Re: The _Red Earth, White Lies_ thread

Karl Kluge (
03 Aug 1996 22:29:35 -0400

In article <4tnvtu$> (Eric Brunner) writes:

Karl Kluge ( wrote:
: In article <4tiks3$> (Eric Brunner) writes:

: The list of problematic items is already 15-20 long, and that's based on a
: quick scan. Just picking a few (more detail and precise cites later):
Fine, have you any objection to taking the issues in text presentation
order, chapter 1, chapter 2, ...?

The only possible problem I forsee with this is that it's a 220+ page book,
and it often takes an order of magnitude more text to point out and document
problems than is in the original text.

Do you see any problem with addressing the Portland Symposium text after
covering the REWL text, or at least, from the point at which each specific
issue is sufficiently addressed in the REWL text?

I reserve the right to refer back to it in the context of the _REWL_ discussion
when it seems appropriate, but other than that, no.

: There's also the issue of whether sci.anthro is the best venue. We
: could take it to alt.catastrophism or, or less topically
: alt.archaeology.

This is I think part of _our_ problem. For the underlying subject material,
pre-Conquest texts, ethnographic issues exist (anthro), as do linguistic
ones (sci.lang is not an obvious choice, but neither is NAT-LANG either).
For archaeological issues, someone who didn't know sci.arch would think that
the obvious candidate for geoarch and cultural remains interpretive issues.
ARCH-L is another possibility. Generally, alt.native, soc.culture.native are
possible as well, though as the FAQ keeper I can see problems there as well,
though not insurmountable ones.

Not to mention the geology, evolutionary biology, and paleontology groups
(as well as any other sci. groups that might deal with issues of faunal
distribution and extinctions)...

alt.archaeology? No.

I don't doubt that alt.catastrophism or or even sci.skeptic
have subscribers who could contribute to such a discourse. Use your own
judgement as I don't subscribe to any of these and only know second hand
what there is to hope for from those communities.

If you're happy with here, that's fine with me.

:> It is his latest work, and the first part of a three-part work which has
:> as some part of its still-evolving theme religiousity in the context of
:> the Conquest, where, from an Indigenous perspective, all Native
:> intellectualisms are systematically depricated by the intellectual
:> hegemony of the Conquest. At least, that is my understanding of Vine's
:> intent at this time.

: That does appear to be the intent of vols 2 and 3.

I'm amazed. Please, how did you know of this? Has Vine mentioned this
in some other venue? I had it "straight from the horse's mouth" and am
unaware of any other place where Vine has mentioned this. This isn't
important however, just personal curiosity.

He mentions briefly the projected topics of vol. 2 & 3 at the end of chapter 1.

: Agreed. Is, for instance, the sample of texts in the chapter "Geomythology"
: representative of the degree of correlation between the surviving preContact
: oral texts and the geological evidence (ignoring issues of dating the
: geological events)?

First the primary texts must be identified, and I'll look into each of your
queries as soon as I find where I left REWL (I moved, boxes and boxes).

Let me know when you find your copy.

: Here we get into issues of burden of proof. If it is his claim that descent
: with modification from common ancestry logically leads inexorably to the
: Bering Strait theory (rather than the Bering Strait theory being contingent on
: some specific set of data interpreted in light of DWMFCA), then it is his
: burden (or yours if you choose to defend the point) to explicate that chain of
: logic. All I have to do is point out that there are alternative ways the
: faunal distribution of big-brained hairless apes could have happened consonant
: with DWMFCA separate from which of those contingently came to pass.

I'll be trying as hard with this one as I personally can, so there will be
references to current work on lemur distributions and other paleo issues.

It probably also makes sense for you to discuss his selection of sources and
reasoning wrt the Bering Straits issue (as well as the overhunting issue -- he
may be advocating the correct conclusion based on flawed reasoning or selection
of evidence).

I thank you. Chapter 1?

I'll go back to my notes and try to organize them (and keep my blood presure
down while doing so...his description of science as an institution would be a
gross caricature of 19th century German academia, let alone almost-21st
century American academia). This thread will probably run a while, as I'm
having those soft-money-position-proposal-writin' blues...