *in fact* Carter cites any primary sources in his
: article?

Because I know Carter is reliable in this area, since I've already
investigated many of his other claims. 

: Wilfrid Jackson (1917) is most certainly not a primary source--
: he sat in his library in Manchester and read what other people did.

This is bizarre twisting of evidence. Jackson was a very important scholar
of his age in this area. He dedicated many years of research to this.
You're trying to discredit him _with zero basis in fact_. This is a good
example of stalling and obfuscation, typical for Bernard. 

: Your
: refusal (inability) to post primary sources for claims of the appearance
: of *C. moneta* in Adena mounds clearly illustrates that you do not have
: any because either you have not read the article by Carter (although
: Heyerdahl's book should have had them also) or Carter does not have any
: because he relies solely on Jackson.

I will try to help you in the future with further citations, since this
literature is not readily available, if you prove that your interest in
this area is primarily about finding the truth, and not to engage in ad
hominems and obfuscation in defence of your isolationist faith. 

	...

: > And not only that... It seems that Bernard is now gone to the extreme of
: > actually trying to FORBID me to explore other related issues until I can
: > provide the information that he imperiously commanded me to provide for
: > him! And why should I bother at all, seeing how negative and unscholarly
: > his attitude is?

: As I pointed out in my post on the need for primary sources, my insistence
: on these for evidence predates by decades my unfortunate acquaintance with
: Yuri, et al. It has been a key methodological approach. I will gladly
: compare my interest in *truth* historical or otherwise and my demonstrated
: methodology, my citation record, and my academic integrity with Yuri's.

There are a number of obvious inaccuracies in the following.

: You will remember that I have so far convincingly refuted claims about the
: diffusion of cotton,

Claims that I've never made.

: gourds,

No claims of mine have been refuted here.

: bananas,

This is false. As I remember, you have not replied to my last post on this
subject in which I pointed out how wrong you have been on this subject.

: tyrian purple,

No claims made by me.

It's also interesting that you have not mentioned sweet potato where your
theories have been proven incorrect.

: Egyptians, West
: Africans, etc. Cowrie shells will soon be included

This remains to be seen.

: because I have very
: serious doubts that 1) the primary sources, if they ever appear, will be
: very convincing. If the secondary source is Jackson (1917), the the
: archaeological dig, if it was an archaological dig at all, would have been
: earlier. At this time radiocarbon was unknown and the time scale used was
: in serious error, and archaeological techniques were quite primitive- thus
: I have doubts about the accuracy of the archaeology and the date.

I suppose the archaeologists of old were so stupid that they did not know
a precolumbian site when they saw one. This is the sort of Bernard
arrogance that has been noted before. The same sort of arrogant putting
down of archaeologists of the past has been noted in Bernard's past claims
about the non-existence of precolumbian banana in America. The evidence
from historical sources clearly indicates otherwise -- and Bernard has
been strangely silent about this of late. One day Bernard will perhaps
learn to show more respect for serious and dedicated scientists of the
past in whose debt we all are for helping to advance science where it is
today. 

: I also
: have serious doubts that *C. moneta* was really identified as such rather
: than a generic *cowrie shell* but we know that that there are members of
: the genus native to the New World and also as Lawrence pointed out there
: are species that resemble each other closely. Would people prior to 1917
: be expert enough to distinguish?

Only a very arrogant and poorly informed commentator would suppose
otherwise. 

: The only way we will know this is for
: Yuri to post references to the primary sources for this claim. *Put or
: shut up.*\

Yes, Bernard, I know that your isolationist religion and faith is in
danger under pressure from reality, but using this sort of language is
only likely to expose you lack of objectivity in this area -- a must for
any true scholar. This is really not helping your case. 

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku

You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods 
without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population
that dwells under it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes