David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (3):355-366 (1999)
Adversarial relations between science and religion have recurred throughout Western History. Archaeologists figure prominently in a recent incarnation of this debate as members of a hegemonic scientific elite. Postmodern debates situate disagreements in cosmological differences between innocent, traditional, native peoples and insensitive, career-mad, colonialist scientists. This simplistic dichotomy patronizes both First Peoples and archaeologists, pitting two economically marginal groups in a political struggle that neither can win. Although a few scholars have discussed the tyrannical nature of anthropological models of tradition and culture, little consideration has been given to the fact that archaeology as a scientific discipline is drastically under-funded, with little research support and few jobs. Reconsideration of which political and economic groups actually benefit from the dramatization of a dichotomy between traditional and academic perspectives indicates some interesting patterns. The search for common ground is shown to have ethical implications for both the futures of First Peoples and the future of archaeology.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Bronislaw Malinowski (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. George Routledge & Sons.
Elisabeth A. Lloyd (1995). Feminism As Method. Philosophical Topics 23 (2):189-220.
Michael Shanks (1987). Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Richard R. Wilk (1999). Whose Forest? Whose Land? Whose Ruins? Ethics and Conservation. Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (3):367-374.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Harvey L. Jacobs (1990). Ties That Bind. Environmental Ethics 12 (1):27-43.
Andrew Jones (2002). Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Claire Smith & Hans Martin Wobst (eds.) (2005). Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice. Routledge.
Rose Cuison Villazor (2008). Blood Quantum Land Laws and the Race Versus Political Identity Dilemma. California Law Review 96:801-838.
Debra A. Tolliver, Issues Facing Native American and Alaska Native Women Living with Domestic Violence.
M. Annette Jaimes (2003). "Patriarchal Colonialism" and Indigenism: Implications for Native Feminist Spirituality and Native Womanism. Hypatia 18 (2):58-69.
M. A. Jaimes*Guerrero (2003). "Patriarchal Colonialism" and Indigenism: Implications for Native Feminist Spirituality and Native Womanism. Hypatia 18 (2):58 - 69.
Richard Day (2001). Who is This We That Gives the Gift? Native American Political Theory and the Western Tradition. Critical Horizons 2 (2):173-201.
Annie L. Booth & Harvey L. Jacobs (1990). Ties That Bind: Native American Beliefs as a Foundation for Environmental Consciousness. Environmental Ethics 12 (1):27-43.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads94 ( #44,106 of 1,907,521 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #341,955 of 1,907,521 )
How can I increase my downloads?