Originally Posted by
maximara
If you think Miner's piece was a "hoax paper" then you clearly don't understand anthropology or the term sarcastic. The purpose of the piece was to show just how wrong headed the dismissive and non critical way anthropologist were studying native peoples way by applying those exact same methods so the then current United States.
Sarcastic or not, an article flat out lying about what it studied and mis-representing its finds is still a hoax. A sarcastic hoax, but that's about it.
Originally Posted by
maximara
As for the 2-3 degrees of separation, George Brown Goode (Director of the U.S. National Museum ie Smithsonian) wanted “the collections to form a museum of anthropology, the word anthropology being applied in its most comprehensive sense” (Alexander, Edward P. (1983) Museum Masters Their Museums and Their Influence; American Association for State and Local History; pg 288) shows that to be incorrect.
Goalpost shift at its best, unless that collection is of such "sarcastic" articles. If you want to show something to be incorrect, address that thing, not whatever completely unrelated thing you can support instead.
Also, a "by association" fallacy.