PC World

Anthropologists Gone Wild

February 22, 2013

Multiple Pages
Anthropologists Gone Wild

Controversial anthropologist Napoleon A. Chagnon released his new book Noble Savages: My Life Among Two Dangerous Tribes—the Yanomamö and the Anthropologists on Tuesday. The fact that his career has generated so much outrage is a shocking example of how widespread political correctness has become.

Anthropology used to be a science just like any other. Today it is a stomping ground for dogmatic lesbians and socialists with no balls. How did it get all the way over there? Isn’t anthropology merely old guys with white beards studying nomadic cavemen’s bones? My personal theory is this: In the 1970s, a lot of Jews, Marxists, and Marxist Jews decided sociobiology sounds too much like eugenics, and since that’s what the Nazis used to justify the Holocaust, this line of study is verboten. Anthropology was then changed from the nature-based science of human evolution to an art that nurtured the notion that no culture is more advanced than another and we’re all equal in this big, groovy melting pot called civilization. Promoting fear of Nazis on college campuses seemed like a good idea at first, but when hating white males led to an “ugly war against Israel,” Jews quickly peaced out. Since then, other so-called oppressed minorities have grabbed the PC torch with barbaric enthusiasm and are now willing to set fire to anything that stands in their way, even their own kind.

Chagnon was there during the crossover and seemingly overnight went from a well-respected scientist to an evil Nazi responsible for genocide. “Impassioned accusations of racism, fascism, and Nazism punctuated the frenzied business meeting that night,” writes Chagnon of a talk he and a colleague had in 1976. They were at the American Anthropological Association and wanted to examine how genes affect behavior, but their peers demanded the discussion be shut down. Eventually, AAA head Margaret Mead was forced to point out that these anti-Nazis were acting like Nazis themselves. She likened their behavior to a book burning.

“Anthropology used to be a science just like any other. Today it is a stomping ground for dogmatic lesbians and socialists with no balls.”

The savages then turned on her and proceeded to smear her career by claiming all her research was a hoax. Mead had done some fairly PC work in the past claiming Samoan tribes were OK with adolescent infidelity and that free love can be a natural, beautiful thing. However, defending Chagnon meant she was persona non grata in the Ivory Tower, and a rumor spread that all the test subjects she interviewed were only “joshing.” The 2009 book The Trashing of Margaret Mead may have vindicated her, but the damage these people have done to anthropology and education itself is downright totalitarian.

In the introduction to 1997’s War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage, University of Illinois Professor Lawrence H. Keeley discusses how anthropologists have “artificially pacified the past.” He explains how easy it is to get grants when your hypothesis involves Rousseau’s “noble savage,” but when you tread near the Hobbesian idea of an innately savage savage, the doors slam shut. One of Chagnon’s most basic observations was that violent tribesmen tended to have more offspring. Women are attracted to tough guys in the safest of environments. This is the jungle. Of course violence pays off. This notion is considered taboo because apparently there’s a risk we won’t want to preserve a tribe if it’s known as violent.

When Changon proponent Howard Bloom said in his book The Lucifer Principle that violence was a natural trait that many groups use to assert themselves, a group of Muslims asserted themselves by threatening to punish him. Bloom was obviously correct, but that didn’t make his ideas any more palatable. Books such as Keeley’s and Bloom’s are exceedingly rare because they contain hatefacts. Keeley talks about Native American mass graves from pre-civilization warfare. We learn of Indians shooting dozens of arrows into a victim after he’s dead so he’ll be incapacitated in the afterlife. We also see a debunking of the myth that the white man taught Indians to scalp. This doesn’t fit the corrupt-white-man narrative and so it has no place in modern academia.

Anthropologists and sociobiologists who discuss innate traits are consistently banished from the tribe. Surely the astonishingly similar lives of identical twins separated at birth shows nature deserves a fighting chance. The Bell Curve is still treated like it was written by the Unabomber, despite Herrnstein and Murray prefacing the book with a sea of disclaimers and careful pleading that although it is possible to make generalizations about a group’s behavior, one must never apply knowledge of these patterns to an individual. (Interestingly, discussing the high IQs of Jews isn’t nearly as taboo.)

