Anthropology Has One Job (On Genocide in the United States)

David Shane Lowry
{"title":"Anthropology Has One Job (On Genocide in the United States)","authors":"David Shane Lowry","doi":"10.1080/19428200.2023.2230096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In an introductory anthropology course, the instructor might provide a definition of anthropology similar to this: “Anthropology is the most scientific of the humanities, and it is the most humanistic of the sciences.” If something like that is said, it stems from a statement in Anthropology, a 1964 book by famed anthropologist eric Wolf in which he attempted to define the discipline. Wolf ’s approach came at a time when many anthropologists were attempting to intervene in the historical telling of the world.1 In particular, Wolf argued that non-europeans were also participants in global, colonial processes. The value of Wolf ’s voice—indeed, the value of most anthropology at the time—was that it offered a wide-scale view of human events for which the anthropologist was merely an observer, hence not responsible. on that note, the instructor might explain that anthropology is a discipline that is global and universal in nature, yet personal. Though anthropologists describe the world, they also describe everything in the human body, all the way down to the level of the chromosome. Anthropology is about everything and does everything. However, I would argue that anthropology’s breadth—its ability to say that it studies everything—distracts us all from its roots in bad behaviors and policies. What Wolf never explained—what anthropology’s leaders haven’t properly dealt with over the decades—is that anthropology practiced in the United States began in processes to disempower and dehumanize American Indian (native American, Indigenous) peoples. While churches and the U.S. federal government spent stolen resources to build boarding schools where they forced American Indian people to cut their hair and stop speaking their languages, anthropologists such as Franz Boas, edward Sapir and Alfred Kroeber collected recordings of their Indigenous languages before they disappeared under the weight of these educational policies.2 At best, anthropology in the United States was funded by the residual profits of genocide.","PeriodicalId":90439,"journal":{"name":"Anthropology now","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropology now","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19428200.2023.2230096","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In an introductory anthropology course, the instructor might provide a definition of anthropology similar to this: “Anthropology is the most scientific of the humanities, and it is the most humanistic of the sciences.” If something like that is said, it stems from a statement in Anthropology, a 1964 book by famed anthropologist eric Wolf in which he attempted to define the discipline. Wolf ’s approach came at a time when many anthropologists were attempting to intervene in the historical telling of the world.1 In particular, Wolf argued that non-europeans were also participants in global, colonial processes. The value of Wolf ’s voice—indeed, the value of most anthropology at the time—was that it offered a wide-scale view of human events for which the anthropologist was merely an observer, hence not responsible. on that note, the instructor might explain that anthropology is a discipline that is global and universal in nature, yet personal. Though anthropologists describe the world, they also describe everything in the human body, all the way down to the level of the chromosome. Anthropology is about everything and does everything. However, I would argue that anthropology’s breadth—its ability to say that it studies everything—distracts us all from its roots in bad behaviors and policies. What Wolf never explained—what anthropology’s leaders haven’t properly dealt with over the decades—is that anthropology practiced in the United States began in processes to disempower and dehumanize American Indian (native American, Indigenous) peoples. While churches and the U.S. federal government spent stolen resources to build boarding schools where they forced American Indian people to cut their hair and stop speaking their languages, anthropologists such as Franz Boas, edward Sapir and Alfred Kroeber collected recordings of their Indigenous languages before they disappeared under the weight of these educational policies.2 At best, anthropology in the United States was funded by the residual profits of genocide.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人类学只有一项工作(关于美国的种族灭绝)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Teaching with ChatGPT: Critiquing Generative Artificial Intelligence from the Classroom Anthropology Has One Job (On Genocide in the United States) Traveling Together and Journeying Apart, Revisiting Highway Words, Like Viruses, Spill Over. Consider “Porn” Framing Holism: Sinker, Line and Hook
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1