Ruel Macaraeg responds to my nomination of his website as a Stereotype of the Month entry:

My first response
>> I have been informed that I've been nominated for this contest. <<

Yes, although it's not as formal as you make it sound.

>> As I can tell from you website, you are more interested in truth than rhetoric, so I invite you to judge for yourself. <<

I will!

>> 3. If you want, you may see the actual debate between Al and I at delphiforums.com in the "Skeptic" forum, though I must warn you that Al is highly offensive (not to mention a poor writer). <<

His messages to me have been reasonably well-written. The only offensive messages I've seen were from your supporters to him.

>> Please let me know the status of my "nomination" to the contest. <<

Okay, but I don't think you're likely to "win." The monthly "award" usually goes to an institution or group, not an individual.

Rob

Ruel writes again

Another reply
>> I would ask you to look at my site, and notice that there is as yet NOTHING written about Native Americans! <<

There may be nothing written about Native Americans, but listing them—along with other non-Western people—as practitioners of primitive or superstitious beliefs is stereotypical.

>> In fact, I am not testing spiritual beliefs, but claims — something altogether different. <<

Reread what you wrote on your site:

People make spiritual claims because of their spiritual beliefs. Disproving a claim—assuming you could do it—would be tantamount to disproving the belief behind it. The two aren't "altogether different," they're intimately related.

If you could disprove Jesus's miracles, for example, you'd disprove the people who believe he performed miracles. You'd essentially disprove the basis of their religion.

The point is academic, of course, since you'll never disprove anything magical or miraculous. Why not? Because these aren't phenomena that obey natural laws. You'll never create an experiment where a weapon's magical power must appear on command.

The Boy Who Cried "Racism"
A more detailed response—after I read Macaraeg's dismissive response to Al Carroll with the above title:

>> Then read over my summary of the issues Al Carroll has raised here: http://weaponspage.homestead.com/refutingrace.html <<

I read it. I don't think it adequately addressed Al Carroll's point. For instance, you wrote:

Your criticism is answered as simply as Al Carroll's was. You think you're not biased, but you are. You claim you're not targeting belief systems, but you are. It's not possible to do a study of this nature without introducing bias or targeting belief systems. Your particular bias is against non-Western (non-European, non-Christian, whatever you want to call it) beliefs.

Of course, if you want to target particular belief systems, that's your prerogative. And if you choose to do that, I'll be happy to label it an example of stereotypical thinking. But you say you don't want to do that. I'll show you it's impossible to avoid doing it.

Since you obviously don't see the inherent biases, I'll try to explain them. I'd say there are at least four major sources of bias:

Who believes the "magic"?
1) The boundaries of your cultural units are vague and imprecise. Without clearcut consistency, you introduce bias. Let's look at some of the ways this bias appears:

I gather you plan to study the fictitious Aztec martial-art discipline of yaomachtia. (If not, why have you listed it?) Question: Which Aztecs believed in and practiced this fictitious martial art? Was it all warriors (i.e., the warrior "caste")? The merchant caste? The priestly caste? Or whom, exactly?

If you attribute belief in yaomachtia to some Aztec emperor who mentioned it once, and you study and disprove its superstitions, you've disproved only his specific beliefs. If you want to generalize to what all Aztecs believe, you need to prove that all Aztecs believed in yaomachtia. If you assert all Aztecs believed it, without proof, you're targeting their specific beliefs. You're making them look "primitive" as a people when perhaps only a few individuals believed in and practiced yaomachtia.

The same would apply to the Maya or any other large group of people. The Maya were a collection of independent city-states with local as well as general beliefs. A king's subjects, or his enemies, might not have shared his magical belief in his sword or shield. Unless you document the exact limits of any belief, you risk stereotyping an entire people.

Another example is your mention of the "Eskimo." Properly called the Inuit, these people comprised three major groups and dozens of subgroups scattered over thousands of miles. If you lump them together and study one of "their" ritual weapons...unless you can prove every Eskimo from the Bering Strait to Greenland believed in this weapon's power...you're wrongly targeting "primitive" people and challenging their belief systems.

You've removed the cultures page and substituted a weapons page—perhaps because you sensed the problems, perhaps because we informed you of them. But the problems still exist. They're simply a bit more implicit than they were before.

Take Nebuchadnezzar's dagger, for instance. Who exactly believed in this weapon's power? Nebuchadnezzar himself? His royal retinue? The people of his city-state? All of his Babylonian domain? All of Mesopotamia or the Near East? Unless you can specify exactly who believed in this weapon's power, you risk impugning the beliefs of people who didn't believe in it. None of that is evident on your site.

The same applies to any ritual weapon in any culture. You need to identify which sub-cultures within each culture believed in the so-called superstitions. If you're not that precise, you risk challenging an entire belief system wrongly. Your site shows no evidence that you've thought this through, which is why we surmise you're targeting "primitive" people and their beliefs.

Comparing nations to tribes
2) The size of your culture units is inconsistent. Again, unless you compare cultural units of the same size with consistency, you introduce bias. Let's take a look:

In many of the non-Western cases, you've chosen small tribal units of a few hundred or a thousand people. In the Western cases, you've referred to large groups such as the Celts or Anglo-Saxons. This bias has the effect of diminishing the "primitive" beliefs of the Western groups. It renders groups like the Celts equivalent to groups like the Hmong, which is a false equivalency.

The Celts, to continue the example, dominated all of Europe originally. They were a "nation" of people, for lack of a better word, with hundreds of local "tribes." Their villages were the size of some of your non-Western tribal units. Each village may have had its own spirits, beliefs, and "superstitious" rituals.

If you've studied anthropology at all, you know tribes are far from monolithic. For instance, an Indian tribe of 500 people may have 20 clans, each with its own beliefs and rituals. Other clans may respect a clan's beliefs and rituals, but they don't necessarily share or even understand them.

So to do your Celtic study properly, you'll have to study each individual Celtic tribe that was equivalent to your non-Western tribe. By treating "nations" of people as equivalent to "tribes," you've introduced bias. The effect is to give more weight to the small non-Western tribes—to target their particular belief systems.

Which cultures are martial?
3) Your definition of "martial-ritual cultures" is biased if you believe "Martial-ritual cultures as a whole throughout history were or are non-European and non- or pre-Christian." You're not listing all martial-ritual cultures, you're picking those that fit your limited definition.

Europe and America are rife with a history of martial-ritual cultures. To give just a few examples, burning someone at the stake is a martial-ritual act. So is using a cross to force out demons (it's a martial act against Satan, even if you don't agree the cross is a "weapon"). So is imputing special powers to a sword (e.g., Excalibur) or a favorite gun ("I'm gonna take ol' Bessie huntin', Ma—she never misses"). So is the faith a serial killer or paid assassin or gangbanger or soldier or police officer puts in a particular weapon or weapon ritual. So is a mass murder-suicide like the Rev. Jim Jones affair in Guyana (using poison as a ritual weapon to kill).

In fact, Americans and Europeans have participated in thousands of mystical religions and cults with "superstitious" beliefs over the centuries. Any time religious practitioners brought weapons into play, they should properly become part of your study. For example:

Greek heroes like Hercules used magical weapons such as shields and Gorgon's heads, and the Greeks believed these heroes to be "real." They made offerings to Ares and other martial gods before and after going to war—sacrificing a lamb or bull in a ritual way to beseech a supernatural blessing. Are you planning to test some or all of their martial-ritual beliefs?

The Vikings believed in the power of Odin's spear and Thor's hammer, so have you plumbed the Viking sagas for supernatural claims about weapons? Hitler also believed in weapons' magical power, so are Nazi rituals on your list? Christian priests have blessed soldiers' swords or guns, urged God to make them strike true, countless times before people went to war. What are your plans to test the Christian clergy's ability to imbue weapons with holy power?

I could go on and on like this if I wanted to waste more time. The point is that you haven't begun to subject Western beliefs to the same level of scrutiny as non-Western beliefs. Your definition is another source of bias.

"Weapons" targets "primitives"
4) Your choice to study martial-ritual practices is itself biased. In fact, you admit it's biased toward non-Western cultures, but you don't seem to see the point. If you weren't trying to challenge particular belief systems, as you claim you aren't, you wouldn't choose an area of study that's inherently biased. That you have chosen an area of study that's inherently biased means you'll end up challenging particular belief systems, whether you intend to or not.

An analogy may help to make this clear. Let's suppose you chose to study superstitious rituals associated mainly with "advanced" Western cultures. We could list many of them. Horse-racing rituals...doctor-treatment rituals ("If the doctor says to take two pills, I always take three")...stock-market rituals...automobile-owning rituals ("I change my oil every 3,000 miles religiously, no matter what the manual says")...etc. I could go on and on. Modern sports alone must have more superstitious rituals associated with it than any dozen tribes' martial-ritual practices.

Studying the superstitious rituals of, say, Mercedes-Benz owners would inevitably make wealthy Western cultures look more "primitive" than other cultures Yet one ritual or superstition is no more "true" or "valid" than another unless you prove it to be. Your choice of what to study determines which belief systems you'll challenge the most. Your choice is biased against Amerindians and other indigenous people.

So what can we say about your multiple sources of bias?

For starters, you haven't begun to give weight to the importance of Christianity and other major religions in today's world. The West (the United States and Europe) dominates the globe and Christian beliefs dominate the West. If your goal is to challenge everyone's belief systems, you should start with the major sources of magical superstition: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and so forth.

If your goal is to challenge "magical powers" or reduce "supernatural credulity," why aren't you tackling all the Christian superstitions first? The miracles, the healings, the visions, the relics, the stigmata, and on and on. There are many more of them and they have more weight in today's world. Logically speaking, anyone who's goal is to challenge supernatural beliefs (i.e., "irrational thoughts") should start with the biggest and most influential source of supernatural beliefs—the worldwide Christian culture and its many, many subcultures.

After you've finished disproving the ritual magic of all the Christian denominations, sects, and cults, then you could work your way down to the minor, inconsequential tribes in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Non-Western tribes aren't the prime source of superstitious and irrational thought in today's world. Christianity and the other major religions are.

If your answer is that I've misunderstood your goal, then we're back to the obvious corollary. If your goal isn't to challenge all superstitious belief systems, then it must be to challenge particular belief systems. Namely, the belief systems of the world's "primitive" peoples, judging by your present list of primitive weapons and your former list of "primitive" cultures.

Attentive readers ask questions
>> Once more, attentive readers would be within their rights to ask certain questions of our critic: Why, if the intent were to exempt Europe and Christianity, would they have been included at all? Indeed, why are they not only included, but included under the same rubrics that other cultures and belief systems are? <<

No, attentive readers will ask better questions than that. They'll ask what's your justification for implying an entire culture believes a particular weapon's magic. They'll ask why you're studying a few broad European cultures rather than the vast array of European and American subcultures. They'll ask why you've excluded many of the superstitious beliefs and rituals associated with weapons in Western history. And they'll ask why you're studying martial-ritual beliefs if you don't intend to challenge primarily non-Western belief systems.

Again, since you've removed the cultures list, I wonder why you're still defending it. Put it back up if the only problem is "vagueness." Show everyone you didn't cave in to criticism you clearly think is invalid.

One more important point. I don't know about Al, but notice I didn't say anything about race. The issue I'm addressing is your cultural biases, not your racial biases. On a cultural basis, your approach seems fatally flawed to me.

>> Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please let me know the status of my "nomination" to the contest. And as with all reviewers of my site, I welcome any feedback. <<

You didn't win. Or rather, you didn't lose. Your work is far from the most problematical I've seen. Since you'll never be able to study all the weapons you list in one lifetime or several, I'd say your efforts are relatively harmless. Few people will take your idea of trying to disprove "magic" seriously.

Nor should they, since—as far as I can tell—you've yet to finish, begin, or even propose a specific test of a particular ritual weapon. Your Scientific Studies page is a big fat nothing. Looks to me like your site exists to 1) catalog the world's primitive weapons and 2) insinuate that the world's "primitive" people need your enlightenment.

Rob

P.S. Removing the offending page doesn't mean I remove the corresponding stereotype entry, alas. The stereotyping existed at the time I posted the entry. I'd say it still exists, but you've obscured it more cleverly.

Unintentionally Comical: The "Saviour of Minorities" Debunked
Not satisfied with waiting for my reply, Macaraeg got nasty and attacked my original posting. Unfortunately, he bit off way more than he can chew...as he's about to find out. See for yourself whether he debunked anything.

>> This site hosts a "Stereotype of the Month" contest which by its own description identifies racist attacks against Native Americans online, in the media, and through Hollywood (a worthwhile endeavor, if done properly). <<

This must be the first of your unintentionally comical statements. You say it's worthwhile if done properly, but later denigrate me for even trying to do it, making it clear you think I have no right to do it, properly or not. A hilarious contradiction.

>> I wrote to Schmidt, inviting him to look over this site and ask questions if he had any. <<

You invited me, I looked the site over, and I didn't have any questions for you.

>> I also pointed out that the site had absolutely nothing written about Native Americans at the time. <<

A listing for yaomachtia requires writing. What do you think "writing" is if not words on a page?

You also mentioned Native people throughout the Americas—e.g., the Eskimos and the Maya. In case you didn't know, they qualify as Native people, if not "Native Americans." I'm dealing with all the Native people of North, Central, and South America, known variously as Indians, Native Americans, First Americans, First Nations, Amerindians, and Aboriginals.

>> Since there was absolutely nothing written about Native Americans on the site <<

But you did write something about Native Americans and other Native people—their listings as users of "magical" ritual weapons—so your claim is false. See above for details.

I notice that you've rearranged your site and removed the list of "martial cultures," ostensibly because it was "too vague." Too vague and too stereotypical, perhaps. Any list of "martial cultures" would have to begin with the shining lights of Western civilization—the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy—which may have fought more wars than any other countries.

So what's the problem here? You admit your list of cultures was flawed, as Al Carroll and I suggested. It was so flawed you removed it entirely. I wonder why you're defending it so hotly. If the list wasn't stereotypical, clarify the "vagueness" and put it back so we can all admire it.

Rob's grudge...against a total stranger?
>> the only reason Schmidt would have to slander me with his "award" would be to pursue a personal grudge against me. <<

You mentioned several Native peoples, including Eskimos, Aztecs, and Maya. Your claim that I have a grudge is perhaps the stupidest thing you've said, although there are many contenders. Do you think I have a grudge against the other 100-200 purveyors of stereotypes listed on my site? How can you think that when you said my contest is "worthwhile"? Is it worthwhile if my motivation is carrying out grudges against people? Or is my motivation what I say it is, not what you've invented out of whole cloth?

Your fabrication of a grudge is unintentionally comical since there's zero evidence of it. Your whole posting is certainly living up to its "comical" billing. But the fact is, I didn't and don't know you from Adam.

>> I will not stoop to Schmidt's level and reciprocate with a personal attack against him <<

HA HA HA HA HA!!! Good one, Ruel. Most people would say accusing me of having a "conspiracy paranoia" and the like constitutes a personal attack, but we'll let attentive readers judge for themselves.

>> will simply demonstrate where he is in error and why. As with The Boy Who Cried "Racism," the facts will speak for themselves. <<

The facts will speak for themselves...so you'll spend a full five paragraphs at the end of your screed attacking my site, my motivations, and myself, down to and including my singles profile and my need for a counselor. Comical!

Yes, the facts certainly will speak for themselves, won't they? The facts will reveal you're a hypocrite for saying you won't attack people personally and then doing it blatantly.

>> Before we start, I just want to point out that Schmidt did not offer me the chance to refute the accusations made by Al Carroll, nor does he refer to the Boy Who Cried "Racism" essay anywhere in his "reply" <<

You didn't ask for a chance to refute the accusations. I hadn't read your superficial "Boy Who Cried 'Racism'" at the time. Al's message to me was sufficient to get me started and you haven't contradicted a line in it.

After hearing from Al, I visited your site and judged it for myself. Your so-called rebuttals don't apply because you can't talk a biased study design into an unbiased one. They didn't affect my judgment one whit.

Ruel confuses nomination with victory
>> In fact, he told me that he wasn't planning to consider me for his slanderous "award;" then he went behind my back and did so anyway, thinking I wouldn't find out. <<

Wrong. What I told you is, and I quote, "...I don't think you're likely to 'win.' The monthly 'award' usually goes to an institution or group, not an individual." If you'll visit the contest page, you'll see these statements were 100% accurate. You didn't win and two institutions (newspapers) did.

If you confused being nominated with winning, the fault is entirely yours. I'm not in the business of defining plain English words for people. I suggest you get a dictionary.

>> He knew I would refute him if I ever did find out, and now that I have, I will! <<

You'll try, you mean. Actually, I neither know nor care whether most "nominees" see their nominations. The nominations stand on their own merit and no one has contradicted them yet.

I told you you'd learn the outcome of your so-called nomination. You learned it and so my promise is fulfilled.

>> Also, the statements about me made by Al Carroll in the first part of the page are outright lies, and to prove it one need only look at the thread in question, #500 on Skeptic.com's Delphi Forum. <<

This is already a grotesque waste of time. Rather than dealing in dueling interpretations, we'll give you a chance to state explicitly what you believe or don't believe below. I hope you're up to it.

>> First, to paraphrase Shakespeare, there are more things in heaven and earth, Schmidt, than are dreamt of in your Internet searches. <<

Then go ahead and cite one of them, or admit you can't. I've said the world's online collection of information, with millions of pages, has no independent mentions of yaomachtia. Your response that there's "more," without citing a single instance of "more," is empty air.

Ruel admits implicating Natives
>> Second, I never endorsed yaomachtia; I merely included it as one among many links which I had filed on this site for future consideration. <<

I never said you endorsed yaomachtia, nor can you prove otherwise. If you need assistance with your reading skills, please let me know. I tutored English in high school, so I'm sure I can help you.

But thanks for verifying that you did indeed mention Native peoples on your now-removed page. Your claim that "the site had absolutely nothing written about Native Americans at the time" is misleading if not false. The mentions you just admitted, not the grudge you imagined, earned you a nomination.

>> If Schmidt had done any research into either weapons or magic, he would have. Obviously he hasn't. <<

Again, an empty claim. Is this going to be your pattern? Give us a fact and cite your source. Your content-free negations don't fool much of anybody.

You wrote, and I quote, "...in the news we constantly read of ethnic conflicts where people are ritually killed to satisfy some old superstition or other." I'd say constantly means extremely often, almost daily, but let's be conservative and assume it means only once a month. Go ahead and list the last 12 ethnic conflicts, July 2000 to June 2001, where people ritually killed other people to satisfy some old superstition or other.

If possible, cite the sources for your 12 instances so we can verify you're not lying. And make sure you annotate the alleged superstitions. If the Dayaks beheaded people to terrorize their opponents, that's not a superstition. It's arguably a sane strategy for winning a war.

Meanwhile, I've read a hundred books and thousands of articles on Indians and other indigenous cultures. To the best of my knowledge, no present-day culture claims magical powers for any weapon today. If this statement is untrue, surely you can list one exception from a reputable source. Go ahead and do so.

>> It's simply easier for Schmidt to dismiss facts because he doesn't know them, than educate himself on a subject before criticizing it. <<

It's even simpler for you to allude to "facts" without stating them. So go ahead and educate me. I'm waiting, as are many of your perhaps-wavering supporters.

Challenging active beliefs, or not?
>> Nowhere on this site do we say we would confine this study to modern, active beliefs. <<

But my claim was that no present-day culture claims magical powers for any weapon today. Yet you implied I was wrong and said I needed more study. What you apparently meant to say was, "I can't touch your claim about what people believe today. I'm concerned only with ancient beliefs that have no validity anymore."

>> An attentive reader looking over this site would know right away that the vast majority of topics deal with past cultures. <<

I noticed. I pointed out your bias in addressing mostly foreign or past cultures. Now that I've pointed it out, go ahead and address it.

Actually, attentive readers will no longer know what cultures you listed since you removed the offending page. They'll have to imagine your biased methodology, I guess. And they'll have to wonder what the "vagueness" really was.

>> We are not interested in challenging defunct beliefs, but rather active beliefs that encourage irrational thought. <<

Huh? Make up your mind. Are you studying defunct beliefs, active beliefs, or what? If you're studying active beliefs, my claim is relevant. No present-day culture claims magical powers for any weapon today. Again, I challenge you to provide a single exception to this claim.

>> Contrary to what our detractors say, our purpose is not to attack anyone's belief system. <<

Uh-huh. You don't want to attack anyone's belief system, but you want to challenge "active beliefs that encourage irrational thought." What's the difference between challenging someone's belief system and challenging their active beliefs? Are you making the nonsensical claim that active beliefs aren't part of a belief system?

>> This says much more about Schmidt's ignorance of current events than about my methods. This site was begun in March 2001, and at the time an ethnic conflict between Dayaks and Madurese was raging in Kalimantan. Many Dayaks had taken to beheading Madurese with their traditional ritual sword, the mandau. <<

You'll notice—or maybe you won't—that I said I hadn't heard much news, not no news. Yes, I heard about that one case. I posted a brief note about it at Cannibalism in Our Schools! months ago.

And...so? I didn't hear anyone claiming their swords had magical powers. After you're done fulfilling my previous requests, please cite one source about the mandau's magical powers. Make it from a cultural leader if you can, not from some peasant whose beliefs aren't representative of his people's.

"We constantly read of ethnic conflicts..."
After you do that, go ahead and list the 11 other instances of ethnic conflicts using ritual weapons that you've read about "constantly." If you want to impress us, list 50 or 100 instances instead. That shouldn't be much problem if these instances happen "constantly."

>> As this site grows, I will be linking articles of such news reports, so that "not having heard of them" won't be an excuse he can hide behind. <<

When you link to your first report of magical weapons being used today, be sure to let us all know. As of now, you're the only one who's hiding. So far every single claim in this posting is unsubstantiated by concrete evidence.

>> Again, this speaks more of Schimdt's ignorance of the subject he intends to criticize than of my methods. The student of arms knows that, in many cultures past and present, animal parts have been used as mounts for traditional weapons. <<

The vast majority of "magical" animal parts are used for food, medicinal powders and potions, clothing, and talismans (e.g., good-luck charms), not for weapons. Your wording suggests some sort of linkage between these food and medicinal products and ritual weapons. Try 1) documenting your claim that weapons are "fueling" the trade in animal parts or 2) rewriting your claim to make it clear. I'm not responsible for your unclear English.

>> A classic rabble-rouser's technique -- absence of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy! Attentive readers will rightly wonder how Schmidt came to this conclusion, since nowhere do I distinguish betwen "Judeo-Christian" and "foreign" cultures on the site <<

I've explained how I came to my conclusion at length. Since you posted your silly attack before asking for the explanation, your "interest" in reasoned debate stands revealed. You aren't very interested in it, are you?

Your use of the word "conspiracy" twice reflects your own paranoid fantasies. I haven't used the word and don't intend to. Have a straw-man debate with yourself over whether someone is conspiring against someone.

>> nor do I ignore Judeo-Christian talismans (he should have said "ritual weapons," since this site is about ritual weapons and not talismans in general.) <<

In terms of their number and prominence in world culture, you certainly do ignore them, relatively speaking. That's a key indicator of your site's bias. And your focus on ritual weapons instead of talismans or other sources of "magic" is another indicator of bias. If your goal is to challenge irrational thoughts, as you yourself said, challenge the greatest source of them first.

Studying weapons = targeting weapons-using people
To reiterate, your focus on ritual weapons is a framework guaranteed to make people with ritual weapons look more superstitious. Similarly, if you focused on automobile superstitions, that would tend to make so-called "civilized" people look more superstitious. Neither one would be untainted with bias.

You've chosen to pursue a biased course. When you study car- or house- or computer-based superstitions, then we can talk about your bias against Western cultures. Until then, your methodology is biased against non-Western cultures.

>> Attentive readers will notice that this conspiracy paranoia pervades Schmidt's site -- he thinks everyone is out to get Native Americans. <<

Nope. But if you can quote anything on my site that says otherwise, be my guest. Rather than your unfounded opinions, let's have the evidence. Now.

>> Such an attitude does a great disservice to the Native American community, because it encourages Native Americans to hate and distrust others <<

One, the alleged attitude doesn't exist. Two, the Native American community generally supports what I'm doing. Three, it's paternalistic of you to think anything I do could sway a whole community.

>> instead of sharing their unique and beautiful cultures with a world that -- despite what Schmidt and Carroll would have them believe -- is for the most part not filled with their enemies. <<

Never said it was. Have fun debating another straw-man argument with yourself. And by the way, I'm not Native American, so their traditional culture isn't mine.

>> In effect, Schmidt and Carroll are telling Native Americans that it's better to have excuses for failure than to strive for success in the face of adversity. <<

Nope, I'm telling them the racism and stereotyping they perceive in America isn't just their imagination, as people like you would have it. It exists and I can document several new instances of it every month. Your site that attributes magical powers only to ritual weapons is a good example.

Ruel refuses to accept...that racism exists?
>> As a minority myself, I refuse to accept such a self-defeating attitude or to let others accept it (especially from a man like Schmidt who describes himself as a "WASP"). <<

I refuse to let apologists for the status quo deny racism exists when I can document so many examples of it each month. My site has 600 pages now, so I'm guessing my effort far surpasses yours.

And I described myself as a WASP because I am a WASP. Do you know something I don't about my ancestry, or is this another of your personal attacks?

>> Again, the attentive reader need only look at the home page of this site to discover that "to disprove religious magic" is not the stated goal of this project. <<

Uh-huh, sure. Which "active beliefs that encourage irrational thought" do you expect to challenge other than active beliefs related to the religious magic in ritual weapons? Go ahead and specify which beliefs or type of beliefs you mean.

If your stated aim of challenging "active beliefs that encourage irrational thought" is sincere, why limit yourself to ritual weapons? If you have some weapons fetish, as appears to be the case, at least list all the other areas of irrational thought you could but won't address. Then people will understand your bias toward ritual weapons.

>> Therefore, testing claims and judging the relative worth of cultural beliefs are different matters altogether. <<

Thanks for wasting your time retyping the words I already read. Unfortunately, I meant your plans are ridiculous because they're infeasible—as I thought the rest of my message explained. Magic doesn't work in the controlled environment of replicable experiments—or so anyone who believes in magic will claim. End of story.

>> Again, this is a misrepresentation of the goals of this project, which we've already reviewed. This topic of study on this site is ritual weapons, not "everything else." <<

The ultimate goal is challenging "irrational thoughts," as you yourself said. As I said, if you disprove one irrational thought about a ritual weapon, you'll still have (for the sake of argument) 999 to go. Are you planning to tackle the other 999 irrational thoughts, since your stated goal is to challenge irrational thoughts? Or what, exactly?

Proving one failure...proves nothing
>> Then what, indeed? The attentive reader is aware that this project is about ritual weapons, not about those "other 999 supernatural aspects." They are beyond the scope of this project and do not concern us here. <<

Then you've failed to prove anything but that "this ritual weapon failed this one time under these particular circumstances." You haven't challenged the weapon's overall magic, much less any irrational thoughts about it. Is challenging irrational thoughts your goal or isn't it?

>> Yet again, attentive readers already know that I never said anything of the sort, on this site or anywhere else, so Schmidt's hubris is an empty boast. <<

If I'd said you'd said that, I wouldn't have made a general claim about "anyone." That is, I wouldn't have written, "In response to anyone who says tribal beliefs are 'superstitions' but mainstream religions aren't...." When I mean to single out your statements, I'll do so.

