Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Anthropik.com -anthropology] "Noble or Savage?" -> Human! Why not that label?

Expand Messages
  • Jason Stewart
    From: http://anthropik.com/2008/01/noble-or-savage-both-part-1/  and http://anthropik.com/2008/01/noble-or-savage-both-part-2/ -Jason Godesky, anthropology
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 3, 2008

      -Jason Godesky, anthropology writer, quote:
      11 January 2008 Noble or Savage? Both. (Part 1)
      by Jason Godesky I have already had a few
      commenters direct me to “Noble or Savage?,” the
      article from the Dec. 19 Economist magazine. The
      article has not raised my low opinion of this
      periodical. As Kenneth Boulding so correctly assessed,
      “Anyone who believes that growth can go on forever in
      a finite world is either a madman or an economist.”
      You may recall that The Economist teamed up with Shell
      some years back gave us the absurdist essay contest
      question, “Do we need nature?” (Derrick Jensen gave
      perhaps the best answer: “It’s insane.”) But this most
      recent offering presents precisely the kind of article
      I have, unfortunately, become all too familiar
      with—overblown rhetoric based in faulty evidence
      presented deceptively. Nothing new appears in the
      article that we haven’t spent pages debunking here in
      past articles, but we can hardly expect casual readers
      to have read that much of the Anthropik backlog. Since
      I have no doubt that many will continue to post links
      to this inane article mistaking its argument for a
      cogent one, I offer this piece. It has little new for
      regular readers; instead, I have simply collated my
      previous responses to the evidence misrepresented by
      The Economist article, so that it appears all in one


      11 January 2008 Noble or Savage? Both. (Part 2)
      by Jason Godesky Yes, this has taken
      significantly longer than The Economist needed for
      “Noble or Savage?,” but really digging into the
      evidence usually does take longer than a superficial
      analysis, bald assertion, or an assemblage of
      half-truths. As before, I haven’t written anything
      original in response to this article, since it doesn’t
      present anything new—everything here quotes articles
      you’ve seen here, answering these claims, over the
      past two, sometimes even three, years.

      Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.