Ok Veeky Forums, it's time to act against the slow death of this board.
Give your inputs on what should be in OP for our new Socio-Anthropology General.
Let's build documentation repositories about the main topics addressed on Veeky Forums
At your pastebins, gentlemen!
Other urls found in this thread:
>Threads should be about specific topics, and the creation of "general" threads is discouraged.
>For the purpose of determining what is history, please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago. Historical discussions should be focused on past events, and not their contemporary consequences. Discussion of modern politics, current events, popular culture, or other non-historical topics should be posted elsewhere.
>Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates.
So much for that.
>rules
Just take a look at the catalog and tell me if you think mods do enforce the rules or not.
They often do but general threads are of the least detriment.
Can't wait to see where this goes.
Socio-Anthropology General
Welcome to /sag/, a thread dedicated to the discussion of Sociology & Anthropology
>What are Sociology and Anthropology?
Sociology & Anthropology are social sciences. While they have distinc origins and history, the two disciplines now share a lot to the point the remaining differences are nothing but academic subtleties. Let's say Anthropology was more focused on the study of societies percieved as "exotic" when sociology was more likely to focus on western societies.
Socio-Anthropology is a scientific and rational way to analyse and explain social facts (social interactions, culture, religion, law, sexuality, power, art, ethnicity...) through the use of various methodologies and a vast arsenal of theories.
>Documentation on socio-anthropology methodologies
>Documentation on the main theories in socio-anthropology
>/sag/ official book recommendations if you want to start studying
---------------
What's next? What is missing? Any native English speaker willing to correct my terrible syntax?
You might be surprised by what social sciences tell about US race/gender politics
>You might be surprised by what social sciences tell about US race/gender politics
I don't doubt you for a minute.
>studies such as my horrifying interpretations of genetic data and also infographics subject to the peer review of /pol/
Sociology is not a science and I hold it as equal cachet with gender studies which is its natural intellectual descendent.
those arent women
I took an anthro class once. One of the assigned readings was an article on race and genetics. It was six whole pages of ways populations can be genetically distinct from one another, altogether a very compelling case for race being genetically tangible. The last sentence was something to the effect of, "Based on the above, we conclude that race is a social construct with no basis in genetics". That's what I think of whenever someone mentions the phrase "peer review".
Post the article references so we can have a good laugh with you.
Damn, wish I could but it was years ago. For the life of me I can't remember the title or authors.
Color me surprised
Are you sure you actually understood what the point of the article was? Or what "social construct" actually means? Because from the "six whole pages of ways populations can be genetically distinct from one another" part of your post, I'm assuming it was talking about the various ways that people can be grouped, according to different criteria.
The criteria would be the key part of that and absolutely supports the idea of race being a social construct. No one in academia seriously argues that differences don't exist between groups of people; the idea that specific categories are social constructs comes from the phenomena that those differences are usually applied across cultures and many of the traits we use to classify people aren't tied to the differences people assume they're tied to. I don't know what article you're describing, but if its point was along the lines of "different cultures have different racial categories, and variation obviously exists, but doesn't neatly line up with these categories; the somewhat arbitrary nature of the categories demonstrates that they're created according to whatever criteria a culture chooses to focus on" then it would have had a very easy time making that point.
For what it's worth, it was kind of like this one
>nature.com
If you omit one particular sentence:
>Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is “biologically meaningless.”
Like I said it was a long time ago and I don't remember the article, but the point is that it had data showing how groups of individuals from different continents are overall more similar to each other than outsiders, but the conclusion was that that wasn't the case.
>but the conclusion was that that wasn't the case.
If the article really was like the one you linked, then that wasn't the conclusion and you really didn't understand. That Nature article supports the kind of statement that I outlined in my post, and would be consistent with that viewpoint (which is also exactly the kind of thing you would be assigned to read in an intro course). Here's the paragraph that sentence is from:
>Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations. Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is “biologically meaningless.” On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types.
Yes, I know what I just read. The fallacy in that conclusion is the notion that overlap between between races invalidates their categorization. They're trying to argue that since the boundaries between races aren't clearly defined, race itself isn't real. That's like saying there's no clear point on a color spectrum where green ends and blue begins, therefore green and blue are the same color.
>They're trying to argue that since the boundaries between races aren't clearly defined, race itself isn't real
No, they're not. Stop letting /pol/ tell you what academics think and actually pay attention to their arguments. Again "social construct" doesn't meant that something doesn't exist.
Their point is that because those boundaries aren't clearly defined, the categories people use to classify people are socially determined and not based in hard genetic boundaries.
Race is clearly a social construct, for example up to 56% of Americans are classified as "white", despite their bewildering amount of corrupted DNA
>No, they're not.
It sure seems that way to me. There may be some overlap between Race X and Race Y, but the data shows that there are still people who fall into one group or the other. I'd be willing to bet even most people in the gray area are closer to one than the other, even if it's only by a minuscule margin. I don't think it's right to mark off the practice of deeming people as belonging to one group or another as "social determination" when some people very clearly have genes that mostly occur in a certain group.
Fuck off, Sweden.
>Fuck off, Sweden.
try again, goblino-burger
Got my BA in Anthropology at UChicago in Anthro w a focus on sociocultural anthropology and let me just say if u think the notion that race “doesn’t exist” means anthropologists think that people are literally all the same you’re an absolute idiot, it’s no wonder this guy misunderstood a fucking 6 page anthropology paper, what kind of fucking anthro paper in a reputable peer reviewed journal is 6 pages long? Any anthropology paper that tries to claim anything substantial in *6 pages* is a load of shit, I was never assigned anything to write shorter than 10 pages after my first year.
Methinks you should've gone for a BA in English.
We're going to need a strong folder about race/ethnicity to avoid being swarmed by /pol/ racebaiters I guess
I think there should be a ban on certain topics.
Why didn't Africa make non mud hut houses? Is a played out meme. Even if you do think it's because they are inferior then you have your answer! No need to make that tired old thread again and again every fucking day. Did ___ fear the ____ warrior? Is a based meme and I like it
This kind of threads with no value are already supposedly banned but mods don't really enforce the rules. The best would be to not reward obvious bait with (you)s
Honestly I think the backwardness of Africa (and other regions) is an important topic to discuss, but it's just a waste of time trying it here.
>'d be willing to bet even most people in the gray area are closer to one than the other, even if it's only by a minuscule margin.
I'll take you up on that bet.