Here's one example. You wrote "...we must do our part to enlighten those who would otherwise let their irrational beliefs cause harm to themselves and others." "Those" meaning whom? If you aren't planning to enlighten practitioners of "primitive" religions, who believe their ritual weapons are magical, whom are you thinking of enlightening? Please enlighten us about exactly which groups you believe are less enlightened than you are.

Here's another example. You've committed yourself to the silly phrase "supernatural credulity." What I surmised but didn't state about your beliefs appears to be true. You think "supernatural credulity" exists among us and you think it's harmful.

But let's hear the reality from your own lips. Tell us, Ruel: Are tribal religious beliefs "superstitious"? Yes or no? Are Western religious beliefs "superstitious"? Yes or no? Rather than telling us what you didn't say and don't believe, let's list what you do say and believe.

>> Because Schimdt can't win this debate on the facts -- the facts about what I have truly said, and the facts about the true goals of this site <<

I've quoted you extensively about what you "truly" said and what your goals are. I'll continue to do so until you admit or deny your own words.

Awaiting Ruel's facts...
As for the "facts" in your so-called rebuttal, it contains only a couple of statements I'd even call semi-facts. One, that rebels in Indonesia are or were beheading others recently—with no evidence that any superstitions were involved. Two, that you meant the small number of animal parts used in weapons, not the much larger number of animal parts not used in weapons.

When you provide all the facts I've requested in this reply, then you can talk about how factual you are. Until then, this statement, like so many others in your posting, is unintentionally comical.

>> he has falsely attributed this statement to me, denounced it, and declared a hollow "victory." <<

Learn to read, son. I didn't attribute that statement to you, falsely or otherwise. Again, if you need help with your English skills, just let me know.

>> Notice how neither Schmidt nor Carroll referenced these quotes -- they knew that if the attentive reader were to look back at the original context, thread #500 on SkepticForum, they would see that all of them are either misquoted or taken out of context. <<

I didn't reference them because Al Carroll supplied them to me without references. You didn't mention this Skeptic Forum thread in your message to me. Nor do I care to disentangle your arguments with others for you.

If you think the quotes are out of context, go ahead and supply the context. Supply enough so we can all ascertain the truth without the excess verbiage. Indeed, I'll be grateful if you supply anything other than your opinions in this debate.

>> Most of them are from people with whom I have no association who entered the thread to refute Al Carroll's lies (i.e. they were not so much my supporters, as simply people who were offended by Al Carroll and responded in kind) <<

Someone who supports your position is a "supporter" by definition. If they refuted Al's alleged lies, they were doing what you claim to have done—doing your work for you, so to speak.

If you disagree with these supporters, feel free to denounce their views explicitly and I'll remove them from my site. But if you agree with them, don't be afraid to say so. In fact, I insist. Do you agree or disagree with RCC9940 and Crowcaller? Stop equivocating and take a position now.

Nailing down Ruel's beliefs
>> the one quote attributed to me was a facetious remark taken out of context. <<

Then go ahead and supply the context, again. But note that I didn't criticize your one quote; I didn't say whether it was right or wrong, facetious or not. I recognize it's somewhat facetious, but it still supports your view that magical weapons exist today and that you can disprove their powers.

By the way, I see you cleverly ignored the six beliefs Al Carroll attributed to you. Let's go over a few of them and nail down what you believe:

• Christianity is a belief, but tribal beliefs are "superstitions." Yes or no?
• It is the "duty" of science to "enlighten" all "primitive" people and show them the error of their ways. Yes or no?
• Anyone nonwhite who is not trying to assimilate to white standards is "inferior and lazy." Yes or no?

Go ahead and supply me with the "facts" on these statements, friend. Please, educate me. I await your enlightenment with bated breath.

>> People like Schmidt arrogate to themselves the role of "cultural defender," and think that this gives them free license to take offense at anything, and respond with slander. <<

"Cultural defender" is a lot more accurate than your comical "saviour of minorities" (with the pretentious "-iour" spelling, no less).

If anyone designates or licenses "cultural defenders," I'd be glad to get permission. But there isn't such a person, is there? It's up to each of us to decide if he wants to defend a culture or not.

As for slander, there isn't any. Do you really think calling your site's methodology biased is "slander"? Wow. If English is your second language, please let us know. I'll be glad to have mercy on someone who doesn't quite understand what he's saying.

I'm guessing you don't even know the definition of slander. But, once again, prove me wrong and quote the so-called slander if you can. Good luck.

Rob...the paternalistic guardian?
>> In Schmidt's case, he seems to think that Native Americans lack the eloquence or intelligence to speak for themselves, so he must be the paternalistic custodian of their values <<

This really is comical. Count the number of times I quote Native people on my site: several hundred. Count the number of Indian sources I quote or link to: again, in the hundreds. I'm organizing other people's information as much as I'm providing my own. Visit Quotes on Native Stereotyping for just one of many examples.

And again, ask Native people what they think rather than paternalistically stating how they should feel. Better yet, read all the rave comments on my Fans page and Reviews page. It appears I have plenty of Native supporters, eh?

To further enlighten you, here's part of an editorial from Indian Country Today, the premier Native newspaper, 6/27/01. Read it and weep:

Looks to me like an important Native institution has explicitly thanked non-Native writers like me for defending their culture. Oops.

FYI, Native people in need—indeed, most people in need—rarely turn down help from supportive outsiders. Whom do you think buys Indian arts, votes for Indian casinos, and donates money to Indian charities? Indian people only? Not even close.

Is the contest worthwhile or isn't it?
And again, you said my stereotype effort was "worthwhile" if I did it right. Now you're saying I'm the "paternalistic custodian of their values" (a personal attack) and can't "speak for" them under any circumstances. Ruel, meet Ruel. Figure out what you really believe, then get back to us, okay?

