[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: maize in ancient india: strong transpacific links are indicated

Yuri wrote:

>Well, here they go again...


>These fellows don't even wait until the whole argument is presented. Why
>bother to look at the evidence when you can already begin to demonstrate
>your amazing sense of humour? They don't have their usual excuses now
>about the evidence being incomplete, unverified, unscientific, etc. This
>is solid peer-reviewed stuff that I'm presenting... So what do they have
>to throw at this research? The usual: innuendo, cheap sarcasm, ad
>hominems, ex silentio arguments, demands for "more proof" (as if any
>proof would be enough for those whose minds have been made up long time

>I have followed the maize, and other likely plants, diffusion discussions
>for a while. I cannot think of any evidence that is stronger than
>Johannessen's in demonstrating transpacific contacts. This is definitely
>the "smoking gun". It is so, because, and I guarantee you that, if you
>ask 10 "men in the street" to look at these photos and to identify these
>plants, 10 of them -- without any doubt -- will say, This is maize. And
>this is good enough for me.

>I don't doubt for a second that counter-arguments can be made. I also
>don't doubt that counter-arguments _will be made_, since this matter is
>of extreme importance in defending strong vested interests for many
>scholars. Doubt will be cast upon thousands upon thousands of academic
>careers if this evidence is accepted as valid, and the necessary
>conclusions are drawn.

>But can _good counter-arguments_ be made? This is the question. I would
>really like to see them. So far, none came up in these frequently
>vitriolic hasty replies that already arrived to my yesterday's post. Oh,
>yes, definitely, we will see much more of the same... 

>I believe that reality is catching up fast with the American
>isolationists. The sand-castle of isolationism is crumbling and sinking
>fast under the impact of increasing evidence that demonstrates that
>ancient peoples crossed the oceans many thousands of years before

>The fear and trembling among isolationists is palpable now. They will
>spare no innuendo, no cheap sarcasm, ad hominems, ex silentio arguments,
>no demands for "more proof".

Imagine that.  Asking for convincing proof.  How unreasonable.

> But I think they can smell the defeat in the
>air... I can discern more than a whiff of desperation in their formulaic
>and ritualistic denials. In the replies to my first posting you will see
>the names of stout defenders of the status quo. They are the valiant
>Knights Defenders of the threatened dogma, seeking strength in numbers,
>dressed in cardboard armour and suited for a good food fight, and they
>ride out on their toy horses to wage battle to defend the great Sand
>Castle of Isolationism, reinforced with cardboard-and-styrofoam. 

How poetic.  Let me see if I can follow the logic in this.

1.  Anyone who disagrees with Yuri or finds his evidence unconvincing is
an "Isolationist".  This list includes the people who have posted here
(archeaologists, ethnohistorians, botanists) and basically the entire
academic establishment.

2. Isolationists are motivated by fear that their high-paying prestigious
jobs will be threatened if the "Truth" should come out, which Truth we
have been either actively or passively suppressing.  This happened once
before, when the pre-Columbian Norse settlements in the New World were
discovered, documented, and widely accepted.  Thousands of Isolationists
had their careers irreperably damaged and many were fired. (Oh, wait a
minute, that didn't happen at all.  In fact it was archaeologists who
excavated those sites.  Never mind, strike that part).

3. Isolationists are great in number (obvious here in that there are more
people on this NG who disagree in print with Yuri than agree with him by a
ratio of 6:1 or so, unless you count a couple of more extreme
diffusionists who think that Yuri's claims are too tame, in which case it
becomes maybe 6:3.  Those who disagree with Yuri are Isolationists by
implicit definition, there are more of us, and we thus seek strength in
numbers).  The fact that Isolationists are great in number clearly shows
that they  are wrong.

4. All arguments that anyone makes here against Yuri will fall into one of
the following categories:>> innuendo, no cheap sarcasm, ad hominems, ex
silentio arguments,
>no demands for "more proof".>>

It may seem confusing when we (Isolationists, that is) seem to present
reasoned arguements backed by research (as when I checked Carter's sources
on Chickens, as when Domingo did the linguistic footwork on "Wallpa", as
when people on this thread have cited published souvces disputing Yuri's
claims).  However, Yuri has kindly pointed out in advance that any and all
arguments advanced against his Maize thesis will somehow be rooted in
fallacy because we are not to be trusted.  True, this is ad hominem
(casting doubt upon the character and integrity of us Isolationists and
thus anything we print) but ad hominem is okay when it is really, really
true, as Yuri knows it to be in this case.

Anyway,  this saves everyone the trouble of reading the counter-arguments
by Isolationists.

>Certainly expecting to persuade these people of anything would be the
>heights of naivete. I have no such ambitions. The Superman is not me. I
>simply provide information for interested individuals to peruse. I will
>post the rest of this Indian maize material, and see the show unfold. For
>me, the big question is over and done with. Now I'm basically sure that
>maize was in India a long time ago.

Follow any of these threads back, and we find you saying the same thing
about Chickens or whatever.  Your conclusion (that substantial contact and
difussion between Asia and the Americas occured in pre-Columbian times) is
prior to any of your evidence.  You "know" the truth and seek sources
which will confirm it for you. As far as I can tell, exculsively.  You
have been questioned repeatedly about your justification of this
methodology and you respond by either calling it an ad hominem attack
(questioning you methedology=questioning your character) or by saying "My
sources make sense and I trust them (paraphrased, but not innacurate)"

> And, sure, I will wait for
>substantial criticism to arrive, but, I fear, I'll be waiting in vain... 
>From now on, as far as I can see, this show here is more about scholarly
>pathologies and the strategies and mechanisms of psychological denial and
>avoidance. It can be fun though...

Sigh.  By the way, you were right, I did use sarcasm above, though I deny
that it was cheap.  I'm afraid I can't hold myself to the high standard of
argumentation presented in your post.

>Best regards,


--Greg Keyes

Follow-Ups: References: