Contents | Previous | Next
Date: 10 Nov 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Subject: Re: In response to an attack
Message-ID:
References: <20001109145006.23201.00000493@ng-fv1.aol.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@bellatlantic.net
X-Trace: typhoon2.ba-dsg.net 973892805 138.88.45.198 (Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:46:45 EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:46:45 EST
Newsgroups: alt.religion.orisha
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, E. C. Ballard wrote:
> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:04:07 -0500
> From: E. C. Ballard
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.orisha
Subject: : Re: In response to an attack
>
> In article <20001109145006.23201.00000493@ng-fv1.aol.com>,
>
>
> > That is as good as saying J. Olumide Lucas never wrote his book, "The
> > religion of the Yorubas".
>
> The question isn't whether he wrote it, but whether it is valuable for
> more than a snapshot of the academic theories of the time.
The question is what do the *facts* -- linguistic, religious, cultural,
artifactual, oral tradition -- that he has adduced, say.
> The errors of
> his day, not only the assumptions about the Yoruba, but about many other
> cultures at the time that he wrote that have been recognized as
> extremely flawed. His was no exception. It's quaint, but hoary.
As always, Eoghan, you substitute attitude for fact and argument.
What are these flaws, and why do they suffice to overturn the central
thesis?
> Eoghan
Peace,
Grisso
--------------9F9B326D66D8508A89801055--
Contents | Previous | Next
Tips for your pocket: