[Previous entry: "Moderated Musings"] [Next entry: "How to Honor Real Celtic Culture - Dr. Newton Style"]

07/06/2006: "CR FAQ Triple Goddesses Stand Firm; Insist CR Newbies beware Newton's "Handbook""

The self appointed triple goddesses of CR FAQ defense Erynn Laurie, Kathryn Price NicDhana, and Brenda Daverin all weighed in over the week on my original IMBAS-public post criticizing the CR FAQ and them for calling Dr. Michael Newton a racist and a woman hater for his work in "A Handbook of the Scottish Gaelic World".

Our defenders of CR, who

playfully place facial pictures of themselves over Star Trek the Next Generation bridge personnel and call themselves USS CR on their CR /R Live Journal posts, were very eloquent in defending their FAQ and the allegations against Newton in its book review recommendations.

Erynn Laurie: The addition of caveats to a couple of the books was a compromise. Had they not been added, Newton's book wouldn't have made it to the recommended list at all. One person wanted to remove it entirely, and she wrote the caveat. Others fought strongly for the book's importance and its inclusion. The commentary was a compromise, and one without which the book would not have been listed at all. Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:47 pm (PST)

Brenda Daverin: "The purpose of an FAQ is not to speak to those who already know what the subject is about. It's meant to educate the newbie. FAQs are by nature aimed at the lowest common denominator and written by people who have gotten above that point but remember how uninformed they were when they started. This also applies to the caveat articles about Newton and Kondratiev's texts. For separate reasons, it mattered enough to those of us who dealt with it to let someone fresh to the topic know they might find the books problematic for different reasons whether we all agreed it needed saying or not." Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:19 pm (PST)

Kathryn Price NicDhana: "Obviously, these things are open to interpretation. I'm not particularly interested in debating whether these passages show objectionable attitudes. I found them offensive, and know some of our readers do as well." Sat Jul 1, 2006 2:15 pm

So, under the pretense of "protecting the newbies", a modern definitive work on Scottish Gaelic culture, along with its distinguished author, gets a racist and woman hating "caveat" because our three PC modern neopagans don't like what he wrote about a culture, even though he is better educated and qualified to explain it than all three of them combined.

Or worse, don't understand it. NicDhana exclaims," when I first started reading the book there were some really ugly bits that leaped out at me. It was hard to get over that initial revulsion...the way he presented a lot of this stuff creeped me out and made me wonder at his motives."

Yes, Kathryn, sometimes life in the real world can get ugly. And sometime when one looks at a culture from an outsiders view, things can look creepy. One can even be repulsed. But to question Dr. Newton's motives as to his reason for presenting this by calling him racist and misogynist is way over the line. He is reporting what was, not how he thinks things should be. What shocks people like NicDhana is their modern CR world cannot deal with how things really were in the Celtic cultures they are painstakingly politically correctly trying to recreate. So they are repulsed, creeped out, and then reject the messenger for his message. A romanticized version of Newton's work sans the truth no doubt would have received a CR FAQ blessing.

Join the IMBAS-public list yourself and call Brenda Daverin, Erynn Laurie or Kathryn Price NicDhana a racist or a specific gender hater. See how long you last on-list. After your first message, you will be banned, if it even gets through. Yet, go on the same list and call a respected Celtic scholar like Dr. Newton a racist or misogynist for the sake of saving the newbies to CR, you can qualify to become a CR elder. Go figure. Talk about revulsion and being creeped out.

Replies: 2 Comments

on Friday, July 7th, Kym said

So, just to be clear here, you think that Gaelic culture was racist and misogynist? I mean you say that Kathryn's issue is that she can't take "how things really were." So, to me that says you think that it was. And you're okay with this? That's creepy.

I've not weighed in because I'm not on Imbas. But I wandered here, saw this and just had to ask.

I'm not even going to bother trying to point out as others already have as I doubt you are at all capable of comprehension, but no one said NEWTON was a racist or misogynist, simply that there are points in the book that make him come across this way.

But I guess we should thank you for all the publicity.

on Friday, July 7th, Tearlach Roibeard Luder said

In reply to Kym: Just to be clear here? You mean in your defense of Kathryn?

Gaelic Culture was what it was and is what it is. Whether you or I am "okay" with that or not is irrelevant to the more important issues of this debate. Am I going to change what was in Gaelic Culture? No. Am I, as an outsider of Celtic culture, going to try and change it today? Of course not. It's not my place. It would be presumptuous to try and do so, as well as disrespectful to the cultures themselves.

My issue with Kathryn has been made quite clear, so please don't try and muddy the water. Dr. Newton's work accurately portrayed Scottish Gaelic culture. It is a highly respected piece of work. If you and Kathryn have a problem with what was portrayed accurately by a distinguished scholar in his field, then you have the problem dealing with things. Don't try and drag me into this. I have defended Kathryn both here on this blog and in private for her positions in other matters. Here, in this matter, she is wrong. Kathryn can straighten all of this out by removing the caveat from her website and apologize for her ignorance.

Wandered here, my arse. No one wanders here.

You can't bother, because your argument is a straw man (or a straw woman for you PC types). The CR FAQ, as well as the comments on IMBAS you defend, takes the work of an educated lettered respected Celtic scholar and calls his work racist and misogynist. You say here yourself his work makes him appear that way (a racist and a misogynist).

I'm sorry, Kym, but that *is* calling Dr. Newton a racist and a misogynist. There is no redeeming factor in saying someone is a little racist. It's like saying one is a little pregnant. When you and others do this to the work of respected Celtic scholars, it borderlines on the criminal. You and the people you defend couldn't even begin to sit down and write an educated book on any Celtic culture, let alone the Scottish Gaelic highlands. So what makes you and your friends any better qualified to call Newton's work racist and misogynist? Your vast experience with Celtic cultures? Your command of the Celtic languages? Your degrees in Celtic scholarship from Edinburgh that you DON"T have?

If I read your written work and said it makes you come across as dishonest, am I not calling you a liar?
If I read your written work and said it "appears" to be a lie, am I not insinuating you are a liar?

Now just change the words dishonest and lie with racist and misogynist. Aren't you doing the same thing? Please don't come here and insult my intelligence trying to play word game semantics.

I tire greatly of seeing uneducated Americans who want to play Celt marginalize or outright slander people who are actually friends and defenders of Celtic culture by word and deed. What you all wish to do with your CR is your business, until it starts to become disrespectful, dishonest and dishonorable to others. Then we have a problem here.

As far as comprehension is concerned, it is evident from your eloquent defense of your colleagues that if you believe Dr. Newton's work to be racist and misogynist, it is you who has the comprehension problem.

I suggest you go to: http://www.saorsamedia.com/about/index.html

It will show anyone with intelligence concerning Celtic culture what a real scholar's work looks like.

Thanks? For this kind of publicity? Now who's creepy?