>> (maybe he thinks that Native Americans are not "civilized" enough for prose). <<

No, but thanks for more evidence of your so-called desire for reasoned debate. Actually, I've read comic books for decades, long before I became interested in Native Americans. I'll be happy to defend comics (MAUS, SANDMAN, DARK KNIGHT, WATCHMEN) as a legitimate art form. That has nothing to do with Native American reading abilities. In fact, the vast majority of my readers are Anglos.

>> Because he sees himself as the guardian of minority values, he feels he is qualified to tell a minority like me that I've "sold-out" to the West. <<

Another fabricated straw-man argument. Let me know when you're done debating with yourself, hm? If you'd like to quote any of my words saying you "sold-out to the West," I'll be glad to join your self-debate.

>> Despite his pretensions, Schmidt was not up to this self-appointed task <<

That would be the "pretensions" you imputed to me, but—gosh, what a surprise—didn't quote again. These pretensions are about as real as the nonexistent facts you think you've stated.

As for whether I'm up to my self-appointed task—are any tasks not self-appointed, in the end?—I'll go with the reviewers' and fans' opinions, not yours. Read some more of them on my Web Fans page.

Here's a good test of who's up to his self-appointed task. Count how many times I've quoted you when listing your goals: "...to challenge active beliefs that encourage irrational thought." "...[T]o enlighten those who would otherwise let their irrational beliefs cause harm to themselves and others." Now count how many times you've alluded to my goals and intentions without quoting them. Attentive readers will observe that you've fabricated my goals and intentions many times even though the correct answers are available on my site.

In short, attentive readers will wonder why I'm quoting you and you're making up my answers for me. Come to think of it, I wonder that myself.

Rob...a fraud? At what?
>> in the end he was shown to be just another fraud taking long-distance cheap shots from the safety of his computer <<

Pretty damn comical considering I alerted you to my criticism and you didn't alert me to yours. Apparently you're a hypocrite as well as a hot-air balloon.

Did you really expect me to travel to your home to critique your website? If you want to come to my home, I'll be glad to call your biased site stereotypical to your face. Come over and reap the whirlwind, chum.

And what part of my work is fraudulent, pray tell? You yourself said the Stereotype of the Month contest is worthwhile if done properly. I've never claimed to be Native American or a "saviour of minorities," your fabrication of my intentions. If I were to remove your stereotype entry, every other entry would still describe a valid stereotype. And the endeavor as a whole would still be "worthwhile" (again, your word, not mine).

So where's the "fraud," buddy? Is this another word you don't understand? Do you need me to explain it to you?

>> cloaked in sanctimonious "New Historicism." <<

I barely know what "New Historicism" means, but nice try to sound sophisticated. I'm glad you think I'm a practitioner of this field, whatever it is. Can I get a job at it? Perhaps a PhD?

For some reason, the word "pretentious" popped into my mind again. I wonder why.

Again, I've done plenty of research on Native Americans. The only thing you'll find on my site is history, not "historicism." But if you're a glutton for punishment, go right ahead and dispute the historical facts. I'll wait.

>> If he means to criticize legitimate endeavors such as ours, he had better drop the charade and deal with the facts, not the empty rhetoric he constructed from false quotations and misinformation. <<

What facts? Supply the facts, the true quotations, and the correct information and I'll deal with them. Go ahead, make my day. Put up or shut up.

Fiction promotes credulity?!
>> The hypocrisy is glaring: Schimdt claims to be educational, yet promotes supernatural credulity <<

It appears you're going for a record. Let's see how you do:

1) The word "supernatural," which you quoted, has no obvious connection with credulity or incredulity. For all you know, my comics may debunk the "supernatural," not promote it.

2) "Promotes" is another of your fabrications, unjustified by anything you quoted. The quote "Two young heroes fight everything from prejudice and pollution to supervillains and the supernatural" would tend to suggest I'm doing the opposite of promoting the supernatural. (If you don't understand what "fight" means, I feel sorry for you.)

3) One can educate someone about the supernatural without promoting it. That's exactly what the Skeptics Forum and people like James Randi do.

4) Your implication that we shouldn't educate people about a Native American's "supernatural" (i.e., religious) beliefs is stereotypical and probably racist.

5) My claim would be hypocritical only if I contradicted my own beliefs, not your beliefs. If I believe education about the supernatural (or religion, or philosophy, or literature) is good, there's no contradiction in my position. And hence no hypocrisy.

6) Only a stupid ignoramus would think reading an obvious fantasy would promote belief in that fantasy. Are you so immature a thinker that you avoid books on centaurs or dragons because you think they might be real? Unintentionally comical! Hysterical!

7) A bonus point for spelling my name wrong (you spelled it "Schimdt," not "Schmidt") for the third or fourth time. That supports my hunch that English is your second language.

There you have it. A sentence so utterly lacking in merit that it garnered six (and a half) rebuttals. I don't know for sure, but that may be a world record. I challenge anyone to top that mark.

Ruel ignorant of comics
What can we conclude from your comment?

Well, I guess you're really as ignorant about comics as you seem. Read a primer on how fiction works, especially fantasy and science fiction, and then get back to me. Let me know what this primer has to say about "promoting supernatural credulity."

Clearly your goal is to attack "supernatural credulity," as you put it, which is why I mentioned your not-so-hidden agenda. And why your site is a Stereotype of the Month entry. Thanks for validating my decision.

So when are you going to do your first experiment to disprove the supernatural powers of weapons? Hmm? Is it scheduled yet? Can we watch?

A glance at your Scientific Studies page reveals a big empty blank. Nothing...nada...zip. The lack of experiments suggests your real agenda is to denigrate cultures with "primitive" beliefs. But go ahead and prove me wrong, again. Outline one of your hypothetical experiments for us so we can discuss your methodology. Let's see if you have any chance of proving what you intend to prove.

