'crackpots' or 'smoke-and-mirror types'

[micc2 at cox.net]

One of the great advantages (and thus great disadvantages) of  working with Mesoamerican culture, language and, thought is that there is great leeway in
intellectualizing what WAS, what IS, and WHY.

The disadvantage lies in that since none of us were "there"  all conjecture must rest on either of the following:

1. empirical evidence, gathered from contemporary sources, modern oral traditions, or scientifically deduced data (carbon-14, archaeologically correct field methods, and newer computational processes). These must then be analyzed in a fashion that gives us a HUMAN picture of the indigenous ancestors of the Modern Mexcoehuani (those that have risen out of Mexico). 
Most members of these spaces are of the above tribe....

OR

2. One can SELECTIVELY take empirical evidence, gathered from contemporary sources, modern oral traditions, or scientifically deduced data AND CREATE suspicious "truths" (according to ones ideological, religious, or political needs) a SUPRA-HUMAN picture of the "grandfathers" how then give the evaluator a sense of superiority.

 I call this "selective memory of the greater past."  I think this is what is meant by 'crackpots' or 'smoke-and-mirror types'...

These gentle folks have a large Internet based system that provides a feedback loop that re-enforces their claims, and their distaste of the "scientific" revisionists. A small case in point is the great lofe affair with the end of the world in 2012........ enough said.

 In some of the most extreme cases of selective memory,  this superiority becomes outright racism and a longing for an ethnic cleansing of _____ (please feel free to place our favorite homeland/ancestral land name in whichever indigenous language your prefer).

I believe that spaces such as the Nahuat-l, Aztlan, and other means of communication (Nahuatl-Twtter?) are important in allowing persons who are sincere in their desire to better understand the underpinnings of modern indigenous reality, to see a sober discussion between those that want to look at empirical data, and those that want to look for mythological validation of their personal "-isms"

It may not be pretty, and many times the discussion  may be outlandish and painful....(you really believe WHAT???), but in the long run, these spaces can give sincere learners the facts necessary to look at the rich and majestic past, present, and future of Mexico and Central America without the need for 3D-glasses, Surround sound special effects, or a host of precolumbian deities dancing on the head of a  sting ray's needle.

Respectfully,

Mario E. Aguilar, PhD
www.mexicayotl.org






---- Michel Oudijk <oudyk at hotmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> Hey Michael,
> 
>  
> 
> I wonder in which group you would situate yourself....
> 
>  
> 
> I think it's important to remember that the point of a discussion is not necessarily to reach an agreement. In my view, a discussion is to clarify the different possible positions and possibilities of an argumentation. Through this interchange of opinions we may reach a better understanding of the issue under discussion (or maybe not). But we should be free to disagree and put forth arguments against one's position. One may disagree with the tone or line of argumentation, but the other can always respond. Offner's argumentation may be regarded as harsh or even unfair, but Lee has responded to it. It's up to us and the discussants to use these arguments to reach a better understanding of the discussion and the issues at play. As scholars our instruments are research, discussion and reflection. Based on these instruments Offner has put forth arguments against Lee's and he responded to them, very much like the previous discussion on Ometeotl (although in a different tone). I !
 personally appreciate the efforts of all these people, although I may agree more with one or the other. Rather than classifying people and therewith disqualifying (some of) them, it seems to me it is more worthwhile to look at arguments each time they are put forth by who ever. We may learn something along the way. The Nahuatl list is an important portal for discussion, but if we're to clamp down on a discussion by disqualifying people as 'crackpots' or 'smoke-and-mirror types' we're on a dubious route, cause in the end it will only be a conversation between 'honest types' who agree with each other.
> 
>  
> 
> I don't see a problem in fiercely disagreeing with somebody, have a harsh discussion about it, and in the end drink a (virtual) beer together and walk out the door side by side. In fact, I prefer that ten times to a conversation in which all my arguments are "interesting points of view".
> 
> 
> Un abrazo,
> 
>  
> 
> Michel
> 
>  
> 
>  
> > Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:55:49 -0400
> > From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu
> > To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
> > Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Interpreting the Mappe Quinatzin, leaf 2 and leaf 3
> > 
> > Dear Dr. Lee:
> > 
> > Thank you for your very informative message. I now get the picture. And 
> > I plan to get your book this week.
> > 
> > These last couple of weeks of nahuat-l has driven home the fact for me 
> > that we find here in this on-line discussion group crackpot "scholars" 
> > such as the "Ometeotl" guy and the guy he channels, the 
> > smoke-and-mirror types (Tezcatlipoca!) who take issue with minor 
> > details but avoid the substantive issues, and the honest types, among 
> > whom I count you. Best wishes in your future work. I look forward to 
> > seeing it.
> > 
> > Michael
> > 
> >

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