Despite the influence of Thomas Kuhn on critical assessments of anthropology, disciplinary histories written by anthropologists still tend to be self-serving.To this day, it seems evident to look upon the great thinkers of anthropology, those whom we think revolutionized its theories and methods, as the main carriers of the history of anthropology.Our own research projects, concerning localized, contextual histories of ethnographic practices in colonial Tanganyika (Pels) and Vietnam (Salemink), made us consider the history of anthropology from another angle.We feel that the emphasis on the "big men" of anthropology in disciplinary histories obscures the way in which ethnography was linked to the construction of colonial and neo-colonial societies.In the following text we elaborate some theses on the historical relevance of ethnographic practice, understood in relation to the anthropological discipline and to its respective local and historical contexts.These theses are obviously not the definitive outcome of a rewriting of anthropology's history, but we consider them to be necessary steps toward a critical reflection on the relations between ethnography and colonialism. First Thesis: Disciplinary history obscures the way in which academic anthropology was linked to the construction of colonial and neo-colonial societies through ethnographic practice.When the collection of essays on Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter (Asad 1973) was published, its message was drowned in heated arguments.Despite Asad's statement that "it is a mistake to view social anthropology Sfe^^sM* 1 ^^;* "MS****" i*e5MiJ_.. n.^-i»^Jrt>-iJ4^i»&iit*i«,: *iit
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 86 citations exist upstream.