Hmmmm. There's an elephant in the room, and I'm probably not the only
one who's noticed it.
Google 'Goddess Tours' and you'll see what I'm talking about.
It may be true that some of the literature that informs these tours
is fiction (eg, 'Mists of Avalon'). But much of it is written as
history, as archaeology and anthropology. And some of these writers
are (otherwise) qualified academics.
I agree with Jesper that it's the responsibility of historians (and
scholars in other related fields) to point out that, based on the
current state of related research, these "beautiful day dreams are
historical fallacies."
The leaders of these tours (as David writes) use "a pseudo-historical
validity to convince their readers that their conspiracy theory
version of events is right and that establishment academia is
covering it", and this does -- or should -- open the topic up for
scholarly criticism.
Do the people who organize and promote these tours really care if
their information is true/reliable/verifiable? Or only that the tours
(check the prices!) are profitable? Are they able to present these
ideas as "historically correct because not enough academics
participate in criticizing the (veiled) historiographical discourse
of these books." Or are existing critiques (eg, Hutton) "incorporated
in a conspiratorial or marketing hermeneutics and thus delegitimate
scholarly critique."
Please discuss.
Fritz
|