VET or NOT to VET

The following text is the full text of two email replies received on consecutive days, May 28-29.  Then I added my comment below.  

Project Leader, History, at a well-known University, which has some historic first achievements, wrote on May 28, 2013.

"I don’t have any one on either the graduate or undergraduate side that can tackle anything like this. He needs to contact a Division 1 research institution where they have anthropologists, historians, Native American experts, and geneticists etc. that can refute or confirm his beliefs."

A researcher in the "Bush" in Australia, wrote on May 29, 2013  [Australia spelling retained.]

"As a point of interest, when I was at Melbourne University, I was told my British history and fine art essays were 1st class honours standard but the way they were presented was not. 

I was very bluntly told that, although the material in my essays was ezcellent, because they were not presented in the correct way, senior lecturers and professors would not even give them a second glance unless I toed the line and wrote my essays in the generally accepted form.

I had to reluctantly knuckle down and use the correct anally retentive 'jargon,' then I started getting first class honours - until, after a couple of years, I could no longer stand the dull, dreary, academic atmosphere, which stifled any sort of alternative view of history.

Although, as an engineer, (I have read your astounding CV) your work was obviously presented in the accepted way for fellow engineers and other professionals to comfortably interpret, my general impression of the way your brilliant work on the Lenape is presented, is for a general audience.

Your Frozen Trail website, is for me, a revelation. It is very well researched and presented in a way, which stimulated my imagination. 

It was as though my mind was going click, click, click, joining all the dots, with each new piece of information I read-I was completely astounded.

Maybe if we started presenting your research in the formallly accepted way of academic history papers, we could start getting some academics to sit up and give the Lenape story some attention.

I feel most academics, reading the frozen trail, would not have the intelligence or imagination to 'get it.'

They got their degrees by regurgitating their lecturer’s notes, not from achieving any level of genuine enquiry. (This was the reason I left university in complete disgust)

People with enquiring minds and the ability to make brilliant deductions (like you and me), engineers, (because they are trained to solve problems) and a few other types of individual seem to get it, others seem to completely miss the point of one of the most amazing, epic events in American history (or any other history, for that matter.

If educators and academics can't make the necessary evaluations and deductions from reading your brilliant research, maybe we have to make it a bit easier for them to understand.

If we could have a go at presenting some of your Lenape material more in the style of am academic research paper, we might get more attention.

My reply to the Australian correspondent follows.

Aidon, You had a remarkably astute evaluation of my intent for the website, which was started as a research tool to determine the validity of the hypothesis when I was not at all sure if the hypothesis was valid or not valid, and the Blog, which I am writing to inform people, who would never read a formal article, if I had to communicate through the academic paper chase. 

In a way, my decision to use the Blog has been successful.  I am writing to you.  I have been surprized to have a large number of Americans (Indians) on my email lists.  They have replied sooner, with better advice, than the academic professors.  

Because we, the Americans and I, have had intense email discussions, I was able to review their remarks.  Slowly, I began to think.  "The academics are ignoring me and the Americans are--well--they are discussing as people with the ethics of Christ should discuss: polite, firm in their viewpoint, willing to consider my view point, willing to discuss alternate viewpoints that might resolve the conflicting opinions, and finally resolution of a very difficult difference of opinion."

The "they are discussing as people with the ethics of Christ should discuss"  caused me to be more sensitive about what the 17th century English wrote.  Then I found Harriot's 1585 letter to Queen Elizabeth, in which he described the religion of the Americans, which must have seemed to Elizabeth to be curiously similar to the Catholic religion she was trying to suppress in England.

Queen Elizabeth must have read the letter.  She may have been more astute than Herriot.   She could read in three languages and read most evenings.  She may have been puzzled  to learn that the Americans were already acting as if they had the Christian message, even the Catholic version of that religion.

 For the rest of her life she did not send an official English voyage back to North America, even though England and Spain were arming themselves toward a war.  America became a place for pirates to harbor as they plundered the Spanish treasure fleet, but Queen Elizabeth lived up to her promise to the Pope.  England would not put colonies on foreign lands where the (Catholic) Christians were settled.

As time went on, I learned enough Lenape to recognize that the English word for the Mother in Every Temple, painted by John White in 1585, did NOT really mean "Monster" as the English sub title stated.

So the Blog effort connected me to people I would never have encountered and, except for the academic historians, enabled discussions serious enough to alter my paradigms.

You wrote that I should be doing something about “presenting some of your Lenape material more in the style of am academic research paper, we might get more attention.” 

I think you may still believe too much in the power of the paper chase.

 Actually, two years ago, I was aware that university documentation might be required before the Lenape Migration would appear in history books.  I recognized two major problems:  1) The social behavior in universities called the “Silo” effect, which results in a behavior that any knowledge from a competent researcher outside any discipline is not worthy of publication in the discipline documentation and, 
2) the lack of university scholars, who are studying American pre-history. But I decided to ask the universities to vet the Lenape Migration anyway.  I, incorrectly, thought:

that there would be some graduate students looking for something--anything--to research,

that those graduate students would, in time, generate documentation for the Lenape Migration.

that the education professionals would, in time, teach the conclusions to high school students, and

that the professional interchange between  educators might find even more evidence to support the Lenape Migration hypothesis.

