Redfield - 24

        It was a pleasure reading the first few pages that are generally about culture and anthropology.  The text included the initial objectives of anthropology and hypothetical accounts of what anthropologists actually did.   The writer did admit that reality might have been abstracted when documenting primitive cultures.  It is interesting that the first ‘anthropologists’ were missionaries who lived with ‘exotic’ people.  In addition to, the groups that they were reporting were ‘parts of a whole’.  However, I do not know why the study sometimes focuses on ‘lesser’ groups of people, such as a ‘city slum or delinquency’.  I suppose why would anthropologists study themselves?  It is slightly unfortunate that anthropologists might have thought of primitive isolates as a minor whole to be compared to other far-fetched cultures.  In more modern times, the text hints that if an anthropologist did not have the money to venture off to rural places, he or she might study Armenians in Boston for instance.  Absolutely, that is cheap.  Thankfully, the text states that contemporary anthropologists study all social matters pertaining to humans.  In that perspective, humans seem more complex, dynamic and beautiful living organisms.  It appears to be extremely valuable that anthropology started to be informed by other fields such as sociology.  That way intelligent discussions about various unique sectors that are held to one political regime.  However, they found grey areas especially in Latin America.  Perhaps, British anthropologist who studied other cultures in rural area of the United Kingdom might be noteworthy.  Nonetheless, the labeling and classification just removes the anthropologist or even other cultures from a position or state of being neighbors to an artificial platform for study.