New post to Tikkun Daily: “What passes for anthropological analysis in the MSM”

I have a new post on Tikkun Daily: What passes for anthropological analysis in the MSM

  • http://profile.typepad.com/modestgrrl Modestgrrl

    I’m a Muslim American Anthropology student (will have my BA in December inshallah) and I must say that you’ve noticed something which is the mere tip of the iceberg.
    Anthropology itself is rooted in Imperialism, and most of it was an attempt to “understand” the Other while reinforcing jingoistic beliefs that the British (and later the Americans) were the apex of civilization. I believe it was Tylor who heavily pushed this belief in Unilineal Evolution (the Evolution of Culture) with the three tiers – savages, barbarians, and civilized – all based off the three tool ages in society: stone, bronze, and iron.
    Tylor felt anthropology was best used to determine where each culture belonged in this savage/barbarian/civilized paradigm and he would go to great lengths to put peoples from other sides of the globe in the same tier because of shared characteristics. Anything that didn’t make sense for their tier (such as having a monotheistic religion) was explained away as a “survival”.
    And this is how Muslims worldwide were known as Barbarians. You see, it didn’t matter that they believed in one God. That could be explained as a mechanism of survival and, really, how can they worship one God when they’re always talking about Mohammad, hence the term “Mohammaden”.
    Even today the media is continuing to try to put all Muslims in the same “barbarism” category, even though anthropology has rejected this tier as racist. That’s why it’s completely permissible to make sweeping statements about all Muslims, and if you happen to find one living in the West who is highly assimilated into that country’s secularism then maybe, just maybe, he/she might be civilized. But you should still be suspicious.
    It makes me want to vomit.