Bob Whitaker (
Mon, 27 Jan 1997 20:39:38 -0500 wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > It is alwayts the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, which means
> > that no one who offends the most militantly Poltically Correct people on
> > earth, the sociologists, goes nowhere in his academic career. Do you
> > think people do not understand academic politics?
> Ohhh, no, lots of people understand academic politics. I simply think
> that _you_ don't. I've got the AAA Guide here, which you use to find
> academic anthropologists in North America; it's organized by departments.
> Between 2/3 and 3/4 of the university/college departments are independent
> anthro departments (estimate -- I'm damned if I'm going to count them, you
> go ahead); the rest are soc/anthro, anthro/soc and a whole bunch of weird
> ones (marine biology??). The combined ones are pretty much all at small
> places, with relatively low enrollments and fewer resources.
> Doesn't really matter, though, as that's no evidence of one discipline
> controlling the other. Tell ya what, Bobby ol' boy -- it's _extremely_
> common to have Departments of Romance Languages in universities, too --
> so in your opinion, does that mean that French controls Italian, or
> Spanish controls Catalan, or what?
> > You are claiming YOU are being scientific by using genetic
> > terminology. But every conclusion is always Poltically Correct.
> I think that that should be an indication to you that _your_
> political philosophy may be obsolete. You've amply demonstrated that
> you're not equipped to argue anthropological questions on evidentiary
> grounds -- so you just dismiss them as politically correct. Cop-out.
> > Well, at least you've dropped the scientifc pretense. You have simply
> > stated taht your polical faith is the true faith.
> Nope. I didn't sign anything when I got my Fudd that said that I couldn't
> make ethical judgements on issues -- neither do any of the rest of us.

As a good PC, you can't tell the difference between successes and your
own moral judgements. In answer to my question about successes, you
gave me a restatement of your faith.
Nothing you academic bureaucrats adocate ever WORKS.

> anthropological examination of the race concept,anthropological examination
> of gender roles in different societies, anthropolgical examination of
> the variation in human culture that has helped these issues along a bit.
> Good thing too. Anthropological research can't take all, or even much, of
> the credit for that, but every bit helps, I guess.
> If you'd wanted successes strictly within my sub-discipline, archaeology,
> I would've talked about processualism and post-processualism, settlement
> archaeology, ethnoarchaeology, the increase in gender studies, the
> great extensions of lithic research, faunal analysis, style theories...
> lots of other stuff over say the last 30 years. I'd let the cultural people
> talk about their side of it. But I didn't want to lose you completely.

I can't believe you're provincial enough to think professional slang
impresses anybody.

> > What successes?

Professional slang does not substitute for reality. Your "modern
anthropologists have proven all races are equal in innate abilities" was
pure carp. Your criminal as victimwas pure crap. Everything you PC's
haev advocated was not only silly, it's gone down your Memory Hole.
But not ours.

> All of 'em, both those strictly within the discipline and those that have
> resonances outside it.
> Scott
> __________________________
> Scott MacEachern
> Department of Sociology and Anthropology
> Bowdoin College
> Brunswick, ME 04011
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> Search, Read, Post to Usenet