Comments on: Reviews of Widdowson and Howard’s “Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry” http://www.anthroblog.tadmcilwraith.com/2008/11/16/reviews-of-widdowson-and-howards-disrobing-the-aboriginal-industry/ For the Anthropology of British Columbia, Canada Mon, 06 Sep 2010 15:19:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Tad McIlwraith http://www.anthroblog.tadmcilwraith.com/2008/11/16/reviews-of-widdowson-and-howards-disrobing-the-aboriginal-industry/comment-page-1/#comment-264267 Tad McIlwraith Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:16:58 +0000 http://www.anthroblog.tadmcilwraith.com/?p=521#comment-264267 Thank you for the link,. Dirk. Thank you for the link,. Dirk.

]]> By: Dirk http://www.anthroblog.tadmcilwraith.com/2008/11/16/reviews-of-widdowson-and-howards-disrobing-the-aboriginal-industry/comment-page-1/#comment-264233 Dirk Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:05:32 +0000 http://www.anthroblog.tadmcilwraith.com/?p=521#comment-264233 Tad ;you might want to check out Gerald Taiaiake Alfred's review of Disrobing http://www.taiaiake.com/42 Tad ;you might want to check out Gerald Taiaiake Alfred’s review of Disrobing

http://www.taiaiake.com/42

]]> By: Tad McIlwraith http://www.anthroblog.tadmcilwraith.com/2008/11/16/reviews-of-widdowson-and-howards-disrobing-the-aboriginal-industry/comment-page-1/#comment-256495 Tad McIlwraith Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:45:33 +0000 http://www.anthroblog.tadmcilwraith.com/?p=521#comment-256495 Ed ... nicely said. To be honest, I do not understand precisely why Marx and Morgan are the central theoretical figures in the disrobing. Surely there are alternatives for understanding the contemporary problems of aboriginal peoples -- and how those problems might be resolved. (Eldon Yellowhorn's 'recolonization' might be one. Cole Harris' 'politics of difference' might be another.) I agree that the role of anthros and consultants is overstated. Interestingly, W&H don't mention academic anthropology -- except as the foundation for their critique. Their challenge to the 'aboriginal industry' is really focused on greed and corruption. That concern extends to anyone (any group) that exploits the funds allocated to aboriginal people and communities. I don't have a problem with that observation. Ed … nicely said. To be honest, I do not understand precisely why Marx and Morgan are the central theoretical figures in the disrobing. Surely there are alternatives for understanding the contemporary problems of aboriginal peoples — and how those problems might be resolved. (Eldon Yellowhorn’s ‘recolonization’ might be one. Cole Harris’ ‘politics of difference’ might be another.)

I agree that the role of anthros and consultants is overstated. Interestingly, W&H don’t mention academic anthropology — except as the foundation for their critique. Their challenge to the ‘aboriginal industry’ is really focused on greed and corruption. That concern extends to anyone (any group) that exploits the funds allocated to aboriginal people and communities. I don’t have a problem with that observation.

]]> By: Ed L. http://www.anthroblog.tadmcilwraith.com/2008/11/16/reviews-of-widdowson-and-howards-disrobing-the-aboriginal-industry/comment-page-1/#comment-256492 Ed L. Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:15:04 +0000 http://www.anthroblog.tadmcilwraith.com/?p=521#comment-256492 They seem to be suggesting that aboriginal consciousness is the product of an all-encompassing legal and institutional framework, and not local practices, ways of life and being, historical conditions, aboriginal modes of production, and social relations in aboriginal communities. They make the typical mistake of inflating the importance of non-aboriginal lawyers, consultants, and anthropologists. I haven't read it, but the reviews suggest a doctrinaire, outdated, and clumsy reading of Marxist epochal histories and cultural evolution, which trends in the direction of rationalization and utopian post-enlightenment fantasies and away from local struggles over meaning, co-opting national agendas, translation, difference, and long-standing battles over power and legitimacy (and the struggle to define the concepts and the rules of the debate). This appears to be a re-robing of history, rather than a disrobing … and a helpful reminder that all history is ideological (especially those that presume to be otherwise). They seem to be suggesting that aboriginal consciousness is the product of an all-encompassing legal and institutional framework, and not local practices, ways of life and being, historical conditions, aboriginal modes of production, and social relations in aboriginal communities. They make the typical mistake of inflating the importance of non-aboriginal lawyers, consultants, and anthropologists. I haven’t read it, but the reviews suggest a doctrinaire, outdated, and clumsy reading of Marxist epochal histories and cultural evolution, which trends in the direction of rationalization and utopian post-enlightenment fantasies and away from local struggles over meaning, co-opting national agendas, translation, difference, and long-standing battles over power and legitimacy (and the struggle to define the concepts and the rules of the debate). This appears to be a re-robing of history, rather than a disrobing … and a helpful reminder that all history is ideological (especially those that presume to be otherwise).

]]>