Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 86

Thread: What tribal societies can tell us about justice and liberty

  1. #21
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Rhonda, both in terms of timing and content,

    your 21 Apr 2009 article is all about the lawsuit.

    I find it surprising that someone who is in journalism would object to a characterization of the article as a "press release". Are you contending that a "press release" is some lesser form of journalism and cannot contain "serious discovery and research" ?

    On reflection, there is little point in my continuing any sort of discussion with you concerning this topic because it appears to me that, in this area, if someone is not for your position, you deem that someone to be against your position. In short, that someone is "either with us or against us" (sound familiar ?). Both of us have better things to do with our time.

    Regards

    Mike

  2. #22
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    We do have to be careful that we don't attribute everything in the broader Middle East to tribalism. Qutb came from a highly literate, middle class notable family in which (as for most Egyptians) the concept of "tribe" was the stuff of old stories, and not really relevant to their lives.

    Extended family? Yes, perhaps. Tribe? Not at all.
    In Yemen a lot of the "educated" people I met told me that they felt that there was a real tension or tug-of-war between the "liberating" aspects of the city with its emphasis on class association and the tribal aspects outside the city. Inside the city they didn't often want to mention it but the jambia did give it away on the new arrivals who wore it and when "professionals" wore them to functions (usually prefering a neutral coloured one instead.

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RhondaRShearer View Post
    ... innocent men were charged and convicted in the court of public opinion by a powerful scientist and magazine of heinous crimes--without one ounce of verification before publication.
    Merely airing a view does not equate to a "conviction" in a real or imagined court, any more than arguing an issue of fact in a real court equates to receiving the judgment one seeks.

  4. #24
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    11

    Default

    @JMM99, Your assumption about the timing is wrong. We held our report until the day after the lawsuit to make sure that the informants themselves had chosen to go public because of the potential dangers for them. Indeed, we were even accused of endangering our informants in an editorial in Anthropology Today. When we pointed to the dates--that the lawsuit was filed before we went public and therefore the informants themselves made that choice--they agreed to publicly apologize and make a corrections. (See NEWS, page 29, ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY Vol 26 No 2, April 2010).

    Next, let's not play coy. To call a serious intellectual report, a "press release" is an insult. Yes, press releases are not journalism. They don't pretend to be investigative reports where the truth--with both good and bad news--is explored and fairly reported from multiple sides of an issue or an event and other journalism standards are maintained such as fact checking, protecting sources and acting for the public good. To publish a press release undisclosed as an independent report would be highly unethical and discrediting.

    Your global point about my character -- "it appears to me that, in this area, if someone is not for your position, you deem that someone to be against your position"-- is a straw man. I was very specific about my criticism of your use of the words "press release" to describe our report and your selection to criticize us as suspect instead of Diamond and the New Yorker in light of the facts they admit.

    @Schmedlap, insulting someone (publicly stating that their serious investigative report is a press release in disguise) is not "Merely airing a view."

  5. #25
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default For anyone who is interested,

    the Supreme Court (NY's trial court) for New York County (aka Manhattan) has a docket entry system similar to PACER, but free - the docket card for INDEX NO.: 105519-2009; PLAINTIFF: MANDINGO, HENEP ISUM; DEFENDANT: ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS, INC., has three pleadings of material interest:

    Summons and Complaint 10/19/2009 - by pls (also on the Stinkyjournalism site as previously posted)

    Answer 10/15/2009 - by defs.

    Notice of Motion 11/30/2009 - by defs (for Summary Judgment).

    The Motion for SJ cites a number of pleadings that are not listed on the online docket card:

    ... affidavit of Jared Diamond, sworn to on November 20,2009, the affidavit of Thomas Summer, sworn to on November 18,2009, the affidavit of Pamela McCarthy, sworn to on November 20,2009, the affidavit of Peter Kovacs, sworn to on November 12,2009, and the affirmation of Carolyn K. Foley, dated November 23, 2009, and their accompanying exhibits, and upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants Advance Publications, Inc. and Jared Diamond’s Motion for Summary Judgment ...
    The motion was noticed for February 8, 2010; adjourned to April 5, 2010; and adjourned to May 18, 2010 (docket entries). Deposition deadlines are set for Tuesday, May 29, 2012; so, this case has got a long way to go.

    That's all, folks

    Mike

  6. #26
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    11

    Default Affidavits of Jared Diamond et al

    I have read these affidavits listed above. They deal solely with procedural issues, such as statute of limitations for the magazine and DVD and whether or not the right party was sued. However, the interesting one is by Jared Diamond.

    Instead of listing his research methods, arguing or providing evidence that what he wrote was true..Diamond writes: "I prepared the Article based in large part on information the plaintiff Daniel Wemp told me. At the time I prepared the Article and submitted it to The New Yorker, I believed it to be a true and accurate account of events as Daniel Wemp had told them to me."

    That was it. No other evidence or arguement is offered. See link
    http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/imag...ed_Diamond.pdf
    Last edited by RhondaRShearer; 05-04-2010 at 12:39 AM. Reason: typo

  7. #27
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Rhonda, thank you for the link

    You correctly carved out the only material portion of Diamond's affidavit:

    I prepared the Article based in large part on information the plaintiff Daniel Wemp told me. At the time I prepared the Article and submitted it to The New Yorker, I believed it to be a true and accurate account of events as Daniel Wemp had told them to me.
    Odd affidavit in the context (it doesn't take on the amended complaint para by para). The obvious defense being asserted is "I was misled by Wemp"; so, therefore, an "absence of malice" (Paul Newman and Sally Fields ).

    IMO: I'd say (but I shouldn't read tea leaves) that there is nothing in this affidavit for a judge to bite on so far as summary judgment is concerned. For a defendant to prevail on summary judgment, no material issues of fact can exist and, on those uncontested facts, the defendant must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

    IMO: The amended complaint (by Richard Asche, who has good creds) lays out the various article passages that Diamond (based on his affidavit) presumably will testify were told him by Wemp. The complaint alleges that Wemp did not say what the article claims he said. Hence, questions of fact exist as to what Wemp told Diamond (Diamond: he told me "A"; Wemp: I did not tell him "A"); and the case should go to the jury. However, since "Judge McCarthy" ain't hearing the motion, his opinion ain't worth spit.

    The motions based on NY's 1 year statute of limitations are important, since if that statute was blown (late filing), the case can be tossed regardless of its merits. The SJ Motion mentions a defendants' Memorandum of Law filed. If you have a link to that, it would spell out the defendants' theories more clearly. And, if Asche has filed a responsive Memorandum of Law, a link to that would be most enlightening.

    Regards

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 05-04-2010 at 01:49 AM.

  8. #28
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    11

    Default Mike, I will look for the MEMO tomorrow--thanks

    Hummm. Have to look. I was told the Memo was filed and public. I appreciate that you've read this stuff and offer "IMO" s. Thanks. One question:

    Is this case like the Paul Newman movie in that malice is not the bar that must be met because the plaintiffs in his case are without doubt private, not public figures?

    The hilarious part of the Diamond's affidavit statement is the tautology (the premise repeated in the conclusion) "He told me this, and at the time I wrote the article I believed what he told me."

    This defense may cover the Daniel Wemp problem, that is if Diamond and not Wemp , is believed. However this does not cure the problem New Yorker and Diamond have with the other plaintiff, Henep Isum Mandingo who Diamond never spoke to.

    The possible defense "Daniel told me that he killed..." does not also include, as far as I know, "Daniel told me that he and Isum killed ..." when no attempts to do any independent verification was done.

    Another interesting point is there is no proof that Wemp said these things in 2001-2002, as the article dates his quotes, since there are no notes or tape recordings. The only notes Diamond took were from one meeting in May 2006.

    Diamond had a white AU bird tour guide, David Bishop, with him at all times he was with Wemp, but Bishop says he does not remember anything of what Wemp said.

    Wemp has a couple of witnesses (two indigenous men who were working for World Wildlife Fund in 2006, who were also Wemp's employer when he drove Diamond back in 2001-2002) from May 2006 who heard some of what Wemp said and back him up.

    -Rhonda

  9. #29
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default What is Truth ?, ....

    asked Pilate - no answer is given in the canonical Gospel text. In the area of defamation, we may not have advanced much in 2000 years.

    First off, absolute truth is an absolute defense regardless of the seriousness of the alleged defamation (consider Arlo Guthrie's lines in Alice's Restaurant when he admitted to littering ). However, that seems not likely in this case given your 10-part series, unless all of that is contradicted by contrary evidence. So, this case will likely be one where the article will be proven "untruth" - but that is not quite enough to win (IMO).

    NYT-Sullivan covers the situation where the plaintiff is a "public figure" - that is something of a term of art. You're a public figure; so is Diamond. I'm probably not (except in a very limited community); and two little guys from PNG would not be (IMO). In any event, the test that public figures have to meet is that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or was published in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Hustler-Falwell extended the NYT-Sullivan standard to public figures' claims that emotional distress was intentionally inflicted on them.

    As to non-public figures, Gertz-Welch allowed states to establish their own standards of liability for defamatory statements, so long as they do not impose liability without fault. That is, the state may establish some form of negligence as the minimum test - e.g., lack of ordinary care in fact checking sources would be one possible test. But, if the state standard is lower than actual malice (the standard applying to public figures), then only actual damages may be awarded.

    Since this case is within the territorial jurisdiction of the US, the 1st Amendment Constitutional standard applies. However, that still leaves the question of which jurisdiction's law covers the substantive libel standard - New York (where the decision to publish was probably made) or PNG (where the damages, if any, were sustained). So, there is a possible choice of law question involving international and comparative law. I have no idea of what current NY libel law is (hell of thing to be said by someone who still has an active NY license); nor that of PNG. That's why I was interested in the Memoranda of Law (esp. what Asche has to say).

    If (which might be a big "if" if your witnesses hold up) the jury buys that Diamond was sold a bill of goods by Wemp, I think Wemp's case would be toast. That would be akin to my murdering my parents and claiming mercy on the basis that I am an orphan. But, Mandingo would still have a case - and a conflict of interest between Wemp and him. I can't see Asche even arguing that alternative. He will hammer away that Diamond fabricated a goodly part of the story - so, it will get down to whom the jury believes most.

    Regards

    Mike

  10. #30
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    He will hammer away that Diamond fabricated a goodly part of the story - so, it will get down to whom the jury believes most.
    I wonder if Diamond's reputation will come into the picture, and if so how it will impact the proceedings. I was coincidentally discussing this case this morning with my seasonal neighbor, a Canadian anthropologist of some repute, and she thinks that while Diamond has sold a lot of books, his reputation in the trade is less than impressive, and that he has a long history of drawing sweeping conclusions from minimal evidence. She also thinks there will be no shortage of eminent individuals in the field willing to say exactly that.

    Even if Diamond escapes without major liability, his reputation may take a fair hit... not the I'd mind, he has it coming IMO.

  11. #31
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Hi Steve

    This type of case hinges on cred, pure and simple. And what kind of jury panel you end up with. I have no idea what the average NY County jury array (the large group from which the panel is selected) looks like today.

    As I said, my dog is not in this hunt, so I have no incoming bias toward whether Diamond has anything coming or not.

    One concern that this situation gives me is that our folks (fighting "small wars") may be relying on studies by other than Diamond that are also compromised to some extent. I'd not like to see good people dead because a story or study was cooked up by the author or informant for personal reasons.

    How much think tank stuff is also dangerous junk ?

    What's with these far-flung Canadian anthropologists - a worldwide cabal engineered by Tyrrell ? Actually, give my regards to your Canadian neighbor.

    Cheers

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 05-04-2010 at 06:23 AM.

  12. #32
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    I have no incoming bias toward whether Diamond has anything coming or not.
    My bias is of the moderate sort... he seems to me an example of the common inverse relationship between ascending reputations and the declining level of rigor that seems to go into the work. Call it the Niall Ferguson syndrome . Not like I'm a crusader on the subject but I don't at all mind seeing someone called on it... and of course coming from a tribal environment I'm inclined to cheer a bit for the plaintiffs on this one!

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    One concern that this situation gives me is that our folks (fighting "small wars") may be relying on studies by other than Diamond that are also compromised to some extent. I'd not like to see good people dead because a story or study was cooked up by the author or informant for personal reasons.

    How much think tank stuff is also dangerous junk ?
    Judging from the stuff I've seen written on the conflicts I actually know something about, I'd say there's a fair bit of junk about, though also some good stuff. How dangerous it is usually depends on who's interpreting it, and how.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    What's with these far-flung Canadian anthropologists - a worldwide cabal engineered by Tyrrell ? Actually, give my regards to your Canadian neighbor.
    Wouldn't half surprise me if they know each other. Also wouldn't half surprise me if I had to duck for available cover to avoid the crossfire if they ever came face to face in my presence!

  13. #33
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    11

    Default Court Motion and MEMO docs --also I do research in Egypt

    Here are the most recent documents RE the Diamond side of the case:
    http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/misc...ndum-Part1.pdf
    http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/misc...ndum-Part2.pdf
    http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/misc...TION-Part1.pdf
    http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/misc...TION-Part2.pdf
    http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/misc...TION-Part3.pdf

    FYI Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that Egyptians don't identify themselves with tribes. Boy is that true. They don't even see themselves as Arabs but as Egyptians. Arabs are people from the desert or the Gulf in their view and parlance.

    I have been in Egypt at least 30 times the past 10 years and am working on finishing a book on the true story of the crash of EgyptAir Flight 990, Oct 31 1999. If you recall its the fatal accident off the Atlantic coast of the US where the first officer was accused by NTSB of downing the plane while committing suicide.

    BTW We have two more investigations that expose Diamond's errors (fabrications?) forthcoming soon. One involves his famed book Guns, Germs and Steel and the second one is about another indigenous Papua New Guinea tribesman who worked for Diamond and his tribe that Diamond accused in multiple publications of having conducted systematic "genocide" for revenge.

    Finally, Mike and Steve, it's no mystery IMO what studies have credibility. There are signposts like transparency of method and providing clear sources and documentation. For example, we not only have photos of Isum walking around (that Diamond falsely reported was paralyzed in a wheelchair for 11 years, "cut" in his spine from Wemp's assassins' arrow), we also have hospital records and XRays that verify his medical history and the dates.

    New Yorker's fact checking method, as they admit in multiple places, involved speaking to no witnesses or named indigenous people. The editor said "in this case we consulted a large number of experts in the various fields the material touches on.” In other words, no specific facts were checked... with the people in the article accused of crimes, police, govt agencies, NGOs, missionaries, maps, oil companies or the one expert who is widely known in the field on the specific area of Papua New Guinea, Paul Sillitoe, who even knows Wemp, Isum etc.

    We checked with ALL of the aforementioned and have published much, but not all, of this information on StinkyJournalism.org.

  14. #34
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    11

    Default Mike, you're not saying there is no truth, are you?

    Mike, you wrote: "What is truth?... asked Pilate - no answer is given in the canonical Gospel text. In the area of defamation, we may not have advanced much in 2000 years."

    The only reason why I do investigations is because repeatable and knowable facts exist and they are beautiful and powerful. Such facts are truth in my view. At the very least, they are the closest thing on earth to the Platonic notion of truth.

  15. #35
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Folks,

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    I wonder if Diamond's reputation will come into the picture, and if so how it will impact the proceedings. I was coincidentally discussing this case this morning with my seasonal neighbor, a Canadian anthropologist of some repute, and she thinks that while Diamond has sold a lot of books, his reputation in the trade is less than impressive, and that he has a long history of drawing sweeping conclusions from minimal evidence. She also thinks there will be no shortage of eminent individuals in the field willing to say exactly that.
    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    This type of case hinges on cred, pure and simple.
    As I mentioned earlier, I have been underwhelmed by his work. There is, however, a problem with "credibility", which is that part of his reputation amongst many anthropologists is, partly, driven by - hmmm - "envy" maybe? Basically, he sells a lot of books and is a "public figure", which is going to have an impact on how we see him whether we like it or not.

    As I said, I've read some of his stuff and a fair bit of the work it derives from (including some of the mid-19th century stuff), and I'm not impressed. Still and all, I expect that there may be some who would argue that anyone acting as a witness against him will be driven by, in part, by envy.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    One concern that this situation gives me is that our folks (fighting "small wars") may be relying on studies by other than Diamond that are also compromised to some extent. I'd not like to see good people dead because a story or study was cooked up by the author or informant for personal reasons.

    How much think tank stuff is also dangerous junk ?
    It's been bothering me for years, Mike. Basically, I think that some useful guards against the junk factor include:

    1. Use "levels of analysis" including broad patterns of action (structural), historical precursors for probabilities, and case specifics. Of these, only the latter can really be fact checked (the others are subject to large degrees of interpretation).
    2. Never assume that anything you read is absolute "truth". It may, or may not, exist, but it is extremely unlikely (probability approaching 0) that it will ever be written or comprehensible.
    3. Always assume that humans are contrary beasts who just love to destroy neat analytical categories !

    All of these, plus a few more, are the reason why I far prefer to ask questions that to give prescriptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    What's with these far-flung Canadian anthropologists - a worldwide cabal engineered by Tyrrell ? Actually, give my regards to your Canadian neighbor.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Wouldn't half surprise me if they know each other. Also wouldn't half surprise me if I had to duck for available cover to avoid the crossfire if they ever came face to face in my presence!
    LOL - quite possible ! Say "hi" for me and see if she does know me.

    Cheers,

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  16. #36
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    "Truth" and "fact" may mean different things to a journalist, an academic, and a lawyer. Any way you slice them, they can be remarkably elusive. I've personally interviewed multiple eyewitnesses to events and come away with dramatically different versions from each one. I've talked to other eyewitnesses to events I've witnessed and realized that were radical differences between what they saw and what I saw. I've witnessed events at close range that were both widely reported and eminently reportable (occurring in a brief time in a confined and easily accessible location) and come away convinced that the accepted record of those events is in many ways wrong. Or possibly it's my memory or powers of observation that are astray, though I've no cause to doubt either.

    None of that is meant to suggest that we should stop looking for truth and for facts, or that avoiding or circumventing obvious evidence or necessary procedures is acceptable. It just means that even when all the pieces seem in place and all the approved processes have been followed, a fair degree of skepticism is required.

    New Yorker's fact checking method, as they admit in multiple places, involved speaking to no witnesses or named indigenous people. The editor said "in this case we consulted a large number of experts in the various fields the material touches on.” In other words, no specific facts were checked
    This does not surprise me at all, and it's not uncommon. One of my favorite recent cases is the one discussed in this thread:

    http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=2165

    Again, prominent author, prominent publication, absolute load of bollocks. Of course if you didn't happen to know something about the subject, you wouldn't notice... which makes me wonder if that sort of standard is the norm. If they get it that far wrong when they write about things I know about, why should I trust them on things I know less about?

    it's no mystery IMO what studies have credibility. There are signposts like transparency of method and providing clear sources and documentation.
    True, though of course works like Diamond's hardly qualify as "studies" in any academic sense. Still one finds studies that appear to be credible, and on further examination they turn out to be far from it. All you can do is work from as many sources as possible, both journalistic and academic, spend as much time in the field as possible... and still retain the awareness that there are perspectives you haven't heard and parts of the story you haven't seen.

