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 ;-)  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 ;-)
 
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.
 
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!).
 
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).
 
> As an "early" tome on historical archaeology and its global aspirations, I wou
ld point you to a volume > with which you are undoubtedly familiar. Not so ironi
cally, Historical Archaeology: A Guide to > > Substantive and Theoretical Contri
butions, 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 lo
ng will it > > last...over 30 years and counting, with an increasing number of a
lternative 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-aware
historical 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 Barton
chapters 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.
 
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!
 
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 ;-)
 
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 ;-)
 
> >Note that I don't think that this is a failing of American archaeology (histo
rical or otherwise) per se, but >rather a product of the American conceptual per
ception of the rest of the world in general.
>
> Your rhetoric does imply this failing, via an insulting, reductionist, and ste
reotypical 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 issues
to itself be simplistic, reductionist and stereotypical.  Clinton I
can'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.
 
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.
 
> >No doubt some subscribers to HISTARCH will feel an unnecessary need to send m
e 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 conc
eptually, they're very much in the minority.
>
> Now your rhetoric even negates any validity in a responce. Your thesis has aff
irmed 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? ;-)
 
> One wonders if your server would be capable of handling the volume of responce
s, or if they in any way > could sway your opinion. Although given the high cali
bre 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 betwe
en a stated desire to be > seen as >an 'global' society, and the fact that a vas
t majority of its members are from the United > States.
>
> >Usually the latter win out quite understandable given that's where the member
ship 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.
 
> >"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 ;-)
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alasdair Brooks
Department of Archaeology
University of York
King's Manor
York
YO1 2EP
England, UK
phone: 01904 433931
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Buffalo tastes the same on both sides of the border"
Sitting Bull