Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Is the Unesco World Heritage site built on a foundation of false assumptions? A victim of political expediency, ignorance, or just plain apathy?
The controversy over the origin of the Zimbabwean civilisation has been a thorn in the side of historians for over a century. Archaeologists and scientists on both sides have either been ignored or severely taken to task by their contemporaries for ineptitude, ignorance, expediency, racism, romanticism and a dozen other slanderous shortcomings, and we are still no closer to the truth. Or has it simply been covered over and confined to the bottom drawer?
This blog will attempt prise open this drawer and take a closer look inside. Opinions are welcome, but facts, accompanied by referrals will carry more weight when attempting to convince the editors of encyclopaedias to at least conclude that there is an educated opposition to the so called Bantu theory, to give it some credence, and not simply ignore the alternative because it is easier and less controversial to continue with the status quo.
One of the Wiki editors has an admirable philosophy included in his profile: 'The lack of evidence itself is not evidence that the evidence does not exist'. It is a philosophy that all editors involved with the GZ controversy in particular, should keep in mind.
Wikipedia is a great concept and a great encyclopaedia, but it must remain true to its mandate of being an open book for the people. Anyone may contribute, which is why we have chosen Wiki as the ideal way of introducing the opposing theory to the current established one. In doing so however, we are finding that Wiki can quickly become a closed book. They will not publish any article that is controversial, which is quite understandable, but an opposing theory is already by its nature controversial. And who makes that decision? It is difficult to convince the jury when most of your evidence has been lost, stolen or misinterpreted, and all the evidence you have left is circumstantial, backed up by pure common sense and comparative observation. Encyclopaedias are bastions of knowledge and therefore also need to be the champions of truth.
At the very least it is our intention to establish an alternative theory to that of the current 'so called' Bantu theory', and to get this alternative recognised. For too long, this UNESCO world heritage site has suffered the ignominy of apathy and political expedience.
So… let the search for the truth continue!
The controversy over the origin of the Zimbabwean civilisation has been a thorn in the side of historians for over a century. Archaeologists and scientists on both sides have either been ignored or severely taken to task by their contemporaries for ineptitude, ignorance, expediency, racism, romanticism and a dozen other slanderous shortcomings, and we are still no closer to the truth. Or has it simply been covered over and confined to the bottom drawer?
This blog will attempt prise open this drawer and take a closer look inside. Opinions are welcome, but facts, accompanied by referrals will carry more weight when attempting to convince the editors of encyclopaedias to at least conclude that there is an educated opposition to the so called Bantu theory, to give it some credence, and not simply ignore the alternative because it is easier and less controversial to continue with the status quo.
One of the Wiki editors has an admirable philosophy included in his profile: 'The lack of evidence itself is not evidence that the evidence does not exist'. It is a philosophy that all editors involved with the GZ controversy in particular, should keep in mind.
Wikipedia is a great concept and a great encyclopaedia, but it must remain true to its mandate of being an open book for the people. Anyone may contribute, which is why we have chosen Wiki as the ideal way of introducing the opposing theory to the current established one. In doing so however, we are finding that Wiki can quickly become a closed book. They will not publish any article that is controversial, which is quite understandable, but an opposing theory is already by its nature controversial. And who makes that decision? It is difficult to convince the jury when most of your evidence has been lost, stolen or misinterpreted, and all the evidence you have left is circumstantial, backed up by pure common sense and comparative observation. Encyclopaedias are bastions of knowledge and therefore also need to be the champions of truth.
At the very least it is our intention to establish an alternative theory to that of the current 'so called' Bantu theory', and to get this alternative recognised. For too long, this UNESCO world heritage site has suffered the ignominy of apathy and political expedience.
So… let the search for the truth continue!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
