The Myth of the Noble Savage

[Jnyusa]

So do we agree? Or am I missing something very important about what you are saying?

Yes, we agree.

He wrote about his experience, and basically said 'wow, this idea came to me, and it was so simple and obvious.' <snip>J. K. Rowling was riding on a train when she had an idea for a story

Yes, I do not deny the role of inspiration, and people are hard-put to explain where inspiration comes from. When Einstein was asked where his ideas came from, he answered that he had only had one or two.

Parallel fields can be a great source of inspiration. But we need to recognize that some familiarity is necessary in order for this to happen. We get inspiration with regard to things that we are already thinking about. I can spot the economic detail missing in an anthropologic explanation, and might describe that recognition as a light-bulb going on in my head. It feels sort of like that. But still, I am building up from the ground, not parachuting in from the sky. I will never have inspirations in physics or astronomy or comparative linguistics.

Kary Mullis did not get an inspiration of how to integrate Keynesian and Neoclassical economics. J.K. Rowling did not get an inspiration for building better suspension bridges.

Why do you think I cannot respect someone who thinks and feels differently than I do, just because I believe that?

No, I do not think that you are unable to show respect to others if you hold an absolutist world view, but I think you are unable to be a professional anthropologist in 2006 if you hold that view. It would not be respectable for an empiricist.

I think it's best if I judge the actions of others as little as possible. That seems to be my only escape from arrogance.

This would be common sense if it were applied to any realm other than politics. You wouldn’t stand looking over the shoulder of an electrician at work and give him advice on what to do.

The problem is that we are forced to make many civic decisions on topics about which we know nothing. And then we have no choice really but to fall back on our intrinsic belief systems.

But if we know that we are having to make judgments based on ignorance, and that we are likely to be biased, then the best we can do is be open to new information and revision. Acknowledge, in other words, that we may be mistaken.

For instance again, running through Jny's eloquent posts I detect the underlying assumption that the more peaceful culture is inherently the "gooder" one, more civilized, more advanced. Warlike = bloodthirsty = inferior. Again, I agree.

Actually, that is not quite what I think, though I do prefer as a personal matter to live in a culture that values my survival.

There’s more than one way to make warfare. There are different patterns that different cultures follow in the making of war. It is my conclusion that these patterns are at least loosely related to economic contingencies, and this is one of the things I hope to get around to posting in the immediate future. Some warfare patterns result in fewer dead people, but these occur in cultures where people-to-land ratios are necessarily lower. So, how shall we compare? Absolute numbers? Percentage of the population killed? I don’t feel able to make value judgments of this sort. The patterns are different, that’s all. We are not all the same.

Jn

[MithLuin]

Frelga, I know that not every culture values the same things, and I am certainly capable of studying (for instance) the Vikings, and getting into what they thought was most important, and why. I can learn to understand, and articulate, another culture's way of thinking....without agreeing with it.

And whether we are absolutists or relativists, this is necessary. We cannot become a Viking, and live their life (fully) from the inside. We can immerse ourselves in what it means to be a Viking, but we remain ourselves.

Even if my reaction to fundamentalist Islamic jihad is, 'oh, this is not good,' I can still learn about who they are, and what they see as important. Understand a bit about why they are who they are. Understanding and acceptance are different matters. Absolutism prevents the second, but not the first.

My lack of acceptance only becomes a problem if I then insist on going in and changing things. But if I do not - if I respect their ability for self-determinism - and if I refrain from passing judgement, how does this make me a de facto incompetent student of cultural anthropology?

As an example, I know of a teacher who presented the religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam to his students. After the first, everyone assumed he was a Jew, because he had explained it from the inside, sincerely. But then he did the same for Christianity and Islam . The man did not believe all three, but he was not an atheist, either. He was able to give a fair presentation because he was able to understand without judging.

I do not think this is impossible for an absolutist.

As I said multiple times, I believe that truth exists, and that it is worth striving for. I do not suggest that I know it all, or always see and recognize it. That is, after all, why we learn. I do not identify my own cultural values as aligned perfectly with this absolute truth - there are certainly discrepencies, which I try to figure out as I go. But by arguing that truth is real, I can respect an other culture as seeing it and finding it in a way I never would have thought of, and thus value that 'other' culture as fundamentally legitimate.

I do not lump all other cultures together as 'other' and automatically inferior to my own. That is absurd. I know that my sister's experience of being in Honduras this year will be very different than her (brief) experiences in Mexico and Ecuador. I hope to live in Ghana someday, and that will be very different from my other sister's experience living in Paris for 6 mo., which was very different from her bf's tours of duty with the US Marines in Iraq. The whole point of living in another culture (even briefly) is that you learn from it. How could you expect to learn if you thought they had nothing to teach you? And how does anyone benefit if you go beyond understanding cannibalism and take a 'well, if it works for you....' approach?

[axordil]

There is a hidden peril in experiencing cultures as being "things you learn from," which is best summed up as a somewhat more benign form of Orientalism, in the vein of Edward Said's riff on the term. Saying that the point of being in another culture is to learn from it de facto exoticizes it, which can lead to trivialization.

Let me emphasize: this is a danger, not a certainty. It is indeed possible to learn from living in another culture, but it helps to keep your baggage as light as humanly possible.

[vison]

I confess I am at a loss to understand Faramond's trouble in this thread.

The issue isn't one of "judging people", that is of assigning "worth" or "value" on a scale. Yet we can't live in this world without making what are called "value judgements". We are called on to do so a dozen times a day.

I said earlier, and I maintain it now, that people become more "civilized" by MY definition when they are able to recognize that "the other" is a person, with hopes and dreams and aspirations and, yes, values.

I don't mean that I can internalize or promote values I don't share, and I know perfectly well that some values/beliefs of others are not only ones I can't share but ones I think are just plain wrong. To use a really extreme example, I think the Aztec practice of human sacrifice was wrong. I don't much care why they did it, whatever their reasons were, they were mistaken and had embarked on a wrong path. Perhaps if history had played out differently the Aztecs would have moved along to a culture where they shared my horror. Does this mean that I think the Aztecs were "inferior" as human beings? No, I think they were mistaken, that's all. And I could say the same about a few other cultures, but I think I have made my point.

People do wrong things all the time. I can be a moral relativist up to a certain point, but beyond that I can't go. It would be wrong to do so.

We are all products of our culture, but we are not robots. In Canada and the US we have the right - probably the duty - to speak against some prevailing cultural views, against actions undertaken by our various governments. I think that humans should move towards a future where everyone has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

[Jnyusa]

And how does anyone benefit if you go beyond understanding cannibalism and take a 'well, if it works for you....' approach?

To be a casual student of anthropology, travelling the world and learning from experience, this is one thing. To have professional responsibility for the description and analysis of a culture, this is something else.

You see, there is always something like cannabalism .... (I will have one other small thing to say about cannabalism per se) ... something shocking and inexplicable that sets us off the edge, that is just so different from anything we would do, and so abhorrent, that it is really difficult to suspend judgment. To maintain objectivity throughout those observations takes ... a certain temperment ... a native distrust of certainty, I would say ... and a lot of training, of course. But training can be acquired; temperment cannot.

We are all the same when it comes to basic physical needs and ... certain kinds of human endeavors ... anthropologists have identified "cultural universals" and there are really quite a lot of them but they are very general in nature, e.g. all people wear adornments of some kind. But we are not all the same when it comes to the rituals we adopt to promote survival ... and these rituals are closely bound to our notions of morality. I think that in order to be objective about other people's rituals, one must have a fairly deep distrust of one's own.

When Lord M. posted his sources, no one questioned those accounts, no one asked why these people would be practicing cannabalism - what role it played in their culture - everyone responded with (a) acceptance of Lord M.'s explanation because it fit other things they had heard, and (b) a loud and sudden relief that white guilt could be abandoned. I didn't see a single relevant question asked, like, "What evidence do we have that aboriginal sociopathies existed prior to European destruction of their land and People? Can a European slave trader's anecdote about watching a man kill a young girl be trusted?

Does anyone here think that a prison population behaves 'normally'? Does anyone here still believe that Jews practice cannablism? Did those supposed eyewitness accounts that circulated Europe for two millenia and continue to circulate through population pockets within the US turn out to be true? (I have been personally asked whether I eat other people. Imagine that.)

One thing of which I am aware is that every single conqueror throughout history has accused their victims of cannabalism. Caesar accused the Celts of this; all the African tribes that were enslaved have been accused of this. The Vikings have been accused of this. The Jews have been accused of it.

But ... I have also read accounts by anthropologists who attempted to track down the legends of cannabal and have not been able to find evidence of ANY culture that routinely eats people unless starvation is the alternative. It is rarely the case that parts of an enemy will be eaten ritualistically after he has been killed in battle ... I believe there was a group of tribes in Borneo or New Guinea who were confirmed to do this. I have heard legend of tribes who will ritualistically eat parts of their chief after he has died, but I've never seen verification of this by a professional researcher.

Should I disregard Lord M's sources? No, I do not disregard them, but I question them. I do not consider them evidence upon which to make a moral judgment. I distrust my own culture's self-righteousness because I know that one of our attributes is to make up stories of this sort about all people whom we consider inferior. There is a truth of which we are certain - that we are better than they are - and if we have to fabricate evidence to convince doubters of this, we are fabricating in the service of a greater truth and it is excusable.

Mith, I appreciate very much that you have had teachers who felt to you knowledgable and objective. But I will suggest that, as a student, you are unable to evaluate this. The teacher him/herself may be unable to evaluate their own objectivity, however fine their intention may be.

I had a kind of wake-up call to this a few years ago when I had to enter an in-depth communication role with Native Americans, and I realized that as objective as I try to be, as much effort as I make to stand inside the culture and look out, as much study as I had done, I wasn't getting even close to saying about these people what they wanted said on their behalf. When a People is allowed to speak for themselves, it is never, ever the same as when someone else speaks about them. I have personally resolved that if I can't get a Native Am into my classroom to describe his/her native culture, I just won't talk about it, because my odds of being right are practically zero. I cannot rid myself of my own cultural perspective on what they are thinking and doing.

When I go to relatively objective Christian websites that attempt to explain aspects of Judaism ... I can feel how good their intentions are, I can feel their effort at objectivity, I can feel that their purpose is to acquaint and educate and not to judge ... BUT ... they never get the story quite right.

I want to learn Judaism from a Jew, Catholicism from a Catholic, Islam from a Moslem, etc. and I want to hear native peoples describe themselves in their own words. Every other kind of account is suspect to some degree, in my experience.

Jn

[Frelga]

When a People is allowed to speak for themselves, it is never, ever the same as when someone else speaks about them.

That's true, of course. But then, what people from every culture have to say for themselves is far from objective. What we say about "us" is based on our myths about "us", just as what we say about "them" is based on our myths about "them" and what "they" say about themselves is based on their own myths.

For instance, ask any Christian to describe Christianity, and you will hear about the message of love and forgiveness. How well actual real-life Christians have lived up to those ideals, as individuals and societies has varied widely.

The same is true about individuals. I can expound the beauty and deep spiritual value of the Shabbat observance, but that's not stopping me from doing the m00t shopping on Saturday. How I live with that contradiction is a mystery to me.

[eborr]

like the idea of the "cost of Stonehenge" to it's society, sorry but the whole notion is a fallacy, based on our modern view of the world.

By the way which part of stonehenge are you talking about, do you mean the henge itself or are you talking of the bluestone ring phase, or are we supposed to consider the Trilliths which is what most people concieve of when they talk about stone henge.

Our knowledge of the Neolithic / Early Bronze age people who built stonehenge is pretty neglible, we know they traded but did they have the concept of cost - perhaps they had the concept of gift - we don't know.

And by the way some people would argue that different cultures built the various stages of the henge, my own view is that it was largely the same culture which developed technologically, sorry if this is off-topic

[MithLuin]

That's just it...no matter what I do, I'm not going to be on the 'inside', and I see no reason to pretend I am. None of us can (or should) deny who we are. I'm never going to know why the West feared communism so much, because the Berlin Wall came down when I was still in elementary school. I remember it, and I knew it was a big deal at the time....but by the time I was old enough to understand what my parents were talking about, it was 'over.' My best friend was an Army brat, and I am never going to understand her restlessness (she can't live somewhere for more than a couple of years before she gets sick of it). Why not? Because my parents brought me home when I was 2 weeks old, and I lived in that house until I moved away to college (and they still own the place, so I can go back if I want to).

There are cases where you can 'jump ship' - I studied engineering in college, so my education trained me to think like an engineer. I took to that readily. But then I chose the career of a high school teacher, and teachers view the world rather differently. I've had to be 'retrained' to be a good teacher. But it does change who I am, and I am really a 'teacher' now, not an engineer.

If you want to know about things-as-they-are, ask an objective observer. If you want to know about things-as-they-ought-to-be, you must hear it directly from the person who holds that world view.

As for eating the chief's brain - that's how kuru spreads. If there were no contact with the brain or spinal column, the prion disease would not be transfered. So, that is physical evidence, not anecdotal - arguments can be made that it had to do with handling the body and funery practices (not eating it) in some cases, but there definately were people who ate parts of the bodies. The disease was rampant among the South Fore of New Guinea in the 1950s. Kuru is similar to Mad Cow Disease.

The Korowai tribe of southeastern Papua is also said to practice cannibalism.

I have seen a video on the Discovery channel (or something like that) of a ritual eating of parts of corpses by a fringe group in India. So, yeah, they were video taping people having a funeral, then this group coming in and taking part of the body, then this guy discussing the practice (he mentioned that eating rotten human flesh was an 'aquired taste'. It was definately ritualistic, and not done for food. It was also very much a fringe group, and as such should probably be compared with Dolcett.

From Wikipedia: "According to a decree by Queen Isabella of Castile and also later under British colonial rule, slavery was considered to be illegal unless the people involved were so depraved that their conditions as slaves would be better than as free men. Demonstrations of cannibalistic tendencies were considered evidence of such depravity, and hence reports of cannibalism became widespread." That, at least, is a reason to lie, though not evidence that every account was purely fabricated.

The charge of cannibalism has certainly been made spuriously thoughout history, but that does not mean that no one ever was a cannibal (nor does it mean that starving to death was the only cause). I agree that sources must be analyzed critically. I did not comment on Lord M's sources, one way or another, because I was unfamiliar with them. But very few people would deny the existence of Jeffrey Dahmer.

[eborr]

I wonder if fringe group cannibals just eat extremities like fingers and toes

[Frelga]

It's all a value judgement.

Speaking of cannibalism - Vladimir Vysotsky, Russian actor, poet and writer, used to tell this story. I make no claims as to its accuracy.

He said that in his travels he met an aged native of I can't remember where, and he was asking this man about cannibalism. The old man recounted old wars, which he said were waged when the meat were scarce and stopped when enough enemies were killed. Then he asked the actor if it was true that there had been a big war in Europe and how many people had been killed.

"About fifty million," the actor replied.

The native was horrified. "What, did you eat them all?"

"No, of course not, we don't eat other humans."

"But why did you start the war, then?"

[vison]

like the idea of the "cost of Stonehenge" to it's society, sorry but the whole notion is a fallacy, based on our modern view of the world.

By the way which part of stonehenge are you talking about, do you mean the henge itself or are you talking of the bluestone ring phase, or are we supposed to consider the Trilliths which is what most people concieve of when they talk about stone henge.

Our knowledge of the Neolithic / Early Bronze age people who built stonehenge is pretty neglible, we know they traded but did they have the concept of cost - perhaps they had the concept of gift - we don't know.

And by the way some people would argue that different cultures built the various stages of the henge, my own view is that it was largely the same culture which developed technologically, sorry if this is off-topic

eborr, the construction of such an enormous monument shows that the culture/s that built it was/were wealthy. The people must have had plenty to eat, to be able to spend that much time and energy on such a task. It isn't a "modern" notion, it's common sense. The "cost" was in energy and time. If the people had been scrabbling hard all day every day to feed themselves, there would have been nothing to "spend" on Stonehenge. Any part of it.

[MithLuin]

Though, if their culture thought building it was the most important thing ever, it would move up the priority list...making it easier to build with less wealth. Kinda like how we suspected the Soviets had more wealth than they did, based on the size of their army.

But yes, you must meet basic survival needs before you can push around large stones...period.

Oh, and vison, I forgot to mention that I agreed with you previous post...the one about relativism only going so far. That sounds like what I mean, too. People who do bad things aren't devils (no matter how tempting it is to suggest that Hitler-types are possessed by one), but that does not mean they should do them (even if they think it is okay/good). I can recognize that the cultural values are different...but I can't condone every action as being okay because of cultural context. (Nor is anyone asking me to, I hasten to add).

[vison]

Many Christian denominations practice ritual cannibalism.

[eborr]

like the idea of the "cost of Stonehenge" to it's society, sorry but the whole notion is a fallacy, based on our modern view of the world.

By the way which part of stonehenge are you talking about, do you mean the henge itself or are you talking of the bluestone ring phase, or are we supposed to consider the Trilliths which is what most people concieve of when they talk about stone henge.

Our knowledge of the Neolithic / Early Bronze age people who built stonehenge is pretty neglible, we know they traded but did they have the concept of cost - perhaps they had the concept of gift - we don't know.

And by the way some people would argue that different cultures built the various stages of the henge, my own view is that it was largely the same culture which developed technologically, sorry if this is off-topic

eborr, the construction of such an enormous monument shows that the culture/s that built it was/were wealthy. The people must have had plenty to eat, to be able to spend that much time and energy on such a task. It isn't a "modern" notion, it's common sense. The "cost" was in energy and time. If the people had been scrabbling hard all day every day to feed themselves, there would have been nothing to "spend" on Stonehenge. Any part of it.

but how do you/we know that, the material culture at the time of the construction of the henges, durrington walls, silbury hills, woodhenge, Crickley hill, gives little indication of material wealth, compared with the EBA when there is some sounder evidence of trade. My view which of course has little foundation is that the construction of the henges was a religous activity which would have taken place irrespective of beneficial socio-economic cirmcumstances, much in the way that he great cathedrals were constructed or that the Lascaux paintings took place.

Folk tend to make the mistake of interpolating the Egyptian model on all ancient societies - where there is a failty good correlation between material surpless and the construction of monumental tombs.

BTW you also need to bring long barrows into the argument, as these are relatively large monuments although not where near the scale of the henges

[vison]

eborr, no society existing at a marginal level will have either the will or the energy to devote to large monumental constructions over years or decades.

The word "wealth" does not mean "money". Wealth is "surplus". Only a society with that surplus could spend it.

The great cathedrals of Europe are proof of this assertion: enormous wealth went into their construction! The people chose to use their wealth in this fashion, likely seeking favour with God. But the wealth had to exist before it could be spent. If a man chose, for instance, to devote his "spare time" to masonry work on a cathedral, it meant that he had enough to eat in his regular life. Some workmen donated their time, some were paid in coin. Wealth was needed, in any case.

It is possible, of course, that the ancient constructors were forced, enslaved. But they still had to be fed. And if too much manpower was tied up in forced labour on monuments, who would grow crops or hunt for food? The existence of such large-scale monuments tells us that for whatever reason, the people had wealth and decided to spend it, or co-operate with their PTB in the spending of it.

[Faramond]

vison, I really don't know what you mean by my trouble in the thread.

****************************

I usually don't trust people within a culture to be objective about their own culture. Nor do I usually trust people outside of a culture to understand it.

I haven't heard any coherent theory about how to judge or analyze other cultures here. Once cultural relativism is accepted there is no chance to say anything meaningful about a culture. That, in fact, is the central tenet of cultural relativism, is it not, that one cannot say anything meaningful about other cultures? We might as well be reading the Voynich manuscript. How could we even begin to say how good a culture was for the people inside of it? How could we trust that we would understand it if the people inside the culture said it was good or bad for them? I doubt that any temperament will help with this impossible task, if absolutes are not allowed.

