Re: D. Read v. H. Jarvis
Steve Mizrach (SEEKER1@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU)
Fri, 14 Oct 1994 01:42:00 +0000
I find myself in agreement with D. Read on this much: the discussion about
the editorship of the AA Journal has been no more or no less 'political'
than anything else on this list. I have frankly found it stimulating and
interesting, even if I did not agree with the viewpoints of some people,
but then THIS IS WHAT DISCUSSION (and discussion lists) ARE FOR. (I will
not cry "censorship," since this is a moderated list, and the moderator
does have the right to moderate; but I must question the need for this
However, the vituperativeness of these remarks, coming from one of the
normally more reasoned and cooler heads on ANTHRO-L, give me pause:
>I suppose there are those who believe that, and they probably also believe in
>the easter bunny as well.
>IT SMACKS TO ME OF ATTEMPTS AT CENSORSHIP THROUGH PRESSURE BEING PUT ON HUGH
>JARVIS TO STOP DISCUSSION OF THE JOURNAL.
I would ask D. Read, who is normally highly empiricist in his statements,
to document the evidence from which he makes said allegations.
>I had hoped the Tedlocks would join in the discussion. They could have
>provided needed clarification, further discussion of their goals,
>--even dialogue with us, the readers, as to whether their vision is in
>keeping with the interests of the journal's readers. Through that discussion
>we could all come away with a better understanding of what the journal is
>about and what it is doing, even if we are not all in total agreement. And
>the Tedlocks, through such discussion, might have been led to modify or
>change some aspects of their vision to keep the journal as representing the
>whole anthropological community.
So. Surely they have emails. Has nobody invited them to come join ANTHRO-L?
>Among the various persons who have posted on this topic to Anthro-L there may
>be those motivated by the most crass of political reasons; should we silence
>discussion because a few might abuse the intent and purpose of the list, or
>should we assume that the subscribers are intelligent persons capable of
>distinguishing between discussion aimed (in the broad sense) at the
>betterment of anthropology and our doing of anthropological research, versus
>discussion aimed at presenting a pollitical agenda? I have much faith in the
>subscribers to this list to not merely make that distinction, but to point it
>out forcefully in posts to the list!
! Seeker1 [@Nervm.Nerdc.Ufl.Edu] (real info available on request) !
! CyberAnthropologist, TechnoCulturalist, Guerilla Ontologist, Chaotician !
! Discordian Society, Counter-Illuminati Operations Branch !
! "One measures a circle beginning anywhere." -- Charles Fort
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----