1) Historians are trained to try to put aside their
own personal
prejudices before writing. We assume this when we talk about NPOV
--that writers will try to write objectively.
That's OK, and I agree that it is necessary.
Historians also try to
explain things in term of the temporal context. It's something else we
are trained to do.
This is often an euphemism for relativism, which is particular to the field
of modern medievalism. I find it ironic that you are willing to talk about
the Greek Dark Ages (yes, I am familiar with the theory) but reject the term
for the Middle Ages. You seem to be entirely unaware of the extent of the
cultural, technological and social decay that followed the Roman Empire.
To quote Norman Cantor:
"The once-great Roman Empire, its beautiful cities, its capable gov-
ernment and lawcourts, its deeply learned schools and libraries, de-
scended into the twilight of the Dark Ages of the sixth and seventh
centuries, in which literate civilization survived only in a handful of
ecclesiastical centers, mostly walled Benedictine monasteries."
...
"Therefore, Leo XIII's successor, Pope Pius X, put on the brakes heavily to
stop the incipient intellectual and spiritual revolution that was loosely
called
Catholic modernism. He condemned it as heresy in 1907. The work of
the most distinguished Catholic historian of the early church, Louis
Duchesne, was unembarrassedly put on the Index of Prohibited Books
in 1912, even though Father Duchesne continued to hold a senior
position in a clerical institution in Rome until his death in 1922. A
chill descended on Catholic historical scholarship, and repressive in-
tellectual guidelines were promulgated that were not extensively
withdrawn until the 1960s. They have been partly reimposed, with
respect to the teaching of theology and sexual ethics, under John Paul
II in the 1980s.
"As a result of these starts and stops in the modernization of Catholic
culture, rigid codes readily emerged for the way Catholic scholars were
supposed to interpret the Middle Ages. It had to be a very
defensive approach to the church's role. An extremely positive view
of the continuity of a benignly arrayed papal power was prescribed.
Catholics could write about the Middle Ages, but only in ways that
made the modern church and papacy, held to be the direct continuator
of the medieval institution, look very good. Catholic scholars in
their invention of the Middle Ages were not to say things that would
bring the church and papacy at any time into disrepute or to raise
questions about the absolute authority of the papacy or universal ap-
plicability of canon law, the merit of religious orders, or the wisdom
and learning of medieval Schoolmen. In short, nothing bad about the
Middle Ages was to be articulated so as to give comfort to critics of
the Catholic Church."
Cantor describes in detail how this new historical tradition was created and
how it permeates, to this day, much of historical scholarship about the
medieval period. He's professor emeritus of history, sociology and comparative
literature at New York University.
2) all of the stuff initially written on NPOV and
similar policies
points out that not all theories are equally valid, and that those that
aren't should receive proportionately less space than the predominant
theories. When theories are crank theories, or when they have fallen
into disrepute, we don't need to put them in -- or should mentions this.
I agree. That's why I asked for evidence other than hearsay on why White
shouldn't be included. You, however, simply pointed to your alleged expertise as
proof. Also, in general, even if a theory is "crankish" (which I do not
consider any of my views to be), if it is verifiable information, it's perfectly
OK to put it in *somewhere*, albeit not necessarily in the main article.
4) Just because much of the modern world view began in
the Enlightenment
doesn't mean it's the best view.
That's your POV. It's as good a POV as any, but it's a POV.
5) Not all people accept that religion is a
destructive force in society
True.
6) Erik, who comes at the world believing that
religion is by nature (or
application) socially destructive, that post-Enlightenment thought is in
some way, more correct, and that the world before the Renaissance was
somehow a lesser thing to be judged by modern standards, seems unable
to keep these views from influencing many of his contributions.
Evidence?
What
makes it seem more reasonable in Erik's case is that he assumes that his
views are both correct and universally accepted as sensible.
This sentence makes no sense. Have you forgotten a "not"? I have never
claimed, or do claim, that my views are the only acceptable ones. If you claim
that I have, you are simply lying.
This is
about as neutral as, for example, Helga with her anachronistic
nationalist backwards projections or Ark with his dogmatic acceptance of
deMause's marginal theories.
Ah, I see where you're going. Now you're showing your true colors. Instead
of putting up different historical arguments, let's just ban everyone who
disagrees.
-- He is equally incapable of neutrality and equally
anti-social -- one
has only to read the Galileo talk to see that his inability to work with
others and his lack of respect for people who disagree with him is
clear.
I respect people who are willing to work in a mutual spirit of cooperation,
and who do not constantly try to remove legitimate information. It's no
surprise to me that my only unpleasant edit conflict on Wikipedia, besides the
ongoing problems with Clutch, has been with you and Michael Tinkler.
Y'all might at some point notice that you've
lost most of the people who
actually are specialists in History and who actually work in that field
as a profession.
Well, if we lose the historians who think that the relativist perspective is
the only one that is valid, I consider that loss nothing to be too worried
about. Your understanding of NPOV is clearly incomplete at best.
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more
http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!