|
|
Re: The Orwellian Side of Anthropology
a002046 (a002046@ibm.net)
Tue, 28 Jan 1997 02:52:46 -0500
Bob Whitaker wrote:
>
> The real luxury of controlling the academic bureaucracy is that you get
> to make up your own history. So-called Scientifc Anthropology has a
> really sickening reputation on social matters, but anybody who wants to
> talk about it can forget a career in the academic bureaucracy.
> I remember very well when it was Politically Correct doctrine that
> anyone who
> believed human genes were important was A Nazi Who Wanted To Kill Six
> Million Jews.
> That was the absolute line in the '50's, '60's, and '70's, and all you
> had to do was to trot out a Scientific Anthropologist to declare
> Nurture to be the Only True Scientific Faith.
Isn't it great that we progressed beyond that in the '80s and '90s, and
now we are no longer burdened by such ignorance?
> Any one of you would do it.
> Recently, Betty Friedan was actually denouncing someone who said there
> was no
> innate difference in the attitudes of men and women. Actually, that
> was doctrine in the 70s, and all you had to do was trot out any random
> Scientific Anthropologist to prove it.
> Anything sociologists lay down as Politically Correct, academic
> bureaucrats calling themselves Scientific Anthropologists will declare
> is the Only True Science. Recently I was reading a report on the
> finding of the chromosomes responsible for a type of schizophrenia. Two
> decades ago any Scientific Anthropologist would have declared the
> very idea to be pure Nazism.
> So I'm not greatly impressed when an academic bureaucrat called an
> anthroplogist
> backs Political Correctness on race, putting his full credibility, as
> always, behind ruling doctrine. For anyone who has been around a
> while, that credibility is zero.
|