At 06:41 PM 2/22/99 +0000, you wrote:
>This is a bit more like it - I was a bit worried that the only post I'd
>received so far actually agreed with me ;-)
>But the fact that someone _did_ agree with me demonstrates that I'm not
>the only person who feels this way.
>
>Paul Demers wrote:
>
>> >Frankly (occasional encouraging exceptions aside), trying to convince
the vas
>t majority of Americans >(including archaeologists) that any part of the
world o
>utside the immediate vicinity of the USA matters in >and of itself
frequently pr
>oves to be a terrifyingly dispiriting task.
>>
>> I am puzzled at the caustic nature of this post, given the highly
informative
>and humourous nature of > your previous posts. As a social scientist, how
are yo
>u defining "the vast majority of Americans"? Do > most all of the subjects
in yo
>ur study truly reject the importance of "any part of the world"? Does >
"America
>n" include Canadians, Mexicans, and all of the other countries in the
"Americas"
>? It would not > be very "global" of you to usurp all of these countries
under t
>he rubric of "America". As a Canadian > who has studied and taught classes
abroa
>d and in the U.S., I have encountered nationalist, xenophobic, > and
isolationis
>t attitudes. Perhaps these are the similar to the attitudes perceived by
foreign
>ers in > Canada, Britain, or any other country globally?
>Who said I was a social scientist
-Absolutely no one, my hegemonic mistake.
;-) In any case, "the vast majority of Americans" was, in this case
specifically referring to "the vast majority of citizens of the United
States of America". I decided that the former would be a little easier to
type. Had I meant to include Canadians, Mexicans, Cubans, Grenadans, etc.,
I would have said so specifically.
>Had I meant to include all of them, I would have written "the vast
majority of North Americans". Ongoing Canadian, Caribbean and Mexican
irritation at the imprecision of the use of "American" aside, I hope that
clears that one up ;-)
-Admittedly, it might be difficult to find an adjective for U.S. citizens
other than "Americans"
>As far, as my "sample" is concerned, it's obviously not scientific, but
rather based on spending
>c.12 years living in Maryland, Virginia, New York, and Georgia. I grant
you that given that the last
>3 years of that period were spent in Lynchburg, Virginia - hardly the most
cosmopolitan city in the
>USA - my 'sample' may well be biased.
-Beware, admitting sampling biases like this could turn you processual.
Seriously, thank you for the details of your experience in the U.S.
>And as far as the "caustic" nature of the post is concerned... comes from
12 years of sheer rampant
>frustration at the isolationism and misunderstandings inherent in the
perception of the outside world by the vast majority of Americans (whoops -
there's that phrase again!).
-Whoops, Indeed!
>But I freely grant you that anyone living outside their own country will
encounter prejudice and stereotypes. My American friends living in Britain
can get quite fed up with characterisations of "Yanks" especially if
they're from Dixie). That said, I personally encountered intolerance and
pure and simple misunderstanding on a far larger and more institutionalised
scale in the USA than in Belgium or Iceland (the two
>other countries, other than Britain, I've lived in).
-I have a different experience, but these are all interesting perspectives,
and equivocal.
>> As an "early" tome on historical archaeology and its global aspirations,
I would point you to a volume with which you are undoubtedly familiar. Not
so ironically, Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and
Theoretical Contributions, was edited by Robert L. Schuyler. Perusing the
recent HA guides to the literature, it would seem these global interests
predate the SHA. But how long will it last...over 30 years and counting,
with an increasing number of alternative voices.
>
>I think the Schuyler book is excellent, and regularly recommend it as
reading to (British) undergraduates and MAs.Furthermore, I have little
doubt that Robert Schuyler is in that non-isolationist minority - as is
>Charles Orser, for that matter (to but briefly address Fred McGhee's post
on the subject).
But is "A Guide" quite as internationalist as you seem to think? Of the
35 chapters, a quick skim seems to show that only 7 (Rowe, Harden,
Barton,Grabar, Buchanan and Allen) arguably address non-North American topics,
>but even of these 7, only the Allen Australian study is of any meat and
substance. One might perhaps argue that in 1978, North American historical
archaeology was the only substantive historical archaeology being
undertaken - but then, perhaps not. I'd argue that it was the most
theoretically-awarehistorical archaeology, but that's another matter entirely.
>
>But even if individual Chapters in the Schuyler compilation do address
international issues, are those
>issues addressed in undergraduate courses that use the book? Perhaps if
you're one of Schuyler or
>Orser's students, then yes (although what you'd genuinely learn about
medieval or post-medieval
>archaeology in Britain from the bibliography-free Harden and
Bartonchapters is beyond me). But in front of me, I have a 12 year old
syllabus from "Anthro 450 'Historical Archaeology'" at St. Mary's college of
>Maryland. Not one of the "international" chapters is on the assigned
reading list. Is this
>typical? I honestly don't know, but it doesn't really surprise me.
- I mentioned that volume as a breakthrough, not the current state of
affairs. There have been a number of volumes incorporating global work
since then.
>
>Incidentally, perhaps Dr. Schuyler might consider an update to his
excellent compilation after 21 years?
>
>> "minority" notwithstanding, is this agenda synonymous with a focus or
emphasis? I trust you are not simply designating all of "us" as simple
rubes for the U.S. capitalist, military, theocratic, industrial
>techno-complex.
>
>Phew! That's putting a lot of assumptions into my mouth!
Perhaps. But given the emphasis on the word "agenda" in many studies, I
feel that ramble was not beyond the realm of inferred posibilities.
>And let me note that as I write this, I've received another post
(privately this time) supporting
>me perspective - which currently puts me 2-1 ahead ;-)
-Alasdair United -2, Paul City -1...but the 1st half isn't over yet. (away
goals rule in force)
Obviously, not all of "you" are mindless drones of the
thingamy-techno-complex, but then... Paul,
>you're a Canadian, aren't you? So I wouldn't expect you to be a simple
rube in the first place ;-)
-Hopefully, no one is assumed to be a rube by origin.
>
>> >Note that I don't think that this is a failing of American archaeology
(historical or otherwise) per se, but rather a product of the American
conceptual perception of the rest of the world in general.
>>
>> Your rhetoric does imply this failing, via an insulting, reductionist,
and stereotypical phrase > "American conceptual perception". Controversy
over Iraq, Bos>nia, and Clinton's fiasco suggest there is less consensus
than you may think. We should examine the social filters through which you
(and I) view > the U.S.
>
>I genuinely regret if anyone found my remarks on "conceptual
perception"insulting. But I find American mass media news coverage of
Iraq, Bosnia, and other international issuesto itself be simplistic,
reductionist and stereotypical.
-Even recent events covered NPR, Pacifica Nightly News, and the American
Prospect? Even the more popular magazines and networks have aired
doubts...at least as I "read" them.
>Clinton Ican't remark on as I've been in Britain for that particular
fiasco. But this is realistically an entirely separate issue - although
one I'd be happy to discuss off list.
-There is not much to say on that one.
>However, I would recommend James Loewen's _Lies My Teacher Told Me_ for
anyone who thinks optimistic
>isolationism isn't part of the USA's ideological framework.
-Now you are putting words into my mouth. Isolationism is but one aspect of
the American Experience.
>> >No doubt some subscribers to HISTARCH will feel an unnecessary need to
send me examples of international work >based in the States that disprove
my point as I said, I recognise that there are exceptions, but I would
>still hold that conceptually, they're very much in the minority.
>> Now your rhetoric even negates any validity in a responce. Your thesis
has affirmed the consequent, so you do not need any evidence to support
these flawed suppositions.(How processual of me)
>Well, since I'm an unreconstructed post-processualist... who needs logic
or evidence? ;-)
Touche! (no accent grave on my keyboard) Corollaries: Why let data get in
the way of a good idea? & If I relied on science, I would find sites! (not
necessarily uttered by post-processualists, either)
>>One wonders if your server would be capable of handling the volume of
responces, or if they in any way could sway your opinion. Although given
the high calibre of your previous postings, I think you would review them
nonetheless.
>
>I'd love responses. I'd revel in them. So far, however, my server isn't
precisely overwhelmed, which
>does rather suggest that "the vast majority" aren't particularly bothered,
and so far what responses
>I have had come from Cambridge, a Canadian, and someone who posted
privately with a background in an
>Islamic nation. So far I'd say the responses, and indeed the lack
thereof, rather back me up (oooooh,
>sounds like a challenge to me).
>> >The SHA, for example, seems to have an ongoing minor ideological battle
between a stated desire to be seen as an 'global' society, and the fact
that a vast majority of its members are from the United States.
>> >Usually the latter win out quite understandable given that's where the
membership money lies - but
>> >this sometimes rests uneasily with the former.
>>
>> Would you explain "winning out" and perhaps how all SHA members could
address
>these problems?
>
>Recent examples: The SHA vote to support ROPA despite misgivings from the
international members
>on this list on an "international" society financially supporting an
American institution (can I
>specify that my SHA ROPA dues go to the IFA instead?)_Historical
Archaeology_'s decision to publish Mel Thurman's, ummm,(words fail me)
unusual 'review' of Orser's book. Finally, the very fact that all SHA
conferences are held in North America (apologies to Caribbeans unhappy with
that usage) means that non-North American work is de facto
under-represented at SHA conferences. I am strongly encouraged at Quebec's
attempts to bring in other voices in this regard. For the record (since
someone's bound to bring it up), the recent joint SHA-SPMA conferences
aren't the best example of 'internationalism'. I'm strongly of the opinion
that with one or two rare exceptions (Matthew Johnson and Henry Miller
stick in the mind from London), there was very little sense of engagement
between Europe and North America. We were talking at each other, not with
each other.
-This is powerful list. I will first defer to the parties involved to
comment on these issues. Did you mention how we should address these
problems? I'm not trying to be obtuse.
>> >"The Buffalo tastes the same on both sides of the border"
>>
>> I demand a taste test!
>
>Alright then... it appears that the buffalo (more correctly termed
'bison') might taste the same on both sides of the border, although until
this can be tested under strictly controlled conditions, a final verdict
must be delayed. Personally, I recommend a strict application of the
Saskatchewan Bison Bone Ecofact Pattern to the analysis ;-)
-No, I will bring some of each to Quebec for you to sample. I wouldn't want
to impose a pattern on you!
I'll just skew(er) my data.
|