Talk:Franz Boas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:
View comments (edit)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
This article is supported by WikiProject Anthropology.

This project provides a central approach to Anthropology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Libeling the dead

"Libelling the dead": User:Jacquerie27 remarks "you can't libel the dead." Others might say, "It is only safe to libel the dead." --Wetman 21:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not according to the ancient Romans, who said "De mortuis nil nisi bonum". Jacquerie27 21:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

J27, I reverted your change to the article; I did keep a reference to MacDonald in the article, but it is a shorter passage in a more appropriate section. I also added your citation and link. I have done this because it is fair to included these sources. The fact remains that MacDonald is simply reviving earlier anti-Semitic arguments. A discussion of MacDonald most definitely does not belong in a section on "criticisms." This is for two reasons (aside from the anti-Semitism). First, I have never seen MacDonald cited in any of the reputable, scholarly (meaning, published in a peer-reviewed journal concerning intellectual history, German culture and history, or anthropology) literature on Boas. Second, there have in fact been many published critiques of Boas's work -- by real anthropologists, natural scientists, and so on. It is these critiques that should go in such a section. Slrubenstein 17:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The current reference to MacDonald is highly POV, and it's ludicrous to say that only specialists in Boas's own fields can pronounce on Boas. Cross-fertilization is part of how serious science advances: it's only fundamentalists and ideologues who close their minds to new or opposing ideas. Jacquerie27 10:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no question that MacDonald's claims are anti-semitic. But the real issue here is that he is such a minor, fringe character that I really don't think he should be mentioned at all. I never said that one has to be an American Anthropologist or even an anthropologist to evaluate Boas. But an evaluation of Boas has to be based on facts, not fantasy, and should be recognized by the the community of scholars. I do not close my mind to new or opposing ideas -- first, anthropologists have worked within a Darwinian framework ever since Boas steered the field in that direction a hundred years ago. Second, concerning MacDonald specifically,. I head his book and the chapter on Boas carefully, and it is not based on serious scholarship -- there is no mahor claim that he makes that is supported by facts. I am open to new ideas -- but they need to be well-argued and supported by facts. Elsewhere I went into specifics on what is wrong with MacDonals. Slrubenstein 16:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wrote this on the anti-Semitism page:

I have read MacDonald and he is either stupid or malign, but it is one or the other. Although he is a psychologist by training, the book you cite is not based on any psychological research (experimental, or clinical) -- the research he is qualified to do. Instead, he is drawing on historical documents, and it is clear that he has no training in history because he makes major mistakes in his methods of research and analysis. It is contemptable that a man who himself is so sloppy in his methods is criticizing the scientific credentials of others. Let me give you just one example. In order to support his claim that Boas's approach reflected or served Jewish interests, MacDonald quotes Margaret Mead. Mead was explaining how she got Boas to change his mind and let her do the research in Samoa she wanted to do. She tole Boas that he "should behave like a liberal, democratic, modern man, not like a Prussian aristocrat." MacDonald uses this quote to support the claim that Boas's demeaner or values were ultimately Jewish. This is either a willful misreading, or a reflection of how MacDonald is blinded by his own prejudice. It is clear from the quote that Mead felt Boas most often acted like a "Prussian aristocrat." This is not surprising, since he was trained in German universities. Indeed, other historical sources (comments by other students and rivals) identify Boas and his students (like Kroeber and Lowie) as Germans or Prussians -- explicitly not as Jews. It is also clear that Mead felt that Boas idealized or valued a "liberal, democratic, modern" character. This is also not surprising, given that Boas himself admits that his family celebrated the ideals of the revolutions of 1848 (which were not led by Jews, and did not involve Jewish values or interests). Moreover, it is clear that Boas's own work draws on a liberal tradition in German scholarship -- German, not Jewish -- dating back to Immanuel Kant and involving 18th century non-Jewish thinkers like Herder and von Humboldt, up to many of Boas's non-Jewish professors when he was in the university. Had MacDonald done any of the research that a trained historian would have done, he would have discovered all of this. There are a tremendous number of studies not only of Boas and his circles but of the German liberal tradition and what was going on in German scholarship (philosophy, linguistics, physical anthropology, geography, comparative anatomy, zoology, etc.) at the time. MacDonald is ignorant of -- or discounts, for political reasons -- all of it.

It is very clear not only that MacDonald has not done any serious research on Boas; whatever material he has he willfully misinterprets to support his points. No wonder the only person who ever heard of him is J27. This is the perfect example of a fringe or crank theory. In short, MacDonald's views of Boas say little about Boas but much about MacDonald. If they belong anywhere, it is in an article on MacDonald. Not here. Slrubenstein 20:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I say elsewhere: "I'm not an expert on Boas and even if I was, people who look at User:Slrubenstein will see what getting into an argument with you is like. As another great German once said: Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens." Jacquerie27 10:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

J, I have criticized you on the basis of your research and what you have written. For you to respond by calling me stupid is a personal attack and is not only inappropriate, it does not serve your cause well. Slrubenstein 17:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And it serves your cause well to say I'm afraid of the truth? I haven't called you "stupid": I've said (at most) that you (like all of us) are capable of stupidity. Jacquerie27 10:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If demanding accuracy and rigor is a 'point of view' then I suppose SLRubenstein is POV in this respect. The question here is whether wikipedia is a place where absolutely anyone can say absolutely anything in the name of free speech and the progress of science, or whether we are trying to build an encyclopedia full of good, well-researched entries. MacDonald relies primarily on secondary sources, and there have been systematically documented examples of his misuse of those sources. While no one has taken the time to dissect the section on Boas, anyone with any familiarity with the works that MacDonald cites can immediately see their shortcomings. I don't care whether it's antisemitic or not -- it's simply poorly done, and you don't need a Ph.D. to see that. He has nonetheless produced an entry on Franz Boas that is better than -- and certainly longer than! -- Sol Tax's entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica and is on par with the entry in the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Is that not what want?
Serious science is self-correcting and ruthlessly self-critical, but it is also progressive. Contemporary molecular biologists want to do molecular biology, not endlessly step through the arguments against Lamarkianism in the name of 'cross-fertilization' with people who have not bothered to carefully work through the argument so far and the progress we've made because of it. It's particularly strange to see SLRubenstein accussed of some sort of academic elitism given the fact that as far as I know SLRubenstein is not an academic and has never attempted to suggest that we should listen to him 'because I'm an expert and you're not'.
These endless debates about Macdonald on pages I frequent are exhausting, and dealing with them take away time from making serious contributions to the wikipedia. The bad feelings that often result make me not want to contribute to wikipedia. There's no doubt in my mind that the wikipedia would be a better place, and I would be contributing to it more, if there were more people doing work like the work that SLRubenstein has done on the Franz Boas page. Rex 22:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In 1982 the evolutionary psychologist Kevin B. MacDonald resurrected the notion of a "Jewish science" in his book The Culture Of Critique; this book has been criticized for shoddy scholarship and anti-Semitism, and was described as "nauseating" by the writer Judith Shulevitz). So "resurrected the notion of a 'Jewish science'" is NPOV? And "criticized for shoddy scholarship" doesn't imply his scholarship is actually shoddy and is widely accepted as such? There is no question that MacDonald's claims are anti-semitic. Just as there's no question that Slr is objective and has a firm grasp of logic and the English language. See User:Slrubenstein Jacquerie27 10:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Resurrected the notion of Jewish science is certainly accurate. After the defeat of the Nazis, who else has talked about Jewish Science besides MacDonald? By the way, my discussion on China and socialist states reveals only that I do considerable research before making claims. Slrubenstein 17:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Nazi notion of "Jewish science" applied to figures like Einstein, who the Nazis thought was a charlatan and who MacDonald, in complete contrast, thinks was an outstanding objective scientist. Not only has MacDonald never used the term "Jewish science" or anything comparable to it, he doesn't accept that Freud, Marx and Boas were actually scientists. So your use of the term is an attempt to smear by association and is clearly POV. As for China and socialist states: I accept that you do considerable research, but considerable research was not necessary to understand the point that was being made to you. I think you're stubborn and authoritarian, which was why you wouldn't accept it. Jacquerie27 10:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Sigh* On 6 January I removed the comment that Judith Shulevitz considered Macdonald 'naseating' because I considered it POV. I replaced it with a less heated claim that Macdonald had been criticized for 'shoddy scholarship'. Less than an hour later you, Jacquerie 27, added the comment about Shulevitz back into the entry. Thus 1) the term 'shoddy scholarship' in the Boas entry can't be used as proof of SLRubenstein's POV in the article because he did not write it. 2)To criticize SLRubenstein's NPOV because he approves of the statement about Shulevitz when you yourself have sought to keep it in the article after its deletion simply doesn't make sense. I am not interested in whatever long history SLRubenstein has with you and other people on other pages. Nor do I doubt that he has a POV that he expresses in real life, in talk pages, on #irc etc -- we all do. My point is that the entry on Franz Boas is a good one, and that it demonstrates an admirable concern with accuracy and rigor. Rex 21:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Bigger sigh You obviously don't understand POV/NPOV. If I, as an Wikipedia editor, say MacDonald's theories are "nauseating" or "anti-Semitic", that is POV, because there is no consensus on those claims. However, if I report that Judith Shulevitz calls MacDonald's theories "nauseating", that is NPOV: no-one disputes that JS has said that. Jacquerie27 10:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1) I am glad to see that in your latest entry you are no longer using the quotation regarding 'shoddy scholarship' as evidence of SLRubenstein's bias. I take it that we have reached agreement that this was inappropriate. 2)In your previous entry you use the quotation from SLRubeinstein "MacDonald's work was described as 'nauseating' by Judith Shulevitz" as proof that SLRubenstein is POV. However in your latest entry you explain to me that this is a perfectly appropriate usage for a wikipedia entry when no-one disputes that Judith Shulevitz has said that. I take it, then, that you now agree with me that SLRubenstein's inclusion of this statement in the wikipedia entry is not an indication of his POV in the article. Is this correct? 3) You have also claimed that SLRubenstein's inclusion of the phrase"Kevin MacDonald's works have been criticized as being anti-semitic" is POV. However presumably if he could demonstrate that someone has in fact articulated this claim then we could say (using the same principle you articulated above in the case of Judith Shulevitz) that it was not POV to include it since? Is that correct? If so perhaps SLRubenstein would be so good as to document who specifically has claimed MacDonald is anti-semitic -- would that satisfy you? Rex 18:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with a lot of that, but I'm not wasting more time arguing. Boas isn't worth it, as time will show, and the sort of people who take him seriously are hardly susceptible to rational argument in any case. Jacquerie27 09:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's disappointing that you don't want to continue this dicussion since it has certainly been nothing if not rational -- indeed, even nitpicky. However undoubtedly we both have better things to do. Take care and thanks for engaging with me. Rex 06:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Jacquerie27 15:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Jewish science"

First of all, Slrubenstein's link to "Jewish Science" is to another topic entirely. What he means to link to is "Jewish Physics". Secondly, once this correction is made, the quote from Kevin MacDonald's preface to the second edition clearly states that "Jewish Physics" is *not* an example of ethnocentric Jewish intellectual movements, in contrast to Boas. Since this is the second time this misrepresentation of MacDonald has been attempted, it is clear that the quote from MacDonald's preface is critical to proper representation of his work. Jim Bowery (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

More on Slrubenstein's campaign to smear Kevin MacDonald's work as "Nazi": No where in chapter 2 of CofC on Boas does the phrase "Jewish Science" appear. MacDonald _does_ make the argument that Boas exhibits features attributed to pseudoscience motivated by Jewish ethnocentric fear of anti-Semitism that might arise from evolutionary perspectives in the humanities. Jim Bowery (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Like resistance, reasoning is futile, but here's another attempt. Slr — is there a consensus that MacDonald has resurrected "Jewish science"? No, there is not, therefore it is POV to say that he has done so, as someone with your length of service on the Wiki should know by now. If you can produce specific critics who have said this, cite them: that will be NPOV. The small restored section on MacDonald is a tiny part of the article, but it will no doubt be too threatening to remain (as MacDonald's theory predicts). Finally, I'm more convinced than ever that you should convert to Catholicism: this article is a fine example of hagiography. Jacquerie27 18:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That he is talking about Jewish Science is from his own book, chapter two. Slrubenstein 20:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Can you quote from it then? If you've read the book I apologize for assuming recently that you hadn't. Jacquerie27 15:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As far as hagiography, what statement about Boas in this article is inaccurate? What important activity by Boas has been left out? Slrubenstein 20:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's the tone that is hagiographic: you obviously admire him and regard him as very important. Jacquerie27 15:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
An example: Finally, anthropologists continue to honor his critique of racial ideologies. In his 1963 book, Race: The History of an Idea in America, Thomas Gossett wrote that "It is possible that Boas did more to combat race prejudice than any other person in history." Should scientists "honor" a colleague's ideas? That sounds more like religion or ideology than science.

Look at articles mentioning Boas in anthropology journals and you will see that they honor him. This is a factual claim and I think it is accurate.

"Tone" is a slippery and vague thing to hang any comment on. It doesn't matter at all what I think of Boas. But virtually every account of american anthropology regards him as very important. A good article on Boas will give an account of him that allows a reader to evaluate his importance. That is why I included detailed descriptions of his work in various fields.

I don't dispute that it's factually accurate to say anthropologists honor him, I just think "honor" is inappropriate in science, at least in the sense you seem to be using. Jacquerie27 10:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Btw, what do anthropologists currently think of Stephen Jay Gould and The Mismeasure of Man? From what I can gather, some psychometricians regard the book as verging on fraudulent. Jacquerie27 15:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You'd be better off asking physical anthropologists. I have never heard anyone claim the book is fraudulent. I know that it is still widely read, assigned and cited in physical anthropology, although it was written for a popular audience. As with any scientist, people continue to debate various ideas of his (spandrels, punctuated equilibrium), and I do not think that many people are engaging his ideas in his last book. But my sense is that everyone still considers him an important, credible scientist. I dsitinguish between attacks on his credibility versus debate about specific propositions. The latter kind of debate defines science. But the former kind of attack, I think most people belive, is politically motivated and has nothing to do with his creds as a scientist. Slrubenstein 16:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think evolutionists take him as seriously as outsiders do, but time will show. About "Jewish science": can you quote the passage from chapter two that justifies the term? Do you mean he refers to it as used by the Nazis? I'd say he does so in order to dismiss it. Jacquerie27 10:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by evolutionists -- all of the evolutionary scientists I know, or know of, have a very high opinion of Gould and his research. As for the chapter 2 quotes, it will have to wait until I can go back to the library and check the book out again, but I will do it, Slrubenstein 16:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is from Stephen Jay Gould: Jacquerie27 18:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Gould was considered by many outsiders to be one of the pre-eminent theoreticians in his field. However, most evolutionary biologists disagreed with the way that Gould presented his views; they feel that Gould gave the public, as well as scientists in other fields, a very distorted picture of evolutionary theory. Few evolutionary biologists question his motives, insight, or his new ideas. However, many hold that his claims to have overthrown standard views of neo-Darwinism were exaggerated to the point of falsehood, and that his claims of replacing adaptation as a key component of natural selection were erroneous. Biologist John Maynard Smith wrote that Gould "is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory"; another biologist, Ernst Mayr, wrote of Gould, and those who agree with him, that they "quite conspicuously misrepresent the views of evolutionary biology's leading spokesmen."

Dude, I have seen far worse said at professional meetings. This is just typical of the kind of debates among scientists. The problem with this paragraph is that it fails to distinguish between much of his work. Just as every physicist accepts Einstein's theory of specific relativity but think he was wasting his time working on a unified field theory, evolutionary scientists accept a good deal of what Gould wrote as good science, and criticze other things. This paragraph doesn't give a citation but I bet that it is refering to his last book which even he knew was very speculative and creative. I bet over time most scientists will reject his most radical claims in that book -- but it doesn't change the fact that his research was and continues to be well-regarded. I would delete the whole paragraph or move it to talk until whoever wrote provided sources and the context for those quotes. I am absolutely certain that they are not rejecting all or even most of his work. Slrubenstein 19:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Einstein has been falsified  : see g.o.müller's 4000 titles anti-relativist bibliography and the 130 fault catalogue on "www.ekkehard-friebe.de"

Alexander Friedmann's big bang theory has been falsified by the falsification of Einstein, too


Boas has been falsified : see John Randal Baker's "Race"(15-points-IQ gap, character differences)

the Jewish God doesn't exist: see Feuerbach

The Jews are not Armenid, they are an own race with characteristic qualities not to be found in normal Armenids

95% of the "Western" doctrine is Jewish destroying the West and Western thought

I'm not surprised you support Jacquerie. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hagiography

Reads like it was written by a member of a cult - XED.talk 01:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It's one of the more biased articles I've read. I guess I'm not suprised that there isn't even a "criticism" section here, knowing that Boas's politicized pseud-science couldn't stand up to modern scrutiny.Texan31337 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Few anthropologists consider Boas's work to be politicized pseudoscience. Can you point to any specific NPOV violations? In any event, the article provides a few specific examples of his scientific research, such as that on alternativing sounds and on Kwakiutl lineages. Please explain which of these is politicized pseudoscience? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hagiography is an excellent description of this page. Boas is always right and his opponents are all Nazis. Well, that second part actually seems to be true. But this article is way too focused on advocating Boas's theories, rather than just describing them. Brock 03:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Things missing

Though I'm loathe to suggest things that need to be added to this already too long page, I will say that the description of the NRC battle could use a little more detail; Boas and the cultural anthropologists on one side, with people like Robert Yerkes, Madison Grant, and other eugenicists on the other. Also, if I was to recommend a section to trim up, it would be the early life section. In general, I think the early lives of scientists is the part that you can leave to the people who are really, really interested in that scientist (in which case they'll go read a book rather than look at an encyclopedia). --Fastfission 06:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that this page is too long and have thought of editing it. However, I think that the blockquotes ought to be the first to go. I think we could also add other critics of Boas, such as Leslie White. I don't think the article is POV now, but in general it could be toned down a bit. My concern, however, is that this article was largely written by slrubenstein, who is known to enter protracted edit wars over even minor changes in articles, and I have no desire to tangle with him. It may be under the GFDL, but it is also his baby and he may object. Slrubenstein, would you care to weigh in on this issue?

