Proof involves details

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".