I won't debate which is more relevant, CNN or academics or even Fox News. None of them are very relevant. The news media is only interested in ratings and academics are only interested in transferring THEIR ideas to their students, no matter if those ideas are right or wrong.

Trust me, I was in the system longer than you've been there and could probably teach some of the courses if I was so inclined.

But then I'd be guilty of the very thing I hate about school. They impress ideas rather than help you form them. You really don't begin to form ideas until you have to do research to support a theory of your own, and then you only form them in that narrow area.

You're still in college, I'm 47. That doesn't make me smarter but simply by nature of having lived longer there's an odds on chance that I've met more people and experienced more things than you have. That's not a slam at anyone younger, it's a statement of fact. At this point in your life, you really know very little except what's been pumped into your mind by whatever school systems you've been a part of. Again, not a slam, you had to have that done or you'd have never passed an exam and from the way you write, I'd guess you did better than just pass darn near all of them.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that you know what I think of Anthropology, but if you're comfortable with that incorrect opinion I'll certainly humor you by allowing you to keep it.

I agree, what is written in most texts and the opinions of your professors, AS A GENERAL RULE (I'm sure you've been taught already by a nutcase or two), should be held in higher regard than the sound bites on the evening news. That's not an issue I addressed.

I can tell you several points that you've made that they contradict you on, at least from the standpoint of the post-soviet war Afghanistan. Again, these impressions may have been drastically changed AGAIN over the last two years since the US has been there.

First off, the Afghani Muslims truly thought that the Soviet Union was Satan and all that was evil to them. Not just because of the war, but from the oppression against the Muslims in places like Bosnia. Although not completely accurate, most held the former Soviet Union responsible for great oppression against the Muslims.

Americans were welcomed with open arms (again, remember, this was pre-Taliban) because when they came they brought food, doctors, medical supplies, and humanitarian aid as well as having been the chief nation that aided them in removing the occupying Soviet Union from their country.

One of the primary grievances they had against the US, and both doctors feel much the same way, is our support of Israel. But they didn't seem to blame just us entirely for that, but the grievances were still there and apparent.

Those are just a few of the points that they've both related to me, there are more, but I think they illustrate how the texts might not be accurate in reflecting a "muslim" perspective as there are many sects of Islam and many countries, Irag, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, have a deep sense of nationalism as well as religious beliefs that all interplay.

Remember that one of the justifications for Saddam going into Kuwait was that he, and most of Iraq, still think that Kuwait IS a part of Iraq and not an independent nation. Religion has little to do with that, nationalism does.

I'll give you another example. Turkey. Turkey has one primary fear with the instability of that region and that is that the Kurds in Northern Iraq would join with the Kurds in Turkey and form a new nation. Not only would this cripple Turkey economically, but it offends THEIR sense of nationalism that has already been offended as their borders have changed over history.

To think this is just a war of Islam vs. Christianity would be a very narrow view to take.

John Stricker

Edited for this PS: BTW, I've been reading this thread and have pretty much tried to stay out of the political discussions lately unless there were facts that were incorrect (like the literacy statistics). I also appreciate how civil this has been, hopefully it will stay that way.

quote Originally posted by Mach10: When were you last in school? Academia is far more relevant than anything CNN spews out. Hell, some of my text-books are more current Of 12 text-books I've had in the past 3 years, not one was published earlier than a year before the date. Besides that, Modern Issues didn't have anything to do with the text-book. It had EVERYTHING to do with *current* published journals (which I might add, having gone through rigorous critique, are far more trustworthy than news clippings), and current ethnographic studies performed by people whos area of expertise is more at the matter at hand... You seem to think that Anthropology is a bunch of dusty Ethnographies dating back to the mid 1800s, huh? No matter. I fully accept that anything written is subject to the author's own experiences. It isn't guaranteed to be universal. But I hold them in higher esteem to some Reuters reporter that will get on his knees for anything resembling a story. Tell me, what "experiences" are they reporting that contradict what I've put forth? Seriously, I'm curious.

Songman, I love you man...

But if you EVER use my name and "History" or "Historian" in the same sentence without some sort of negation, I will hunt you down and make you say "Sorry."

Anthropologists have very little use for recorded history. History is recorded by the RICH, and by the VICTORS, neither of whom have any real inclination towards truthfulness in potentially embarrassing occurences.

Anthropologists are more concerned with what the people themselves have to say. And by what they leave behind. What they actually DO, And how they perceive the world. Then they sort out all the crap and try to explain it.

Whereas a history text-book will be written 90 years ago uncontested, based on what some guy told him in exchange for a bottle of scotch.

Seriously, how do they consider the "right wing christians" more of a threat than Islamic extremists? I haven't read of any right wing christians blowing up apartment complexes or commandeering aircraft to kill thousands lately. I'd love to hear their reasoning on this, if you know what it is.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Jersey: Many of my friends in Europe are more concerned with the right wing Christians in America than to threats from Islamics extremists.

Yeah.. Thall Shalt Not Kill can be read so many ways. Totally open to interpretation...

I know what you are saying, but still.. Yes, I can prove that someone who says they murder for God is wrong, because God said Thall Shalt Not Kill... People don't murder for God. They only SAY they are murdering for God.. And to go back through my posts, just because you profess yourself to be Christian does not make you Christian. You have to live as a Christian... This is all getting repetative but you get the idea.

Sorry... That actually wasn't meant toward your chosen profession. Obviously I have very little regard for history books either...

quote Trust me, I was in the system longer than you've been there and could probably teach some of the courses if I was so inclined.

Ok...

quote But then I'd be guilty of the very thing I hate about school. They impress ideas rather than help you form them. You really don't begin to form ideas until you have to do research to support a theory of your own, and then you only form them in that narrow area.

Forgive me for saying then, that you had some rank-assed teachers. My first year wasn't even like you said. but then again, my particular department seems to care less who passes. What you are describing is an academic system which is concerned about pumping out graduates. Courses that promote thought don't have the pass-rates. You are either a good argumentor, or a a bad one.

quote You're still in college, I'm 47. That doesn't make me smarter but simply by nature of having lived longer there's an odds on chance that I've met more people and experienced more things than you have. That's not a slam at anyone younger, it's a statement of fact. At this point in your life, you really know very little except what's been pumped into your mind by whatever school systems you've been a part of. Again, not a slam, you had to have that done or you'd have never passed an exam and from the way you write, I'd guess you did better than just pass darn near all of them.

True, but age (except when younger than 21) isn't a function of knowledge, just experience in the feild. But unless you are in my particular feild, I don't see the age being much of an issue. For example, I doubt that someone who has been a cardio surgeon for 30 years has any academic advantage over a 4th year Archaeology student, unless he's been devoting those 30 years to Anthro as a hobby. Again, it's about experience From what I know about you, I'd feel perfectly at ease "hangin'" with you in an anthropological debate. I've got almost 5 years of Anthro under my belt. I don't see myself as "Unqualified" in terms of research or skill-sets. Of course, the real test will be the Master's Thesis.

I'm not offended by anything you said. Again, though, I have serious questions about the brand of teaching you've been subjected to. I've always studied and learned on *MY* terms. In my feild, if I can back it up with published evidence or logical thought, then it isn't a wrong answer. Won't catch me dead regurgitating, except in Archaeology and Osteology exams (metrics, stats).

quote I agree, what is written in most texts and the opinions of your professors, AS A GENERAL RULE (I'm sure you've been taught already by a nutcase or two), should be held in higher regard than the sound bites on the evening news. That's not an issue I addressed.

It's not even so much about opinion. that's pretty easy to filter out. It's about wording, and about context. That's part of studying Anthropology. Wading through an unbelievable amount of crap to sort out what's real and imagined.
This is complicated because sometimes the imagined is more important than the real

quote I can tell you several points that you've made that they contradict you on, at least from the standpoint of the post-soviet war Afghanistan. Again, these impressions may have been drastically changed AGAIN over the last two years since the US has been there.

Nothing shaming about being proved wrong...

quote First off, the Afghani Muslims truly thought that the Soviet Union was Satan and all that was evil to them. Not just because of the war, but from the oppression against the Muslims in places like Bosnia. Although not completely accurate, most held the former Soviet Union responsible for great oppression against the Muslims.

Nowadays, we are seeing similar sentiments arising from percieved US economic exploitation, and associated propaganda. I agree, it wasn't always like it is.

quote Americans were welcomed with open arms (again, remember, this was pre-Taliban) because when they came they brought food, doctors, medical supplies, and humanitarian aid as well as having been the chief nation that aided them in removing the occupying Soviet Union from their country.

Yep. This is absolutely true. Bear in mind, that I never suggested that the US soldiers were unwelcome in Taliban Afghanistan. However, far from the region being stabilized, it's kinda a work-in-progress. Read: Not a nice place to be.

quote One of the primary grievances they had against the US, and both doctors feel much the same way, is our support of Israel. But they didn't seem to blame just us entirely for that, but the grievances were still there and apparent.

Support of Israel is a biggie everywhere. And since they are evil anyway, it's easy to assume the worst when it comes to oiling rights. this is what happens when emotions get in the way of facts.

quote Those are just a few of the points that they've both related to me, there are more, but I think they illustrate how the texts might not be accurate in reflecting a "muslim" perspective as there are many sects of Islam and many countries, Irag, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, have a deep sense of nationalism as well as religious beliefs that all interplay.

Simply put, Islam is a VERY complicated social structure, one which is unsuited to being overly generalized within a single article about brutality towards females. Gotcha.

quote Remember that one of the justifications for Saddam going into Kuwait was that he, and most of Iraq, still think that Kuwait IS a part of Iraq and not an independent nation. Religion has little to do with that, nationalism does.

I'm not going to comment on Iraq. That's a different Kidney, and one which I *KNOW* we will disagree on

quote I'll give you another example. Turkey. Turkey has one primary fear with the instability of that region and that is that the Kurds in Northern Iraq would join with the Kurds in Turkey and form a new nation. Not only would this cripple Turkey economically, but it offends THEIR sense of nationalism that has already been offended as their borders have changed over history. To think this is just a war of Islam vs. Christianity would be a very narrow view to take. John Stricker

Agreed. I'm a little confused though. Nothing you've posted directly contradicts what I've been saying, unless I've screwed up in writing somewhere.

Heheheh... That was easy... Din't even have to hunt you down. And I was looking forward to that!