I.

A thought I had throughout reading L.R. Hiatt's Arguments About Aborigines was: What are anthropologists even doing?

The book recounts two centuries' worth of scholarly disputes over questions like whether aboriginal tribes had chiefs. But during those centuries, many Aborigines learned English, many Westerners learned Aboriginal languages, and representatives of each side often spent years embedded in one another's culture. What stopped some Westerner from approaching an Aborigine, asking "So, do you have chiefs?" and resolving a hundred years of bitter academic debate?

Of course the answer must be something like "categories from different cultures don't map neatly into another, and Aboriginal hierarchies have something that matches the Western idea of 'chief' in some sense but not in others". And there are other complicating factors - maybe some Aboriginal tribes have chiefs and others don't. Or maybe Aboriginal social organization changed after Western contact, and whatever chiefs they do or don't have are a foreign imposition. Or maybe something about chiefs is taboo, and if you ask an Aborigine directly they'll lie or dissemble or say something that's obviously a euphemism to them but totally meaningless to you. All of these points are well taken. It still seems weird that the West could interact with an entire continent full of Aborigines for two hundred years and remain confused about basic facts of their social lives. You can repeat the usual platitudes about why anthropology is hard as many times as you want; it still doesn't quite seem to sink in.

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-arguments-about-aborigines