Talk:Michael Harner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally posted in article by a user at 64.142.86.96; moved here by Jefgodesky - The writer makes inflammatory statements (which are completely unsubstantiated here) about Harner's reputation as an anthropologist. Factually, they also get it wrong when they say he chaired the anthropology department at New York University. Harner was never at NYU. He chaired the anthropology chair at The New School.

Looks like you're right about New School; I fixed that. I also added Susan Grimaldi's contesting that Harner was not on Castenada's dissertation committee, as Noel alleged. I'll fish up some references on Harner's academic reputation later; in fact, I thought the article was rather kind. I've never encountered an anthropologist who didn't take an extremely dim view of Harner. Jason Godesky 17:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The summary for Revision as of 04:07 is "what gives you the right to call someones work discredited?" If you prefer to remove the word "discredited," that's fine, but it should be understood that there is no question that Castenada's "experiences" never happened. That has been well established.[1][2][3][4] The Yaqui have denounced him, since he ascribes to them many beliefs they do not hold. Perhaps it's not worth mentioning in the article, but Castenada has been quite firmly discredited. Jason Godesky 13:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this Aztec human sacrifice guy

Or not? Stilgar135 03:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Aztec human sacrifice theory:

The theory that Aztecs practiced human sacrifice (which is undisputed) and cannibalism (which is disputed only by a few) because of dietary deficiency was in fact a leading 'traditional' theory regarding there society, long before the 1970s or Harner's advocacy of it. (Although this fact comes from memory, and I can't quote sources).

This theory in fact holds no water, because the Aztecs like other North American farming cultures relied on the corn/beans/squash triad, which certainly provides adequate nutrition. Although I am not certain, I think that they may have also had domestic turkeys.

Aztecs did engage in such grotesque practices as wearing the human skins of their conquered victims, and such 'clothing' has been exhibited in museums; so it is not a far cry to believe that they did in fact (as recorded by the earliest Spanish writers) engage in ritual cannibalism. The notion that they did so was certainly regarded as an unquestioned fact until quite recently.

It should also be noted that fearful belief in the reality of 'cannibal psychosis' as a spiritual 'disease' is widespread among Native American cultures, as far north as Canada; and that substantial physical evidence exists that, at least at one point in history, human cannibalism was practiced among Pueblo peoples in the area of New Mexico - at the extreme edge of the zone of Aztec cultural influence. Speaking as a Native American, there is no doubt in my mind that 'cannibal psychosis' is real, and little doubt that its influence may have been endemic in Aztec culture.

Joseph McCord lycodont@yahoo.com

I am not familiar with the editing process, and this question / comment might need its own subheading.........but here goes..... Also noteworthy are Harner's comments at the 1966 AAA meeting in Pittsberg, where Gough and others challenged the Association's stance regarding Vietnam, whereby Mead (?) and others declared an anti-Vietnam stance did not further the professional interests nor the science of anthropology. Harner's comment, and its quite famous, was "Genocide is not in the professional interests of anthropology."

This is where I first encountered Harner. Reference: 1968. Berreman, Gerald D. Is Anthropology Alive? Social Responsibility in Social Anthropology. Current Anthropology 9(5) 1968. 391-396.