Saturday, September 30, 2017

ANTH101--MidTerm#1--JOHN WESLEY POWELL (1834-1902)

  1. the study of the characteristics of various peoples and the differences and relationships between them.
Anthropology and the Racial Politics of Culture--
Lee D Baker-- (2010)

John Wesley Powell-- (1834-1902)-- P. 71-72

John Wesley Powell made his mark in Washington as a geologist and surveyor, scientist and adventurer during the 1870's as he emerged as a storied Washington insider (Darnell 1971; Darrah 1951; Stegner 1954; Wor-ster zoos). Although he is viewed as a founder of the conservation move-ment in the West, he was also the first person to institutionalize anthro-pology in the United States by mobilizing a corps of paid professionals at
the bureau (Seigel et al. zoo3a; 1-iinsley 1981:151). The BAE was originally authorized by Congress in the spring of 1879 when it consolidated vari-ous geographical surveys into the U.S. Geological Survey.4 Although the bureau was chartered under the auspices of the Smithsonian Institution to extend its mission "for the increase and diffusion of knowledge Powell used the application of knowledge as the justification he gave Congress for the bureau's inception (Smithson 1826:3). In short, ethnology could help to solve the so-called Indian problem. Anthropology and the Racial Politics of Culture-- Lee D Baker.

Powell Strategy--Surveillance, Reconnaissance, Intelligence.--
The long road from Savagery to Civilization as opposed to a rather short road.---

Powell's main message was that he had a new and improved way to measure the progress from savagery to civilization. Powell began by chal-lenging "the most noteworthy attempt hitherto made to distinguish and define culture-stages," which he credited to "Lewis 11. Morgan in his great work entitled 'Ancient Society [1877)'" (1885:171). Powell's basic argument was that "the separation between savagery and barbarism" was greater than Morgan or Tylor had surmised and that people stayed within the stage of savagery longer but then sped through the other stages faster with the help of racial and cultural mixing, or what he termed "a return to homogeneity" (1885:194). As Powell optimistically reasoned, "Civiliza-tion overwhelms Savagery, not so much by spilling blood as by mixing blood, but whether spilled or mixed, a greater homogeneity is secured" Anthropology and the Racial Politics of Culture—Lee D Baker --2010

Bureau of American Ethnology - Wikipedia

The Bureau of American Ethnology was established in 1879 by an act of Congress for the ... In 1965, the BAE merged with the Smithsonian's Department of Anthropology to form the Smithsonian Office of Anthropology within the United States ...

ANTHROPOLOGY--The 4 groups--
Archaeology, Biological, Social-Cultural, Linguistic.


  1637The Pequot War - Native Indians of Connecticut included the Narragansetts, Mohegans, Wampanoags, Nipmucks, Pocumtucks, Abenakis and Pequots. The Pequots were defeated by the colonists, who were led by John Underhill and John Mason, and the Narragansetts and Mohegans who were their allies 
  16401640 - 1701 - The Beaver Wars, also known as the Iroquois Wars or the French and Iroquois Wars 
  16551655 - The Peach Tree War, also known as the Peach War, was a large scale attack by the Susquehannock Nation and allied Native Americans on several New Netherland settlements centered on New Amsterdam 
  16751675 - 1677 King Philip's War so named after Metacomet of the Wampanoag tribe, who was called Philip by the English. The war was bloody and bitterly fought by the colonists against the Wampanoags, Narragansetts, Nipmucks, Pocumtucks, and Abenakis. During King Philip's War, up to one third of America's white population was wiped out. This war proved to be the final struggle by the Native Americans of Connecticut. 
  17111711-1713: The Tuscarora War between the Tuscarora Native Americans and European settlers. The Tuscarora are defeated 
  1715The Yamasee War - An Indian confederation led by the Yamasee came close to exterminating the white settlements in their area 
  1722Iroquois surrender claims to land south of the Ohio River in addition to counties in the eastern panhandle 
  17561756 - 1763: The Seven Years War (French and Indian War) due to disputes over land is won by Great Britain. France gives England all French territory east of the Mississippi River, except New Orleans. The Spanish give up east and west Florida to the English in return for Cuba. 
  1763February 10: Treaty of Paris ends French and Indian War (1754-1763). Canada east of the Mississippi River added to the British empire. 
  1764Pontiac's Rebellion. The British treated the former Indian allies of the French like conquered peoples, which prompted the Ottawa Chief Pontiac (1720-1769) to lead a rebellion of a number of tribes against the British

Friday, September 29, 2017


You should know the following:

The subfields of anthropology and their topics of study
Archaeology. Archaeology examines peoples and cultures of the past.
Biological Anthropology. Biological anthropology specializes in evolution, genetics, and health. Cultural Anthropology. Cultural anthropology studies human societies and elements of cultural life. Linguistic Anthropology.

Culture concept, characteristics of culture, and its relation to anthropology
Research methods in cultural anthropology --
Ethnography is the descriptive study of one culture, subculture, or micro-culture based on fieldwork.

Fieldwork in anthropology--
the gathering of anthropological or sociological data through the interviewing and observation of subjects in the field.

Different theoretical/explanatory approaches in cultural anthropology

Know the name of the theory, the anthropologists associated with it , and one or two points about it
evolutionism-- Darwinian examination and application to anthropology research; incorporates natural selection and genetics.
diffusionism--conceptualized by Leo Frobenius in his 1897/98 publication Der westafrikanische Kulturkreis, is the spread of cultural items—such as ideas, styles, religions, technologies, languages etc.—between individuals, whether within a single culture or from ...
historical particularism-- Boas, each culture has a unique history as opposed to a set pattern, ref the "Savage-Barbarian-Civilized" paradigm
functionalism--developed by Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942) ,  similar to Radcliffe-Brown's structural functionalism, in that it is holistic and posits that all cultural "traits" are functionally interrelated and form an integrated social whole.
structuralism--Claude Lévi-Strauss' (1908-2009) idea that immutable deep structures exist in all cultures, and consequently, that all cultural practices have homologous counterparts in other cultures, essentially that all cultures are equitable.
neo-evolutionism--explain the evolution of societies by drawing on Charles Darwin's (1809-1882) theory of evolution and discarding some dogmas of the previous social evolutionism. ... Its theories are based on empirical evidence from fields such as archaeology, paleontology, and historiography.
cultural ecology--human adaptations to social and physical environments. Human adaptation refers to both biological and cultural processes that enable a population to survive and reproduce within a given or changing environment. Julian Steward (1902-1972)
cultural materialism--first introduced by Marvin Harris (1927-2001) in his 1968 book The Rise of Anthropological Theory, as a theoretical paradigm and research strategy. It is said to be the most enduring achievement of that work.
 postmodernist --an emphasis on including the opinions and perspectives of the people being studied, cultural relativism as a method of inquiry. Melford Spiro (1914-2014)

Characteristics of language; how language is used in culture --
Linguistic anthropology is the interdisciplinary study of how language influences social life. It is a branch of anthropology that originated from the endeavor to document endangered languages, and has grown over the past century to encompass most aspects of language structure and use.
Cultural relativism and ethnocentrism—why are they important concepts in anthropology?
--asserts that since each culture has its own values and practices, anthropologists should not make value judgments about cultural differences.

How anthropologists understand race and racism--


Anthropology--the study of human societies and cultures and their development.

Interpretive Anthropology--is the study of cultural symbols and how those symbols can be used to better understanding a particular society.

Applied Anthropology--also known as “practicing anthropology,” is defined as the practical application of anthropological method and theory to the needs of society. It is, quite simply, anthropology put to good use.

Functionalism--the theory that all aspects of a society serve a function and are necessary for the survival of that society.  Functionalism is similar to Radcliffe-Brown's structural functionalism, in that it is holistic and posits that all cultural "traits" are functionally interrelated and form an integrated social whole.

Biological Determinism--refers to the idea that all human behavior is innate, determined by genes, brain size, or other biological attributes. This theory stands in contrast to the notion that human behavior is determined by culture or other social forces.

Sociolinguistics--the study of language in relation to social factors, including differences of regional, class, and occupational dialect, gender differences, and bilingualism.

Historical Particularism--Closely associated with Franz Boas and the Boasian approach to anthropology, historical particularism rejected the cultural evolutionary model that had dominated anthropology until Boas. It argued that each society is a collective representation of its unique historical past.

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis--a hypothesis, first advanced by Edward Sapir in 1929 and subsequently developed by Benjamin Whorf, that the structure of a language determines a native speaker's perception and categorization of experience.

Physical/Biological Anthropology--also known as physical anthropology, is a scientific discipline concerned with the biological and behavioral aspects of human beings, their related non-human primates and their extinct hominin ancestors.

Non-verbal Communication--our facial expressions, gestures, eye contact, posture, and tone of voice—that speak the loudest.

Methodology--a system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity

Participant-Observation--the observer participates in ongoing activities and records observations.

Culture and Personality/Configurationalism--Any theory that stresses the whole rather than the parts, especially gestalt theory . In anthropology, associated with the ideas of Ruth Benedict

Cultural Anthropology--the branch of anthropology concerned with the study of human societies and cultures and their development.

Cultural Materialism--To Harris social change is dependent of three factors: a society's infrastructure, structure, and superstructure. Ref to Marx, Engels, Hegel, Comte, Malthus.
the principal mechanisms by which a society exploits its environment are contained in a society's infrastructure—the mode of production (technology and work patterns) and population (such as population characteristics, fertility and mortality rates). Since such practices are essential for the continuation of life itself, widespread social structures and cultural values and beliefs must be consistent with these practices.

Cultural Relativism--argued against the evolutionary scale leading from savagery to Culture, laid out by his 19th-century predecessors. civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes."[

Globalization--the process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale.

Unilineal Cultural Evolution--cultural evolution: a theory of unilineal evolution with three basic phases of development that all human societies went through—Hunter-gatherer (the "savage" stage),
agriculture and metal-work (the stage of "barbarism"), and the highest stage beginning with writing (the stage of "civilization"). Morgan postulated that there were also stages in the development of family structures—from promiscuity and incestuous relationships through group marriage, and polygamy to the most advanced stage of monogamous marriage. Cultural evolution” is the idea that human cultural change––that is, changes in socially transmitted beliefs, knowledge, customs, skills, attitudes, languages, and so on––can be described as a Darwinian evolutionary process that is similar in key respects (but not identical) to biological/genetic evolution.

Ethnocentrism-- the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture. 2. a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own. belief in the intrinsic superiority of the nation, culture, or group to which one belongs, often accompanied by feelings of dislike for other groups

Ethnography--the scientific description of the customs of individual peoples and cultures.

Ethnographic  Research--is the study of people in their own environment through the use of methods such as participant observation and face-to-face interviewing.

Archaeology--the study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture. The archaeological record consists of artifacts, architecture, biofacts or ecofacts, and cultural landscapes.

Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881)--cultural evolution: a theory of unilineal evolution with three basic phases of development that all human societies went through—Hunter-gatherer (the "savage" stage), agriculture and metal-work (the stage of "barbarism"), and the highest stage beginning with writing (the stage of "civilization"). Morgan postulated that there were also stages in the development of family structures—from promiscuity and incestuous relationships through group marriage, and polygamy to the most advanced stage of monogamous marriage.

Franz Boas  (1858-1942)--greatly influenced American anthropology, particularly in his development of the theoretical framework known as cultural relativism, which argued against the evolutionary scale leading from savagery to Culture, laid out by his 19th-century predecessors. Closely associated with Franz Boas and the Boasian approach to anthropology, historical particularism rejected the cultural evolutionary model that had dominated anthropology until Boas. It argued that each society is a collective representation of its unique historical past. participated in a geographical expedition to northern Canada, where he became fascinated with the culture and language of the Baffin Island Inuit.

