Week 2 - Billy Kemper

It is obvious from Hodgen’s writings that she has great admiration for the famous Greek historian Herodotus and his accompanying works. Though sometimes guilty of launching into the fantastical, Herodotus’ methods were nonetheless structured and methodical as he pioneered many of the staples of the fields of history and anthropology. This led to successful writings about the idea of different cultures and peoples. Herodotus’, “…use of comparison and his recognition, even in the fifth century B.C., of some of the problems which have emerged whenever the comparison of cultures has revealed either similarities or differences” (25), showcased his insight that stood in stark contrast to that of many medieval thinkers.

Hodgen pities the people of this age as they were mired by religious dogma and bountiful legends. The medieval man pined for more legendary tales and explanations instead of researched accuracy. Herodotus noted the barbarian people that surrounded his civilized Greece, but attempted to account for the differences rather than accepting them just at face value. Hodgen also notes that unlike some of his contemporaries, Herodotus strove for accuracy in peoples’ differences and similarities, rather than focusing on small but sensational differences and aspects of culture. Any truth in his explanations for cultural differences was lost over the years, as accounts from the middle ages were nothing more than myth and lore than had been passed down and perverted through the ages.

Europe began to prosper and new technologies emerged, ushering in the age of exploration. Hodgen credits Columbus as a figurehead in this new movement towards exploration and explanation. However, though she places Columbus and his impact on a level nearly to her praise of Herodotus, I do not think this admiration is vindicated by her appraisal of the facts or my impressions of Columbus. Columbus, to me, was more in the right place at the right time compared to the reforms and independent thoughts of Herodotus. As Columbus and subsequent explorers journeyed to faraway lands, interactions between peoples who had never seen anyone like one another occurred more and more frequently. These different looking people harkened back to mythic tales of monsters and bizarre humanoids. Though the actual differences were much more subtle, Europeans attempted to categorize these “savages” in a completely different category of life than themselves. Not only were there clear physical differences between the Europeans and the savages, but also their cultures and traditions were wildly different, prompting intense “anti-primitivism” against these different people. Feelings of superiority and innate discrepancies propelled these views as debates about man’s place in the world and the emerging field of taxonomy. Hogden believes this mentality led Karl Linnaeus to separate “man” from “savage” as he created the basis of our modern taxonomical system. This pseudo-science was hindered by pervasive attitudes and beliefs. Ultimately, do you think Linnaeus’ work was beneficial to the fields of science, or more so negative in that perpetuated and “vindicated” false beliefs in the differences between men?