1 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Proof involves details

Reader comment on item: The Melungeons: The Resurrection of a Proud People: An Untold Story of Ethnic Cleansing in America

Submitted by Kelly locklear (United States), Aug 10, 2004 at 16:03

For the reviewer who poorly critiqued N. Brent Kennedy as a "school paper," and referred to the first half of the book as being full of "achingly detailed accounts of his own family, ": it is clear that you have no understanding that detail is the reinforcement of the theory, not only by your criticisms of the book, but by your summary of what the book was about in the first place. Innacurate and poorly chosen subjects are what appear in your summary--especially about Kennedy tracing the word "melungeon" to the arabic root. He traced all of the possible roots, in case you merely skimmed the book and missed altogether the proper root word origin. You also insufficiently summarized Kennedy's theory regarding the racial and cultural background of the Melungeons to the degree that I question your reading comprehension abilities.
I thoroughly enjoyed the book myself, and will remind the reviewer that numerous times the author admits his lack of ability to address in greater detail matters that are too complicated for him to research and that he knew that as a group much more research could be accomplished than he could ever do on his own. The least you could do, if you truly wanted to find something to criticize is to try to refute something he wrote or report an historical inaccuracy. But you could not. I'm astonished that anyone would so inaccurately report on such a well-documented and properly-written theory.
Sincerely,
Kelly Locklear

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submitting....

Next Comment >>

Reader comments (3) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
Book is Dated and Further Research Has Proven Much of it Wrong [72 words]History ChaserJun 11, 2009 10:01157174
Where are the citations? [224 words]Roger LeeJun 25, 2005 15:1822865
Proof involves details [244 words]Kelly locklearAug 10, 2004 16:0316289

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Proof involves details by Kelly locklear

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

ADVERTISEMENTS

eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2018 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes