Talk:Coming of Age in Samoa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Derek Freeman's conclusions are very controversial
Derek Freeman's conclusions are very controversial, and are not accepted as fact by anyone. Can someone rewrite this to indicate that the views stated by him are that of a minority of anthropologists and are not considered mainstream?
- You can edit it yourself. After all...it is the wikipedian way. Mahlered 03:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The mainstream view of this topic is that neither Mead, nor Freeman really got it right. However, anthropologists certainly tend to allign more with Freeman than they do with Mead. Also, the comment in the article "the two girls whom she spoke to" -- Mead spoke with about a hundred girls. The number with whom she truley interacted can be cut down to about 15 or so, but still, "the two girls whom she spoke to" is simply wrong, and needs to be changed (not to mention, grammatically it should be "the two girls to whom she spoke"). Gregkaleka 07:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dates of research
Hi. The book appears to have been published in 1928. When was Mead in Samoa doing her research? I think it would good to mention that. 64.48.158.78 15:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Early verification
While certainly not an academic source, my father spent several years in Samoa in the late fifties, early sixties, and recounts the same story as Freeman. He says that he was told that the Samoans thought that Margaret Mead was arrogant and presumptive. And in response to her "holier than thou" attitude, they lied to her to have fun with the whole thing. This is much earlier than Freeman's sources and refutes the argument that the stories changed over then years. Mrmcgibby 03:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC
Did your father speak to the specific girls (or girls in that age group)? Although it's not of direct interest in terms of the article, it'd be interesting in its own right. And what age was your father at the time? It's one of the curses of ethnography that each ethnographer can honestly have a totally different picture of the same society depending on who they are and in which capacity they're studying it in! <sigh> - RR
[edit] Worst Book?
The ISI entry adds little to the argument, and the document linked to dismisses a variety of other books in fairly high-handed and POV terms. The organisation itself appears to be a right-wing educational pressure group. This doesn't dismiss the criticism out of hand, but contextualises it. Citing the Discovery institute also appears to reinforce that this article has had a social conservative flick mud at it. I've deleted the ISI entry... as I mentioned, it adds little to nothing and is NPOV. The Discovery Institute link is relevant, if verging on ad hominem. I've nip 'n' tucked a bit, but this article badly needs a systematic, NPOV revision. - RR