Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (40513)	8/29/2002 1:53:37 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

In general, that's true. I know a bit here (and may be dangerous because of that ;-)). You're a Leftie, John. You're ALWAYS dangerous! :P I would say your points are generally valid. But much of the breakdown in accepted use is due to the "creeping" influence of more ideological disciplines IMO, such as Sociology, upon a descriptive field. Your examples of feminist and economic anthropology are a case in point. As is my previous post where I alluded to the injection of polemical theory into archaeology (I belong to the school that asserts archaeology is atheoretical - pure description). One of my professors in college was nearly indistinguishable from a Sociology professor. Her main area of study was Upper New York State Italian and Hispanic immigration and deindustrialization. Reading her work you certainly didn't get the impression she was doing ethnography. Boas is no doubt rolling in his grave. But this is completely off topic, so I'll forgo the rant before FL skewers me. :) Derek