Posted by Carin on December 04, 1997 at 18:23:25:
In Reply to: Prelude to a point by point dissertation on what I really think about the Eric Schweig interview posted by Elaine on December 04, 1997 at 15:05:26:
: Thank you. Your noble gesture is appreciated. However, there has been a persistence in presenting statements made by some in a misconstrued, misrepresented manner. Furthermore, this thread has been interjected with insincere statements and ill intended comments. Rich does not need my defense, I assure you. The truth is that there was a limited amount of time that I would be able to read these comments as a passive observer. And guess what, Bill? That time has expired!
: We try VERY hard to maintain a site that has high standards. It is meant to be fun, informative, and accurate. Believe it or not, there are many things we've come across that we've chosen not to put up due to the fact that they could be injurious to some. That is not and never was our intention.
: Regarding the Eric Schweig interview; we had two choices. To read it privately and then file it where it belongs, or for the many people we felt would also like to read it, add it to the site with an accompanying *mild* commentary. The interview contained so many errors and irresponsible statements that to have added it without comment would have contradicted our own standards. We opted to post it and the subsequent remarks.
: If I recall, there were recently some posts on this board by someone who was trashing LOTM. That was his perogative. However, his comments were increasingly vituperative. The responses were, dare I say, livid. After all, this is a site designed to honor, so to speak, LOTM. In Eric's interview, he too is trashing LOTM. Again, that's his perogative. Doesn't it stand to reason however that his comments are equally open for reply? Why is Eric Schweig afforded an untouchable status? Shouldn't he be held as accountable for his words as anyone else would be? Is he immune from correction when he makes blatantly inaccurate historical assertions? I can see no reason why this should be so.
: There are also remarks made by Eric Schweig that are, according to the standards of many who post here, racist. I personally do not get too bent out of shape over alledged racism, but since so may appear to be hypersensitive to the crime, then isn't it only reasonable to expect that some might wish to address this aspect of Eric's statements?
: Another thing; there were comments posted here by people who found Eric's statements negative. However, for the most part, they were followed by excuses. One that was offered was the fact that he was only 25 years old. So what? By my understanding that makes him a big boy. Certainly old enough to withstand criticism of what he chose to say, no? Other justifications that were offered included his alledged abuse and injustices visited upon native peoples. Again, what relevancy does this have on his remarks? Is anyone who disagrees with me going to be so careful as to run a background check on me to ensure I've not endured any hardships in my life BEFORE replying? I think not.
: There is nothing personal here. I have no more reason to dislike ES than I do to like him. This is nothing more than an examination of an interview the man gave and statements contained therein. Period. For all we know, Eric himself would disagree with his own words at this point in time.
: And further still, a statement was made that the comments regarding the interview were being made by "all non-Indians". How did that person know this? I don't recall that every person who offered their opinions made a declaration of their "non-Indian" ethnicity. Another assumption made and stated as fact. And even if this is true;... the point? Is this to imply that only non-European/Americans can offer opinions on other non-European/Americans? Or conversely, that only European/Americans can offer opinions on other European/Americans?
: The comments in the interview speak for themself as to meriting some clarification. It is every person's right to discuss them favorably or disfavorably. It would be hoped, however, that this be done in an honest, civil manner. Such has not been the case with everyone.
: If anyone wishes to continue this "amicable debate" they are, of course, free to do so. If this be so then I would feel obliged to revisit the interview, point by point. The commentary offered thus far on our pages is mild. Another examination would be complete, direct, and sans the sugar coating apparently so detestable to some.
Rich and Elaine - love your site.
Thought the ES article SPOKE FOR ITSELF. By constantly mentioning that you restrain from putting additional negative
info. on the site only accomplishes that which you hope to
avoid, creates an impression of negativity about ES. Put up
or shut up. (Hope you have thick skin as I don't have the time
or patience for superfluous niceities - get to the point, I always
say). If you are really interested in ES's point of view why don't you try to get an interview? Get it straight from the horses mouth rather than all this horse---- which never goes anywhere. Who knows, he may be a horse's --- (I sense a theme here) or he may
be a perfectly nice human being. Either way, I will continue to
enjoy the site and do appreciate your efforts to share your love
Hang in there.
Post a Followup