“Anthropos” is from the Greek ἄνθρωπος which means humanity, and “logos” is from -λογία which means explanation. Anthropology is the explanation of humanity. Logos can also translate to account, a rational account, and I tend to prefer that way of speaking after studying the epistemological dialogue the Theaetetus.
So I want to return to that ur-anthropologist I mentioned yesterday, Klemm, for an originary rational account of humanity. Here is one book of his that looks interesting
If you want to know what those beings truly are then you might find it helpful to learn what people prior to Suffrage thought of them, because Suffrage has shaped all discourse about them since the movement took off.
Klemm influenced Tylor who is known as the founder of anthropology. If you ask a prog they’ll tell you someone else is the founder.
So there are multiple levels of “hiddenness” regarding the discipline of “ἄνθρωπος-λογία”. Klemm was one of the first to use the word “culture” to imply different levels of civilizations.
Carl Carus, I’m learning was a very bad man from someone literally named Finkelstein, was even earlier than Klemm.
Day vs. Twilight vs. Night peoples
Only peoples of the day possessed any real ability to conceive of the higher ideas of “beauty, love, and truth”
19th century anthropology offers more of a “rational account of humanity” than 99.99% of what the 21st century has been trying to force us to believe.
Going to hit you with a couple names you’ve probably never heard of, for the casual hobbyist
The 1840s-1860s was the apogee of philosophical ethnology, normative [wertenden] race philosophy or political race study [Rassenlehre] with popular works by de Gobineau, Renan and Clavel in France, Klemm and Carus in Germany, Knox and Matthew Arnold in England, and Nott and Gliddon in America.
Right, so thinkers from the only countries in the world that actually matter. Who else would you want to hear about race from? That sad, bitter Chinaman from yesterday? Can only expect ressentiment most anywhere else, and there’s no hope for objectivity if someone has that.
A rational account of humanity would be very good to have, would it not? I just want to know how people saw humanity before humanity was put in a blindfold about humanity. If you deny that this has happened it’s because you are in said blindfold.
What I’m doing here is a genealogy of anthropology. They don’t want us to know about the origins of this science. You can’t say that about any of the other disciplines
The idea of “keeping the origins of geography hidden”, heh.
Klemm still hasn’t been translated after nearly 200 years. He developed the idea that there are three types of culture- Wildheit, Zahmheit, and Freiheit, savagery, bondage, and freedom. That a rational account of humanity is not allowed to us is a glaring sign that we are living in a culture of bondage. Zahmheit, which also means “tameness”, also characterizes the Chinese and Muslims. It’s a form of collective domestication.
There are others after Klemm that wrote on similar subjects
Klemm wrote in the decades prior to the appearance of the Origin of Species. This was “in the air” in Germany, England, France, and the rest of Europe before Darwin “pulled a Newton”. Our present political order can be characterized as Darwinism-in-reverse. Suppose we decided to turn the theory of gravity upside-down, how would that go? We descend back to Zahmheit and Wildheit. They try to control perception such that Wildheit culture is seen as Freiheit culture. The reality is we’re somewhere in between in Zahmheit, moving toward Wildheit. You could see me here as doing a sort of anthropology of the 21st century.
Heh I’m looking at the most often-cited history of anthropology textbook from the 60s and even so many years ago Klemm is portrayed as a demon.
Do you remember the first page of Beauvoir’s chief work, written between 1946-1949?
Thus it’s no surprise to find that treatment of Klemm in a 60s text. There are lots of dirty secrets at the beginnings of anthropology, a discipline taught in hundreds of universities.
It goes back to before the 40s
Count J. A. de Gobineau. A bitter foe of the entire Enlightenment heritage
I might have to do a post on his literary works one of these days, usually people only know him for that one infamous nonfiction book of his.
This is interesting
In this context it might seem that the profound neglect of Marx by anthropology is merely the reciprocal of Marx’s neglect of primitives… There is no doubt that a consensus exists among contemporary anthropologists that Marx and Engels are irrelevant to the history of anthropological theory.
This is because for Marx it was an obvious given that non-whites weren’t ready for communism. He was an anthropologist of the more advanced races you could say. A brown America will yield conditions lower than those suffered by the proletariat.
This anthropology textbook from the 60s might as well be an epistemology textbook that teaches relativism. Same can be said about the discipline of sociology generally. A few of the “social sciences” of today are covertly epistemological in nature, that’s their main objective. It isn’t to teach people about “society” or “humanity”, it’s to teach them the truth-theory of relativism.