Alas, I failed to consider the pitfalls:

1. Often universities cope with the deluge of emails by various computer routines to handle the flood of email.  A personal, well-worded email sent to a "Department Head" may be dumped into the “Junk” box.  Unless the department head looked at the Junk mail, he may never have seen my “very important” letter.  [I NEVER look at my junk mail.]  Usually there is no reply to "spam" emails. 

2. A more important pitfall is illustrated by the reply of the Project Leader, History, who doesn’thave any one on either the graduate or undergraduate side that can tackle anything like this.

I think any member of any graduate faculty of any discipline should be able to “tackle anything.”  The process is the same.
     Is enough data collected?
     Is this the best hypothesis?
     Are all other options considered?
     Is the logic consistent?
     Are there definite conclusions?
     Are there recommendations for further research?

Project Leader, History, wrote his statement thirty-four years after Thomas E. Lee, three other university archaeologists, seven Ph. Ds. and sixteen other authorities united to tell the world that Vikings were in America 1,000 years ago, that a historic rescue attempt by Scandinavians made it to Minnesota, and that the Scandinavians were still there in 1362 [To be consistant with my understanding that the Vikings in America called themselves "LENAPE," I will call this statenent the"LENAPE FIRST conclusions."]  

The Lenape First conclusions are in conflict with the Pristine Wilderness Paradigm, which demands that the first European to arrive in the new world was Columbus.  [He came to America 500 years after the Lenape did. ]

The twenty-seven scholars made an educational film Viking Visitors to North America.  This year copies of the that film should have been seen by most of the four million high school kids who graduated.  Yet, Project Leader, History, admits that he does not have “any one on either the graduate or undergraduate side that can tackle anything like this.

"This" in this case, is my request to vet my decipherment of the Lenape Migration history to see if the decipherment is compatible with the Lenape First conclusions.

Why does NOT the Project Leader have anyone on his staff that knows about the paradigm shifr in North America history that happened 34 years ago?

I think the situation is strong evidence that the educational departments of the Social Science discipline have failed to provide a method to incorporate new valid analytical conclusions into the curriculum of high schools.  These educators are the same Social Science professors, who have been teaching the Mythical Pristine Wilderness Paradigm for most of their careers.  

My request to vet MY analytical conclusions traps them into a "no win" situation.

They may sense that ANYTHING, which implies the Mythical Pristine Wilderness Paradigm is not valid, will bring down the whole "house of cards."  

They may quickly discern that if they use negative vetting to defeat the LENAPE FIRST conclusions there appears to be so much evidence in favor of the LENAPE FIRST conclusions that a discussion might be that "ANYTHING."  Few Social Scientist Educator wants to risk his reputation or take the time to learn if there is any evidence that supports the Mythical Pristine Wilderness Paradigm.  Besides most educators sense that negative vetting of evidence, which may in fact be valid, is unprofessional behavior that most students can discern.

So, for Social Science educators, the best action is to ignore requests for someone outside the discipline "silo".   

In 2011 the Appalachian Shawnee Tribe sent out packets to 228 top ranked anthropology  history, and linguistic departments.  They asked for vetting.  They recieved no replies.  To the Social Scientists.  The Tribe were people "outside the silo."  Americans (Indians) at that.  They could be ignored.

But the LENAPE FIRST concllusions were confirmed valid 34 years ago and, yet, Social Scientist faculty from well known universities do not know that historic fact!

I think the answer lies in the educational disciplines of universities, especially in the history and anthropology departments.  The evidence  in this case is clear, compelling, and catastrophic.  Those departments did not teach the LENAPE FIRST conclusions.

That failure to teach valid conclusions has resulted in negative consequences to most of the Social Science educators in North America. After 34 years of being ignored, the LENAPE FIRST conclusions still face the normal lag time for shifting paradigms.

[I could find only one university studying American pre-history, the period between 1,000 and 1,500.  At that university they were studying the orthodox Indian tribes.  That university stopped  replying, when they received my first email with "Vikings" in it.]

So, asking university Social Science educators to vet anything not in their books in their discipline appears to h be a foolish process.  

We should not have done that.

Writing papers for to be published in university publications is a form of an outsider asking for vetting.

I think we should not do that.

The LENAPE FIRST conclusions were made VALID by professors in university analytical departments 34 four years ago.  We have even more evidence, and testimony.  We have found a LENAPE history.  Nearly everything recently discovered verifies the LENAPE FIRST conclusions.  

Ironically educators who ignore vetting of information from outside the discipline "silo" are maintaining the status quo.  The status quo the validity of the LENAPE FIRST conclusions on the outside and the Mythical Pristine Wilderness Paradigm on the inside.

But that "silo" paradigm is shifting too.  Today, many students carry mobile devices.  I have sat at musical recitals and watched students with smart phones look at LENAPE LAND during intermission.  Students can now look outside the "silo."

I think we should move our communications onto the internet.  The oldest America history, LENAPE LAND, is now Online.  

Next year nearly half of those 4,000 million kids will be carrying their smart phones into class.  Some of them will view LENAPE LAND while the teacher up front may be trying to tell the rest of the class the Mythical Pristine Wilderness paradigm.

I suggest we devote our energies to developing text for the system than can deliever new content into the classroom soonest.

The paradigm shifted in 1979.  The internet started about then.  The world is communicating faster.  The Social Science Education system has not caught up.  Their system may be never catch up.  The education by paper system may be obsolete.