Wednesday, October 23, 2013

The Blather Factor

In situations involving social unrest and conflicting ideologies, those who advocate controversial and radical perspectives regarding what is, in their view, morally and ethically correct, must demonstrate significant support for their views to be taken seriously.

Martin Luther King did so in in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, August 28, 1963. Standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial, he delivered his historic "I Have a Dream" speech advocating that racial harmony should prevail upon the civil rights march he had organized. Whilst there was significant opposition to Dr. King's perspective, ultimately the extent of support for his views proved to be overwhelming, so that in the end they prevailed.

Dr. King's successful and (in the opinion of this observer) socially beneficial civil rights campaign depended, for its success, upon demonstrating that the views advocated had the passionate support of millions of individuals who were willing to endure severe hardships and unjustifiable mistreatment in order to demonstrate that their demand for civil rights to be extended equally to all U.S citizens regardless of  race, religion or other socially divisive factors should prevail.

In stark contrast to this grand and majestic social movement of the past, we are now obliged to examine far more uncertain and inadequately presented demands of certain "archaeologists," who dogmatically insist that "preservation of the archaeological record" is of such overriding importance that it should take precedence over all other human concerns and activities.

That is (on the face of it) an impossible proposal, absent a convincing demonstration that social justice depends upon assent to these demands.

What has thus far been advanced as substantiation for these demands? One would be hard pressed to find much, other than what Paul Barford has published in his notorious PACHI blog.

It is appropriate to examine what might be termed the "blather factor."  How much weight and importance should, in a critical examination, be given to blogs such as Mr. Barford's?


****************


4 Comments:

Blogger John H said...

How much weight and importance should, in a critical examination, be given to blogs such as Mr. Barford's, you ask.

None, I suggest, judging from this candid admission taken from the blog of this archaeological muck-raker:-

"I have never presented myself as an "expert", I write a blog, my blog is about an issue. I write it for myself, it can be read by those who want to read it, or can be ignored by those that do not. I really have no obligation to explain to anyone else any more than that, and nor do I intend to."

Regards

John Howland
England

4:56 AM  
Blogger Paul Barford said...

"What has thus far been advanced as substantiation for these demands?"

would a series of international conventions (including the 1970 UNESCO one) going back to the Roerich pact and others not be an expression of exactly such a nature? Signed on behalf of their citizens by 124 states.

I am waiting for the ACCG to demand that America withdraw from the 1970 UNESCO Convention due to "lack of social support". Why do you NOT do that? When you have answered that, tell me there is no social support for preserving the past.

5:02 AM  
Blogger Barnum said...

This pretty much sums up Mr. Barford, a.k.a. Warsaw Wally...

1.Trolls are immune to criticism and logical arguments. True trolls cannot be reasoned with, regardless of how sound your logical argument is.

2.Trolls do not feel remorse like you and me. They have sociopathic tendencies, and accordingly, they delight in other people having hurt feelings.

3.Trolls consider themselves separate from the social order.

4.Trolls do not abide by etiquette or the rules of common courtesy.

5.Trolls consider themselves above social responsibility.

6.Trolls gain energy by you insulting them.

7.Trolls gain energy when you get angry.

8.The only way to deal with a troll is to ignore him, or take away his ability to post online.






6:08 AM  
Blogger Dave Welsh said...

Paul Barford said...

>> "What has thus far been advanced as substantiation for these demands?"

[... demands of certain "archaeologists," who dogmatically insist that "preservation of the archaeological record" is of such overriding importance that it should take precedence over all other human concerns and activities]

> would a series of international conventions (including the 1970 UNESCO one) going back to the Roerich pact and others not be an expression of exactly such a nature? Signed on behalf of their citizens by 124 states.

No. There are many international conventions and other diplomatic agreements between states or groups of states, which do not have the level of public support required to substantiate the demands in question. Signing a convention by a government does not constitute evidence of broad public support for its provisions.

> I am waiting for the ACCG to demand that America withdraw from the 1970 UNESCO Convention due to "lack of social support". Why do you NOT do that?

The ACCG supports the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Our objections to the consequences of this Convention address the manner in which the Convention is being implemented within the USA by the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center, under the direction of archaeologist Maria Kouroupas and her subordinates.

> When you have answered that, tell me there is no social support for preserving the past.

I will not tell you that there is no social support for preserving the past. "Preserving the past" is not at all the same thing as insisting that "preservation of the archaeological record" is of such overriding importance that it should take precedence over all other human concerns and activities.

Collectors of antiquities, including ancient coins, are actively engaged in "preserving the past," and in disseminating knowledge of the relics of the past to the public. These beneficial activities enjoy significant public support.

12:05 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home