By Matt for the TIB Network:
Our good friend PK responds to my rebuttal of his piece from Thursday by making an analogy that makes WMD, From the Loonatic Left and Title of Liberty in to a sort of 'primitive' indigenous tribes and cultures...which I find personally hilarious because that's the kind of thinking (subliminal or otherwise) that will keep the voters in Jesusland dialed in to the Republican message. And, no, I don't think he deliberately meant to call us primitive tribes or cultures; he was making an analogy. Some might get offended by that, but I find it entertaining and informative.The point he is making is an anthropological one...and he is right on all accounts. First, I am not one to shy away from a provocation... :) He makes some points about social democratism and humanitarianism, but we've already hashed that out elsewhere so I won't take additional time fencing those issues.
The second issue raised by the WMD blog author has to do with research ethics. If one reads my post, it somewhat-unintentionally reads like an anthropological essay. I wanted to assume a (fraudulent admittedly) "objective" stance in writing about some of the argumentation and discourse I experienced over the course of the last month and a half or so. Its difficult for me to not write in an academic way (even though my post was far from being academic, i.e it lacked quantitative/qualitative rigour and a coherent methodology) , and what I wanted to write was really just a personal 'conclusion' of sorts, a review almost.He then asks the question of whether or not someone should be required to ask the proprietor if one is about to publish a negative review. My answer, as is his, is no. And I don't want PK to think that he shouldn't have written his piece, because he is certainly entitled to his opinions and this kind of interaction is exactly the kind of checks and balances system that makes the blogosphere so great in my opinion.
...
Academically, the study of "other" people and culture is subsumed within the field of anthropology (and others). Anthropology has a dark history however, relating to the power relations embedded in the subject/object relationship.
Early anthropology involved western social scientists descending on 'primitive' indigenous tribes and cultures in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Australia with the intent of studying, and learning from these 'exotic' peoples. Often, early anthropologists failed to ask permission of the peoples they studied, and thus appropriated knowledge and understanding in a colonialist, predatory fashion. Often, they also interacted with the cultures they studied (violating 'objectivity') and introduced foreign ideas, beliefs and technology in some instances.
Endnote: I did enjoy the discussions I had on WMD, make no mistake about it!That's all I care about...that and that you come back for more...
