Re: INCEST TABOOS
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Sun, 28 May 1995 07:23:13 GMT
In article <3q59sb$fp@triton.unm.edu>, Bryant (mycol1@unm.edu) writes:
>In article <Pine.BSI.3.91.950526131454.18454D-100000@pluto.njcc.com>,
>William Stoltzfus <bstoltz@pluto.njcc.com> wrote:
>>
>>Try Pierre L. van den Berghe, Human inbreeding avoidance: Culture in
>>nature, Behavioral and Brain Sciences (1983), vol. 6, pp. 91-123, for a
>>start.
>
>Also see N.W. Thornhill's "An evolutionary analysis of rules regulating
>human inbreeding and marriage" in the same journal (1991) 144: 247-293.
The idea of culture in nature seems to me an excellent place to start
in getting you people's brains finally into gear.
As we proceed we might finally begin to have you acknowledge the whole
organism as an active agent in itself, not some tiny part you choose to
call a gene as if it were some sort of ghost inside the machine well
on its way to evolving into seventh heaven up there on cloud nine.
Then we might finally have some of you (others I doubt) finally come
up to speed on mainstream anthropology, and understand once and for
where our differences lie with biology, to better understand our very
profound contribution to that discipline during recent decades.
Then maybe you will allow us our vocabulary and our proper standing
back, so we can get on with it. So that we will be able get on with
our studies of humans as humans instead of some putative close kin of
chimpanzees, or some creature of that order.
Then we will be allowed to have our humanity back, yes?
Then maybe we will be back on the NSF funding list too, once we have
managed either to get some of you cloistered frauds educated (and the
rest of you just OUT altogether), and our profession back in the hands
of experienced field anthropologists.
Like it was once . . .
|