>> he claims to be pro-environment, yet opposes my animal conservation advocacy <<

Never heard of your "animal conservation advocacy" and haven't said a word against it. Your straw-man arguments are becoming tiresome lies. For the nth time, sonny, provide the quote proving I oppose your animal conservation advocacy if you can. Put up or shut up.

>> he claims to preserve Native American tradition, yet chooses to invent his own characters instead of drawing upon the rich and time-honored traditions of the Native Americans' own heroes. <<

1) No, I didn't claim to preserve Native American tradition. Quote me saying otherwise if you can.

Here, I'll help you on this one. I searched my own site and nowhere does the character string "preserv" (preserve, preserves, preserving, preserved) appear next to the word "tradition" or "culture." Oops! Caught you in a bald-faced lie, liar.

Go to my Objectives page and learn what my actual goals are, liar. Relieve your own ignorance for once so I don't have to do it. Be sure to let us know if you find anything about "preserving" cultures there.

Educating Ruel about fiction
2) Most fiction involves invented characters. Duhhh. If you don't understand this, check your primer on fiction to verify the point.

3) You have no idea what I've done or haven't done since you haven't read the comics. Perhaps I drew upon "the rich and time-honored traditions of the Native Americans' own heroes" while inventing two heroes of my own. Perhaps my invented characters are steeped precisely in the rich and time-honored traditions of Native America.

4) My sense is that most Native Americans would prefer to control their own cultural heroes, so I'm honoring their traditions by honoring that position. By inventing heroes but steeping them in genuine Native traditions, I'm doing exactly as many Natives might wish.

Hmm, a sentence stupid enough to earn four rebuttals. You didn't top your previous record, but you came close.

Incidentally, when you mention the "rich and time-honored traditions" of Native America, does that mean you won't subject any Native American (including Central and South American) ritual weapons to examination? Because your stated goal, of course, is to challenge the "active beliefs that encourage irrational thought." But not to challenge any belief system.

If a tradition is rich and time-honored, it's part of a belief system. Unless you fibbed again, you won't challenge that belief system. Ergo, you won't be testing any Native ritual weapons, correct?

>> Given Schmidt's obvious fondness for supernatural fantasy, one wonders if the real reason he opposes this site is because it encourages young readers -- including young Native American readers -- to be critical thinkers. One wonders... <<

One also wonders about the millions (billions?) of fans of Stephen King, Dean Koontz, Anne Rice, Dr. Seuss, the Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Narnia, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, Star Wars, Superman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, X-Men, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Xena the Warrior Princess, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the Power Rangers, Pokémon, et al. Would they oppose Ruel's site also?

One wonders that if one is out of touch with reality, that is. Study the first thing about popular literature in today's culture, bright boy. Get back to me when you have a clue.

What Rob actually opposes
The correct answer: No, Rob "opposes your site" (imprecise phrase) because your biased methodology unfairly stereotypes Native and indigenous people as primitive. Exactly as I said.

People will develop more critical ability from watching me deconstruct your "thinking" than from reading your content-free site. Because, again, you haven't disproved a single ritual weapon's magic or even attempted it. So where's the critical thinking on your site? In type the same color as the background of your Scientific Studies page? When will the empty claims end and the real trials begin?

>> Better yet, see his "desperately seeking/lowered expectations" personal ad at GeoCities' "Caring Singles," where he describes himself as "great at discussing things that matter, analytical, social conventions-impaired, enamored of reasoned discussion and debate, not quite politically active but still fascinated by current events." <<

It's my Caring Singles profile on my GeoCities site, not "Geocities' 'Caring Singles.'" Even in small matters, you're alarmingly inexact.

I think I've shown I'm good at discussing things that matter, analytical, and enamored of reasoned discussion and debate in this exchange. Looks like my profile is as accurate as everything else I've written. Now it's only a matter of time.

Your opinions that I'm "desperately seeking" and have "lowered expectations" are simply more personal attacks. Actually, that page is so deeply buried—meaning I'm so not desperate—that only one person before you has ever mentioned it. Perhaps "desperate" is another word whose meaning escapes you, since a desperate person would put his singles profile on his home page, not three levels down.

But thanks for trying to find me a soulmate. It hasn't worked yet, but keep up the good work. Right now I'm guessing some of your weapons women are thinking, "Wow, Rob's sharp intellect is kicking Ruel's vacuous posturing in the butt. By golly, the pen really is mightier than the sword. I'm gonna switch allegiance from Ruel to **Rob**!"

While I'm at it, thanks for all the links to my site. Already one person has found my site through them and become a supporter. Over the coming months and years, I suspect many others will join her.

>> In light of the reality check he got in this essay, I suggest he follow up on another comment he made in his profile -- "My feelings on seeing a counselor: I might be talked into it." <<

Good thing you said you wouldn't attack me personally. Otherwise, I might mistake this comment for yet another personal attack. I hope you don't have a reputation for integrity, because you're doing a great job of shredding it.

Why Rob needs a counselor
I may need a counselor to explain why I've wasted so much time debating someone with such an inferior grasp of the scientific method. I don't think you'd know a valid study design if you stumbled over it. Nor will you understand most of my objections, I suspect.

Reality check? The only point I'd say you weren't totally wrong on was the one about using animal parts in weapons. I misunderstood what you meant because of your unsubstantiated claim that ritual weapons fuel the animal part trade. If that's the best you can do, give it up.

With almost no quotes, citations, or facts, your "rebuttal" hasn't touched my posting in the slightest. Sorry, amateur. Better luck next time 'round.

Rob Schmidt
Publisher
PEACE PARTY

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .