Charles Schwartz wrote:
> What I see on this list from mart and from Michael (B) is an unending
> stream of very personal babble. I don't want to deny them their
> necessary outlets, but I must ask, Why do I bother to read (any of) it?
Good Question. I don't read them. I did browse through the two you
quote. It appears MB is rather ignorant of the history of Anthropology
which for a long time was often sort of a mere handmaiden to the
pruposes of the states they served. A ralatively harmless instance, but
still bothersome, was Ruth Benedict's work on Japan for the War Dept.
during WW2. It is refreshing that since the '60s at least a smattering
of Anthropologists have been on the side of freedom rather than of
There is a pattern to this, manifested in lit deparments as well as in
the sciences. If you echo "tradition" (the tradition of the prickes who
run things) then you are objective. If you set yourself against that
tradition you are losing your profesdsional objectivity.
I was at the 1968 Convention of the MLA.The battle was joined there. And
at a later convention I stil remember a woman getting up at some forum
and saying that her training gave her a right to speak on issues of
Renaissance literature but not on whether or not it was nice for the
U.S. to conduct terror bombing of Hanoi.