There is developing, in our universities and research institutes, something I think might fairly be called ”guerilla scholarship.”

The English word ”guerilla,” let me remind you, comes into our language direct from the Spanish. We borrowed it in the early 19th century when Napoleon’s armies had invaded Spain and Portugal and destroyed those nations’ armies.

No longer having organized armies to defend their countries with, the people of Spain and Portugal took matters into their own hands. Readers of Bernard Cornwell’s Richard Sharpe novels know all about this.

The entry under ”guerilla warfare” in Webster’s Third dictionary defines it very well. Quote:

military actions carried out by small forces in the rear of an enemy with the object of harassing the enemy, interrupting his lines of communication, and destroying his supplies.

The academic equivalent today in our institutions of higher education is not as aggressive as that, but it’s taking on some of those sneak-attack characteristics. Here’s an example that turned up December 3rd at Unherd.com. The particular corner of academia under discussion here is Archaeology. The author of the piece is anonymous, but we’re told he is himself a professional archaeologist.

What does he tell us? Well, if you’ve followed archaeology at all you’ll know that in recent decades, as political correctness took hold, students of archaeology were taught to think in terms of ”pots not people.” When new styles of artefacts like pots appear in the archaeological record, you must not (students were told) suppose that meant some one group of people came in and subdued or vanquished some other group. No! Peoples’ taste in pottery just changed, that’s all.

All that of course fits in nicely with the notion that there aren’t really different peoples at all—certainly not different races. Good heavens, no—absolutely not! Styles change, that’s all. ”Pots not people.”

Quote from our author, the guerilla archaeologist:

What seems obvious to the general public—that prehistory was a bloody mess of invasions, migrations, battles and conflict—is not always a commonplace view among researchers. Worse, the idea that ancient peoples organised themselves along clear ethnic and tribal lines is also taboo. Obvious statements of common sense, such as the existence of patriarchy in the past, are constantly challenged and the general tone of academia is one of refutation: both of established theories and thinkers and of disagreeable parts of the past itself.

The rise of Archaeologists Anonymous, by ”Stone Age Herbalist,” December 3, 2022

The orthodox, woke position is a refashioning of the old Noble Savage myth. Human beings in the remote past were not aggressive and patriarchal like white people in modern times. They didn’t invade each other’s territories, kill their men and take their women, or practice slavery. No, no, no, they just changed their style of pottery.

Then along came modern techniques of genetic analysis, which can be applied to the fragmentary remains of ancient corpses. What do they tell us? They tell us that, guess what: Prehistory was a bloody mess of invasions, migrations, battles and conflict.

This article is so good and so relevant, I kept marking up passages to quote on my podcast, but ended with well-nigh the whole thing marked up. This anonymous guy, this guerilla archeologist, is very quotable. Just one more,:

The value divide between the layman and the academic frequently clashes over this endless push towards progressive politics. Queer Vikings, transgender skeletons, female warriors… not a week seems to go by without some new claim that today’s morality has always been the norm. For the British public, perhaps no single phenomenon better demonstrates this than the ”discoveries” of black people in British history and prehistory. The infamous Cheddar Man fiasco, where a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer was identified by geneticists as having black skin, a claim quietly retracted afterwards, was perfect debate fodder and was exploited by anti-Brexit campaigners.

I do urge you to read the whole thing over at Unherd.com

Insightul but depressing piece on why (esp young) academics are going anonymous to avoid "the almost total homogeneity of political opinions held by scholars & researchers, staff & students which ensures interpretations of findings often go “the right way”https://t.co/Sb6agDHkyH

— Matt Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) December 5, 2022

And if there is a guerilla academic of any scholarly discipline among your personal acquaintance, give him what encouragement you can. Buy him a dinner!