Tylor-Morgan Theory--"Savagery-Barbarism-Civilization"  (1832-1917)--

Ruth Benedict  (1887-1948)--Any theory that stresses the whole rather than the parts, especially gestalt theory . In anthropology, associated with the ideas of Ruth benedict

Bronislaw Malinowski  (1884-1942)--Functionalism is similar to Radcliffe-Brown's structural functionalism, in that it is holistic and posits that all cultural "traits" are functionally interrelated and form an integrated social whole.

Clifford Geertz (1926 – 2006)--Interpretive-Symbolic  Anthropology

Marvin Harris  (1927-2001)--Cultural Materialism
Racism, Individual and Institutional

Thursday, September 28, 2017


Timeline of Scientific Racism

This timeline gives an overview of scientific racism throughout the world, placing the Eugenics Record Office within a broader historical framework extending from Enlightenment-Era Europe to present-day social thought.

1759: Botanist Carl Linnaeus publishes the 10th edition of Systema Naturae, which is the first to fully describe the four races of man.
1770: Dutch naturalist Petrus Camper begins developing his “facial angle” formula, basing his ideal angle on Grecian statues.
1795: Anthropologist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach names the five races of man.
Early 1800s: Franz Joseph Gall develops “cranioscopy,” which is later renamed phrenology by his disciple Johann Spurzheim.
1810: John Caspar Lavater publishes the foundational text Essays on Physiognomy.
1828: George Combe publishes The Constitution of Man Considered in Relation to External Objects, linking phrenology and racial comparison.
1830s: Orson Fowler opens his Phrenological Cabinet in the heart of downtown Manhattan.
1832: Johann Gaspar Spurzheim invigorates the American phrenology movement with his series of lectures in Boston.
1839: Samuel George Morton introduces his theory of craniometry in Crania Americana.
1844: Scottish publisher Robert Chambers releases his Vestiges of the Natural History of Mankind, the most popular work of natural history prior to Darwin’s Origin of Species. Chambers argues that each race represents a different stage of human evolution with whites being the most evolved.
1852: American physician James W. Redfield writes Comparative Physiognomy, which equates each type of people with a specific animal.
1853: French thinker Arthur Comte Gobineau publishes An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Race, arguing for the primacy of the Aryan race.
1859: Charles Darwin release the first edition of On the Origin of Species.
1864: Herbert Spencer coins the phrase “survival of the fittest” in developing his theories of social Darwinism.
1865: French anthropologist Paul Broca develops his “table chromatique” for classifying skin color.
1866: Physician John Downs defines “Mongolian idiocy” which he argues is a regression to the “Oriental stage” of human development.
1869: Francis Galton publishes Hereditary Genius, outlining his theories or human breeding.
1876: Italian psychiatrist Cesare Lombroso releases Criminal Man, which outlines his theory of criminal anthropology.
1877: Richard Dugdale publishes The Jukes, which links crime and heredity.
1882: The Chinese Exclusion Act is passed, excluding Chinese laborers from immigration for ten years.
1883: Galton coins the term eugenics.
1886: Chief of the New York City Detective Bureau Thomas F. Byrnes publishes Professional Criminals of America in which he collects the mug shots of notable criminals.
1892: The Chinese Exclusion Act is renewed for ten more years under the Geary Act.
1893: The World’s Columbian Exposition opens in Chicago with country pavilions organized according to scientific theories of race.
1889: Andrew Carnegie pens “The Gospel of Wealth,” justifying the extreme wealth of the robber barrons.
1900: Gregor Mendel’s theories of inheritance are “rediscovered.”
1902: The Chinese Exclusion Act is made permanent.
1904: Curator of physical anthropology at the Smithsonian Institute Ales Hrdlicka publishes Broca’s “table chromatique” in the U.S.
1905: The German Society for Racial Hygiene is founded.
1905: Alfred Binet invents the IQ test for measuring intelligence.
1907: The Eugenics Education Society is founded in Britain.
1907: The first American compulsory sterilization law goes into effect in 1907 in Indiana with dozens of states following suit.
1910: Zoologist Charles Davenport founds the Eugenics Record Office at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory with a grant from Mrs. E.H. Harriman.
1911: The Joint-Congressional Dillingham Commission recommends reading and writing tests to slow “undesirable” immigration.
1911: Franz Boas publishes The Mind of Primitive Man arguing for the role of environmental factors in the apparent differences between races.
1912: The First International Conference of Eugenics is held in London, presided over by Charles Darwin’s son Leonard.
1913: Eugenicist Henry Goddard introduces the IQ test at Ellis Island.
1916: Madison Grant publishes The Passing of the Great Race, splitting Europe into three racial groups: Nordics, Alpines, and Mediterraneans.
1917: The Immigration Act of 1917 includes the Asiatic Barred Zone, which excludes nearly all immigrants from Asia.
1920: Lothrop Stoddard writes The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy.
1921: The Emergency Quota Act is signed into law, heavily restricting immigration from Eastern & Southern Europe.
1921: The Second International Congress of Eugenics is held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.
1923: Carl Bringham publishes A Study of American Intelligence, which uses the IQ testing done by Robert Yerkes to support differences in intelligence between races.
1924: The Immigration Act of 1924 becomes law imposing a quota system that favored Northern & Western Europe and excluding immigration from all of Asia.
1924: U.S. Congressman from New York Emanuel Celler gives his first major speech on the House floor against the Immigration Act of 1924.
1927: The Supreme Court upholds compulsory sterilization in Buck v. Bell.
1932: The Third International Eugenics Conference is held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. ERO Director Charles B. Davenport presides.
1932: The Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences is released with many of the anthropology articles written by Boasians, not Grantians.
1933: The Third Reich enacts the first German compulsory sterilization law.
1935: The Carnegie Institution of Washington orders an external scientific review of the ERO, and finds its records “unsatisfactory for the scientific study of human genetics.”
1937: Madison Grant dies.
1937: The Pioneer Fund is founded by Wickliffe Draper to support racial research. ERO superintendent Harry Laughlin serves as its first president.
1939: The Eugenics Record Office shuts down.
1943: Chinese Exclusion is repealed and a quota is given of 105 immigrants per year.
1952: The McCarran-Walter bill is passed, revising but not eliminating the quota system of immigration.
1965: The Hart-Celler Act repeals the immigration quota system and establishes a new system based on skills and family relation.
1994: Richard J. Hernstein and Charles Murray release The Bell Curve which argues for racial difference in IQ.
1998: The American Anthropological Association issues a statement on race, concluding that contemporary science makes clear that human populations are not “unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups.”
2003: North Carolina finally repeals its compulsory sterilization law.
2014: New York Times journalist Nicholas Wade argues for race-based science in A Troublesome Inheritance.

Sunday, September 24, 2017


Reality as Seen in the Movies--

   Following excerpts from various sources attempt to explain the difference between the the principal scientific methods for developing theories: Deductive and Inductive--

   This question was one that Franz Boas raised in the early twentieth century, and Boas was the one who proposed the inductive approach to ethnography as one of the methods to correct the problem. Back then, ethnographic fieldwork was approached with a theory in place which the ethnographer wished to test, much the same way that scientists perform experiments to support or disprove a hypothesis.
   According to Boas, however, starting fieldwork with a hypothesis in mind (known as a deductive approach) would narrow the researcher’s focus and emphasis their own cultural biases enough that important information would be glossed over or overlooked. An inductive approach to ethnographies, however, formulates theories from the ‘bottom-up’ rather than from the ‘top-down’. This means that the researcher starts by observing the community and for repeated patterns of behaviour. If certain themes continue to crop up, the researcher can develop a tentative hypothesis that can be verified and turned into a theory once more corroborating data is gathered from other communities within the same society.

   BLOG NOTES--There are so many different aspects and approaches to the exact process of understanding where to look and what to see, either doing an archaeological dig in the dusty library files, or out on some remote island, it is just not completely possible to decide which one is not just the best, but also the truth.

   There appears to be a genuine lack of, or disregard for, the truth in all of the language, hypotheses and myriads of research files available. Who is to say what is the answer to understanding a culture. How do we know that when moving in with the natives, they are hip to the game and will tell you anything just to get something out of you?

   As in the nearly every  encounter of  Dravot and Carnehan, in the Kipling film classic "The Man Who Would be King" (1975) , they found out that everyone had enemies all around them; even though that may have been furthest from the truth if the two British adventurers hadn't travelled into the high mountains above Afghanistan.

   By the same token, in the film "Shout at the Devil" (1976), every time  Sebastian Oldsmith (Roger Moore) went into a village to collect taxes, the villagers stashed all their worldly goods and the women sat out front of the huts in ragged clothes with crying babies on their laps.

   One might, from the examples in the two films above, draw the conclusion, either by deduction or induction, that there is no genuine approach to discovering the core values of a culture, in spite of library research or fieldwork. The natives might just be putting us on, seeing enemies behind every bush and feigning poverty at the sight of the taxman.

   There is one other  variable to consider. Many of these regions under study have barely come out of the historic barbaric stage, probably near the top of that category; only to find themselves a new "nation" by global standards. Somalia is a classic example. We hurry to nationalize a region full of diverse tribes and villages, with no more real common cultural similarities than the Native Americans had when the colonists arrived in the New World in the 16th and 17th centuries. We take it for granted that all of the natives are the same, treat them the same and classify them as such. So when the warlords of Mogadishu revolt and we find ourselves in a "Black Hawk Down" environment, we blame them for not wanting to be a part of the emerging global community; even though it would be better if they weren't.

   No deductive or inductive approach will satisfy this dilemma, there is no sanitized classification in anthropology that will satisfy the problem of how to accept barely civilized communities into the global arena.

   They have enemies all around them and refuse to pay taxes.

JC LANGELLE (c) 2017--Eyeless On Campus Blog--

Thursday, September 21, 2017


Tracing the Origins of an Important Anthropological Term

"believing that one's own nation is the center of civilization," 1891, from ethno- + -centric; a technical term in social sciences until it began to be more widely used in the second half of the 20th century. Related: Ethnocentricity; ethnocentrism (1902).
Dr. Gumplowicz, professor of sociology at the University of Gratz, says that there are illusions which have been most baneful in the wider life of the world. He mentions two of them which, with real German facility for coining new names, he calls "acrochronism" and "ethnocentrism." ["Address of Professor J.C. Bracq," in "The Eighth Lake Mohonk Arbitration Conference," May 28, 1902; he adds, "Acrochronism is the illusion which leads us to think that what we are doing is the culminating point of some great process."]

The belief that l foreigners are in-ferior to one's Olin people is not peculiar to the so-called civilized nations. Prof. St7 It bin of Yale used to call this national egotism n ethnocentrism." and cited an instance of It from a message sent south by a native fireenInniter, extolling his land and its inhabitants as greatly su-perior to the countries and races of white men. In The Journal of Religious !Psychology the anthropologist Otant Is quoted am saying: NY Times--01104/1914 The Opinion Column

William Graham Sumner, Yale Professor, 1840-1910

Although the early conceptual history of ethnocentrism is blurred, it appears that, contrary to popular opinion and major writers on ethnocentrism, Sumner did not coin the concept in 1906. To make it clear, Sumner did not claim that he had invented the concept.

Ludwig Gumplowicz-- (Jewish descent)--
 Because of ethnocentrism, this struggle is characterized by conflict between (in an evolutionary sequence) racial groups, nation-states, and classes. Little of his work has been translated into English (the notable exception being his Grundriss der Soziologie, 1885), and his writing is popularly discredited by its authoritarian and racist overtones, although theorists of global processes have recognized his contribution in drawing attention to large-scale social conflicts such as conquests and wars. See also military and militarism.
Gumplowicz argued that there are no natural rights antecedent to the state, all rights being of the civil type only, that is, existing to the extent that they happen to be guaranteed by a particular state. The history of every nation is one of class conflict in which the fittest necessarily survive and dominate the less fit. Each group strives to become the controlling group within the state, the only motive being self-interest.

Ironically, since Gumplowicz was Jewish, his work Race Struggle (1883) is regarded by some scholars as having been an important influence on the development of Nazi theories. Early in 1909 Gumplowicz left the University of Graz, and shortly thereafter he and his wife committed suicide.

A prominent Jewish sociologist at the University of Graz, Ludwig Gumplowicz, contributed greatly to social Darwinist thought in the late nineteenth century with his book, Der Rassenkampf (1883, Racial Struggle). Gumplowicz thought history was dominated by the Darwinian struggle for existence between various human races. History, he asserted, is "the eternal lust for exploitation and dominance of the stronger and superior. The racial struggle for domination in all of its forms, in the open and violent, as well as in the latent and peaceful, is thus the essential driving principle, the moving force of history."'" Unlike most anthropologists and social Darwinists of his time, however, he did not define races biologically, and he viewed racial mix-ture as a beneficent force in human evolution. Rather, he considered races to be social constructions, similar to what we would call ethnic groups today, as is evident in his discussion of the nature of the racial struggle: Struggle and war have their particular compelling nature, their particular bloodthirsty law that always and everywhere presses itself all-powerfully upon the ones struggling, and makes every struggle between heterogeneous ethnic and social elements into a "racial struggle whether the antagonism between these races is large or sinall.'s
Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism-- Cantor, Swetlitz, 2006 P. 101


Saturday, September 16, 2017

ETHNOPOLITICS AND THE RED SCARE-- Anthropology on the Witness Stand--MCCARTHY HEARINGS, 1953

The Culture of Franz Boas and Columbia University, Under Scrutiny.

   If the Era of McCarthyism is a fabulous one for those interested in the Cold War for research and writing, the topic most considered is the film industry and Hollywood. However, of late, an even more fascinating study is that of anthropology and the Red Scare, and for good reason.  Ground Zero of the Witch Hunt appeared to be Columbia University and the Jewish grip on the anthropology department there.
   Diverging for a paragraph or two from the main topic, what drew me to become interested in all of this was the rather dismal "no-life" profiles of the anthropologists themselves. What began as an inquiry on a very superficial level, just to get a passing grade in 101, was a background primer on the cast of characters.
   It began by finding an old book review in the Philadelphia Inquirer in 1988 written by Carlin Romano of the Clifford Geertz book, "Works and Lives, The Anthropologist as Author." Geertz seemed to touch on the personal lives as hinted by Romano, but only vaguely. It didn't take a whole lot of internet archeology to discover, most incredibly, the complicated, intertwined and rather jaded lives that fall into the category of ethnopolitics.
   In one of my first discussion classes with the Teaching Assistant Solana Kline, I fielded the question as to why certain names in anthropology were bigger than others. It came to my attention that having listened to the lecture the day previous by Professor Erin Stiles, that a notion of fluid culture is at the forefront of theory. I then remembered the film "Lost Horizon" I had watched several times recently due to lack of anything better on On Demand. Looking further into the film and from which it was drawn, the novel by James Hilton, it dawned on me though the film diverged from the book, one thing was constant. That was the far away tranquil place up in the Himalayas or some inaccessible Chinese nowhere where nothing ever changed. I posed the question to TA Kline to rationalize  the concept of constant cultural change to the old saying, "The more things change, the more they remain the same." Following that was the question as to why some names were emphasized and others hardly worth a mention. Her answer was brief,
   Going back to Hilton, he wrote the novel having read the exploits of early anthropologists as Joseph F. Rock, looking for the Mountains of Mystery in Tibet and published in the late 20's and early 30's in National Geographic. That's where the question came from, why is Rock overlooked and the others set in stone? The answer comes with one name, Franz Boas. He was, and still is, ethnopolitics; that's where the Red Scare begins.
   Boas rejected the Tylor-Morgan hypothesis of "Savagery-Barbarism-Civilization." Boas rejected Darwinism, evolution and scoffed at genetics. Boas entertained, possibly only slightly, inheritance of acquired characteristics, known as Lamarckian Theory.
   But Boas greatest achievement was laughing at the establishment, taking the white man and putting him in his place, equal to everyone else. He debunked the Nazis, trashed Nordic superiority propaganda, and when he was done with that, at his prime in his early 80's, he died suddenly of a heart attack, in 1942. His legacy remained firmly entrenched at Columbia University where a Jewish anti-racist rebellion had begun. It wasn't until the early 50's that it all caught up with his lieutenants and foot soldiers.
   Having defeated the Nazis and the Japanese, the United States soon found itself surrounded by the Chinese Red Army that had come to the aid of the North Koreans, who were losing ground to the veteran American military forces under the command of Douglas MacArthur.
   Somewhere in the back pages of the fight, an almost obscure preacher, the Reverend Dr. James Endicott, straight out of the propaganda leaflets dropped from the sky, floated an affidavit that the US Army was engaged in germ warfare. He alleged that insects had been infected with disease and scattered across the countryside, possibly by bombing.
   In the span between the signing of the cease fire at Panmunjom and the Hearings on Congressional Operations, one of Boas' most gifted protégés, Gene Weltfish, released Endicott's allegation to various media outlets, several of which were known Communist  publications. Dr. Weltfish was already on the FBI radar along with another Boasista, Ruth Benedict for the pamphlet "The Races of Mankind". They asserted that Northern Negroes had higher IQ's than Southern Whites. Naturally the good-ol' boy network went ballistic and the pamphlet was banned by the US Army for circulation and reading.
  Between the Endicott allegation, which was refuted by his own Canadian colleagues, and the pamphlet, Weltfish found herself on the witness stand at the Senate hearings on April 1, 1953.
No, the Senators didn't go after Boas directly and personally, he'd been dead for over ten years. It was the Jewish school of anthropology at Columbia that came under direct attack with Weltfish defending it using the method employed by every blacklisted Hollywood actor, writer and film-maker, the Fifth Amendment.
   The testimony opened with the Fifth and ended with the Fifth. Curiously, there was no way to indict or blacklist the cult of Boasistas. There was no way to punish Weltfish, she had just been canned from her position at Columbia. But a new word had re-emerged in the vocabulary although it had been around for decades-ethnopolitics.
   So if the theme of this essay is why the anthropologists appear to have no life, look closer; look beyond their seemingly dull  and routine gathering of data in a dusty library or out living with some lost tribe on a distant Pacific island. Look at their background, ethnic and political. See how quickly what appeared to be just regular people doing their jobs, doing their passion, found them accused of conspiracy, tailed by the FBI, and charged with being communists.

NOTES: Material for this writing was found in several places;
BOOK REVIEW--Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author,  Clifford Geertz, Stanford U Press (1988)
Review by Carlin Romano, Philadelphia Inquirer, 10 July 1988
Dr. Franz Boas. Dr. Boas, Debunker Of Nazi Germany, Dies ; St. Louis Star Times  Dec 22, 1942
BOOK REVIEW--Ruth Benedict. By Margaret Mead. Columbia University Press: 
Text from the actual McCarthy Committee hearings.
The Shreveport Times, June 26, 1955: Ref to Ruth Benedict "communist".
Threatening Anthropology: McCarthyism and the FBI's Surveillance; David H Price.


Friday, September 15, 2017

GENE WELTFISH, & REV. DR. JAMES ENDICOTT--Korean War Germ Warfare Allegation--SENATE TESTIMONY, 1953

On April 1, 1953, the anthropologist Gene Weltfish appeared before the Senate Committee on Governmental Operations, chaired by Senator Joseph McCarthy,  Republican from Wisconsin.

The testimony can be found in its entirety at the following location, beginning on page 232:

Following the usual "Have you ever been a member of the Communist party..?" introduction by a "Mr. Morris", the testimony begins with  Senator Ferguson,  (Homer S., Republican from Michigan)
about a germ-warfare allegation brought up in several newspapers, pro-Communist and otherwise.
Sifting through the dialogue, the evidence submitted is a June 5, 1952 affidavit by Rev. Dr. James Endicott relating to the charge.

The testimony continues, eventually ending up with no concrete evidence that the anthropologist was indeed a Communist, whether she actually released the story to the media, or whether in fact it was even true.  On August 26, 1952, a group of Canadian scientists take to task the charge by Endicott in The Lethbridge Herald (Alberta, Canada):

The article has been uploaded to an OCR decoder and reproduced in text format below--

CANADIAN SCIENTISTS , Their Answer to Dr. Endicott
By C. F. S. Official Ottawa has given flat de-nial to the Germ Warfare charges of Dr. James G. Endicott of Toronto, as have, United States authorities. This repudiation of the statements made by the former clergyman and chairman of the Canadian Peace Cozily ess, that the Ainerkan fvAuca in Korea had been waging bacteri-ological warfare in Korea, is well known. But there is another body of evi-dence that is not so well known, It is pertinent right now in view of the use made of the "Germ War" charges of Dr. Endicott by Chinese and Russian spokesmen at the re-cent International Red Cross meet-ing in Toronto and the turmoil they caused. This answer to the widely publi-cized Endicott story, comes from Ca-nadian scientists, the standing of whom is not questioned. Their fully documented report was tabled in the House at Ottawa last June by Jus-tice Minister Carson and gives fur-ther denial to the charges. xx xx xx Making the study and issuing the report were Dr. W. H. Brittain, Vice-Principal and entomologist, Mac-donald College, McGill University; Dr. A. W. Baker, head of the De-partment of Entomology and Zeningy, Ontario Agrieultural Col-lege: and Dr. C. E. Atwood, pro-fessor of Zoology, University of Toronto. The whole text of the Rc.,ort of these scientists, following their study of speeches by Dr. Endicott and Mr. Malik, and other evidence brought forward including the mimeographed pamphlet "Docu-mentation on Bacteriological War-fare" distributed by the Canadian Peace Congress, generally viewed as an agency of World Communism, might. be presented with profit. But this is beyond the compass of this review.
xx xx xx Examined specifically were the speeches made by Dr. Endicott in Toronto in May, and elsewhere, and the interview hr gave in London, England, April 29 last on return-ing from the Far East war theatre. Says the report: Dr. Endicott said that he was not a "scientific or technical expert". Despite this statement Dr. Endicott proceeds, in his various speeches and interviews, to give so-called evidence and makes decisions thereon con-trary to those which a trained biologist would make. In a Radio Peking broadcast, in English, on the Chinese International Serv-ice, April 12. 1952, Dr. Endicott is reported to have said: "I have seen the germ-laden in-sects. In fact, I have caught some myself!" Since Dr. Endi-cot t acknowledges that he is not a "scientific or technical expert" it is obvious that he could not know the insects which he' caught nor decide whether or not they were "germ-laden." In other words, throughout his testimony. Dr. Endicott has either drawn conclusions which he is incompetent to make or has accepted hearsay evidence . . . Furthermore, Dr. Endicott has made statements which are contrary to the 'data submitted by the "Commission of the Medical Headquarters of the Korean People's Army on the uk. of Bacteriological Weapons." These data are included in the pamphlet "Documentation on Bacteriological Warfare" distri-buted by the Canadian Peace. Congress, of which Dr. Endicott is chairman. z'or example. in his address in Maple Leaf Gar-dens, May 11. 1952, speaking of "huga numbers of insects" appearing at various times and alleged to Have been dropped by United States aircraft, he made the statement that "rill were in-
•••••••••■•■••.4• 'VW • 'I   71147.11 4 ^noel a he..."  te; j. •
29, 1952. 80 specimens of insects, ticks and spiders examined-2 specimens infected: on February 13. 1952. 78 specimens of in-sects end spiders examined-1 specimen infected. In both cases all other specimens were reported by the Commission as not carrying disease germs. Dr. Endicott's statement Is obviously vs conflict with the evidence
distributed by his own organiza-tion.
xx xx xx Dr. Endicott makes the ,astound-ing statement that "any epidemics that may be in China today are not the result of natural causes nor of neglect on the part of the Chinese This mn is Itie‘.." Y. ct, the Rcpert poi nth out, the Peiping Peoples' Daily of Feb. 25, 1952. does not agree at all. It reported extensive epidem-ics of disease raging in several provinces of China and accom-panied this report with strong criti-cism of the public health services of the Red regime, that Dr. Endicott commends so highly. The Canadian scientists note the unreliability of the lay evidence ad-vanced by Dr. Endicott, among the "witnesses" being small boys. More-over. the vague identification of the insects purported to have been drooped is noted and the Report adds: There is no evidence that the insects referred to or illustrated are not native to the region. Insects referred to very vague-ly, as "flies" with "long wings". "and small heads", etc., might be any one of a number of in-sects which normally emerge at the season of the year in question throughout the tem-perate zone. We cannot imagine any trained entomologist refer-ring to them in terms given in the text.
xx xx xx In the document put out by the Canadian Peace Congress certain photographs of insects represented as being poisonous and disease-car-rying to humans, are used. The Canadian entomologists identify them stating it is Quite possible the forms of spiders, fleas, etc , shown are to he found in Korea and North-east China but they are not disease-carrying insects and harmless for the most part Continuing, the Report says: In this statement we have not dealt with the bacteriological evidence because it is not in our field and also has been com-pletely answered by Dr. Rene Dubos, a bacteriologist of inter-national repute, connected with the Rockefeller Institute. Re-garding a picture of bacteria, in the series noted, his general con-clusion was that the pictures represent an amateurish attempt at "scientific :akery"; that none of the bacteria were correctly named and that none of the bacteria they were supposed to he could be carried by insects. And so this Report is read into the parliamentary records for the world to see. It is in objective, factual and scientific approach to the subject in hand, Dr. Endicott's claims were subjected to the light of scientific logic and were found wanting—wanting in the barest shred of plausibility. The find-ings of this panel of experts were expected but it is well to have them snelled out for us by men who know whereof they speak.
The Lethbridge Herald--Alberta Aug 25, 1953   (End of OCR)--

Noteworthy from all of this is Miss Weltfish's collaboration with Ruth Benedict, while at Columbia U., to publish "The Races of Mankind", an extremely controversial pamphlet that was banned from reading by the US Army. It had made statements to the effect that Negroes from the North had higher IQs than Whites from the South.



The Culture of Critique--

The Boasian School of Anthropology and the Decline of Darwinism in the Social Sciences

It is not only that the names of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim replaced those of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer,.
[i.e., the minimum number of Jews required for a communal religious service] was to be found in sociology departments; or, one did not need a sociology of Jewish life, since the two had become synonymous" (Horowitz 1993, 77).

Of or relating to the politics of race or ethnicity; involving both ethnic and political factors.

Indeed, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that ethnic conflict played a major role in the development of American anthropology. Boas’s views conflicted with the then prevalent idea that cultures had evolved in a series of developmental stages labeled savagery, barbarism, and civilization.

"the moral and political monopoly of a [gentile] elite which had justified its rule with the claim that their superior virtue was the outcome of the evolutionary process."

Boas also opposed research on human genetics—what Derek Freeman (1991, 198) terms his "obscurantist antipathy to genetics."

By 1926 every major department of anthropology (Columbia U) was headed by Boas’s students, the majority of whom were Jewish.
According to Leslie White (1966, 26), Boas’s most influential students were Ruth Benedict, Alexander Goldenweiser, Melville Herskovits, Alfred Kroeber, Robert Lowie, Margaret Mead, Paul Radin, Edward Sapir, and Leslie Spier, and Gene Weltfish. All of this "small, compact group of scholars . . . gathered about their leader" (White 1966, 26) were Jews with the exception of Kroeber, Benedict, and Mead.
NOTE: The story of Gene Weltfish will be taken up later as she gets into hot water with HUAC.

"Boas has all the attributes of the head of a cult, a revered charis-matic teacher and master, ‘literally worshipped’ by disciples whose ‘perma-nent loyalty’ has been ‘effectively established’ " (White 1966, 25–26).
Moreover, Boas uncritically allowed Ruth Benedict to distort his own data on the Kwakiutl (see Torrey 1992, 83).
Indeed, one consequence of the triumph of the Boasians was that there was almost no research on warfare and violence among the peoples studied by anthropologists (Keegan 1993, 90–94). Warfare and warriors were ignored, and cultures were conceived as consisting of myth-makers and gift-givers. (Orans [1996, 120] shows that Mead systematically ignored cases of rape, violence, revolution, and competition in her account of Samoa.)


Mead On Benedict A Bio That Misses
Ruth Benedict. By Margaret Mead. Columbia University Press: $8 95.

It seems ironic that one common cri-ticism often leveled at Ruth Benedict's approach to culture studies may rebound to strike the second biography written by her friend and former colleague, Margar-et Mead.
What promised to be an integral por-trait of the first well-known woman social scientist — a discussion of the struggles and frustrations which Ruth Benedict experienced as a woman and as a cultural anthropologist — is diluted, becoming in the end only a "rags and tatters" approach to biography. As a young woman. Ruth Fulton Ben-edict kept a journal. From these accounts. and those of a fragmentary  autobiography, Mead describes the early years of her friend as a period of aliena-tion. "Happiness," she wrote as a child. "was a world I lived in all by myself, and for precious moments." Becoming a secondary school teacher in her late twenties, before her marriage to Stanley R. Benedict, she still found her-self at odds with the problems of identity: "There is one crown which perhaps is worth it all — a great love, a quiet home, and children."

But it seems she was not to have that one crown. Ruth Benedict could not have children, her manuscripts of poetry and biography remained unpublished. and she soon discovered that her prophecy had been realized — a great love is given to very few."
It was after she had embarked on a career of anthropology, in her search for "one's own individual world of effort and creation," that she and Stanley Benedict separated. Her marriage at an end, Ruth Benedict would devote her life and writ-ings to science — understanding the patterns of culture.
Both Benedict and Dr. Mead were to become two of America's most famous anthropologists, and the second part of the biography documents Ruth Benedict's achievements within and beyond the professional circle. Not only was she the author of two widely read books, "Patterns of Culture" and "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword," but Benedict also became a full professor at Columbia University, a staff member in the Office of War Information during the Second World War and, two years before her death, elected president of the American Anthropological Associa-tion in 1946.
The seven selections from Ruth Ben-edict's extensive writings were judicious-ly chosen by Margaret Mead to illustrate a range of thoughts — from the theoretical problems of culture study, magic and Indian mythology to popular articles on the nature of freedom.

This display of professional research and public recognition, however, masks the reader's initial interest: Did Ruth Benedict ever resolve the earlier prob-lems of her personal identity? ' The author of this biography seems to assume, because of the hard work and discipline which produced this wealth of published materials, that Ruth Benedict no longer thought of love, her poetry, alienation, family and marriage. Was Ruth Benedict, in her later years. only to remain a public figure?
One letter, reproduced in this book and written to Benedict while she was con-ducting field work among Pueblo Indians in New Mexico, asks this very question. "Is your own interest in primitive religion the result of a deep but acknowledged mysticism?" Margaret Mead evades those problems which this question presents, and so her book ends as a tribute rather than as a entical biography which could describe the life of one very remarkable woman.
The Jackson (TN) Sun--March 30, 1975

Thursday, September 14, 2017


Franz  Boas (1858-1942)--
He grew up a German born Jew under the roof of a prosperous businessman.
He left his position at Clark and from 1892-1894 he worked on the anthropological
exhibits at the Chicago World's Fair, which he left due to personal
conflicts. From Chicago, Boas moved to the American Museum of
Natural History in New York (where he again was forced to resign due to
further personality conflicts).
Stubborn and abrasive.
Cultures unique and separate entities: customs, language, social systems.
Individual not important.
the four-field approach in his fieldwork
(cultural, archaeology, physical/biological, and linguistics),


RED MEN SCORN ENGLISH. Prof. Franz lions Sun Indian tongues Will Hie Oat Only With the Indians. Prof. Fraaz Boas, of the American Nin-set.m of Naturn1 History. who has Just re-ti.rned front :he west. says that the Indian lc egue will die out only with the Indians.  lie spent this summer studying the Ian-grago of the For Retspert tribe in Brit-Ish Columbia. He has conducted expedl-tkns In Britigh eninmblit several times. and has dug up relies that have been of extrema value to science. This year he went alone and devoted his entire time to the study of the langauge. "The In Thins. as a people will not learn English." sail Prof. Bons to a 1:111 and Ex-press repntqr. "Some individuals learn a. of course. but the red men stick to their !HUI cuctlms. traditions and tongues. with remark tble pertinacity. Very few of their diolorts have been reduced to writ-ing by whites. and they still present a sub-•el with enough freshness and mystery to attract science. Both tongue is spoken by but a few thousand persons. All these t gues are :rude." Prof. Boas is an expert in Indian and can talk with most of the In-tar ns with whom he comes in contact In his expeditions.—New York Mail.

"World Peaceways"-- Wisconsin Jewish Journal, 1933

Curious that after coming out with the position that all races have equal capacity mentally, he appears to short change the Native North American.


Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942) was born to an aristocratic and cultured
family in Krakow, Poland.

Functionalism-- 7 basic needs--
nutrition, reproduction, bodily comforts,
safety, relaxation, movement, and growth.
The individual is imperative.
Fieldwork the key to ethnography.

  1. the scientific description of the customs of individual peoples and cultures.

His diary (1967) repeatedly shows slanderous and racial remarks towards informants

GEERTZ ON MALINKOWSKI-- The Biographical Memoir--SHWEDER, 2010

Biographical Memoir-- on M field work in New Guinea and Tobriands--

on Malinkowski--

"a crabbed, self-preoccupied, hypochondriacal narcissist, whose

fellow-feeling for the people he lived with was limited in the

Geertz was born in San Francisco, but was reticent about his background and little is known about his family. He recalled that "having grown up rural in the Great Depression" he had no expectations of going to university, but naval service from 1943 to 1945 gave him an opportunity.


Clifford Geertz was born in San Francisco in 1926. Early in his life his parents divorced and he was raised by a foster-mother. He rarely saw his own parents but once a year and did not form strong bonds with either during his formative years (Inglis 2000:3). Growing up on a farm in Northern California, Geertz was aware that his intellect was the ticket out of his rural surroundings and into the greater world. The first ticket, however, was World War II and at 17, Geertz volunteered for the Navy. He was allowed to work as an electrical technician’s mate repairing radar gear on the USS St Paul (Inglis 2000:4). He narrowly averted a potentially bloody invasion of Japan, the first atomic bomb being dropped just before the scheduled invasion.
highly influenced by Max Weber.

Clifford Geertz; Culture, Custom & Ethics, Fred Inglis, 1999

In 1915 and 1916, he was a member of commissions that tried to retain German supremacy in Belgium and Poland after the war. Weber was a German imperialist and wanted to enlarge the German empire to the east and the west.
In 1918, Weber became a consultant to the German Armistice Commission at the Treaty of Versailles and to the commission charged with drafting the Weimar Constitution. He argued in favor of inserting Article 48 into the Weimar Constitution. This article was later used by Adolf Hitler to declare martial law and seize dictatorial powers.
Geertz set interpretive anthropology against the structuralist anthropology of Lévi-Strauss 1963, a volume that Geertz criticized heavily for having created “an infernal culture machine . .
Claude Lévi-Strauss was born to French Jewish parents who were living in Brussels at the time, where his father was working as a portrait painter.