Such data should not be considered controversial. The problem with ignoring stats such as Herrnstein and Murray’s is you end up fostering indignation when people notice the world isn’t as perfectly fair as promised. If fat, short men were told they’re not prominent in the NBA because of some sort of bias, they’d be furious. That’s what you do when you foster false notions of ubiquitous equality. You make people angry. That’s the irony of trying to create a world without hate. It nurtures hatred. When anthropology student Nkosi Thandiwe was asked why he went on a shooting spree that killed one white woman and injured two others, he said, “I was trying to prove a point that Europeans had colonized the world, and as a result of that, we see a lot of evil today.” Maybe if Thandiwe had spent some time away from his college curriculum and read The Death of the West he would have learned that “The West did not invent slavery, but it alone abolished slavery” and his murder victim Brittney Watts would still be alive.

Harvard’s Steven Pinker is one of the few sane academics who understands the dangers of dismissing sociobiology as Nazi propaganda. He describes political correctness in academia as “pluralistic ignorance.” Pinker was one of the few to defend Harvard president Larry Summers after Summers was fired for asking an audience if it was possible that men were innately better at math. Pinker mentions Chagnon favorably in his anti-nurture book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature and in his most recent book, The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.

Pinker is interviewed in a surprisingly fair feature on Chagnon in Sunday’s New York Times. “This whole tactic is a terrible mistake: always putting your moral action in jeopardy of empirical findings,” Pinker said. “Once you have the equation that the Yanomami are nonviolent and deserve to be protected, the converse is that if they are violent they don’t deserve to be protected.” Eakin later points to a Chagnon interview where he told a Brazilian magazine, “The real Indians get dirty, smell bad, use drugs, belch after they eat, covet and sometimes steal each other’s women, fornicate and make war. They are normal human beings. This is reason enough for them to deserve care and attention.” Eakin then adds, “His critics, appalled by the first sentence, typically ignored the rest.”

A few pages later in the same edition of the Times Book Review, we get a much more predictable response. It’s from a lesbian professor of anthropology named Elizabeth Povinelli, who looks like Anderson Cooper with rigor mortis and has penned such feel-good classics as Thinking Sexuality Transnationally and The Cunning of Recognition: Indigenous Alterities and the Making of Australian Multiculturalism. Povinelli reverts to the old politically correct “Oh, poor white man” trope for her review. She says she couldn’t stop hearing the song “Poor, Poor Pitiful Me” in her head while reading Chagnon’s book. She admits it may be “politically correct to wonder” if Chagnon was responsible for genocide. She was referring to the measles vaccinations Chagnon provided for the Yanomamö and the idea that this noble effort led to more measles deaths. The accusation has since been rescinded, but not before two of Chagnon’s peers compared his efforts to that of Josef Mengele. That’s your reward if you spend decades in the jungle dodging jaguars, anacondas, and poisonous spiders as you document life among a virtually untouched tribe of people and learn their language. You’re a Nazi. Chagnon’s data never changed. Nor did Mead’s. It’s the perception of their data that fluctuated wildly.

This “we suck” angle is all over college campuses, but it remains surprisingly steadfast in anthropology. In Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel he starts out saying there is no such thing as innate IQ, but a few pages later he claims the aboriginal Papua New Guineans are genetically smarter than us. So “Why you white man have so much cargo…?” the tribesman asks. Diamond claims it’s because we cheated using either guns, germs, or steel depending on when it suits his argument. When we tried to invade Africa we were constantly wiped out by germs. No white people could handle it, not even Dr. Livingstone I presume. Diamond ignores this hatefact and says in that instance, we used guns. He also turns a blind eye to when Hannibal tried to colonize Europe. When Indians died from smallpox, he goes back to his germs theory despite that myth being debunked long ago. Today’s anthropologists are never wrong because they keep moving the goalposts. That’s not science. It’s not even sports. They say white people are the worst savages in history and then say race doesn’t exist. Really? If this is all only skin-deep, why are forensic anthropologists able to identify a person’s race simply by examining their bones? You can’t just convert a natural science into a liberal art because it makes people feel better.

Napoleon Chagnon was there when education was about facts, not feelings. When you trump feelings over facts, everybody loses, from the most primitive cultures to the most advanced.

 

SUBSCRIBE
For Email Updates


Comments


The opinions of our commenters do not necessarily represent the opinions of Taki's Magazine or its contributors.