Needless to say, the way I see it is I enter into protracted edit wars only when the edit is simply inaccurate. As for the specifics -- I certainly agree about what needs to be added. I am loathe to cut anything for two reasons. First, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia -- there is no need to delete content if it is accurate. Second, Boas's legacy is a matter of contention in some circles. One reason I put in so much information about his background and education, and so many extended quotes, was to provide factual information and actual texts that provide a more or less objective portrait of Boas's biases and agenda (as I said before, I do agree that more information about his interlocutors or opponents would be a good thing). As I see it, the problem is not that the article is "too long" in some objective sense -- but I imagine it is getting too long for servers and thus slow to download. The usual solution to this kind of problem is to split off sections and turn them into linked articles (or if you prefer, subpages). Would this satisfy Fastfission and Alex? I really think the reason I do not want to delete material is not because I am personally invested in what I wrote, but because Wikipedia should be a great source for people doing research and the more content -- as long as it is accurate and NPOV -- the better. Not to harp on my own ego, but given your concern for my feelings you might feel reticent about changing the wording of the text. All I can say is that there are lots of times people have changed the wording of something I wrote, and I didn't object because I saw how the change was an improvement. I know that this article like any other at Wikipedia, being a work in progress, can always be improved upon and I would be grateful to anyone who makes changes to this article to improve it. I just hope my reasons for not deleting content are clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that the wikipedia is not paper, there are genre and stylistic issues associated with article size. I also appreciate the need to provide information about Boas, but I feel wikipedia should be synoptic, rather than reproducing blockquotes of primary material for readers. At any rate, I myself was going to suggest that we created linked pages for longer subsections. So, happily, I think we have reached agreement -- let's do that.

Okay, we are agreed on linked articles. I think that Wikipedia often is synoptic, but only because of the uneven quality of research. I think — and I am not talking to defensively, or even specifically concerning this article, but just as one wikipedian to another – that the great promise of Wikipedia is in the ways it can diverge from other encyclopedias. Most online encyclopedias are based on paper encyclopedias, so their articles are synoptic. Most are written by specific people contracted, which makes revising costly. And this is a shame because more and more people do research online, and as you surely know in many areas what is available online is inadequate. If a wikipedian is willing to do the work, why not put lengthy quotes here? It means that someone who does not have access to scholarly books or journals can nevertheless find the material. I see only good in this, and no harm, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As it currently stands, the article is too long to be useful for the average reader. I think it focuses too much on things which are less central to what "Franz Boas" has come to symbolize. As it is, I open it up and just gloss over the text. It's too much, even for this academic historian. Yes, Wikipedia is not paper. But let's distinguish that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its scope and depth on individual articles is a level below that of a full biographical website. The problem here is in its usability and its usefulness for a reader, and considering that the entire entry is about a single individual it becomes a bit much. The lack of photographs and illustrations makes the amount of text especially daunting. I think the average reader, myself included, woudl appreciate less detail on the "less critical" aspects of his life -- those aspects which aren't really essential to understanding what "Franz Boas" was about in a general, non-specialist sense. As it is, it requires a lot of close reading to get the "main points" -- Boas was a anthropologist who used the tools of physical anthropology to undermine it, he was central in an early 20th century struggle in the science of race and gender. Here's my approach: I'm going to try creating an edited, shorter version of the article on my own userspace. After I'm done with it, we can discuss it a bit in comparison with this one, hold a little informal vote if need be, etc. I'm not interested in large edit conflicts. At the moment though I don't think this is a useful entry, and I really think that Boas deserves a good encyclopedia entry on him. He's a major figure in 20th century science and to have such an inaccessible description of him does nobody any good. The only people who would really profit from an entry this long and in depth are people who would have already checked a book on Boas out from the library. Wikipedia should not attempt to be the last-stop resource for research -- it can't possibly guarantee that level of reliability and accountability. It should point int he right direction, suggest interesting possibilities, etc. In my view. --Fastfission 06:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

New idea: Let's keep all the detailed content, let's just shuttle it off to specific subpages, and redo the main article in Wikipedia:Summary style. That way, everybody is happy. The casual reader doesn't have to go into every little thing Boas worked on, they can see a brief description and get the main points. The person who wants more is free to click further and get all the wonderful extra bits. No information loss at all, just a lower price to get in. Anyway, again, I will create a separate version of this first, and we can discuss it. --Fastfission 12:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to your "new idea." It is important to me — not for personal reasons but as a longstanding Wikipedian – that content not be deleted. Shuttling content off to linked pages of course can be a very good thing, so basically I am fine with this. I do think it would be wise to run the idea (or, your specific plan for sub-pages) by other people just to make sure, but I think it is a good idea, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Brand article

I am wondering what place the article by Chris Brand has in the Franz Boas page in the external links section. The journal that it comes from, "The Occidental Quarterly", is a quite controversial magazine with a partisan political agenda and its academic value is dubious. The magazine is a dogmatic front for propaganda from a group that label themselves racist-nationalist historical revisionists. As the group notes in the guiding principles listed on The Occidental Quarterly's homepage [[1]], it is dedicated to the preservation of what it calls the "Classical, Christian and Germanic past" and saving the group's notion of "white culture" in the U.S. and Europe from racial integration. So I am not quite sure how the article presents a legitimate critique of Boas's work. If the link is not removed completely, the origin of the article should at least be noted on the page as the link only brings one to an article with no links to its source. And no this is not an attempt to stifle debate, it is an attempt to preserve balanced, thoughtful debate based on serious scholarship.

So, I just read the "Jewish Science" section and I am beginning to see that this article fits into a pattern that began with someone putting the citation for the Kevin MacDonald book in the prior section. There are many links between Kevin MacDonald and "The Occidental Quarterly", I believe that he won some sort of award from them for one of his books and I think that he publishes articles with them from time to time. The contested, politically-oriented nature of the scholarship of both Brand and MacDonald should be acknowledged on the page, if it is presented as equal to other scholars on the page. Also, I would like to know what the motive was of the person who included these related critiques of Boas. I am all for critiques of major figures in every field. However, these critiques should be part of a move towards more thorough, self-reflective debate, not part of a plan by ideologues to publicly tarnish the reputation of a legitimate scholar in order to pursue a political agenda. People should read the articles by Brand and MacDonald, but I hope that they will be aware of the background of the authors and the community from which these types of academics come.

Your comments are very thoughtful and articulate. I urge you to register and sign your contributions. To answer your questions: This used to be a short article and was dominated by the Chris Brand/Kevin MacDonald stuff. Wikipedia has a stringent Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy which means that we must provide multiple points of view, and leave it to the reader to judge the validity of any one view. That said, if you think you can add contextual information about MacDonald and Brand that won't violate our NPOV policy (read over it carefully), feel free to edit away. When I first came to this article I was appalled by the Brand/MacDonald stuff. My response was not to delete the views that I thought were offensive and ignorant, but rather to add much more content to the article to provide readers with enough information about Boas's background, the intellectual context in which he lived and worked, and specifics concernig his work so that readers could judge MacDonald's and Brand's claims for themselves. I do not want to discourage you from working on this article, but I do want to make sure you are aware of both the policy and the politics. As far as policy, NPOV is inviolate. As far as politics, there are some editors here with very strong points of view and they often do whatever they can to insert it into articles, and to add so many qualifiers to any other point of view that no one can sort things out clearly. I wrote the paragraph mentioning "Jewish science" and wrote that Macdonald "resurrected the notion of a 'Jewish science'" (implying a similarity between his claims and those of the Nazia) — and some people freaked out. It was a small battle to keep the phrasing as I wrote it. Needless to say, those people also insisted on including the citation of MacDonald's book. According to our policies, that cannot be deleted, but I added the citations for the Glick and Frank articles which are sound scholarship by any standard. So, the end result was an article that kept the Brand and MacDonald references but increasing the size of the article more than ten-fold, to compensate. MacDonald fans seemed to have accepted this. I hope it is clear that I share your views and do not personally object to your ideas about contextualizing Brand and MacDonald. But be prepared for someone else to redo whatever you write, claiming that what you wrote was not "neutral." Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am not completely familiar with the policies and procedures, this is very helpful. Also, thanks for helping me to understand the current situation on this page. I think I will make it a new project to research the work of Brand and MacDonald and add balanced and neutral contextual information. Thanks again. Asedzie 11:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are very welcome. You should also consult two other policies, equally important as NPOV: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. These three policies are the basic rules for writing an article. I suggest you write an article on The Occidental Quarterly — carefully following these three policies — and then you can just provide a link here (after the link to the Chris Brand article) to the Occidental Quarterly article, and them readers will be able to see the full context for the Brand essay. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anthropology article

Could someone knowledgeable check out the reference to Boas in the anthropology article? Third paragraph. I refer to this: "... Boas was a well-known social reformer with a strong Jewish self-identification ..." Which seemingly conflicts with the statement "... he did not identify himself as a Jew" from this article. One of these statements needs to be changed or, at least, clarified. --131.123.86.200 04:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence from the anthropology article. Not only was it inaccurate, it really did not make sense in that paragraph - except, I suspect, to those who criticize anthropology not on its scientific merits but rather as part of some attack against "Jewish science." Such people would want to emphasize Boas's Jewish origins; Boas himself did not. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you , Jaquerie27, for insisitng on the truth

Boas was a Jew with a strong self-identification (see MacDonald) being vey malign to the West. Einstein was a charlatan concerning his relativity (see g.o..mueller 2004 work , biggest critique ever, on "special relativity" article); as MacDonald is not fit in physics he has overlooked this fact.Rubenstein is not able to enough acknowledge that as then he had to lose his self-respect being himself an Ashkenazi Jew.Could you help me on Asian fetish, Jaquerie, to multiply our efforts , please? And there is a coverage of this anthro war and the Ruby gang on skadi.net in a restricted area. You want to have an access code ?80.138.177.147 16:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You may want to try to be less blatant about your racism. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baker citations

An anonymous editor just added two citations for articles by Baker. Important work. Would the anonymous editor car to incorporate summaries or elemenst of these articles into the article, in their proper context? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CIA jobs

I reverted a recent addition about the AAA running ads for the CIA because I haven´t seen them. If someone can provide a verifiable source of course we will put the information back in. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have access to the Anthropology News journal.. Look in the December 2005 issue... Page 44. I don't have a scanner on me but the ad is well known and has been a source of controversy. There was also an online job posting on the AAA website that was pulled after people began objecting.

I apreciate your response, and I believe you. However, I still think your edit was inapropriate for this article. The paragraph in wuestion concerns the AAA´s rescinding Boas´s censure. Whether the AN runs CIA ads or not is just not relevant. Indeed, whether the AN rus ads for th CIA today or not has no real bearing on Franz Boas. May I suggest that you consider the article on anthropology or cultural anthropology or (if we have one) an article on the AAA? Within one of these articles ought to be a section on anthropology and politics (or, anthropology and the state) and there can be subsections (e.g. one on colonialism, one on the CIA) - then, in the appropriate subsection, this information would be appropriate. I would add that you should be as precise as possible (i.e. running one ad is not the same thing as "running ads") an provide a citation for th source. Then, you will have no fear of a reversion. I suspect you may even have more to add. PS consider registring. Also, properlñy indent your comments. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quesalid

Boas is the discover of Quesalid, a Kwakiult famous shaman, I think that can be include somewhere in the article. Yug (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that Quesalid was well known to many others before Boas ever met him. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outdated arguments

He claimed that cattle and chickens where domesticated in Africa before Eurasia. This have turned out to be false. As far as I know aurochses have never existed in Africa south of the Saharas, they might have existed north of the Saharas if they had a chance to get there. (They did not live on treeless plains.) Aurochses where domesticated into cattle in the Middle East 9,000 years ago. Simulary, the red junglefowl only live in southern Asia. They where domesticated in Thailand 8,000 years ago. I don’t know if the Africans ever domesticated any indigenous birds. Except for donkeys all domesticated mamals where imported to Africa from Eurasia. However, we should not overlook the early archivements of Africans. The genus of humans orginated in Africa as well as the present-day human species. When our ancestors first left Africa they where already fully human: they looked like present-day humans and could think logically, speak, paint, sing, dance and imagine the supernatrual. In fact the human brain have not evolved in the last 100,000 years. “Cultural evolution” in the late 19-th centry sence have been thoughtly verified. Also, alternative explainations have been developed based on physical geography (see Guns, Germs, and Steel).

2007-03-26 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.233.151.160 (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Aren't there other varieties of chickens and cattle? Anywa, perhaps there is a way to signal this in the article without being awkward ... I think it is clear from the context that the quote is meant to illustrate Boas's views on racism and African Americans, not authoritative research on Africa. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote about “cattle” and “chickens” as single species: not as genera, families or anything such. In this sense they are domesticated forms of the aurochs and the red junglefowl. Consequently, their possible places of first domestication where limited to their natural distribution. As I wrote nether species have ever existed in Africa south of the Saharans. It would be suitable to add a set of parentheses saying that the domestication argument has been falsified. Otherwise, an ignorant reader might think that it is still believed to be true. -2007-03-26 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Lena, if you plan on sticking around consider opening an account. There is some evidence of Bos domestication in Egypt (whcih is part of Africa) as early as 9,000 BP. I made some changes to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If that is true aurochs was domesticated simultaneously in three different places: two in Asia and one in Africa. Still, they where not FIRST domesticated in Africa as Franz Boas claimed. Furthermore, Egyptians can’t be called “black Africans” unless you let the expression mean almost anything. This is also one of the arguments against Afro-Centricism. -2007-03-26 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

9,000 BP is pretty early, I'd say. And Boas simply said it was domesticated in Africa, he did not say by what "race." Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the Africans was NOT FIRST to have cattle. They had it AT THE SAME TIME OR LATER than people in the Middle East.

2007-03-27 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

To my knowledge, it was: 9,000 years ago. By comparison, 8,000 BP for the Fertile Crescent, 7,000 BP for Indus Valley, and evidence does not appear in China until 5,000 BP Slrubenstein | Talk 16:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, different sources say different things. My source is a popular scientific magazine only stating “the Middle East, 7,000 BC”. The magazine is in Swedish and I don’t have access to it right now. So maybe I should leave this discussion.

2007-03-28 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

[edit] Guns, Germs, and Steel

Why the plug for this book? It has no particular connection with Boas. But I don't need to know that to know the reference is inappropriate for this article. The parenthesis referring to GG&S informs us that the claim that Eurasian civilizations are more advanced than African societies is still a dominant claim today. This meta-claim about popular perceptions of cultural difference is trivially obvious and is not made more obvious by anecdotal reference to a book that takes the base claim as axiomatic. Brock 00:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it gets to why anthropologists continue to read and assign Boas today: some of his arguments are relevant to contemporary debates. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] enlightened vs secular

As it was wording, one could thing that being religious mean not to be enlightened- this is, of course, not right.--Gilisa 15:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Virtually all historians of the Enlightenment (and we mean specifically the European Enlightenment) see it as involving an assault on religious values. Be that as it may, Boas himself wrote of the importance of Enlightenment values in his childhood home. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about the historical term and I'm talking about the simple term itself (which came from "in the light" oppose to religious people which are, according to these sense "in the darkness". To make it clear-I suggest new wording: " embraced the secular values of the Enlightenment".--Gilisa 20:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean, the difference between the proper noun and the common noun. I think secular is an anachronism. As long as the E in Enlightenment is capitalized people will know it is a proper rather than common known. It is the same thing in English with Republican and republican - everyone knows a Republican is a member of a particular party, not just someone who believes in a representative democracy rather than a monarchy. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality in lead sentence

I was going to go with German-born American per WP:MOSBIO. Can people firmilar with this gentleman please chime in and help? Thanks!

I do not have a problem with it, although some might say that Germany did not exist as a state in 1850s. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Would "German-born" be incorrect in that case? If so, would somebody help? Thanks, --Tom 17:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
How about "Prussian-born?" Slrubenstein | Talk 10:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It's kinda spurious to say he was a "German born American", as he was brought up and educated there; Germany was responsible for his entire development. That "Germany" didn't exist as a state in the 1850s is hardly important; it wasn't a sovereign state based nationality like US nationality, and I don't notice anyone challenging Ludwig van Beethoven's Germaness. And compare Andrew Carnegie who unlike Boas was a product of American society, though the article simply states that he is Scottish. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I corrected Caregie. He spent 70 years in US and it was there that he did what he became notable for. If Boas did the majority of his work in Germany, so be it. Anyways, cheers, --Tom 18:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
He moved to the US when he was 29 (1887) and died in NY when he was 84 (1942); he spent 55 years in the US (a lot! but nor 70). I think virtually all his important work is in English. However, judging by his own work and accounts by his students, his view of the world and of science was forged in Germany; according to Cole, he was considered by those who knew him in the US to be a "German American" (282). Moreover, Boas insisted that Jews of Germany were Germans. He certainly saw himself as a German. It is true that anti-Semites like Hitler rejected Jewish claims to being German, and if one accepts Hitler's claims about race Boas was not a German. But this is certainly a controverisal POV and there is no evidence Boas or most of his colleagues did not share it. It is true he rejected german nationalism, but he also rejected American nationalism, indeed, all nationalisms; this doesn't mean he didn't see himself as German, it just means that for him, being German meant something that perhaps Goethe would have accepted and Hitler rejected. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orthogenic versus Darwinian evolution section

The beginning of this section has a few problems in my opinion:

  • "Some people have argued that Boasian anthropology is at odds with Darwin's theory of Evolution." --> who are these "some people"? (WP:WEASEL)
  • "This argument is unfounded" --> this sounds like we as Wikipedia, are arguing against someone's theories (an unnamed someone, at that). Much better would be to summarize someone else's response with a citation, e.g. that of Boas or one of his defenders.
  • "The difference between these prevailing theories of cultural evolution and Darwinian theory cannot be overstated" --> the claim that something "cannot be overstated" is an odd sort of judgment, and usually hyperbole.

The second half of this section, which relies primarily on citations to published sources, is on the other hand quite good. --Delirium 06:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the answers to the first point may be Kevin MacDonald, Steven pinker, others, but I am not 100% sure. As to the other two, perhaps you can find more felicitous wording? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And what’s the relevance of this statement?

The current version of the article includes the statement: “In his 1998 book The Culture Of Critique, Kevin B. MacDonald claims that Boas was not engaged in science, but rather pseudoscience motivated by Jewish ethnocentrism and the chapter (2) on Boas makes no reference to "Jewish Science".”

Mr. MacDonald’s assertion that Boas did not engage in science must mean that American Anthropology is not science and that the generation of scholars trained by Boas in this field are pseudoscientists. This is either trivially true (i.e. much of Anthropology is not hard science) or outrageously false. In either case, I fail to see the relevance of this statement to an encyclopedia article on Boas. Unless there is some objection, I would suggest removing the statement.Mwswanton (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding the article: three suggestions

While nobody wants a bloated article, I would like to suggest three themes which I believe would improve the coverage of the article.

1. Boas’ work in archaeology. In his work with his student Gamio, he is usually credited with being one of the founders of stratigraphic archaeology in the Americas. This marks the beginning of “scientific” archaeology. His work on this, done in Mexico, established a ceramic chronology that is still invoked today.

2. Boas’ direct influence on the development of Anthropology in other countries. For example, his brainchild, the International School of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Americas (which, I believe, deserves its own article), was an important reference in the development of Anthropology in Mexico.

3. Boas has been called “the founder of American linguistics”. In this article, his work on linguistics seems to concentrate on his earliest observations and fails to take into consideration his later work, such as the Handbook of American Indian Languages, the International Journal of American Linguistics, the Committee on Research in Native American Languages, etc. Mwswanton (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] was he ethnically German

Since my edits we re-verted, I figured rather than re-verting myself anymore we'd discuss it. My main question is this, did he have any ethnic German ancestry or heritage ? I thought he was only of Ashkenazi Jewish descent ? Epf (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you define "ethnically German"? Does being of Ashkenazi Jewish background automatically exclude someone from being "ethnically German"? If so, why? --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I added his American nationality to the lead per wp:mosbio. --Tom 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with the edit on adding the American nationality. As for his ethnicity, if he was of mixed Jewish and German ancestry (like many German Jews) then no it does not automatically exclude him from being ethnically German. From what I've read I think this was the case for Boas, but I do not know for sure. Rubenstein apparently has some source material on Boas (or at least I hope so since he entered some reference information on his Jewish identity), so he might shed some light on the matter. Epf (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess my point was more about the vague understanding we all seem to have of the term "ethnicity". Can someone whose parents and grandparents spoke German and lived in German lands (as was the case with Boas, I believe) be considered ethnically German, whatever their ancestry? I get the idea that you think of ethnicity as being deeper than that, and I'm trying understand why.
In other words, where are you drawing the line with the notion of being ethnically German. And what texts or other sources are you basing this definition on? I think figuring this out will help resolve this slomo edit disagreement you guys are having. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Ethnicity is historically very malleable. And Boas identified as German (and in the US was identified as a German). Slrubenstein | Talk 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Quite. To my, admittedly non-expert, understanding ethnicity is about identity. If one identifies as belonging to an ethnic group, and is identified by others as belonging to that group, then they are a member of said group. So if Boas identified as German, and was identified as such by others, then he was ethnically German. Epf's constant and tiresome insistence that ethnicity is only about ancestry and descent is not correct and appears to be little more than a personal crusade. Alun (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Ethnicity is historically very malleable" - According to whom ? I agree it is malleable but that the malleability varies between many different groups and it is ignorant to claim on the whole that it is "very malleable". Descent, upbringing as well as different aspects of culture (including from your own ethnic community and descent, which in Boas case would be Jews in Germany) are integral to ethnic identities, and clearly so amongst Germans. I also never claim ethnicity is "only about ancestry and descent". I would at this point advise others in this discussion to ignore Alun's ridiculous claims about myself and any "personal crusade". I haven't even fully explained my views on this topic, so his non-sense here is unnecessary. My comments about ethnicity are in fact quite correct, supported by many anthropologists and obviously by many amongst the general population. The key point remains that Boas had to be identified as specifically an ethnic German, indigenous to Germany, by himself and by other Germans. Clearly many others (and other Germans) did not see him in such a way (and even more so at that time), and he himself obviously recognized he was distinct from other ethnic Germans in Germany and the US (eg. his Jewish parentage as well as his extensive personal interest in and numerous studies involving ethnic Jewish populations as is evidenced in this article). With this in mind, I emphasize that I am not saying he was not ethnically German (especially if he was of mixed Jewish and German heritage), but only that he clearly was of significant Jewish parentage and therefore may not have been so. Epf (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If he identified as German, what importance is it if his parents were Jews, Catholics, Muslims or Jehovah's witnesses? My family (both sides, actually) can trace their roots all the way back to early 18th-century France, and we consider ourselved in no way as "ethnically French", so I would say yur point is moot, if not tendentious.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, It does not matter if you find my point as "moot", but perhaps you wouldn't think so if you read into it a little bit more. What matters is how he identified (which includes recognizing his Jewish parentage, and specifically as Jewish-German or "German-German") and how he was recognized by others (specifically ethnic Germans). I do not know about your personal family history, descent or ethnicity, but that is not the topic of discussion. What you need to realize is that being Jewish isn't simply about religion, though this is a common misconception to some (mostly non-Jews). Jews obviously also have a common ethnic and cultural identity with a common Hebrew (what is now Israel or Palestine) descent (hence the usage of the term "anti-Semitic", implying a near-Eastern or "Semitic" origin). Despite being dispersed among different countries, they still maintain this strong ethnic community that transcends political boundaries (the case with many ethnic diasporas). Even after so many centuries in exile, they even ended up reclaiming their original homeland in 1948 (Israel). Epf (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The article very definitely says that he did not identify as a Jew, so why are you imposing on him an ethnicity with which he didn't particularly identify, while it is documented that he did indeed identify as a German? Yes, Jewish identity does go beyond the purely religious, but your doggedness in labeling him a Jew before being a German smacks of POV.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't care whether the link is piped to Germans or Germany as each is about as equally informative. But while you could argue that there is an ethnic dimension to being Jewish, Jews are by no stretch of the imagination a single ethnicity. We even see in the cited text that Boas did not consider himself to have a "common ethnic and cultural identity" with other Jews nor belong to any "strong ethnic [Jewish] community."
Basically, Epf's use of the term ethnic group, especially as he's applying it to people who are Jewish, amounts to original research. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it does not apply to original research since it is supported by what ethnic identity is, and in terms of what his ethnic identity was, as seen by himself and others. Epf (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Epf has his own personal definition of "ethnicity" and "ethnic group" that seems to be unique to him personally, but he seems to think that Wikipedia should conform to Epf's personal definition of ethnicity rather than the standard anthropological one. Often he's quite scary. Alun (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Newsroom hierarchies has hit the nail on the head, and at the risk of being wordier than necessary, I will spell it out for Epf:

