At the start of a new academic semester, here is an brief introduction to anthropology, the development of anthropological ideas, and the four-field approach in the US.
I'm glad I stumbled onto your channel and have enjoyed your lectures. A number of the aspects you mention have always interested me, and it's been fun over the years seeing the advancements in understanding. Seeing how we fit into the evolutionary stream and how we got here has so many facets, and there seem to be no end of comparisons to other living entities . One thing I've noticed, if you flip those comparisons around and ask how we differ from everything else, the list suddenly narrows considerably. There is almost nothing we do that can't be found elsewhere in nature. Myself, I've only found one thing unique to us, even among other humans such as Neanderthal. We kill at distance. We don't see that behavior anywhere else. It's a result of our anatomy and the ability to throw over arm. That naturally led to projectile use - solely a homo sapiens sapiens tool. We've taken that concept to the utter limit with nuclear now, but it's stil only us who naturally kill at a distance with intent. Everything else we've ever encountered kills within grasp or reach. When I look at the current studies, I only see bipedalism, cranial morphology, dentition - a myriad of comparatives. But, we are almost bereft of the notice or mention of the anatomy lading to a javeline throw or a baseball pitch. There is paper after paper describing the physics, the biology, and every other sporting aspect of the over arm throw, but almost zero in paleoanatomy or archeology. I think we'd get much further on undetstanding our evolution if we look at that one difference along with all the similarities. Thank you again for your postings. Stay safe through this pandemic, and good wishes for your next semester.
thank you, I really appreciate. one interesting thing that happens here is you position a dichotomy between cultural relativism and ethnocentrism. I'm observing in certain radical anthropological circles a tendency to "center" (perhaps fetishize, to use a loaded word) certain other cultures. to be more specific, I am talking about anarchist anthropologists making claims about the egalitarian superiority of hunter-gatherer/foraging cultures. I wonder if it is fair to call this "ethnocentrism" of a different sort, or whether it calls into question the whole dialectic (between ethnocentrism and cultural relativism).
I love this subject but once again the narration is too subjective, it is perfectly acceptable to consider a shared plate as being unhigenic while simultaneously taking an interest in the evolution of its practice.
I love this subject but once again the narration is too subjective, it is perfectly acceptable to consider a shared plate as being unhigenic while simultaneously taking an interest in the evolution of its practice.
yes she’s more so referring to the mindset. there’s a difference between thinking something is unhygienic & judging it and thinking something is unhygienic & as u said, being interested in learning of the practice and respecting it.
