Thanks pabianice.
Posted on 04/13/2018 7:17:02 AM PDT by pabianice
In 1987, a few years after Margaret Mead and Samoa was published, it was discovered that one of Mead’s close informers in 1926, Fa’apua’a Fa’amu, was still alive, and wished to swear on the Bible to clear the record on what she had told Mead all those years ago about sexual relations among the Samoans:
We said that we were out all night with the boys; she failed to realize that we were just joking and must have been taken in by our pretenses…She must have taken it seriously but I was only joking. As you know, Samoan girls are terrific liars when it comes to joking. But Margaret accepted our trumped up stories as though they were true.…Yes, we just lied and lied to her.
(Excerpt) Read more at quillette.com ...
Margaret Mead, Rachel Carson ‘well-meaning’ women who were easily fooled, distorting the facts to fit their fantasies, sexual and otherwise, responsible for the deaths of million and still counting.
Mead encroached heavily on the scientific method, as anthropology is a highly subjective field. OTH, this character’s thinking seems to have aged more reservedly. But I wouldn’t believe either of them.
You can prove anything you want with science if you know what results you want and no one is willing to contradict your findings.
The entire “global warming” scam is an example.
Hmm, whatever happened to Piltdown Man.
Isn't he the new DNC chair?
I am not saying the bad science will never be exposed only that it depends on how much is invested in the bad science.
Piltdown man was a hoax from the beginning not exactly pertaining to the subject matter.
Science is about prediction, not explanation. Even if it were true, could Margaret Mead’s fanciful account of polynesian sex life be replicated with other primitive people? Again, even if it were true, if there were only one place in the world - her place - where free love dominated, that would be an anomaly and require a special explanation.
Very informative essay - thanks for posting it.
I find it odd, though, that even to this day there is disagreement as to what Samoan values (culture) are. I would think it would take 5 minutes to confirm if promiscuity is frowned upon or freely allowed.
Where was that?
As a non-scientist I’m shocked to see all the shoddy science practiced by the supposed experts. It makes me wonder why do they do it. I believe some are just gullible and some know they are wrong but think that nobody will find out. In other cases the erroneous scientists are just blinded by ideology or peer pressure.
For example, who really cares what Mead thought, or the influence she might have once held? With the advent of genetic research, every one of the soft, subjective interpretive 'sciences' have essentially been rendered obsolete. Like other, pseudo- scientific fields like 'phrenology', it's a waste of time even entertaining the concepts that were once believed.
The real game has moved on to bio sciences. With the capability now available to splice, mix & match genes, it's only a matter of time where experiments can be performed that conclusively demonstrate hard wired triggers. This will be true not only for hair, eyes, skin and other physical traits, but IQ and behavioral tendencies associated with cognitive abilities.
But the true promise - that will defeat all PC - are the commercial opportunities. Forget cosmetic surgery; when elective preferences via gene modification become widely available, Katy bar the door. Here's a bonus question: does anyone want to take a guess what the market driven perception of beauty and intelligence will resemble?
I read a sifi story not long ago about a football game played in the next century. Almost all of the players were chimera — melding animal and human genes. The one full human is early in the game nearly killed by the other players. One chimera thinks for a moment how brave, and how stupid, the human is. Can’t remember the story’s name.
That site is a treasure trove of inquiry.
Thanks for bringing it to the light.
Thanks pabianice.
Good article, long read but worth it. “Coming of Age in Samoa” was required reading in my Anthropology class (BA, 1976).
I’ve been little more than a dilettante in anthropology ever since (I found my archeology class more interesting, to be honest), and so missed the Meade/Freeman debate.
Thanks for posting!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
