Ask an anthropologist anything

I studied a social science in school. Inb4 STEMmasterrace, you'll be in debt forever blah blah I know

but I spent 4 years and a few weeks in central america for field school studying world politics cultures and the development of societies. I mostly lurk on Sup Forums snickering about how much you guys blatantly get wrong and then call being "red pilled" but today I decided to do this

I dont everything about every culture but ask me anything and I'll answer it to the best of my ability and I be honest about whats hard fact and whats personal conjecture. Ask me anything about a society or culture that you want an answer to. Race relation, sexuality, marriage practices, anything

Other urls found in this thread:

vimeo.com/32929417
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

why do finns look like asians with downa

>implying Sup Forums is interested in an informed discussion involving learned opinion

is there any society that has liberated the sexuality of women and become stronger

is it morally justifiable to physically wipe out stone age savage peoples?

will you provide proof or are you larping homosexual?

how did the greeks advance mathematics so much that the next big mathematical advance not happen for hundreds of years

"I dont everything about every culture..."

As an "anthropologist" did you learn to proof read?

Archaeologist here. Our fields blend together quite a bit.

>Just because some cultures have different gender roles, that means it's a good idea to eliminate or misconstrue ours.

>Human Evolution stopped at the neck

>One obscure tribe doing something weird and abnormal means that all cultural practices are social constructs and nothing is genetically influenced or determined

>Physical anthropology is racist/pseudo-science unless it benefits us in this particular moment

>Anthropology pre-1960s is racist, sexist, homophobic etc and should all just be ignored, except what we cherry pick

Debate me. My main beefs with your discipline.

>I mostly lurk on Sup Forums snickering about how much you guys blatantly get wrong and then call being "red pilled" but today I decided to do this
What do "we" get wrong?

What is your opinion on Project Camelot?

Why are all anthropologists, like yourself, raging faggots?

Why central-africans were so poorly advanced even though they had a lot of resources?

Don't know if that is your field, but how unique was the scientific revolution in Europe?

Let's say Europe does not, take a path to enlightenment, could it be we still building Stone walls and work the fields? or is this progress inevitable in the end?

Plus, let's say we teach a ancient greek principles of scientific method, does the scientific revolution happens 800 b.c. or you need a certain degree of technological progress for that to happen?

I don't need don't ask you anything. Nothing you have to say could have any value here.

We are a multicultural board. We have more experience than you will ever get.

The mere fact you think you are important enough to make this thread speaks volumes of your ego. We don't need dishonest people here. You are worthless, get the fuck out.

How much do they hate banana companies?

Why do nigs nig?

anthropologist dont beleive in Finnish

I think some ppl are (hopefully)

really hard to answer, every society has different sex practices, hard to say exactly which are more liberal on a hard scale. obviously you could say the US is more liberal that radical islamic states but the middle is very grey. more or youre less trading on aspect of culture for another but not really strengthening anything over all. Margret Mead found that in societies that are less puritanical and dont bash teenage women about remaining "pure" theres less teenage angst. her works been criticized though

ill try when I can

Nope!

/thread

I'll answer for OP since he's a faggot anthropologist and not a real man (IE archaeologist) like me.

That's physical anthro .He doesn't know shit about it because modern anthropologists ignore it, even though osteo and criminal investigators don't.

Finns are either mixed with Mongoloid people or they're some kind of proto-Caucasoid, or simply evolved to have those traits due to climate. Probably the latter IMO.

Do you consider queens to be sexually liberated? Their sexuality was generally tolerated and even encouraged throughout medieval/early modern Europe.

Nah. They're largely a non-issue unless they're made into one. See Siberian peoples.

Democratic and secular societies that allowed the free exchange of ideas and largely not interfered with by government/religious ideologues, unlike in the very not secular and totalitarian East. European Renaissance happened with the least amount of government and religious interference.

Kinda like Sup Forums

>claims to be redpilled
>doesn't believe in the most powerful race in existence

Shit discipline, bro.

Have you read/ do you have any knowledge about JD Unwin's Sex and Culture ?

What do you think of the theory that the age of intercontinental travels goes way before the travels of Marco Polo?

And that the americas had contact with Asia, Polynesia and Europe.

>how did the greeks advance mathematics so much that the next big mathematical advance not happen for hundreds of years
we had mathematical advancements through all of history. Advancements happen in small bits, not miles.

No. Will look it up. Context, though?

>Europe and America

We know the Vikings got to Canada at around 1000 AD. I feel they've gotten around a lot more than currently can be a proven.

>Asia and Polynesia

Depends on what you define as Asia. Siberic peoples came to become the Inuit. The Chinese claim they explored the West coast of the USA but there's no proof.

>Polynesia

They definitely added to the DNA composition of South Americans. Darwin was probably right about the Feugians being mixed or entirely Polynesian/Australoids.

There's some Native AM DNA found in Iceland and also in Scandinavia that predates Vikings and probably came from Greenland pre-Thule culture.

I was always told archaeology was just a branch of Anthro. I studied cultural anthro but I did a bit of archaeology


>>Just because some cultures have different gender roles, that means it's a good idea to eliminate or misconstrue ours.
> I dont beleive that

>>Human Evolution stopped at the neck
>Evolution never stops

>>One obscure tribe doing something weird and abnormal means that all cultural practices are social constructs and nothing is genetically influenced or determined
> No there are certain hard facts of biology that determine many cultural practices. Everyones gotta eat and have sex but how eat and who you can fuck, most* of that is social construct.

>>Physical anthropology is racist/pseudo-science unless it benefits us in this particular moment
> I think you just really want to believe in 1800's eugenics that have been debunked. Real physical anthro is a respectable field of study

>>Anthropology pre-1960s is racist, sexist, homophobic etc and should all just be ignored, except what we cherry pick
>Um, no. All anthropologists have their biases that you cant ignore but that doesnt mean all their work can be discredited. every 101 Anthro course starts of with Franz Boaz, Mead, Chagnon, Malinoski ect.

bump

Supposedly he studied the relationship between civilizations/tribes, the amount of freedom females had and how they fared. It's rather long, and just found a PDF online. I'd like to get hold of the real deal though.

do tribespeople masturbate (including women)

Shit ton of infighting, shitty infrastructure and baggage left over from colonial days. Most of these African countries arent that old they just gained independence a few decades ago. If shit still this fucked in 100 years Idk what to tell you. hopefully theyll figure it out.

Do you think there are racial differences? Are racialist theories allowed at all?

>Archaeology is another branch of anthro

Meh, in North America it is, but it's considered its own discipline everywhere else. Personally, I feel archaeology is the scientific side of history. I don't like anthro theories in my archaeology at all and that's where most of my beef stems from. Archaeology in the US is mired by "hey what I found scientifically in this trench contradicts your tribal elders" "FUCK YOU WHITE MAN YOU DON'T KNOW MUH PEOPLE"

Anyway
>BIG ARCHAEOLOGY DIRTY DICK
vs
>tiny little anthro weenie

>I think you just really want to believe in 1800's eugenics that have been debunked.

It's never been debunked. That's the problem here. The whole "Hey Africans have no neanderthal DNA and neanderthal DNA may be linked to intelligence BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER" is just but one example.

For the record, eugenics didn't take off really until the early 20th century.

>>implying Sup Forums is interested in an informed discussion involving learned opinion
>I think some ppl are (hopefully)
If it were, it singularly failed to first establish that you do indeed have a learned opinion to contribute to an informed discussion, showcasing to what state of degradation Sup Forums has sunk since the election. Out pops someone who claims authority, and none here other than myself (or few others, I've yet to read many other replies) is interested in first establishing that person's authority. They'll simply assume that's the case and start asking questions.

Thus, even if your thread does receive replies in the spirit of your opener, Sup Forums is not prepared or indeed interested to have an informed discussion involving learned opinion. Even when it believes it is.

Please answer

listen to the Chile dog everyone he knows all

How infected with social justice, post-modernism, and construction-ism in anthropology?

I think I got a big bone for you to look at

...

Obvious bait is obvious, but the other fags here can still learn.

>really hard to answer, every society has different sex practices, hard to say exactly which are more liberal on a hard scale. obviously you could say the US is more liberal that radical islamic states but the middle is very grey. more or youre less trading on aspect of culture for another but not really strengthening anything over all. Margret Mead found that in societies that are less puritanical and dont bash teenage women about remaining "pure" theres less teenage angst. her works been criticized though

Wrong. Anthropology used to be based baka

There is no grey area. Women are either chaste when they marry of they are not. If they are, then the civilization continues.

In the entirety of known history, there is no example of a civilization giving women sexual freedom where the civilization survives much more than one generation.

>Margret Mead found that in societies that are less puritanical and dont bash teenage women about remaining "pure" theres less teenage angst. her works been criticized though

Mead was a perfect example of how allowing women to influence anything besides cleaning a house destroys societies.

im an anthro undergrad who wants to do archaeology. What did you do after undergrad

OP. All these grammar and spelling mistakes just mark you out as a first-year graduate.

You've never been scrutinised for anything, you fuck.

Why do Canadians have beady eyes and flappy heads?

can you explain further on why mead is a cuck? From my theory class book, it seemed like Boas's non uni-lineal approach made anthro blue pilled

Physical anthropologists clearly don't ignore it, they don't work exclusively for the cops either.

Its the only field I know of where people routinely use the (correct) terms Negroid and Mongoloid.

did you know that %90 of the cultures in the world come from ancient turkic and indian cultures? you can't find this information in your faggy text books, you're welcome

you have know idea, there a whole side of anthropology student culture that's liberal SJW to the core. but if anything contact with these ppl has made me moderate, extremism on both sides looks equally retarded

Here's a question. Why do anthropologists and sociologists want to preserve newfound tribes that haven't been discovered, when they actualy GET discovered.

What race are you?
Are you proud of your race?
Are you proud of yourself?
Do you think the survival of your race is important?

thanks

(((Anthropologist)))

Fuck off

Hi Jesse.

Whats the name of that fully cucked journal? the AAA? Their official line is "race is not a thing reeeee". In an Anthropology journal! So sad when science gets infected with (women).

I'm taking an Archaeology class right now, fills two GE slots.

14-C Niggas

They share common features that reflect adaptation to high latitude environments. There is a pretty steady east-west gradient in northern and central asia between the Mongoloid and the Caucasoid phenotypes, with no hard line at which one can say firmly divides the two. Finnish people represent the western end of this gradient and so are largely "white" but have features which indicate common ancestry with asians.

That depends on what you mean by "stronger". Pre-Roman Britain, for example, was portrayed by Romans as an egalitarian society in which children were often of uncertain paternity and would be raised with the contributions of multiple men. Of course, they also had no buildings or writing and were conquered by the Romans. Many egalitarian hunter gatherer societies were matriarchal in the sense that concepts of inheritance and property passed through the female lineage, and it was largely males who left the tribe upon reaching adulthood to seek mates in other tribes. It's possible that living within such societies gave you more personal freedom and peace, but by and large, matriarchal societies were defeated by patriarchal societies. The principal advantage is that in patriarchal societies, the men are related to each other and are more willing to fight and die for each other.

This is not true. It might seem like that based on the highly eurocentric and anglocentric view of history in which Northwestern Europeans claim cultural continuity from Romans and Greeks, but the fact is that mathematics has advanced continuously in multiple parts of the world. Most notably, the Greek tradition continued in both the Western and particularly the Eastern Roman Empire and was assimilated and expounded upon in the Islamic caliphate through which Greek, Persian, and Indian mathematics were able to combine and exchange. The number system we use today originated in India and was spread to Europe by Persian and Arab Muslims.

You Turks are funny.

I love reading your wackjob theories on FB and youtube comments. My favorite was when Total War Atilla was announced and your entire country went into WE WUZ apeshit mode.

>extremism on both sides looks equally retarded

Do you accept Darwin's conclusions in the 'Descent of Man'?

This is a good question, very complicated topics though

to answer the second part first I believe that Enlightening one greek and sending him back in time wouldnt change much. society and technology have to be in a certain place for things to exponentially advance they way we say it did with various European renaissances and agricultural revolution

which brings me to a the first part, Europe was kind of in a perfect storm for things to advance the way they did, had climate changed slightly, or certain resources not been available then I dont believe "enlightenment" as you call it would have occurred so abruptly. But if any culture or society had been exposed to the same stimulus I believe they would have seen similar growth

but really there's so many variables to why and how Europe grew its hard to say, so most of this opinion.

>egalitarian society in which children were often of uncertain paternity and would be raised with the contributions of multiple men.

This is actually debunked by archaeology.

>they also had no buildings

Source on that Roman claim? It's not from Caesar.

Also, just gonna point out that Brits did have buildings. Lots of them. In fact, they have a distinct later prehistoric building called the roundhouse, and also Scottish brochs. Moreover, the oldest buildings in the world still preserved is in the Orkney isles.

>or writing

They actually were due to Roman influence before Roman invasion. Writing came to Britain around 100 BC, on coins and so-called curse tablets, and some other inscriptions.

b-but we wuz

you'll see one day!

He said "were", genius. He's asking why African cultures remained in the stone right up UNTIL colonialism.
And don't bring up North Africa, you know damn well that's not what he means. No one is talking about Egypt, Morocco, etc when they talk about the amazingly backward state of Africa that has been consistent throughout history.

There are many reasons for the relative impoverishment of African societies, but most factors come down to the small cultural universes inhabited by most sub-Saharan African nations. Africa is home to a huge diversity of languages (1/3 of the world) which is a reflection of its relative cultural fragmentation.

Africa has the shortest coastline of any continent, despite being larger than every continent except Asia. Europe has a longer coastline despite being 1/3 the area of Africa. The African coastline is unnaturally smooth, with few natural harbors, and much of its coast is surrounded by shallow seas and sandbars that prohibit the docking and construction of large ocean going vessels. Modern African ports rely on massive amounts of dredging.

Sub-Saharan Africa has no major mountain ranges which means that it has no reliable snow melt to produce water. This means it depends entirely on seasonal rainfall, which makes agriculture a more precarious proposition.

Because of Africa's lack of dependable water sources, many of its rivers are highly seasonal. As well, since much of Africa lies on a plateau that rises above sea level, its few rivers are often non-navigable due to rapids and waterfalls near the coast. Only the Nile is navigable and the Niger river is seasonably navigable, and not coincidentally, these are the sites of the most complex societies on the continent.

Rivers and friendly coastlines are critical to the expansion of a society's cultural universe as it enables the transport and trade of materials, technology, people, and consequently ideas. I can elaborate on this and give examples if anyone's genuinely interested in hearing explanations besides the fact that Africa is full of niggers.

spill the beans my nigero
let the red pills drop!
Are they the same species as us or not (Sub-Saharan)

Sorry bro missed your question.

I did CRM, after my undergrad and after my postgrad (going for a PhD now).

CRM is fucking wonderful. I love it so much and you do make damn good money. Go for CRM if you like to travel, hike all day, dig all day, meet lots of awesome rednecks AND get paid to do it.

It can also kinda suck though. AMA

...

lol yup 100 percent prescribe to the notion that "race is a social construct" but before you REEEEEE understand that to anthropologist there is a difference between race and ethnicity

Ethnically, Im a brown-skin, ill let you guess which kind
Am I proud of it? Yea. you should be proud that ppl struggled before you even if your half one thing and half another be proud of both sides.
Proud of myself? I could do better, I think thats what drives me in life, never being satisfied with my current state
Race survival? Races are always going to be destroyed and reinvented. Ethnically we all came from something else that came from something else that mixed with something else. There is no "racial purity" to begin with and fighting over it is stupid

now you can REEEEEEE

>claims to be redpilled
I think that was the famous "appeal to authority" fallacy that this nigero apologist is using

Importantly, Africa is the cradle of human and hominid evolution, which means that the local fauna and microbiome of Africa evolved alongside humanity. This has important consequences.

For one, African fauna is much more wary of humans than in other parts of the world. Humanity's entrance to other continents was often heralded by mass extinction of megafauna unaccustomed to human hunting techniques, but African megafauna did not undergo the same scale of extinctions until the introduction of gunpowder weapons. This is important because it makes African fauna much more difficult to domesticate.

In addition, diseases such as malaria were a scourge for humans living in Africa as were other parasites that evolved to specifically attack humans or humans as well as local fauna. For example, the tse tse fly spreads sleeping sickness and also infects animals such as bovines. This also served to make domestication of animals far less amenable because you'd essentially be keeping a reservoir for disease next to your house.

>Ethnically, Im a brown-skin

That's it boys out of the thread.

Indeed, the inability to think abstractly is one of the main differences between any pre-literate and literate society. There's an excellent Russian neuropsychologist called A R Luria who went to Uzbekistan to study the effects of Soviet literacy programs there. He demonstrated that pre-literate Uzbeks demonstrated highly concrete thinking that was not amenable to abstraction. Here's a short video that depicts this phenomenon.

vimeo.com/32929417

It's fascinating because these people fail at the exact sorts of questions posed by IQ tests, so they would undoubtedly measure as low IQ. Yet, post-Soviet Uzbekistan has a high literacy rate and none of the people you meet there now would have any trouble answering such simple questions.

>This means it depends entirely on seasonal rainfall,

Daddy, why didn't they build tanks to store the rainwater in?

Were we kangs ?

Answer me you white motherfucker

Yes we're the same species. untill two groups can not produce offspring that are also sexually viable, like who a donkey and horse make an infertile mule, those to groups of of the same species.

no amount of fake science changes the fact that if Darkie McDark knocks up Miss Aryanpride their child can still reproduce

>This means it depends entirely on seasonal rainfall, which makes agriculture a more precarious proposition.

>Hundreds of thousands of years
>Didn't think of water tanks

SHUT THE FUCK UP

Simply put, biology, different brain physiology, problems with abstract thinking, and low IQ
Source: Doctor here.

>muh convoluted coastlines
>muh convoluted coastlines muthafucka

Remember, convoluted coastlines are used by the Diamondite to explain why Europe prospered, but also to explain why Asia did not prosper as much as europe.

ill let you in on a secret the "we waz kangz" assholes are called Hoteps, even other black ppl hate them.

WHY NIGGER ARE STUPID?

WHY NIGGER ARE SO STUPID????

Yeah, I don't mean to say there are no examples of buildings in the British isles. I mean to say that when the Romans arrived, the native Britons largely lived in huts made of mud and thatch rather than brick or stone buildings.

I'm less surprised that what sounds like Roman propaganda was debunked.

>ill let you in on a secret the "we waz kangz" assholes are called Hoteps, even other black ppl hate them.
gtfo you nigger

>helicopter

...

...

Yeah, you can make clay pottery containers to store rainwater for personal consumption, but there's no feasible way to store enough water to irrigate farmland and create rivers that are navigable for more than a couple months a year. That's an entirely different scale. Even modern day nations don't store water in containers. Instead, they dam up rivers to form reservoirs, or divert rivers to create irrigation networks. These are not viable options in Africa. This makes a huge difference in a society's ability to develop.

>of mud and thatch

Just to clear up, they used timber, with standard measurements and iron nails. Some were multi-storied. There isn't much workable stone in South Britain but there is a lot of lumber. Up in North Britain and North Scotland, stone was used nearly exclusively. Even Roman buildings in South Britain were made of wood.

Pic related.

Also, if the Romans are to be believed, the Brits gave a stiff resistance and were expert tacticians that Caesar bragged about conquering.

do you really believe genes play no role in intelligence? if so congrats, you are not informed

>cultural anthropology

lmaooooooooooooo

...

> social science
> hard fact
choose one

Yeah you were kings, a few times. One of the problems is that you were never emperors. Empires both reflect societal complexity and also enhance it by expanding a society's cultural universe by uniting many peoples under one political unit.

pls resbond ...

What's the best anthropology of Sup Forums culture yet produced, or at least of the user underbelly of the Internet?

...

>guy studying culture thinks culture > genetics
what a surprise

>Northern europeans claiming culture continuity from rome is invalid
>Sand Niggers claiming the intellectual accomplishments of the Indians they conquered is valid, even when this brought an end to Indian intellectual achievement forever

...

...

...

What I don't get from this image is why apparently Asians are discriminated against the most.

that's just false though.
there are numerous examples of different species producing fertile offspring.
the answer isn't as simple as you want it to be.

...

Do you know of any studies done that guage the success of a culture based on specific criteria, other than geography.

Is "success" even defined for a culture?