@John McCreery feel free to correct me, but the notion of “replacing” here is also odd; zora neale hurston, who i assign to my students when i teach intro anth, was a student of boas; likewise, fei studied with malinowski at the LSE. while i agree that the two of them offer perspectives that are unique, to consider them “outside” of the tradition of either boasian or british structural-functionalist anthropology, respectively, erases their particular histories. to me, such a move commits another kind of violence on both of them. on the whole, i find such a move a form of tokenism. so the question would be how do we think of alternate traditions of a kind of engaged or decolonial anthropology (and truth be told, i would locate hurston here, but not fei) as having complex entanglements with the “canonical” tradition? this is why i pointed to the figure of sol tax. tax shows, i think, that the question concerns ethical and political commitment, which emerges in dialogue with the centers of power within the discipline, not one’s national or ethnic origin