Wonderful context for anthropology Dr. West. I really enjoy the writing of Hugh Brody on Peoples of the north and now I can see him in this wave who left the university's to work for the communities he studied. Thanks!
J J R was both French and Swiss due to his heavy contribution to French Revolution. The speaker could be right in ascribing him to France.He was born in Geneva (Switzerland) but wrote in French and traveled throughout Europe but mainly worked in France. He is also buried in Paris, brilliant presentation by Dr Paige
Please don’t let these negative, unhappy fools get you down!!! Live and Love the life you created! Thank you, I really enjoy your content and I’m a recent subscriber.
J J R was both French and Swiss due to his heavy contribution to French Revolution. The speaker could be right in ascribing him to France.He was born in Geneva (Switzerland) but wrote in French and traveled throughout Europe but mainly worked in France. He is also buried in Paris.
@@KP-ik2wf All societies DIDN'T evolve through the same sequence. That's just how random Europeans thought of it a while back, conveniently justifying French/British imperialism while they're at it. This lecture is trying to show you why and how that happened, and also that this is not how you should be thinking about the world. Best, an anthropologist.
Why would you want to move to the complex? It begs the question if our lives are more complex; or that we are surrounded by complex narratives. Let's take motherhood. It isn't that complex; unless you notice the encroaching opinions, state, policies etc on personal lives. Maybe that is just the fact that we poor so many people in cities?
Oh yes, the true intellectuals. The one-sentence-is all-I-have-to-offer kinds of intellectuals I've come to know so well. Here to effortlessly corroborate another one-sided interpretation in a field they know nothing about. Now I agree with the major points, but what I don't agree with is how you make no attempt to remind listeners that the West were not the only ones indulging in slavery throughout history, and not just that, (but in keeping with your own logic) why should the acts of a few (or few hundred million) who happen to identify themselves the same as I do (i.e. Western) be taken as the architype of Western people? Isn't this exactly the same thing you're trying to put an end to - the classification of all individuals based on a collective identity associated with the acts of (less than all) individuals? All branded as an objective pursuit of your own, and an extension of the enlightenment whether you want to see it that way or not. And then to pick up on natural law, that is exactly at the core of justifications to post-enlightenment ideas too! A summary of modernity say we're all innately selfish, whereas opposing arguments would say we're naturally altruistic. Modernists could meet in the middle, and agree people are neither entirely selfish nor altruistic... could you? 9:00 Says someone with a mandate to bring child-like people in to the modern world hehe, you really don't write it do ya! I'm not saying that it was all roses 300 years ago, but what I will say is that the primary attempt of post-modern thinkers in the last century is to replace traditional markers of success or truth with superficial, artificial or just plain out backwards markers. So it's not just about repositioning intellectuals within society, it's actually not even about that at all despite being championed as such. Rather it's about maintaining the power traditionally associated with intellectualism and changing the protocol required to attain such titles, just as the word art has encompassed more meaning in the last century. Taking it away from being thought of as having a particular skill, to now represent people who want to poo on a canvas too.
As always with these RU-vid lectures--there is absolutely no effort to pronounce referenced names or their publications clearly and maybe even spell them out. Why?
As far as I remember: Talal Assad, Edward Said, Michele Foucault, (Edward?) Taylor, Morgan (don't remember the name, but it's mentioned in Engels' paper on family, you'll find it), and Marx and Engels. You're welcome :)
@@KP-ik2wf Social evolutionism is a false theory, it didn't actually happen and modern anthropologists know that. This lecture doesn't argue that it did happen either. As mentioned at the very beginning, that is one of the ideas people still have today, that "drive us [anthropologists] crazy." Best regards, a Modern Anthropologist.
@@GoA7250 That's the book 1984 that quoted that. I totally believe this to be true and they will eventually rewrite the history books that say differently. People are too busy living their lives to understand this.
@@GoA7250 That's odd, since anthropology uses the real sciences of anatomy, physiology, genetics, population studies, radio carbon dating, archaeology, nutrition, linguistics, cartography, math, physics, and general scientific theory building.
