Comments for The Memory Bank

Comment on World War III by buzz

buzz — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:17:57 +0000

World War III (The Memory Bank)…

“Afpak has the advantage of being the most volatile area of the Muslim world, with Russia, China and India on its borders and substantial Western military commitments there already without being too close to home. If India and China can be drawn into …

Comment on An anthropology of the internet by Wednesday Round Up #105 « Neuroanthropology

Wednesday Round Up #105 « Neuroanthropology — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:01:53 +0000

[...] Memory Bank, An Anthropology of the Internet Is an anthropology of the Internet even possible? Building a comprehensive framework to examine [...]

Comment on Building the human economy by keith

keith — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:00:07 +0000

Thanks, David. I am sure you are right that tourism is a major feature of the social forces reshaping humanity. This is probably my problem and I would be glad to be told better, but I was not aware that tourism was actively linked to political projects for social development. In choosing topics, the editors were concerned to address activities that readers might want to join if they were interested in reform, improvement or whatever. I wonder if what you describe above is mainly a question of gaining a better understanding of the world through studying the phenomenon of tourism or might be linked somehow to the preoccupations of the book, theory and action etc.

Comment on Building the human economy by David Picard

David Picard — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:32:47 +0000

Hi Keith, congratulations for this project, its ambition and potential to rethink what it means to be human and to participate in humanity; one thing I noticed is the absence of tourism as – in terms of cash flows – the most important global phenomenon of economic exchange; reshaping what it means to be human at various scales and in various contexts, giving body to dreams and desires through well ‘human economies’ or rather specific economies of the human as a sign made visible for, and consumed by tourists; also giving body to the global asymmetries and forces that are formative for the roles attributed within the global tourism play. Good day, David

Comment on Kate Fox’s Watching the English by Rudy Muncy

Rudy Muncy — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:52:12 +0000

Good stuff, I have a couple of friends who would enjoy reading this. Thankyou

Comment on British National Identity: The Roots of the Crisis by Marhta Cerio

Marhta Cerio — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:14:18 +0000

Some interesting insights there, what would you recommend a newcomer to all of this read from here?

Comment on The Cambridge Torres Strait expedition and British social anthropology by Farren Robinson

Farren Robinson — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:46:04 +0000

Hello,

A few months ago, when you replied to my comment , you suggested you might take a look at my site about Rivers; I was just wondering if you’d had time. I would still be interested in your opinion of it, even should it be that the site is terrible! : )))

With regards,
Farren Robinson

Comment on Is Haiti to be another victim of disaster capitalism? by r.a.

r.a. — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:01:12 +0000

Hey Keith,

Actually, I think I pretty much agree with everything you wrote–and your insistence on history was what made me think of the historical strain of anthropology that I find really valuable and useful. Also, I wholeheartedly support your inclusion of Mintz, Goody, and a whole series of others who find history to be a critical part of anthropology.

Anyway, great post.

ryan

Comment on Is Haiti to be another victim of disaster capitalism? by keith

keith — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 05:20:00 +0000

Thanks for these comments, Ryan. It is nice to get criticism that includes identifying points of agreement. Of course you are right to insist that there is a minority strand of 20th century anthropology that does address the big historical picture and we have to build on that, starting with Eric Wolf. I would add Sid Mintz (who also adds biography to being a much better ethnographer and not as accomplished a world historian as his friend, Eric) and my own teacher, Jack Goody, plus the Marxist anthropological history that flourished in the 70s.

Comment on Is Haiti to be another victim of disaster capitalism? by r.a.

r.a. — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:28:33 +0000

Keith,

“My point is that social or cultural anthropology is just as impotent as right-wing American journalism when searching for answers to the questions posed by this history, without even the excuse of trying to justify the status quo. This is because fieldwork-based ethnography threw out world history a century ago.”

I completely agree with you that anthropology is pretty powerless (and voiceless) when it comes to these issues. Part of this is, of course, because it’s pretty rare that anthropologists publish for or speak to wider audiences. A special issue in a journal only reaches more anthropologists.

Maybe I have a different view of anthropology–but I definitely do not think that world history has been chucked by the discipline (although it has been in some circles). But then, Wolf is one of my favorites, so maybe I am a little too biased toward history. But I think you make a good point–if all we do is focus on contextual specifics, it becomes difficult to really make any larger scale arguments.

“Until we combine the two systematically, we will be powerless in the face of the Haitian disaster and could be said to be partly responsible for maintaining public ignorance of its causes.”

I completely agree. There has to be a link between local details and larger networks/relations/connections and histories. I also agree with you when you say that anthropology has been guilty of asserting the same kind of static comparisons between “cultures” that Brooks made. I have heard that argument in other circles: well, the DR is doing ok, so there must be some fundamental problem or resistance to development among the Haitians. My answer: history matters when trying to compare the DR and Haiti. And the whole issue cannot be boiled down to so-called cultural differences. So part of the problem here also comes from older anthropological notions about culture as a kind of static, inherent, THING.

Anyway, I appreciate your points here.