Re: take it back

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Hugh Jarvis: "missing the point"
• Previous message: Lief M. Hendrickson: "take it forward"
• Maybe in reply to: Alysa Walsh: "take it back"

Alysa Walsh writes (27/1/95)

>Michael Bauser and John Ford, while advocating anthro undergrads to >speak
>up and not 'run away' from conflict and debate, seem somewhat
>contradictory in their remarks. By using such language as "whimps" and
>telling us what we need is "backbones", the blame is put on this younger
>generation of anthro students -- instead of where it belongs, on those
>who feel the only way to get their point across is by being ego-inflated
>and obnoxious.

>Do I really face being run out of AAA meetings by one-day
>Dr. Michael Bauser for not having a "backbone" on the anthro-list? Am I
>really a "whimp" because I don't agree with some tactics of those who >get
i>nto "heated debates" here on the list? Such comments are big
>overgeneralizations. Not all anthro undergrads melt in the face of
debate.

Alysa

All I can say, is from my experience, anthropologists are just as fallibly
human (ie egotistical etc) as your next bunch. Furthermore they are human beings
who have their lives buried in fairly narrow projects and placed in
constrictive institutions where there is extremely limited opportunity for
mobility. Academia is its own little ghetto, and this doesn't neccessarily
make for nice people. Make no mistake about it, academia is a shitty little
world, and the only thing that will carry you through is a love of the shit,
or a love of the anthropology.

Regards

John Cook.

• Next message: Hugh Jarvis: "missing the point"
• Previous message: Lief M. Hendrickson: "take it forward"
• Maybe in reply to: Alysa Walsh: "take it back"