GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-04 > 1081102210


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: POSSIBLE GATEWAY: FROM AFRICA TO EUROPE
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 12:10:10 -0600
References: <c57e4f24.0403141731.5b931209@posting.google.com> <7004aa4b.0403311402.37df8950@posting.google.com> <BAIac.30928$0d.25045@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> <7004aa4b.0404010237.6708eb70@posting.google.com> <406BE67B.1020104@interfold.com> <7004aa4b.0404011411.797b638@posting.google.com> <406C9A90.B64BDFE0@scs.uiuc.edu> <7004aa4b.0404021653.cd38565@posting.google.com> <406E4EAD.4020207@interfold.com> <7004aa4b.0404031410.37aa9a31@posting.google.com> <406F48A7.9030007@interfold.com> <7004aa4b.0404040251.583cbad0@posting.google.com>


Shawn Potter wrote:
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <> wrote in message news:<>...
>
>
>>You might want to read what I wrote again, as your summary bears
>>no resemblance to it. I am saying just the opposite - that you
>>reach (and can only reach) conclusions based on the information
>>at hand, not on some hypothetical source yet to be discovered.
>>This is not without implications. First, all genealogical
>>conclusions are tentative, being based on the information
>>currently available and subject to ammendment, alteration or
>>rejection as a result of new discoveries. (This is not unique to
>>genealogy - it applies to virtually all research.) Second,
>>because this is always the case, it is silly to demand a
>>disclaimer to this effect when someone reaches a conclusion you
>>don't like.
>
> I don't demand a disclaimer because I dislike your conclusion.
> Accuracy demands a disclaimer, because it seems that you stated your
> opinion as if it were a fact.

Did you read the whole paragraph? Whatever your motivation, you
ARE selectively demanding a disclaimer in this case, when every
genealogical statement made in this group is equally tentative,
based on the information at hand and not inforamtion we may wish
to be discovered at some later date. I will leave you to
consider your motivations in so doing, preferably not here.

>>>If you really believe that, why do you spend time on the
>>>subject.
>>
>>If you prefer to be led by what you want to be true, rather than
>>what is supported by evidence, then why do you spend time on
>>genealogy, when literary fiction would seem to fulfill the same
>>desire?
>
> Why do you attack my motives rather than admit your error? What does
> that say about your intellectual honesty?

Goose/Gander - isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to attack mine,
then whine of honesty when I just parrot back a similarly
stereotypical characterization of yours, or did it escape you
that mine was in response to yours? I should have added -"See
how it feels?", then maybe you would have gotten the point.

And we are back to the same issue with "rather than admit your
error". This whole discussion has consisted of you shrilly
saying "you're wrong" to my comments, without giving any
indication of why you think I am wrong. I have explained my
position (several times) and I have quoted a scholar of the same
opinion, and in response all you say "you should admit you were
wrong". What is grossly lacking is any indication from you of
what you think is wrong with what I said? I have asked you a
half dozen times to explain this, and you call me a hypocrite and
question my intellectual honesty, but never actually address the
question at hand. You have lowered yourself to the level of a
common troll.


>>>Wouldn't a more rational--and honest--approach be to avoid
>>>making unsupportable declarations?
>>
>>I did support the statement that I made. I gave the reasoning
>>behind it and cited an author of the same opinion. I have asked
>>you why you think this support fails, why you think it is an
>>inaccurate analysis, but all you have done is stick your fingers
>>in your ears and shout, "No!" Do you have a point, other than to
>>express the offence that you appear to have taken at my having
>>questioned a 1200-year descent without any names in between and
>>without a single shred of supporting evidence?
>
> The information you have provided so far does not support your extreme
> statement. You did not merely question the descent. You declaired
> that it was "...of identical nature to the numerous claims of descent
> from Biblical
> figures (House of David, Noah), heroic figures (Priam, Hengist) and
> gods (Jupiter, Odin);"

And your problem with this is what? BE SPECIFIC! What part of
this is vague, or erroneous? After all of your carping, now is
the time to put up or shut up - actually address the question you
have been tediously avoiding, or don't, but leave off the whining
innuendo about everything but the actual statement that offended you.

> and now you are offended when someone asks you
> to defend your assertion.

I did defend it. I am offended when I go to this effort and
someone ignores my explanation, and then claims none was given
and calls me a hypocrite, as you have done.

So, here we go again. I will not respond to any drivel you
choose to level at any of the above. I will only respond to
specific comments addressed at the following (the actual
genealogy you have been avoiding discussion of):

The claimed descent of the Aksumite rulers from King Solomon and
the Queen of Sheba is similar in nature to the claims of various
European dynasties to have descended from Biblical figures (House
of David, Noah), heroic figures (Priam, Hengist) and gods
(Jupiter, Odin). Like many of them, it spans a period of a
thousand or more years with no attempt to document the descent,
nor for that matter are there known surviving documents which
would address the intervening period. The targets for these
descents are in each case of greater importance to the people
reporting them at the later time of it being 'recorded' than in
the intervening period. Thus the Aksumite claim of descent from
Solomon bears all of the hallmarks of an invention. This is
exactly the conclusion reached by Stuart Monro-Hay - that the
traditions of ancient descent, prior to 300 AD, were invented at
or after the time of the conversion of the Kingdom to
Christianity (or perhaps shortly before that date, as Jewish
traders began to play a significant role in the southern Arabian
peninsula and across the Strait of Aden). If anything, this
claim is even a step worse than the other mentioned descents, as
at least the others provide a list of names through which the
descent runs, while the Aksumite claim simply contains a 1200
year gap in the pedigree. Thus any claim of descent from Solomon
based on this Aksumite 'pedigree' is wishful thinking.

Deal with that. I will address nothing else.

taf

This thread: