Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 2700:2021:4 [2021/03/19 19:33] – Ryan Schram (admin)
+++ 2700:2021:4 [2021/03/19 20:03] (current) – [Radcliffe-Brown’s structural functionalism] Ryan Schram (admin)
@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 ===== Radcliffe-Brown’s structural functionalism =====
-As an example, let’s look back to anthropology’s classical period and the work of [[A. R. Radcliffe-Brown]].
+As an example, let’s look back to anthropology’s classical period and the work of [[:A. R. Radcliffe-Brown]].
   * Radcliffe-Brown brought Durkheim’s ideas into British social anthropology to argue for a “structural functionalist” theory of society.
@@ Line 117: / Line 117: @@
     * Schools and religious missionaries, and not the violence of wealthy and powerful people, seem to be crucial to the real transformation of colonized people.
   * The fundamental reality of colonial domination is a domination of people’s minds.
+===== Extra slide: The color line in two centuries =====
+> The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line,—the relation of the darker to the lighter races of men in Asia and Africa, in America and the islands of the sea. (Du Bois 1903, 13)
+How should anthropology respond to this claim?
+===== Extra slide: Anthropology and colonialism—Ignorance, complicity, or liberal reform? =====
+Radcliffe-Brown’s (1952) offhand mention of Aboriginal experiences of colonial invasion as the “death” of their culture and social systems raises the question of what anthropologists thought about European colonialism, and how we should assess them today.
+For most of its history, from the late 19th century to the end of the second World War, anthropologists lived in a system in which colonial control of one society by another was a normal thing. There were most likely a range of views:
+  * Some probably supported colonialism as a global system, especially the contemporary 20th century system they knew as opposed to previous centuries.
+  * Most took a view that was considered liberal at the time. Colonial policies based on noninterference, respect for people’s capacity to govern themselves, and recognition of indigenous forms of leadership and administration were good, and anthropology could contribute to enlightened, progressive colonial government (see, e.g. Hogbin 1946; Worsley 1956; see also Kuper 1973).
+Anticolonial activism and scholarship created a new kind of knowledge of colonial racism and domination, and this ultimately had more of an influence on anthropology (see Lewis 1973).
 ===== References and further reading =====
 Bashkow, Ira. 2006. //The Meaning of Whitemen: Race and Modernity in the Orokaiva Cultural World//. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
+Du Bois, W. E. B. 1903. “Of the Dawn of Freedom.” In //The Souls of Black Folk: Essays and Sketches//, 13–40. Chicago: A. C. McClurg.
+Hogbin, H. Ian. 1946. “Local Government for New Guinea.” //Oceania// 17 (1): 38–66. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40328096.
+Kuper, Adam. 1973. “Anthropology and Colonialism.” In //Anthropologists and Anthropology : The British School, 1922-1972//, 123–49. New York: Pica Press. http://archive.org/details/anthropologistsa0000kupe.
+Lewis, Diane. 1973. “Anthropology and Colonialism.” //Current Anthropology// 14 (5): 581–602. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2741037.
@@ Line 139: / Line 168: @@
 Wolf, Eric R. 1982. //Europe and the People Without History//. Berkeley: University of California Press.
+Worsley, Peter. 1956. “The Telefomin Case.” //The Anti-Slavery Reporter and Aborigine’s Friend//, 6th series, 10 (4): 74–76.