[Jnyusa]

Yes, vison is right about this.

The number of calories required to move a big rock x-meters off the ground or y-kilmeters over the countryside was not different in 1000 BC than it is today. I was referring only to this aspect of 'cost.'

A guy at the Boston conservatory did a thumbnail calculation of the labor involved in the digging of the auger holes, the quarrying and moving of the indicator stones and the triliths, the ropes, the scaffolds that have to have been used, etc. and we have some order-of-magnitude estimates of what the population in the south of England probably was at that time. This researcher's analogy was that Stonehenge was roughly equivalent to the resources we devote to the Space Program, though it took several hundred years iirc to complete all three stages of Stonehenge and our space program obviously has not been around that long. Probably other analogies can be made but since the purpose of Stonehenge seems to have been astronomical calculations the space program analogy was apt.

Regarding our objectivity in describing our own cultures, yes, this is painfully true that people will tend to describe their ideal selves. But I was not talking about general questions like, "what are your core values?" but more specific questions like "how often do you eat meat?" and "when is the last time you went to war with that tribe over there?" and "how old do your daughters marry?" and "how is your work divided?" It is astonishing how much false information circulates about indigenous Peoples because the first Europeans to have contact with them just made stuff up.
Jn

[vison]

vison, I really don't know what you mean by my trouble in the thread.

****************************

I usually don't trust people within a culture to be objective about their own culture. Nor do I usually trust people outside of a culture to understand it.

I haven't heard any coherent theory about how to judge or analyze other cultures here. Once cultural relativism is accepted there is no chance to say anything meaningful about a culture. That, in fact, is the central tenet of cultural relativism, is it not, that one cannot say anything meaningful about other cultures? We might as well be reading the Voynich manuscript. How could we even begin to say how good a culture was for the people inside of it? How could we trust that we would understand it if the people inside the culture said it was good or bad for them? I doubt that any temperament will help with this impossible task, if absolutes are not allowed.

I guess the thing is, Faramond, that I don't think we are necessarily "judging" other cultures, but perhaps discussing them. Certainly I admit to bias: as I said above, I cannot accept the "rightness" of human sacrifice although I do understand the reasons it was so popular with the Aztecs, among others. My own ancestors did things I consider wrong, but my excuse for them, as for the Aztecs, is that they were mistaken.

My view is always that we humans are more alike than unalike. So having an imagination, I am fond of attempting to "put" myself in the position of another. Would a girl, chosen to represent a goddess, treated with deference and special care for a specified length of time, be happy to be led up a set of stairs and have her heart cut out because her culture's religion required it?

Yet, the vast majority of Aztecs were not chosen to represent a goddess. They ate, drank, had sex, loved their children, thought lying was wrong . . . not much different than us. The rivers of blood flowing down the temple stairs kept their world whole and kept the sun shining, they believed.

There are few absolutes. Nearly every deviation from what I think is "right" has been not only accepted but required by someone, somewhere. Knowing that doesn't make me think maybe human sacrifice or female genital mutilation is "right", but it lets me understand why someone else might.

I've said before and no doubt will say again that "do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you" pretty well covers it as far as right is concerned. (I prefer that version to the version Jesus said.) But, of course, if you think the highest possible honour is to be butchered for the sake of a god it might be what you want done unto you. . . .

[Jnyusa]

Once cultural relativism is accepted there is no chance to say anything meaningful about a culture. That, in fact, is the central tenet of cultural relativism, is it not, that one cannot say anything meaningful about other cultures?

Faramond, I'm sorry that we cross-posted before and I ignored your comments in my last post.

No, cultural relativism does not claim that nothing meaningful can be said. It claims that a culture should first be analyzed in terms of what it means to the people who live in it.

So, with the example of Christianity that someone brought above, whether Christians have an idealized version of their beliefs or not, you first want to hear what they think it's all about, and from there you move outward and see whether that explanation is consistent with other factors - written history (if any), archeological evidence, economic forces, geography, etc. - and try to explain deviations. And then you examine how those who have to interact with the culture perceive it, and so on, looking at wider and wider perspectives and until you gain as complete a picture as possible.

