[Previous entry: "Where to VENT against the CR FAQ's slander of Dr. Newton"] [Next entry: "CR FAQ: Is Celtic Reconstructionism (CR) a Religion or a Culture?"]

07/09/2006: "NicDhana, Laurie Feel the Heat; Attempt Re-Write of Newton Caveat in CR FAQ"

In an about face, the CR FAQ reading caveat marginalizing noted Celtic scholar and author Dr. Michael Newton was re-written this weekend, according to Bob Daverin's announcement on the IMBAS-public Yahoo group today. Unfortunately, it appears only to be a cosmetic effort at best, changing little substance of the original caveat criticising Dr. Newton's excellent primer on Scottish Gaelic culture.

The re-writing, which only came after




almost a dozen members of Imbas-public challenged the original writing as insinuating Newton was guilty of racism and misogynism in parts of his book " A Handbook of the Scottish Gaelic World", does nothing to correct the poor judgment used by CR FAQ writers Erynn Laurie and Kathryn Price NicDhana when they placed this caveat in their FAQ recommended reading section.

This weak attempt to stem the rising criticism of the CR FAQ came almost a week after some writers had refused on Imbas to acknowledge the complaints as valid, denied a re-write, with Erynn Laurie going as far as disrespectfully labeling the on-list complaints about Newton's caveat as "trollage".

You can read the so called "re-write" at: http://www.paganachd.com/faq/qualrec.html

Dr. Newton, a distinguished and award winning Celtic scholar and author who received his PhD in Celtic Studies from the University of Edinburgh, is still called to task by the unlettered American neopagan FAQ writers for being inconsistent, misogynist and subtly racist in his presentation of Scottish Gaelic culture. It is interesting to note that the CR FAQ writers and their related camp are going to great strains to say they have not actually called Dr. Newton a racist or a woman hater. And they only seem to have a problem with this one book.

First the FAQ warns that the book "...could be interpreted as sounding misogynist or racist, and could further be interpreted as saying that Gaelic culture is inherently misogynist and/or racist.

Next the intent of the author is questioned, with the assumption being made that "readers may get the impression that Newton focuses on some of the most misogynist bits of lore he can find in the cultures, or worse, that such misogyny is totally reflective of the cultures."

Interestingly, though, the FAQ writers reverse themselves. "In some places he balances these sections with other less offensive examples, or examples that even cast women in a neutral or positive light.

So Newton writes the negative, then balances it with neutral, then the positive. That is what one would expect, correct? A balanced presentation? Why then are our FAQ writers emphasizing the negative? Could it be they are not happy having Celtic culture portrayed honestly?

The FAQ says regarding his alleged misogyny "...his writing could be interpreted as if he�s actively promoting a woman-hating view." Anyone studying Scottish Gaelic culture without preconceived or romanticized notions doesn't come to that conclusion at all.

About his racism in the book, the FAQ notes that "he'll say some things that may appear to the reader to subtly promote the racist tendencies of �pride of the blood...�

Anyone who knows Dr. Newton and reads his work with an open mind knows that this line is without basis. This accusation undermines the caveat's credibility and makes one seriously question the FAQ writers judgment and motives for putting it there. Further, it is an insult to the work of a fine Celtic scholar whose body of work shines beyond reproach when it comes race or gender views.

The FAQ writers complete their folly by stating the caveat is needed because "we are concerned others might draw the wrong conclusions about our community and beliefs were we not to express these concerns." Elsewhere, though, some associated the project calling into question how many "we's" were really concerned about this; indeed several involved with the FAQ have distanced themselves from slurs against Newton's work.

Bob Daverin, commenting in response to additional criticisms received after the re-write announcement, "Since the qualified recommendation was written in such a way as to, we hoped, show that not everyone involved felt the same way about the book, and, again we hoped, that it was referring _strictly_ to the book in question and not the author, I'm not sure what more we can do..."

What a weak response from someone who has posted many times on his Imbas-public list about honor, respect and truthfulness. One can seem him shrugging and putting his hands in the air saying "Oh, well."

Erynn Rowan Laurie and Kathryn Price NicDhana wrote this FAQ with help from C. Lee Vermeers, Kym Lambert n� Dhoireann, Paul Pigman, Bob Daverin, Brenda Daverin, and Raven nic Rh�is�n. Indeed, according to the posts on Imbas over the last week, NicDhana seemed to be the one who refuses to back off her claims of racism and misogyny in the book. Laurie and the rest of the writers, however, are showing intellectual cowardice for not taking a stronger open stand in defense of truth, honor, and genuine Celtic scholarship and demanding the caveat be removed. By caving into NicDhana, all of the rest of the FAQ writers share in her error and the embarrassing of Dr. Newton.

As far Daverin saying that calling the book possibly racist and misogynist is not the same as calling Newton such is another absurd statement. If one writes a scholarly book that is racist and misogynist, what does that say about the author's character? If you call someone's writing racist and misogynist, what are you calling the writer? What our unlettered CR FAQ writers refuse to accept is, though, that the book is a work about Scottish Gaelic culture. It is what it is. Newton does not make anything up or "reconstruct" anything. He tells it like it was and like it is regarding the culture. If one has a problem with that, that is not Newton's fault. The CR FAQ caveat is more insidious and damaging, however, to Newton's reputation as a Celtic scholar.

I sent the CR FAQ caveat to several of my Asatru friends unfamiliar with this debate, the FAQ or Newton, where there have been many discussions about race and their reconstruction work regarding Norse and Germanic spirituality. Without saying anything more, I asked "What do you think about Michael Newton after reading this FAQ and would you read any of his work? Everyone responding said "it appears that Newton is a racist and a woman hater" and "No, they probably wouldn't read any of his books".

So there is no distinction between calling a scholar's work racist/misogynist or inferring that he is such because of his work. The slander and the damage is done when the average uninformed person (to whom the CR FAQ is targeted) reads this caveat and assumes the worst about Newton.

For Laurie and NicDhana to assume that Dr. Newton was writing anything related to their romanticized politically correct neopagan American construction of "what if" Celtic spirituality when writing honestly about Scottish Gaelic culture is most unfortunate. That any intelligent reader picking up Newton's work would confuse anything genuinely Celtic he has written with their "what might have been" Celtic spirituality relating to their CR FAQ is beyond comprehension. Perhaps we can get the good doctor to place his own caveat on all future Celtic culture books he writes: "We don't want anyone reading about real Celtic culture to mistakenly think this has anything to do with CR."

After several correspondences with others over the last week about this review, Newton says he has decided to stay positive and ignore the review, replying; "I assume that they want Gaelic (or Celtic, etc) culture to be some kind of matriarchal Utopia that it never was, and if that's the case no amount of display of the historical facts are ever going to satisfy them, as they are avoiding the facts! In the meantime, I will continue to work on the history and literature, and people are free to accept or reject what I have to offer!".

It is our fervent hope that the good Doctor continues to do just that. In the meantime, those of us who continue to speak out in defense of the Celtic cultures and against those who would marginalize honest Celtic scholarship will continue to call for the CR FAQ writers to remove its slander of Dr. Newton's book. To do less would be dishonorable.

Replies: 1 Comment

on Tuesday, July 11th, Brock said

Nothing's changed. This is still a slander of Newton and his work.