http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html?_r=2
After reading the above New York times article and the AAA website these are my introductory feelings. I'm not pretending on being an expert but this is how I feel about this development.
As I hope to call myself an Anthropologist one day, this new statement greatly hinders and halts avenues to scholarship and research. The dropping of the word science only encourages the divide between biological and social anthropology. When as Anthropologists we should stand together in our research and this change only bends its compassion to some people who don't even respect accepted Anthropological theory. The point is by changing the mission statement because some professionals are stubborn and narrow minded and because of the religious pressure to drop the debate on evolution it is a slap in the face to very definition of Anthropology. The AAA should not back down to these bullies because that's who they are. Science doesn't and shouldn't carry the fear or connotation that the AAA obviously feels it does. I am afraid of this. I am afraid of where this might lead and I am afraid that because of the current board members, Anthropology and what its mission statement is to ME will drastically change the meaning of something I am dearly and whole heartily passionate about. I encourage anybody compassionate to my feelings or similar feelings to speak out. Voice your concerns, show that in America, Anthropology is a respected science and field of knowledge. We are NOT a tree with one branch, but we have 4 beautiful strong branches that deserve attention.
http://www.aaanet.org/issues/press/AAA-Responds-to-Public-Controversy-Over-Science-in-Anthropology.cfm
This statement doesn't fix or change anything. If we feel like there is no change and that they find science highly crucial then why the need for change in the first place?
No comments:
Post a Comment