3 ms·
> recent and old anthro research "Anthropology" is a field that so thoroughly discredited itself by political advocacy that no one to the right of Trotsky coul
by UIUC_06 5y ago
> recent and old anthro research
"Anthropology" is a field that so thoroughly discredited itself by political advocacy that no one to the right of Trotsky could possibly take it seriously. These are the people who trashed Napoleon Chagnon, who actually lived with the Yanomani, for the audacity of reporting what they were like, which wasn't what they like to hear.
From the NYT obituary:
Dr. Chagnon dismissed as “Marxist” the widespread anthropological belief that warfare in tribal life was usually provoked by disputes over access to scarce resources.
“The whole purpose and design of the social structure of tribesmen seems to have revolved around effectively controlling sexual access by males to nubile, reproductive- age females,” he wrote in his 2014 memoir, “Noble Savages.”
Other anthropologists rejected these assertions as exaggerated and even racist, saying they could do harm to the tribe by casting it in a bad light. Many argued that human behavior was best explained not by genetics and evolution but by the social and natural environments in which people live.
- wahnfrieden 5y agoIf you’d like to see the writing on Chagnon that Graeber promoted, which I’m not certain your summary really captures - http://dwhume.com/darkness_documents/0246.htm http://dwhume.com/darkness_documents/0246.htm
- UIUC_06 5y agoYou really want to push an article with garbage phrases like this? "By far the greater part is the story, sufficiently notorious in its own right, of the well-known anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon: of his work among the Yanomami people of Venezuela and his fame among the science tribe of America." "during the late 1960s and early 1970s Chagnon had served as a jungle advance man and blood collector." "Chagnon inscribed these indelible identification numbers on people's arms--barely 20 years after World War II."
- wahnfrieden 5y agoyou chose the editorialized bits instead of the content that explains why the author finds such editorializing suitable. going to disengage here