J> i have to admit that i automatically discard anything that has the name
J> 'lubicon' in it. there are just so many posts on this subject and most
J> of them tend to be more lengthy than i have time to deal with so i just
J> discard them unread. sorry, but i have to agree with dr. may.
I don't believe the discarding of material on the lubicons is the same
issue that Dr. May has brought up. In particular, I am disappointed
that Dr. May believes people should present a balanced account of
something before he is willing to take a stand. It is either extreme
idealism or naivete to assume that those who have an axe to grind (and
there are plenty of reasons for this in our world) are going to take
on the reporter's mandate of objective reporting (an impossibility for
even the most conscientious of reporters, in my opinion). Further, we
cannot escape the bias that comes from our own unique experiences,
both direct and vicarious. I have always found convergence of
evidence to be a more reliable way to achieve a more balanced
perspective, than the dependence on a single source which attempts to
be "objective".
I believe it is our responsibility to seek all sides of an issue if we
are so inclined. Those of us who seek balance try to weigh the
evidence from as many sources with different perspectives as we have
time to consider.
i myself discard much of the lubicon material, keeping only those
postings which contain significantly new information. But we all know
that we rarely can take anything for face value in this world. We
must go on our ability to determine if something "rings true", and to
read between the lines. I have heard many people criticize the New
York Times for not confronting the issues, cowtowing to the
establishment, etc. But there is often enough information presented
over time about an issue for one to form the same opinion as one might
get from a far more radical or anti-establishment publication. One
simply adjusts the scales to accomodate the source. It is not easy to
lie for long periods of time, inconsistencies invariably crop up. But
again, it is our responsibility to detect these inconsistencies, since
we cannot assume the objectivity that Dr. May says should be a given.
The greater danger is lack of attention to an issue so that no
information is forthcoming.
It is another matter, of course, if the cause is not one which we feel
compelled to support. With so many to choose from we must all make
decisions about the use of our time. I imagine that Dr. May finds
other issues to be more compelling, and that is fine. To even be a
member of this list, active or passive, is laudable, in my opinion;
since relatively few people have made even this much of a commitment
to educate themselves about indigenous issues.