Fwd: Codes used for messages

Tue Jan 22 18:49:46 UTC 2008

Dear All:

As in Galen’s case, I have been a friend of Gordon for the last 30 years.
Although I have not been his student in any formal way, I have learned
from Gordon’s erudite knowledge of the “literatures” of the Americas. I
could not agree more with Jeanne's assessment of his scholarship. His
ability to address a far range of texts spanning from Watunna to Navajo
sand paintings and beyond is exceptional. His dedication to Mesoamerican
studies has been a constant during all these years.

His publications in numerous periodicals, including Estudios de Cultura
Nahuatl, and the translation of Book of the Fourth World to Spanish,
suggests that those in the editorial boards have not thought of Gordon as
a pseudo-scholar. But perhaps Michel would want us to assume that the
scholars who have recognized the merits of his work are deficient scholars
that couldn’t identify the pseudo among them.

To find theory lacking in someone who can cite Levi-Strauss, Jacobson,
Derrida, Whorf, Sapir, Goffman among other great theoreticians of the 20th
century in one breath, let alone dutifully read all that is published in
Mesoamerican studies, implies either a lack of understanding of what
theory is or just plain ignorance.

We all make mistakes in theory, in factual matters, in etymologies as well
as in faulty transcriptions and translations. But as I write “we” I
tremble to have the orthodox (Bernard's term) Mesoamerican thought police
come after me. But, perhaps, Mesoamerican studies is defined by a doctrine
that I ignore, and might be more “clubby” than I expected. I rather view
this exchange as an anomaly than as the general practice in this listing
and in the interdisciplinary exchanges that make Mesoamerican studies an
exciting field.

Jose Rabasa

> I agree with Galen, and I would like to add that in terms of the scholarly
> minds Gordon has trained and inspired and the international scholars he
> has
> brought together for dialogue and sharing over the past twenty years,
> Gordon
> has been extremely influential among the international community of
> thinkers
> and analysts of Mesoamerican texts and their contexts.  His work has
> caused
> many of us to reexamine a text for a specific purpose (including numerical
> significance, place name relevance, geo-spatial information) that has led
> to
> further understanding of many of the canonical and non-canonical pictorial
> (and alphabetic!) manuscripts.  He has also helped students and scholars
> have access to materials in libraries around the world not previously
> available, and he is most generous in engaging in scholarly discussion and
> debate about his work.  I think you can contact him at his Essex email, (
> http://www.essex.ac.uk/literature/people/gordon_brotherston.htm) but
> someone
> may have a more up-to-date one.  For questions about the calendar stone, I
> suggest that you contact Emily Umberger at Arizona State and Cecelia Klein
> at UCLA as well.
> Jeanne
>
>
> On Jan 22, 2008 8:47 AM, Galen Brokaw <brokaw at buffalo.edu> wrote:
>
>> Evidently both Bernard's post and my response were unreadable. I think
>> Bernard accidentally reposted his message to Aztlan. I reposted mine
>> again in response to his before I realized that it was going to Aztlan.
>> I'll repost it here for anyone who is not subscribed to Aztlan:
>>
>> My main point here has to do with the way in which one engages in
>> scholarly debate, not with the accuracy of Brotherston's work. Of
>> course, the burden of proof of any given argument is on the claimant,
>> but that includes the claimant who wishes to refute someone else's
>> argument. Of course, such refutations can be made on both substantive
>> and methodological grounds. It is perfectly legitimate to point out
>> logical or methodological flaws that invalidate an argument, as Bernard
>> seems to do. My point is that you can't just dismiss someone's work by
>> merely asserting that it is fantasy. Bernard, it seems to me that your
>> criticism engages with Brotherston's work in a perfectly legitimate way,
>> and I have no problem with that. This type of engagement makes possible
>> a responsible dialogue about substantive issues. For example, although I
>> haven't searched for the passage that you cite in your message, just
>> based on that quote in isolation, one could argue that your criticism of
>> this statement is based on a misreading: it doesn't seem to me that
>> Brotherston is claiming that "the Aztecs contrived their creation story
>> so that one day in their 260 day ritual calendar would match the Spring
>> Equinox of a year some 4700 years in the past." In the quote, he says
>> that it "incidentally coincides" with the spring equinox. Saying that it
>> is incidental by definition means that it was not contrived. In
>> isolation at least, Brotherston's statement merely seems to be pointing
>> out the fact that the systematicity of the calendar has certain
>> incidental effects that contribute to our understanding of its
>> systematicity. In the larger context of the quote, maybe there would be
>> more to say. In the case of the serpents and the numerical significance
>> of their dots, I don't have an answer. Maybe you have a valid criticism
>> there. This is precisely the point, which is that we can discuss these
>> things and disagree about them in substantive terms rather than
>> dismissing them out of hand. As I said before, I'm not claiming that
>> Brotherston's work is flawless. Whose is? However, even if it is more
>> fraught with error and/or speculation than other work in the field, that
>> does not mean that it is pseudo-scholarship.
>>
>> Galen
>>
>>
>> ANTHONY APPLEYARD wrote:
>> > These two messages from this group:
>> > From: brokaw at buffalo.edu at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:47:33 -0500
>> > From: bortiz at earthlink.net at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:27:01 -0500 (EST)
>> > both with title
>> > Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone
>> > reached me as a random jumble of characters, e.g.:
>> > "J‰žÉæ«±¨("Z('çiëmÉÉh±érjÐk¢Ø^(R)ËhžÃÚŠ{^t ('Ê 1ìbr†§uú.
>> ÛajØr‰íj)Þv"
>> > What mode were they input as?
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Nahuatl mailing list
>> > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
>> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nahuatl mailing list
>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jeanne L. Gillespie, Ph.D.
> Associate Dean
> College of Arts and Letters
> The University of Southern Mississippi
>
> 601-266-4315
> jeanne.gillespie at usm.edu
>
>
>
> --
> Jeanne L. Gillespie, Ph.D.
> Associate Dean
> College of Arts and Letters
> The University of Southern Mississippi
>
> 601-266-4315
> jeanne.gillespie at usm.edu
> _______________________________________________
> Nahuatl mailing list
> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl
>

José Rabasa
Chair and Professor
Department of Spanish and Portuguese
UC Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720-2590

Tel. 510-642-2105
Fax. 510-642-6957

_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl