Suchergebnisse

En los últimos 25 años, muchos han sido los esfuerzos para reunir a historiadores y antropólogos, para así combinar los planteamientos y métodos de ambas disciplinas en una colaboración productiva para la enseñanza y la investigación. Este esfuerzo ha alcanzado cierto éxito en algunas ocasiones, pero luego de diez años como estudiante y practicante de ambas disciplinas, aún mantengo la impresión que los antropólogos y los historiadores siguen siendo muy distintos en lo que hacen y su manera de ralizarlo. De hecho, opino que ambas disciplinas están entrando a una recurrente fase nativista, y que el clima para las colaboraciones se ha vuelto un tanto gélido.

This paper is an exploration of two models, "Anthropologyland" and "Historyland," which exist in the practices and minds of anthropologists and historians. It is about how particular forms of knowledge are created, written and spoken about. It is about what historians and anthropologists do and say they do.

The diffusion of British institutions, ideas, and values and the spread of the English language and of British peoples are among the major events in modern history. The study of the effects of this diffusion in the New World, Africa, and Asia in shaping political institutions in these regions has attracted many scholars, but the systematic and analytic study of the British themselves and of the societies and cultures they built overseas in their African and Asian colonies has thus far been neglected, except in the memoir and travel literature.

One of the first problems confronting a colonial power after establishing de facto or de jure sovereignty over a new territory is to set up procedures for settling disputes arising within the dominated society, and to establish a whole range of rights in relation to property and obligations of individuals and groups to one another and to the state.

Events of the last two hundred years have led many scholars to divide the societies of the world into contrasting pairs, such as developed—under-developed, advanced—backward, traditional—modern. Central to these concepts are not only ideas about the level of technological development, but the very character of the societies and cultures which are compared and contrasted as well. Professor Edward Shils has recently remarked that the traditional society is one in which, among other things, there is a strong attachment to the past, by which behavior is determined and validated. Solutions to problems old and new are determined by the past of the society, and modernization quickens when ties to the past begin to be cut and new criteria for determining and validating behavior are invoked.