Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:48:31 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|