It isn't calling attention to the event that I object to, although it could hardly come as news to the subscribers of this listserv...it is the choice of words and the lack of balance inherent in those words. I don't mind Civil War/War Between the States, although I think it flies in the face of most historiography, but the original posting calling the event aggression followed by the sequel claiming occupation strikes me as political, and that seems inappropriate for this venue. I would much rather hear about some new archaeological insights into the conflict and its aftermath than the long string of postings that likely will follow this exchange and distract participants from their research while clogging everybody's inbox.
James G. Gibb

Gibb Archaeological Consulting

2554 Carrollton Road

Annapolis, Maryland USA    21403

443.482.9593

www.gibbarchaeology.org    www.porttobacco.blogspot.com

Apr 12, 2011 07:38:26 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:

Actually, I disagree. It is not a political statement at all. If
historical archaeology deals with historical facts and documents, then
this is a very good place for this information to appear.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jim  wrote:
> I withdraw my question...it is a political statement, and one best made--if at all--somewhere other than in a professional listserv.
> James G. Gibb


-- 
Anita Cohen-Williams
Social Media Marketing and Management
http://mysearchguru.com
http://twitter.com/searchguru
Listowner of Histarch and Sub-Arch