Even more obsolete than Coon

[topdog]

human2 said:

Anthropology should never be mixed with politics. This is true. If you can't separate the two, choose one path to go down.

What makes it even worse is that Coon did not openly criticise people who used his work for such racist purposes.

[mike2]

Has Diop ever criticized blantant Afrocentrists like Bernal who have misused what he has written? Just curious.

The point is that Coon's political affiliation plays no role in interpreting his work nor does it make what he did write any less relevant. Objective reasoning and common sense separate the bad works of Coon from the good works of Coon just fine. To disregard him as just some run-of-the-mill-racist like Guenther is what is inexcusable. I think Coon sincerely believed everything he wrote. His Origin of Races is obsolete, yes. But he didn't write Races of Europe to keep the black man down. You have to rightly divide the good from the bad.

[Crimson Guard]

Guess moving on is outve the question...You really have to stop with this whining crying racist crap bass.

[topdog]

Mike said:

Has Diop ever criticized blantant Afrocentrists like Bernal who have misused what he has written? Just curious.

Have you ever Bernals book and do you even know when Diop died? Bernal never said that black Africans specifically had anything to do with Greek civilisation, all he said is that Egyptians and Phoenicians influenced Greece.

The point is that Coon's political affiliations plays no role in interpreting his work nor does it make what he did write any less relevant. Objective reasoning and common sense separate the bad Coon from the good Coon just fine. If anything Coon was a Mediterraneanist. He wasn't some run-of-the-mill racist like Guenther.

Thats not the point, as an anthropologist and scientist it is your responsibility to criticise those who misuse your work for racist purposes, nor should any scientist have anything to do with racists, especially those racists who condone beating and lynching people.

[lurker4now]

Charlie said:

What makes it even worse is that Coon did not openly criticise people who used his work for such racist purposes.

Carleton Stevens Coon-Not Political

Malcolm X- Political


Carleton Stevens Coon-never preached about superiority

Malcolm X-always preached about superiorty



Carleton Stevens Coon-did not believe or preached separation of races

Malcolm X-preached separation of races




Charlie Bass-hypocrite with to much time on his hands.

[topdog]

CrimsonGuard said:

Guess moving on is outve the question...You really have to stop with this whining crying racist crap bass.

I'm not whinning I'm stating facts. My grandparents and parents grew up in the segregated south and till this day there are small towns in the Deep South that aren't all that much different than what they were 50-60 years ago.

[topdog]

lurker4now said:

Carleton Stevens Coon-Not Political



Carleton Stevens Coon-never preached about superiority

Malcolm X-always preached about superiorty



Carleton Stevens Coon-did not believe or preached separation of races

Malcolm X-preached separation of races




Charlie Bass-hypocrite with to much time on his hands.

Malcolm and Coon are two different people and Malcolm preached separation of races early in the Nation of Islam, but in his autobiography he explicitly says he doesn't believe in it. Now retreat to you whole, troll4now!

[lurker4now]

Charlie said:

Malcolm and Coon are two different people and Malcolm preached separation of races early in the Nation of Islam, but in his autobiography he explicitly says he doesn't believe in it. Now retreat to you whole!

Coon never did.

[mike2]

Charlie said:

Thats not the point, as an anthropologist and scientist it is your responsibility to criticise those who misuse your work for racist purposes, nor should any scientist have anything to do with racists, especially those racists who condone beating and lynching people.

I've seen no proof that Coon used his work for racist purposes. People might have misrepresented his work, yes, but that's not Coon's fault. Was it wrong of him not to step up and defend his work from the racist leeches? Yes, it was wrong. But does that mean we should damn his work? No. You're acting like Coon is some Great Satan who was in the background masterminding segregation with the Evil White Republican Council. No, he was just a realist, scared to intervene. That's unfortunate, but that's just the way it was. All scientists have to make compromises with the politicians of their era in order to survive and prosper. Unfortunate? Yes. Inexcusable? Perhaps, yes. Dishonorable? Yes. Realistic? Yes. Worthy of burning all his books and completely ignoring the good stuff? No. That's all I'm arguing.

[topdog]

lurker4now said:

Coon never did.

Coon is an anthropologist, a scientist so you're making a stupid comparison. Scientists are supposed to objective and without bias if they want their work to be taken seriously. Malcolm was a minister in a de facto Islamic cult who later changed his views. Whatever he was before he wasn't afterwards.

[mike2]

That's true. Malcolm changed his ways, which is laudable. Coon died before our present era. I'm sure if he were still around, he would apologize and mend any wrongs he had done.

But his attitudes toward non-white racists is really irrelevant in interpreting his work, anyway, since the good stuff that he did write concerns the Caucasoid race. Nobody consults his book, the Origin of Races, because it's completely obsolete. But Races of Europe is still very relevant.

[topdog]

Mike said:

I've seen no proof that Coon used his work for racist purposes. People might have misrepresented his work, yes, but that's not Coon's fault. Was it wrong of him not to step up and defend his work from the racist leeches? Yes, it was wrong. But does that mean we should damn his work? No. You're acting like Coon is some Great Satan who was in the background masterminding segregation with the Evil White Republican Council. No, he was just a realist, scared to intervene. That's unfortunate, but that's just the way it was. All scientists have to make compromises with the politicians of their era in order to survive and prosper. Unfortunate? Yes. Inexcusable? Perhaps, yes. Dishonorable? Yes. Realistic? Yes. Worthy of burning all his books and completely ignoring the good stuff? No. That's all I'm arguing.

I'm not saying in the segregationist here, I'm talking about his refusal to criticise those who misused his work for racist purposes, especially segregationists during the Civil Rights Movement.

[mike2]

And he should have done so, I agree, that would have been the honorable and right thing to do, but he caved in to pressure. Does that mean we should abandon his whole body of work? Not by a longshot. That's all I'm saying. Criticize the man all you like, but Races of Europe, despite its errors, is still a supreme resource for anyone interested in physical anthropology. You must admit that, at the very least.

[topdog]

Mike said:

That's true. Malcolm changed his ways, which is laudable. Coon died before our present era. I'm sure if he were still around, he would apologize and mend any wrongs he had done.

In reality Malcolm was never really hateful of whites, he was just following stupid nation of Islam racist teachings and his respect and admiration for Elijah Muhammad blinded him in the beginning. When he had enough of the nation's inaction he simply left the organisation.

[Crimson Guard]

<<Thats not the point, as an anthropologist and scientist it is your responsibility to criticise those who misuse your work for racist purposes, nor should any scientist have anything to do with racists, especially those racists who condone beating and lynching people.>>

Thats the point you been stressing,what are yout talking about?

Coon defended his work,cause it was based what he believed to be the truth or right.Most of his work has been correct,or he paved the way like a pioneer.He deserves his credit,cause he earned it...Jut leave it at that.

It should be noted:

At the time,Racialism even in the anthropolgy field was an accepted part of normal day life,even and politics back in the early 20th century...Only during the 60's did this start to change because of the shifting politic's which where going more and more left wing and liberal,with Socialist groups gaining seats in power disguised as Democrats... (which was part of Black power Socialist Martin Luther King's support base) became more powerful,as the Vietnam war was raging on.During this period his ideas became controvial,and unfortunately have been grossly and unfairly subjected to reticule by Polictical Correctness even his area of expertise. Coon stepped down as President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists because of disgust, after the association voted to censure Putnam's book .


So for the most part, his writing,ideas and work are not obsolete because they where wrong,they where obsolete because they where no longer Politically Acceptable.Its all about politics.