>>16785343
You actually seem to dismiss this research much like OP - a yet you accuse OP of being a "poltard". You're welcome to dismiss her research if you want , but academia takes it seriously, and if you deny that fact, then you're either just misinformed and uneducated or you're an outright liar.
This isn't pol. Quite the opposite, if anything it is the mainstream academic position to take her seriously. It's considered extremely distatesteful, and in some cases even downright conspiratorial and antisemitic to dismiss the academic credentials of mainstream scholars.
To be fair, you are 100% correct that there are major cultural divides within academia and even within specific disciplines, so someone doing this cultural anthropology research that is heavily informed by continental philosophy and humanities scholarship would typically have very different views from someone studying biological, linguistic, or cognitive anthropology, where statistics, genetic analysis, and empirical data all play a large role.
That being said, although her views are probably not common, e.g. amongst biological anthropologists, she would still be taken seriously by these individuals and by mainstream academia. That's why pretty much any anthropology department in the US or Europe has people studying this type of stuff. The universities take it seriously, and so do a lot of educated professionals working in the biological and social sciences. This sort of research is mainstream and accepted within academia. It's not considered pseudoscience at all, and a lot of academics and "trust the experts" liberal zionist types would take offense at your dismissal of these scholars and their research.
Personally, l take biological approaches to anthropology a lot more seriously, and much like both yourself and the OP I tend to be skeptical of this humanites/continental philosophy cultural anthropology stuff, but you're simply incorrect if you think this is fringe pseudoscience.
