With hindsight, Dr. McFate replies to queries and critiques of the Manual's scholarship seem odd. In response to González's critique in Anthropology Today of the Manual's weak anthropological base, McFate framed the Manual as "military doctrine, not an academic treatise" and inexplicably proclaimed that "doctrine does not have footnotes."
Thus, Dr. Price was aware of the Field Manuals Authors’ stance before he wrote this Counterpunch article.
Dr. Price's premise is that the US Army Field Manual is not up to scholarly standards. He was well aware that the author's did not hold themselves to this set of standards. Yet, it forms the basis for his criticisms.
I did a point by point rebutall of most of Dr. Price's claims. It would not be a good thread read, as it would start above the screen and finish below the screen. Honestly, I don't think the wild claims and disassociated points of Dr. Price's article would pass in a Philosophy 300 class. I am sure he was heralded at happy hour, though.
Note to self: Low standards at St. Martin's University.
Bookmarks