Final answer:
Anthropologists oppose embedding with the U.S. Army due to ethical concerns, the discipline's historical role in colonization, and the potential misuse of cultural knowledge. They advocate for more ethical practice and using their knowledge as public policy advocates.
Step-by-step explanation:
Evaluation of Anthropologists in Military Contexts
Some anthropologists oppose the practice of embedding anthropologists with the U.S. Army due to ethical concerns about their role in conflicts. This discomfort stems from a historical context where anthropology played a part in the colonization of Indigenous societies. Anthropologists like Edward S. Curtis perpetuated stereotypes through their depictions of Indigenous peoples, not only taking their land but also capturing their knowledge for academic benefit without aiding the communities themselves. Such actions have been seen as disempowering and serving colonial interests.
Cultural research conducted by anthropologists has been critiqued for sometimes confirming biased ideas and overlooking the struggles of studied communities, like those living in poverty on reservations. Moreover, the sales of cultural objects to museums at a profit have been condemned as exploitative.
Contemporary anthropologists focus on a variety of issues including marginalized perspectives. However, there's a concern about their role when they collaborate with governments or corporations, such as the U.S. Army. There is a fear that their work could be co-opted for agendas that contradict the discipline's commitment to cultural understanding and ethical practice. It is suggested that anthropologists should act as public policy advocates, influencing decision-making with their insights into cultural complexities to avoid repeating historical mistakes.