Melungeon-L Archives

Archiver > Melungeon > 2004-02 > 1076204220


From: "Pat Elder" <>
Subject: RE: [Melungeon] re If the shoe
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 20:37:11 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20040208004247.29156.qmail@web41406.mail.yahoo.com>


Brent, this will be my last reply to this juvenile conversation. I don't
have any idea where you got the idea I said marketing was dishonest. I
expressed possible interpretations, directed to Tim, not you, that should I
choose to do so, I could infer from Tim's quoted comment and his other
statements that he thought marketing was dishonest. Because I said marketing
had influenced people's beliefs about Melungeons, you and he rapidly jumped
on the "let's misinterpret what was said and claim we know what was REALLY
meant."

Furthermore, I wasn't aware there was any disturbed peace in the first
place. I really have to wonder why you think everything I say pertains to
you but that's your business if you want to think that. As you like to say,
"Go back and read what I said." This time, try to be fair and reasonable
when you read it.

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Kennedy [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 7:43 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [Melungeon] re If the shoe


Once again, Pat, I was ready to make peace and then you throw this in:


"You obviously have insulted a lot of people since it is plain that you
think marketing is dishonest. Or, perhaps, instead what you were really
saying is that if someone makes one's living in a sales profession then one
is in
a dishonest profession. If so, again, you have insulted a LOT of people.
Is that what you meant? Probably not. The only reasonable conclusion I can
make is that you just jumped to a really bad conclusion."

YOU are the one that insinuated this, not me. There is nothing wrong with
marketing - it's a fact and necessity of life. Go back and read what you
said. There's a big difference.

Brent







Pat Elder <> wrote:
Brent and Tim,

Against my better judgment, I am going to give you the courtesy of a reply.
Courtney asked what I considered a sincere and fair question. Many people
have stated they are confused as to what the facts are about being
"Melungeon" or whether or not they have Melungeon ancestry. I gave Courtney
my sincere, and what I considered fair, answer -- an explanation for why she
was left puzzling over what she should believe about whether or not her
family was Melungeon. Perhaps both of you would do better to give her your
version of an answer rather than attack me for mine. My advice to Courtney
was to do her own research and not believe everything that's ever been
published without checking it out. I also suggested that anyone who gets
upset over being or not being a Melungeon should examine why they are so
bothered about whether they are or are not. I have yet to figure out why
being "excluded" or "included" is such a big deal. Factual family history is
what it is, Melungeon or not.

If you can't see that Melungeons have been marketed, then nothing I can say
will change that. If you can't see that numerous writings have appeared in
print that are neither well-researched nor source-cited, then I can't change
that either. If you re-read what I said, I never said "books about
Melungeons." Again, I'm not responsible for the conclusions either of you
make.

I was raised in the foothills of the Cumberland Mountains by people who left
Lee, Scott and Hancock County between 1772 and 1810. That neither makes me a
good nor bad researcher.

Quoting Tim, "The only reasonable conclusion, given the absences of evidence
to the
contrary, is that Brent Kennedy, Pat Elder, and any other author honestly
believe the
conclusions they have reached. Debatable conclusions are one thing, but to
imply dishonesty without evidence is another."

You obviously have insulted a lot of people since it is plain that you think
marketing is dishonest. Or, perhaps, instead what you were really saying is
that if someone makes one's living in a sales profession then one is in a
dishonest profession. If so, again, you have insulted a LOT of people. Is
that what you meant? Probably not. The only reasonable conclusion I can make
is that you just jumped to a really bad conclusion.

I said something on the order of this: accepting what some writer has said
without checking for yourself is not a good idea. I don't care who the
writer is. Any good researcher will tell you to always check the sources and
check the logic in the analysis presented. It is beyond my comprehension how
(or why) either of you choose to interpret that as calling someone dishonest
or being directed at one particular person or group.

Pat


==== Melungeon Mailing List ====
The MELUNGEON LIST HOMEPAGE:
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~mtnties/melungeon.html


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online


==== Melungeon Mailing List ====
The MELUNGEON LIST HOMEPAGE:
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~mtnties/melungeon.html


This thread: