Why can this be said of a 2015 book
a groundbreaking study that reveals how ethnology and ethnography originated during the eighteenth rather than the nineteenth century, developing parallel to anthropology, or the “natural history of man.”
The original anthropologists studied ethnicity, not culture, the diversity of ethnicities.
The first scientific anthropological work was done in Siberia in the 1730s by Müller
So that Tylor they don’t want you to know about, this is a century before he was even born. Generation after generation has been buried.
Anthropology was originally known as ethnology.
They studied the niggers that whites act like today.
I think there must have been some confusion somewhere down the line, what do you think?
Interestingly, the foundational texts of anthropology were written in the 1860s and 1870s, i.e. around the time of the Civil War. So we have a sort of snapshot taken before the Lincolnian thought-regime began shaping perceptions. At this time in Europe there were heated debates about whether to call it ethnology or anthropology. A couple decades later in America they decided to go with the latter. This is another lens through which to look at the origins of equalism. Remember, the word “feminism” was first used in the 1870s as well. A charitable way to look at it (which I don’t agree with personally) is that there was a Revelation about the Unity of Humanity at this time. Gasp, we’re all the same! You probably have a grandparent who knew people who were alive in the 1870s, that’s how recent this Revelation was. You get the implication here though? There was a shift from studying multiple ethnicities to studying “anthropos” i.e. a unified humanity, that is to say, it wasn’t initially clear that humanity was a unity.
From the 2015 book again
the history of eighteenth-century ethnology, and its connection to nineteenth-century ethnology, has not been studied in any detail.
Again, it’s easy to forget this- that the object of study in question is the most sophisticated thing in the known universe. Thus it’s worthwhile to go back to the beginning and “see how people saw people”. I’m going to clue you in on one of the most prominent debates in the early days of this field. People wondered about whether the human races were all from the same source. There were various “anthropologists” that argued that just because races could breed with each other didn’t mean they were the same race. Whether that’s true or not I think it’s significant that the races were perceived as so distinct from each other that the question could be asked at all. With prog-goggles that perspective isn’t so easy to perceive. You know that when I tell people to stop acting like coons that’s just another way of saying stop being cringe? That’s what’s at stake here. Acting like a low-class baboon is just cringey. You want all of the west to be that way?
In the early days, ethnology was defined as “the history of peoples progressing towards civilization.” That’s insensitive isn’t it, to imply peoples without literacy could use some improvement? Whites are returning to pre-literate attitudes while retaining literacy. You can teach peoples to read and they still display the biological behavior they developed during their history of illiteracy.
Most in the reactosphere are familiar with this general subject as it is discussed in Culture of Critique
the cultural determinism of the Boasian school of anthropology functioned to combat anti-Semitism
This is just some atlantean background for you, before this pseudo-scientific “revolution” took place.
Something similar happened in the realm of sociology also. ~Science~ is about fighting anti-semitism.
Ironically, there is ethnic conflict in the realm of anthropology. One ethnicity now determines the science of ethnicities. I am often doing an ethnology on THEM.
Don’t you think that’s an important discipline, “the study of humans”? These (((new anthropologists))) had a crucial impact on philosophy and the other sciences as well. The study of humans is one of the main ways to get to the foundation, that’s why. (You can tell by the name of the discipline.)
There’s a chapter dedicated to this in the Culture of Critique that you probably won’t find anywhere else, if you want to know more about this
Indeed, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that ethnic conflict played a major role in the development of American anthropology. Boas’s views conflicted with the then prevalent idea that cultures had evolved in a series of developmental stages labeled savagery, barbarism, and civilization. The stages were associated with racial differences, and modern European culture (and most especially, I suppose, the hated Prussian aristocracy) was at the highest level of this gradation.
The so-called founder of anthropology hated the Prussian aristocracy. Now where have we seen a theme like this before…