You don't start with apriori's like ... these guys have no central plumbing so any evidence of bloodshed we see must be from something really primitive and disgusting like human sacrifice.

There's an infamous example ... darn, this was my daughter's book and it's packed away and I'm not sure I recall all the details so if someone else knows this story please chime in and correct my mistakes.

It took place in the 1960s, I think? - when we were on the cusp of bringing 'the new anthropology' to the masses via National Geographic and PBS. A documentary filmmaker wanted to do a film about a San tribe in Africa (pretty sure it was San) who are generally pigeonholed in the hunter-gatherer category. This, I think, would be an example of the soupy-sloppy noble savage romanticism that Lord M. rebels against, with good reason. The filmmaker want to make the San look good, but his film has to be exciting enough to sell. So ... they're hunter-gatherers, let's film them on a hunt. Let's film them hunting a giraffe.

"We don't hunt giraffe," the tribe informs him. "Giraffe are too big, too much work."

But a big animal is more exciting than a stinky little bush hog or something, so the filmmaker insists that there be a giraffe hunt. With the help of the local Safari Bwana or someone they capture a giraffe, put it into an enclosed area large enough that the fencing can be concealed on the film but small enough that the giraffe won't run off into the bush out of the frame, and then they set the tribe at it with their spears. And these guys are, like, really terrible shots, and they are terrified of being trampled by the giraffe. But this makes good copy, all these tribal hunters running around like lunatics trying to get a shot at the giraffe while avoiding its hoofs. The voiceover says something like, "They work this hard for all their food."

Well, the tribe is not able to bring down the giraffe. But now the filmmaker has used up all this film filming the giraffe hunt and boy, is it ever exciting! So, he goes out and shoots the giraffe, and poses the tribespeople butchering it, while the voiceover says something like, "At last they succeed. This kill will provide food for many months."



This of course is an example of what not to do. But it says something about the way we approach indigenous Peoples, even today, doesn't it? I mean, we're going to turn a profit on them no matter what. There is not a whole lot of difference between this and the Rainforest Crunch adventure either ... people have a right to live as long as they are marketable.

Remember that most infamous of all hoaxes, the Tasaday? This is such a huge blot on the conscience of every anthropologist. Seriously, not just whole careers but whole departments were destroyed when this hoax was revealed. And that was the 1970s, not the 1870s.

So, when you say that you don't see evidence of methodology, I will agree that methodology is far more problematic in the social sciences than in the natural sciences. In the social sciences, not only does the presence of the investigator, the taking of a measurement itself, influence the result, but also the subject's awareness that a measurement is being taken alters the behavior we are trying to measure (the Hawthorne Effect).

Then, with cultures or societies that no longer exist, the available information can be quite limited. So you make judgments as to what theory explains more of the tiny evidence, leaving fewer anomalies and avoiding contradiction with known facts.

I don't do anthropology, you understand. I read anthropology with an eye toward consistency with known economic dynamics. I could never go out into the field and accurately describe some tribe. But it always kind of amazes me how often I can say that a particular writer's explanation is very likely to be correct because it fits a larger known economic pattern, or that the explanation is likely to be wrong because if practiced over the long run it would cause economic ruin.

The formal discipline of anthropology is very cautious about the number of generalities it is willing to make, and I ... agree that it should be.

Jn

[vison]

"Remember that most infamous of all hoaxes, the Tasaday? This is such a huge blot on the conscience of every anthropologist. Seriously, not just whole careers but whole departments were destroyed when this hoax was revealed. And that was the 1970s, not the 1870s. "

I do remember it! What a laff riot. I remember my mother-in-law scoffing and people arguing with her. She was a smart woman.

Personally, I prefer Piltdown Man. I think Stephen Jay Gould nailed that one. Mind you, I think he nailed everything.

I wonder if there would be any interest in starting a thread that says, "What is your idea of the ideal society?"

Or did we do that already?