    Makes it rough on people who are paid to come up with conclusions, but that's way it is...

  17. #37
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    "Truth" and "fact" may mean different things to a journalist, an academic, and a lawyer. Any way you slice them, they can be remarkably elusive.
    Concur. The remit of modern media (print, internet and TV) is to make money. After that it is support a particular political view, by all and any means.
    Truth is little or nothing to do with it, and utterly very subjective.

    ....but I am not objective. I've worked in "big media" and I live in Middle-East!
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  18. #38
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Truth ....

    What Dayuhan and Wilf said. And, what I tell clients - the facts (truth) are what the judge or jury thinks they are. All I can do is present what I think are the facts (truth to my client and me). Also, I would bet that if all eyewitnesses to any incident are interviewed, there will be at least two different versions.

    Now, I'll go along with this:

    from RRS
    The only reason why I do investigations is because repeatable and knowable facts exist and they are beautiful and powerful. Such facts are truth in my view. At the very least, they are the closest thing on earth to the Platonic notion of truth.
    but subject to some other principles based on my beliefs concerning the reality in which we live: probabilistic (vs deterministic) outcomes; fuzzy logic and calculus (patterns that are not clear on the edges); chance, chaos and uncertainty principles drive events and what results from events; and some more that I could add with more thought.

    Rhonda, I'll look at the legal memo and get back (possibly by PM cuz the focus of this thread should be on the Diamond article and your people's reports, not the law of the case).

    Regards

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 05-04-2010 at 04:48 PM.

  19. #39
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hey Mike,

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    Rhonda, I'll look at the legal memo and get back (possibly by PM cuz the focus of this thread should be on the Diamond article and your people's reports, not the law of the case).
    Oh, I think that your responses are on point ! More clearly stated, the entire legal case surrounds issues of epistemology and ethics in the publication and use "narratives". I would say that that is very much to the broader point, which is what can we learn from tribal societies and, by implication, how do we learn it.

    Cheers,

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  20. #40
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Even in the famed movie Rashomon where 4 defendants all had different viewpoints about a woman's murder in Japan--they all shared one fact. One woman's dead body. That is a verifiable fact. Facts do exist.

    Prediction of certain facts are possible too. Step front and center in front of van moving 60mph and that will be another fact .

    In my research I focus on such facts--hence why I first looked to find Isum in the remote bush as Diamond said he was paralyzed from a "cut" spine and in a wheelchair for 11 years (an implausible claim IMO). He wasn't. We knew hospital records would give a more complete verification-- which we then obtained.

    The way witness statements are collected and who the witnesses are also makes a difference. For example if the supposed victims of "genocide" tell you such a claim is untrue, along with the supposed perpetrators, it's rather persuasive especially when everyone's story lines are basically the same.

    In Papua New Guinea, accurate tribal history telling--especially about conflicts--is important. In the Wola area of the Southern Highlands Papua New Guinea such histories equal agreements consisting of what happened and who did what to who. Deviations from such agreed upon histories are easily viewed as attacks or betrayals of peace agreements.

    Likely because of this, both sides of the 2 Kina fight and the neutral parties all had remarkably similar tellings of the conflict of 1993.

    It was also striking that the Handas would simply acknowledge fault and say flat out with no guile (and without the excuses, hemming and hawing that would invariably occur here) that our guy started the fight and the trouble! I asked anthropologists who work in PNG and they are not surprised by this at all.

    With that said, our informants testimonies were able to be cross referenced between memories and documents. If someone said "we remember the fight started when so and so child was born" --we would find the birth record of the child to check and see if it agreed.
    Last edited by RhondaRShearer; 05-04-2010 at 06:03 PM. Reason: typo

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •