DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction the University of Michigan's Department Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction the University of Michigan's Department Of Introduction The University of Michigan’s Department of Anthropology: Leslie White and the Politics of Departmental Expansion William Peace A variety of sources provide a detailed chronicle of the history of anthropology prior to World War II. But the rapid development of anthropology after the war, and the sociopolitical context that made such an expansion possible, are not as well known. The discipline’s growth during this era was exponential; membership in the American Anthropological Association (AAA) multiplied 20 times between the end of 1941 and 1963 (Wolf 1964:8). The annual AAA meetings, once small and fraternal, became huge events (DeLaguna 1962). Older scholars fondly recall that before the war virtually every anthropologist in the country could fit into one ordinary room; the program was printed on a single page (Goldfrank 1977; Tax 1960). How did the discipline emerge from relative obscurity to become a field of study on nearly every college campus in the United States? What motivated major universities to create new departments and produce an astounding surplus of anthropologists? This study focuses on Leslie A. White’s years at the University of Michigan (U of M), 1930 to 1959, to show how one university expanded its anthropology department, making it one of the foremost in the country. White was at that time the most recognized and influential 1 Michigan Discussions in Anthropology member of the department. These years reflect White’s most productive ones as a scholar and, more generally, the establishment of anthropology as a profession within the social sciences on college campuses across the country. There is an “unwritten’” history of anthropology in which its personalities and politics are both hidden. Some work has begun to fill this gap, and mine can be considered an extension of that in Volume 9 of the History of Anthropology series, Excluded Ancestors, Inventible Traditions (Handler 1999), and Regna Darnell’s Invisible Genealogies (2001). Despite a growing interest in studies that explore given individuals’ roles in theory building, historians of anthropology have barely begun the anthropological history of anthropology. According to Sydel Silverman, “We have only seen the beginnings of analytical treatments of the social networks within which anthropologists have worked, of the histories of significant institutions, or of the larger contexts that have shaped anthropological practice and ideas. Nor have we gone very far toward answering the vexing question of the extent to which the personal and the professional are linked in the lives of and works of our leading figures” (Silverman 2004:x–xi). Here I want to describe the work and life of Leslie White in the context of his connections to the broader network of scholars and scholarship within which he functioned. False starts: prejudice and the establishment of anthropology at Michigan A few words about the department in the 1920s are required because they have a direct bearing on the establishment of the department and the hiring of Leslie White.1 A steady stream of part-time instructors at U of M had offered a series of anthropology courses since the department’s founding in 1873. But the Museum of Anthropology was not officially created until June, 1922 (Carl Guthe to Griffin, January 22, 1932). Like 2 Introduction other mid-western universities, Michigan made a concerted effort to establish an independent anthropology department in the mid to late 1920s. To this end, Michigan tried to hire a well-known scholar who would attract students to the department. Archival files from various faculty members, academic deans, and the President of the University, Clarence Cook Little, demonstrate that the “star” Michigan wanted was Edward Sapir. In 1923 he was invited to Ann Arbor to give three lectures (Charles Cooley to Marion L. Burton, October 13, 1923). Sapir made a distinct impression and it seemed probable he would be hired. However, the evidence also strongly suggests that Sapir was not hired because he was Jewish.2 After Michigan failed to hire Sapir, the university continued employing a series of part-time instructors, among them Colonel Thomas Callan Hodson. According to James Griffin, Hodson was a gifted teacher who not only generated strong student interest but provided the impetus to once again try to establish an official department of anthropology. Carl Guthe, a Harvard trained archaeologist hired in 1922 as the Associate Director of the Museum of Anthropology, spearheaded this effort. According to Guthe, after the failed attempt to hire Sapir, “it was finally decided to begin modestly by appointing an instructor in the subject and to develop the work gradually, with the active cooperation of the officials of the recently established Museum of Anthropology” (Guthe 1951:440). In May 1927, Carl Guthe, and Deans Alfred H. Lloyd and John F. Effinger formed an advisory committee that sought to determine the best way to create a program for the formal instruction of anthropology. Between the spring of 1927 and 1928 the university decided to establish an official department. Surviving archival files, though incomplete, demonstrate that anthropology as a field of study was not well understood by the administration. Guthe repeatedly defined anthropology for university administrators as the study of man, and emphasized the four field approach. The advisory committee that Guthe headed was firmly 3 Michigan Discussions in Anthropology committed to not only offering classes in anthropology but training professional anthropologists at U of M. Funds were made available for the 1928–29 academic year for a “specialized curriculum for Anthropology.” This program was open only to advanced students. Although designed specifically for juniors and seniors, Guthe envisioned that the program would eventually offer an M.A. and Ph.D. Under the auspices of the advisory committee, arrangements were made for the inauguration of anthropology courses during the 1928–29 school year. Guthe was appointed Lecturer in Anthropology and paid $500 a term. Hiring someone to share the duties proved more difficult. Emerson F. Greenman, who had just received his doctorate, was hired but resigned before he began teaching. W. Vernon Kinietz was then brought in as “part-time curator in the Museum of Anthropology” in the summer of 1928 but he too resigned before the fall semester began. According to the proceedings of the Board of Regents, Kinietz’s salary was then turned over to Julian Steward who was appointed “part-time instructor in anthropology in the College of Literature, Science and the Arts and part-time curator in the Museum of Anthropology.” Steward arrived in Ann Arbor in October 1928 with a salary of $2,500.3 During the 1929–30 academic year, ten one-semester courses were given in anthropology. Six of these hours were for the beginning courses covering both semesters (Guthe to Effinger March 19, 1930). The Department of Anthropology was formed so late in 1928 that no announcement was placed in the course catalog. Not surprisingly, enrollments were lower than desired—a fact that worried Guthe. As for Steward, his teaching load appeared manageable at first but when enrollments increased more than he anticipated he was overwhelmed with work. Steward and Guthe worked closely together between 1928 and 1929, an arrangement Steward disliked. According to Kerns (2003), Steward did not understand why his name was not listed in the course catalog and was disappointed the university had no equipment for classes 4 Introduction (Kerns 2003:104). He also apparently felt insecure about his teaching ability. Despite the fact Steward was in an enviable position professionally, letters he exchanged with Alfred Kroeber and Robert Lowie demonstrate he resented Guthe’s opinions and suggestions about how classes should be taught. Steward wrote to Lowie that Guthe annoyed him: “Guthe is both giving and supervising the course. All I do is appear before the class and do the dirty work” (Steward to Lowie, October 11, 1928). Kroeber tried to explain to Steward why Guthe’s name appeared in the catalog and also praised Guthe, characterizing him as “kindly and fair” (Kroeber to Steward, October 11, 1928). Based on a careful reading of Steward’s letters, he seemed to resent Guthe’s superior academic position (Kerns 2003:118).4 Why Guthe bothered Steward so much is hard to understand. Guthe went out of his way to praise Steward. For instance, as chair of the Advisory Committee, Guthe wrote a long report to Effinger: The popularity of these courses in anthropology, which we feel is based upon the subject and not upon the grades given, is due in large measure to Dr. Steward’s able handling of the work. During the past winter a definite and sympathetic interest in our work has been expressed by staff members of the departments of Anatomy, Geography, Geology, History, Semitics, Sociology, and Zoology. In view of these facts we feel that the work in anthropology should be under the direction of a staff member of professorial rank, with at least one assistant. [Guthe to Effinger March 19, 1930] There is no question that Guthe wanted Steward to remain at Michigan. However, Steward felt overworked and underpaid. He was teaching full- time and serving as part-time Assistant Curator in the Museum of Anthropology where he helped to catalogue the museum collection. Steward felt isolated in Ann Arbor and missed California and Berkeley. Although personally unhappy, from a professional viewpoint it would 5 Michigan Discussions in Anthropology seem he was in an ideal situation. He was working in an anthropology department at a major university that expressed a serious commitment to building a larger program of study. He had the support of Kroeber and Lowie and was not far from Detroit and Chicago. In short, Steward’s professional future looked promising.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Central States Bulletin
    ~- .~·,....,.,. ·" i. CENTRAL STATES BULLETIN ... Volume I January - February 1947 Number·~ MAY MEETING IN ANN ARBOR COOPERATIVE DEGREES t PROS A1TD CONS "r, The Central States Branch of the Amer­ In the preceding number of the BULtf. ican Anthropological Association and the TIN the question. ~f Cooperative Higher Society for .American Archaeology will hold Degrees was raised by Professor. Ca.tl F. · a joint meeti'rtl'; at the University of Mich• Voegelin. So much interest was aroused igan in Ann Arbor on May 16 and 17. Plans in the topic that the Editors invited are being made locally to accor:unodate mem­ the heads of several nadwestern a.n.thro­ bers at the Ndchigan Union. Since there pology departments to contribute state­ are not enough single rooms, for all, it ments of their opinions. Four teplfes will be necessary for many members to were received and these ·are presen~ed share a room with someone else. Members below. A few condensations were made are adv;.sed therefore to ma]ce plans accord .. to conserve space, but the viewpoj.nta· ingly and well in advance of the meeting. of the writers have been left inta.ot. Rates: Single roows, $2.20 and $2.75; These articles, ta:rnn jointly, con~' Double: ·$4.40; tµ,;s.50 and 06.60. stitute the feature for this issue. All persons ple.nning to attend should write to Volney H. Jones or to Leslie A. White (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) I.·To.r_~~~~?t~r~ _Qniv~:r:~~-~y who will make their reservations for them.
    [Show full text]
  • Multilinear Euo Lution: Eaolution and Process'
    '1. Multilinear Euolution: Eaolution and Process' THEMEANING Of EVOLUIION Cultural evolution, although long an unfashionable concept, has commanded renewed interest in the last two decades. This interest does not indicate any seriousreconsideration of the particular historical reconstructions of the nineteenth-century evolutionists, for thesc were quite thoroughly discredited on empirical grounds. It arises from the potential methodological importance of cultural evolution for con- temporary research, from the implications of its scientific objectives, its taxonomic procedures, and its conceptualization of historical change and cultural causality. An appraisal of cultural evolution, therefore, must be concerned with definitions and meanings. But I do not wish to engage in semantics. I shall attempt to show that if certain distinc- tions in the concept of evolution are made, it is evident that certain methodological propositions find fairly wide acceptance today. In order to clear the ground, it is necessaryfirst to consider the meaning of cultural evolution in relation to biological evolution, for there is a wide tendency to consider the former as an extension of, I This chapter is adapted lrom "Evolution and Process," in Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inaentory, ed. A. L. Kroeber (University of Chicago Press, 1953), pp. 313-26, by courtesy of The University of Chicago Press. l1 12 THEoR'- oF cuLTURE cIIANGE and thercfore analogousto, the latter. There is, of course,a relation- ship betrveen biological and cultural evolution in that a minimal dcvclopment of the Hominidae was a prccondition of culture. But cultural cvolution is an extension of biological evolution only in a chronological sense (Huxley, 1952). The nature of the cvolutionary schemesand of the devclopmental processesdiffers profoundly in.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Ruth Landes Papers, 1928-1992
    Guide to the Ruth Landes papers, 1928-1992 John Glenn and Lorain Wang The revision of this finding aid and digitization of portions of the collection were made possible through the financial support of the Ruth Landes Memorial Research Fund. 1992, 2010 National Anthropological Archives Museum Support Center 4210 Silver Hill Road Suitland 20746 [email protected] http://www.anthropology.si.edu/naa/ Table of Contents Collection Overview ........................................................................................................ 1 Administrative Information .............................................................................................. 3 Arrangement..................................................................................................................... 8 Biographical Note............................................................................................................. 4 Scope and Contents........................................................................................................ 7 Bibliography: Books......................................................................................................... 8 Bibliography: Articles and Essays................................................................................... 9 Bibliography: Book Reviews.......................................................................................... 10 Names and Subjects .................................................................................................... 11 Container Listing ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 9564.Ch01.Pdf
    one · Gender and the Problem of Prehistory IMAGINING PREHISTORY To examine the contested issue of gender in ancient Near Eastern prehistory, I be- gin with a definition of the period. Prehistory is the time before the invention of writing (which took place around 3500 bce in the ancient Near East). This period is divided into several major eras of human development in eastern Europe and the ancient Near East: late Paleolithic (c. 30,000–9000 bce), proto-Neolithic and Neo- lithic (c. 9000–5600 bce), and Calcolithic (5600–3500 bce). In the European late Paleolithic, we begin to have some evidence of human creative consciousness in the form of cave paintings, figurines, and tools decorated with designs or with figures of animals or humans. The Neolithic is divided from the Paleolithic by the move- ment from food gathering (hunting and collecting fruits, nuts, and plants) to food growing and domestication of animals. The Calcolithic describes a time of more developed agriculture (including the use of the plow and irrigation) as well as trade and early urbanization. The Neolithic revolution took place gradually in the ancient Near East between 9000 and 7000 bce. At first, herds of wild animals or areas of wild grains were cor- doned oª and controlled by more settled human groups; later, with full domestica- tion, animals were bred for food, milk, or skins, and seeds were conserved for plant- ing grains. These innovations developed along parallel lines in several places in the ancient Near East and spread to other nearby areas. There was not a uniform, straightforward pattern of development.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Variability in Magic, Divination and Religion
    THE EVOLUTION OF VARIABILITY IN MAGIC, DIVINATION AND RELIGION: A MULTI-LEVEL SELECTION ANALYSIS A Dissertation by CATHARINA LAPORTE Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Chair of Committee, Michael S. Alvard Committee Members, Jeffrey Winking D. Bruce Dickson Jane Sell Head of Department, Cynthia A. Werner December 2013 Major Subject: Anthropology Copyright 2013 Catharina Laporte ABSTRACT Religious behavior varies greatly both with-in cultures and cross-culturally. Throughout history, scientific scholars of religion have debated the definition, function, or lack of function for religious behavior. The question remains: why doesn’t one set of beliefs suit everybody and every culture? Using mixed methods, the theoretical logic of Multi-Level Selection hypothesis (MLS) which has foundations in neo-evolutionary theory, and data collected during nearly two years of field work in Macaé Brazil, this study asserts that religious variability exists because of the historic and dynamic relationship between the individual, the family, the (religious) group and other groups. By re-representing a nuanced version of Elman Service’s sociopolitical typologies together with theorized categories of religion proposed by J.G. Frazer, Anthony C. Wallace and Max Weber, in a multi-level nested hierarchy, I argue that variability in religious behavior sustains because it provides adaptive advantages and solutions to group living on multiple levels. These adaptive strategies may be more important or less important depending on the time, place, individual or group. MLS potentially serves to unify the various functional theories of religion and can be used to analyze why some religions, at different points in history, may attract and retain more adherents by reacting to the environment and providing a dynamic balance between what the individual needs and what the group needs.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectuals, Blackness, and Inter-Americanism in Mexico After 1910
    ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: IN BLACK AND BROWN: INTELLECTUALS, BLACKNESS, AND INTER-AMERICANISM IN MEXICO AFTER 1910 Theodore Cohen, Doctor of Philosophy, 2013 Dissertation directed by: Professor Mary Kay Vaughan Department of History “In Black and Brown” examines how blackness and Africanness became constituent elements of Mexican culture after the Revolution of 1910. In refuting the common claim that black cultures and identities were erased or ignored in the post-revolutionary era, it argues that anthropologists, historians, (ethno)musicologists, and local intellectuals integrated black and, after 1940, African-descended peoples and cultures into a democratic concept of national identity. Although multiple historical actors contributed to this nationalist project, three intellectuals—composer and ethnomusicologist Gerónimo Baqueiro Foster (1898-1967), anthropologist Gonzalo Aguirre Beltrán (1908-1996), and city of Veracruz poet Francisco Rivera (1908-1994)—most coherently identified Africanness in Mexican history and culture. As these state and local intellectuals read ethnographic texts about African cultural retentions throughout the Western Hemisphere, they situated these cultural practices in specific Mexican communities and regional spaces. By tracing the inter-American networks that shaped these identities, “In Black and Brown” asserts that the classification of blackness and Africanness as Mexican was in conversation with the refashioning of blackness, Africanness, and indigeneity across the Americas and was part of the
    [Show full text]
  • Leslie White (1900-1975)
    Neoevolutionism Leslie White Julian Steward Neoevolutionism • 20th century evolutionists proposed a series of explicit, scientific laws liking cultural change to different spheres of material existence. • Although clearly drawing upon ideas of Marx and Engels, American anthropologists could not emphasize Marxist ideas due to reactionary politics. • Instead they emphasized connections to Tylor and Morgan. Neoevolutionism • Resurgence of evolutionism was much more apparent in U.S. than in Britain. • Idea of looking for systematic cultural changes through time fit in better with American anthropology because of its inclusion of archaeology. • Most important contribution was concern with the causes of change rather than mere historical reconstructions. • Changes in modes of production have consequences for other arenas of culture. • Material factors given causal priority Leslie White (1900-1975) • Personality and Culture 1925 • A Problem in Kinship Terminology 1939 • The Pueblo of Santa Ana 1942 • Energy and the Evolution of Culture 1943 • Diffusion Versus Evolution: An Anti- evolutionist Fallacy 1945 • The Expansion of the Scope of Science 1947 • Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Rejoinder 1947 • The Science of Culture 1949 • The Evolution of Culture 1959 • The Ethnology and Ethnography of Franz Boas 1963 • The Concept of Culture 1973 Leslie White • Ph.D. dissertation in 1927 on Medicine Societies of the Southwest from University of Chicago. • Taught by Edward Sapir. • Taught at University of Buffalo & University of Michigan. • Students included Marshall Sahlins and Elman Service. • A converted Boasian who went back to Morgan’s ideas of evolutionism after reading League of the Iroquois. • Culture is based upon symbols and uniquely human ability to symbolize. • White calls science of culture "culturology" • Claims that "culture grows out of culture" • For White, culture cannot be explained biologically or psychologically, but only in terms of itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Development Team
    Paper No. : 02 Social Cultural Anthropology Module : 24 Introduction to Political Anthropology Development Team Principal Investigator Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Paper Coordinator Prof. Sabita Acharya, Department of Anthropology, Utkal University,Bhubaneshwar Indelha Khan Content Writer Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Prof. A.K. Sinha, Department of Anthropology, Content Reviewer Panjab University, Chandigarh 1 Social Cultural Anthropology Anthropology Development of Political Anthropology Description of Module Subject Name Anthropology Paper Name 02 Social Cultural Anthropology Module Name/Title Development of Political Anthropology Module Id 24 2 Social Cultural Anthropology Anthropology Development of Political Anthropology Table of contents: Introduction 1. Development of political anthropology 1.1 The Nineteenth-Century Evolutionists 1.2 The Reaction 1.3 The British Functionalists 1.4 The Neo-Evolutionists 2. Evolution of political societies 2.1 Uncentralized Systems 2.1.1 Band Societies 2.1.2 Tribal Level Political System 2.2 Centralized Systems 2.2.1 Chiefdom 2.2.2 State 3. Religion and politics 4. Tradition and modernity Summary Learning objectives: To familiarize with the concept of power, leadership and politics. To understand the concept of political anthropology. To understand the link between religion and politics. 3 Social Cultural Anthropology Anthropology Development of Political Anthropology Introduction: In several occasions, it has been observed that colonial powers or resilient societies have levied political rule on the native people, where previously no such system prevailed. The initiation of elementary form of political system had varying impact in particular societies. Such differences probably originated as a result of functionally relatedness to the cultures and social system of the colliding societies.
    [Show full text]
  • Fay-Cooper Cole, 1881-1961 Author(S): Fred Eggan Reviewed Work(S): Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol
    Fay-Cooper Cole, 1881-1961 Author(s): Fred Eggan Reviewed work(s): Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 65, No. 3, Part 1 (Jun., 1963), pp. 641-648 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/667373 . Accessed: 08/12/2011 13:11 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist. http://www.jstor.org FAY-COOPER COLE 1881-1961 W ITH THE DEATH of Fay-Cooper Cole in Santa Barbara September 3, 1961, the anthropological profession has lost another one of its major figures. He was not only a world authority on the peoples and cultures of Malaysia, and one of the founders of modern archeology, but also a great administrator and developer of men and institutions and a warm and friendly human being. During his long career, which spanned more than half a century, he was in addition one of our foremost interpreters of anthropology to the general public, an activity which he continued after his retirement from the chairmanship of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Chicago in 1947.
    [Show full text]
  • 05 Neo-Evolutionism
    Paper No. : 10 Theories and methods in social and cultural Anthropology Module : 05 Neo-Evolutionism Development Team Principal Investigator Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Paper Coordinator Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Vineet Kumar Verma Content Writer Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Prof. Subir Biswas, Department of Anthropology, West Content Reviewer Bengal State University, Barasat, West Bengal 1 Theories and methods in social and cultural Anthropology Anthropology Neo-Evolutionism Description of Module Subject Name Anthropology Paper Name 10 Theories and methods in social and cultural Anthropology Module Name/Title Neo-Evolutionism Module Id 05 2 Theories and methods in social and cultural Anthropology Anthropology Neo-Evolutionism Table of Contents Introduction 1. Early anthropological theory 2. History of nineteenth-century classical evolutionists 3. Neo-evolutionist 4. Neo-evolutionists Scholars V. Gordon Childe (England) Julian Steward (U.S.A) Leslie White (U.S.A) Summary Learning Objective To introduce history of anthropological thought by tracing its historical development To classify the course of historical development, academic, and Anthropological importance in terms of its development An attempt to look Methodological approaches to the origin of culture 3 Theories and methods in social and cultural Anthropology Anthropology Neo-Evolutionism Introduction A theoretical orientation is usually a general attitude about how cultural phenomena are to be explained. A number of thinkers during this period began to discuss evolution and how it might occur. The prevailing theoretical orientation in anthropology during the 19th century was based on a belief that culture generally evolves in a uniform and progressive manner; that is, most societies were believed to pass through the same series of stages, to arrive ultimately at a common end.
    [Show full text]
  • American Indians: Social Justice and Public Policy. Ethnicity and Public Policy Series, Volume IX
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 351 157 RC 018 834 AUTHOR Green, Donald E., Ed.; Tonnesen, Thomas V., Ed. TITLE American Indians: Social Justice and Public Policy. Ethnicity and Public Policy Series, Volume IX. INSTITUTION Wisconsin Univ. System, Milwaukee. Inst. on Race and Ethnicity. REPORT NO ISBN-0-942672-16-X PUB DATE 91 NOTE 282p.; For selected individual papers, see RC 018 835-837. AVAILABLE FROMUniversity of Wisconsin System, Institute on Race and Ethnicity, P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201. PUB TYPE Books (010) Information Analyses (070) EDRS PRICE HF01/PC12 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS American Indian Education; *American Indian History; *American Indians; Court Litigation; Disadvantaged; Elementary Secondary Education; Ethnicity; *Federal Indian Relationship; Federal Legislation; Higher Education; *Public Policy; *Self Determination IDENTIFIERS *Social Justice ABSTRACT This book discusses legal and social aspects of public policy in American society and their relationship to fulfilling the promise of social justice for American Indians.U.S. public policy is viewed as reflecting the collective sentimentsof the electorate. If the American people have the will to bringabout change in the socioeconomic conditions of American Indians, it will be evidenced in public policies. Chapters are: "'Irlian Law,' Indians' Law, and Legalism in American Indian Policy: AnEssay on Historical Origins," by Russel L. Barsn; "The Concept of Sovereignty: The Key to Social Justice," by Sharon O'Brien; "Organizingfor Self-Determination: Federal and Tribal Bureaucracies inan Era of Social and Policy Change," by Paul H. Stuart; "The Persistenceof Identity in Indian Communities of the Western Great Lakes,"by Donald L. Fixico; "The Delivery of Health Care to American Indians: History, Policies and Prospects," by Jennie Joe; "The Education of American Indians: Policy, Practice and Future Direction," by JohnW.
    [Show full text]
  • SM 3 History of the Personality of Anthropology
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by eVols at University of Hawaii at Manoa Savage Minds Occasional Papers No. 3 The History of the Personality of Anthropology By Alfred Kroeber Edited and with an introduction by Alex Golub First edition, 18 October, 2013 Savage Minds Occasional Papers 1. The Superorganic by Alfred Kroeber, edited and with an introduction by Alex Golub 2. Responses to “The Superorganic”: Texts by Alexander Goldenweiser and Edward Sapir, edited and with an introduction by Alex Golub 3. The History of the Personality of Anthropology by Alfred Kroeber, edited and with an introduction by Alex Golub Copyright information This original work is copyright by Alex Golub, 2013. The author has issued the work under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States license. You are free • to share - to copy, distribute and transmit the work • to remix - to adapt the work Under the following conditions • attribution - you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author • noncommercial - you may not use this work for commercial purposes • share alike - if you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one This work includes excerpts from Kroeber, Alfred. 1959. The history of the personality of anthropology. American Anthropologist 61 (3): 398-404. American Anthropological Association article content published before 1964 is in the public domain and may be used and copied without permission. For more information see http:// www.aaanet.org/publications/permissions.cfm. The original article appears at http:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1959.61.3.02a00040/abstract.
    [Show full text]