Differences

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

--- 2700:2025:7 [2025/04/06 18:27] – [Anthropology is a part of Lumbee history] Ryan Schram (admin)
+++ 2700:2025:7 [2025/04/06 18:29] (current) – [Thinking like a census taker] Ryan Schram (admin)
@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 Karen Blu discusses some of the positions that physical anthropologists have offered to the state to help them:
-> One theory has its roots in anthropologist James Mooney’s Siouan Tribes of the East (1894), which was apparently a basis on which J. R. Swanton, another anthropologist, constructed his argument concerning the "Probable Identity of the 'Croatan' Indians" (U.S. Senate Reports 1934:3—6). Swanton maintained that the Indian ancestors of the ‘“‘Croatans’’ probably came from a number of Siouan speaking groups in North and South Carolina, such as the Cheraw, Keyauwee, Eno, Shakori, Waccamaw, and Cape Fear. He further notes the possibility that "a few families or small groups of Algonquian or Iroguian [Iroquoian] connection may have cast their lot with this body of people, but contributions from such sources must have been relatively insignificant" (U.S. Senate Reports 1934:6). (Blu 1980, 41)
+> One theory has its roots in anthropologist James Mooney’s Siouan Tribes of the East (1894), which was apparently a basis on which J. R. Swanton, another anthropologist, constructed his argument concerning the "Probable Identity of the 'Croatan' Indians" (U.S. Senate Reports 1934:3–6). Swanton maintained that the Indian ancestors of the ‘“‘Croatans’’ probably came from a number of Siouan speaking groups in North and South Carolina, such as the Cheraw, Keyauwee, Eno, Shakori, Waccamaw, and Cape Fear. He further notes the possibility that "a few families or small groups of Algonquian or Iroguian [Iroquoian] connection may have cast their lot with this body of people, but contributions from such sources must have been relatively insignificant" (U.S. Senate Reports 1934:6). (Blu 1980, 41)
@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 Risley and Hutton’s censuses count and sort people into categories that they designed
-  * Their “anthropology” is purely an [[:etic]] perspective, with no attention to the emic perspective.
+  * Their “anthropology” is purely an [[:emic_and_etic|etic]] perspective, with no attention to the emic perspective.
   * They know people by exonyms but pay little attention to peoples’ endonyms.
 ===== Thinking like a census taker =====
-Anthropology today does not have any vestige of racial theories or evolutionary types. It instead frames difference in a lens of [[:cultural relativism]].
+Anthropology today does not have any vestige of racial theories or evolutionary types. It instead frames difference in a lens of [[:ethnocentrism and cultural relativism|cultural relativism]].
 Anthropology learns from the ground up, like a child being taught by a parent. But every anthropologist will always filter what they observe through categories they already possess. Everyone does that.