Most German Jews following the Enlightenment considered Judaism a religion and considered themselves to be German. Boas identified all his life as a German, although he rejected nationalism of any form. You say that descent is integral to ethnicity; sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. You say that Boas's parents were Jewish; but from what we know of Boas and his family, they considered themselves to be German (the article quotes Boas saying "My father had retained an emotional affection for the ceremonial of his parental home, without allowing it to influence his intellectual freedom"). You make remarks about "his extensive personal interest in and numerous studies involving ethnic Jewish populations as is evidenced in this article" and I must ask you to specify, because I am aware only of one study - his study of children of immigrants which included Jews and Germans and Italians and many other groups, and a comment he made addressing students at a traditionally black college ... pretty thin material compared to Boas's explicit statement about his identity, "The background of my early thinking was a German home in which the ideals of the revolution of 1848 were a living force." You say that "there was significant jewish parentage" and I am not sure what this means. His parents were Jewish, but clearly identified also as German, and based on Boas's writings and things said by those who knew him, he explained his values and character in terms of his Germanness, not his Jewishness. Ramdrake makes a point using his own person and family history as an example and you foolishly say that is a moot point, and then you make some general statements about Jews. Well, I think that the general remarks you make about Jews and Jewish identity is definitely true for some, perhaps even many Jews. But this is a moot point. ramdrake's point is not: his point is that one needs to move beyond vague generalizations and look at specifics. if one looks at the specifics of Boas and his family, what is most salient is his German identity. Now, liberal Germans, especially those who embraced the 1848 ideals and the ideals of the Enlightenment (Goethe, Heine, etc.) would have considered Boas German. I do not think that this means he was not Jewish, just as being Catholic or Protestant did not make anyone less German; remember too that prior to Bismarck Germany consisted of a great many independent polities that were (and in many ways continue to be) culturally and linguisticially distinct, and in this sense one could say that German identity was and always is hyphenated - Prussian-German, Bohemian-German; Bavarian-German; Silesian-German, and so on. Others, for example nascent nationalists during the Bismarck period, rejected his claim to Germanness (as Hitler and his followers would later identify Boasian anthropology as a "Jewish science," entirely rejecting its German roots and of course in disregard of how Boas and his family and friends viewed Boas), and one reason Boas left Germany was the rise of German nationalism. But it was as I said nationalism that Boas rejected (and he rejected American nationalism when he lived in the US), not his Germanness. On page 280 of his authoritative 1999 biography of Boas (the full refereunce is in the article), Boas's biographer Douglas Cole writes that Boas was an ethnic (he uses the word) German, and did not identify himself as a Jew. Now Epf, this is not a moot point. Here at wikipedia we believe in verifiability, and original research is forbidden. it simply does not matter hat you think, or even what I think; editors' views do not go into articles. Articles should include all notable views that can be traced to verifiable sources. Here is a notable view from a verifiable source. Let's skip your tendentious arguments. Do you have a verifiable source that states that Boas identified himself as an ethnic Jew, or as a Jew period, and that he did not identify himself as an ethnic German? If so, please provide the source. if you have no source that states either of these claims explicitly, then drop it. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Before I respond to your discourse in greater detail Rubenstein, I want to refer you to this article about Jewish-German identities in America, just to show you one quick example that there are others views on this matter that are similar to mine:

Baader, Benjamin Maria, "German-Jewish Identities in America (review)". American Jewish History, Volume 92, Number 2, June 2004. [2]

"Mitchell B. Hart approaches the interplay of German, Jewish, and American identities from a different angle, as he interprets the choices that the Jewish, German-born anthropologist Franz Boas made in the first decades of the twentieth century. Hart argues that Boas's downplaying of his Jewish identity and his positioning himself as German and American was a strategy of self-representation. Boas used this strategy successfully to defend the racial equality of Jews from Eastern Europe and their ability to adapt to American society."

Epf (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Epf, your point seems to be saying that one's ethnicity is more a matter of identification by others than a matter of self-identification, am I right? You seem to hold that there is some kind of objective, unalterable ethnic identity which is conferred to individuals through common ancestry and shared descent, rather than a simple identification (acculturation) to a specific nation.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Correct, Epf has made this claim again and again. As I point out above, Epf has his own personal definition of "ethnicity" and "ethnic group" that seems to be unique to him personally, but he seems to think that Wikipedia should conform to Epf's personal definition of ethnicity rather than an actual anthropological one. Often he's quite scary, Alun (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No Ramdrake, I am saying that ethnicity is a matter of how oneself identifies and how one is identified by others. All aspects of this ethnic identification are taken into account (descent, culture, language, nationality, etc.) and ethnicity transcends political boundaries. Boas himself supported this (ideas such as multiculturalism) in defending Germans in the US as well as Jews in Germany during WW1 and WW2. There is no "simple" acculturation to a specific nation and nations are political entities, not ethnic ones (unless otherwise specified, see ethnonationalism). In terms of Alun's accusations, ignore them since they are unfounded. This is not simply my own personal definition (which yes I am allowed to express here), but one held by many anthropologists and by many in the general public. It is by no means just unique to me, and Alun please cease with these claims. Epf (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Mitchell Hart's argument, which seems to bear only on Boas's representation of self in America, not in Germany, presents his identity as a "representational strategy." This may well be so - ethnic identity is often a representational strategy. This does not change the fact that Boas while Boas acknowledged that he was of the Jewish faith, he never identified himself personally as "a Jew" but did identify himself as an ethnic German. Personally, I am not sure that positioning himself as a German was a conscious strategy of representation given that it made his loyalty as an American an easy target during WWI. Given the wealth of examples of Boas explaining his fundamental outlook on life as well as his intellectual orientation (and surely, above all else he viewed himself as an intellectual and scientist) in terms of his identification with German culture - Goethe and Humboldt, as well as later German intellectuals like Virchow, Windelband, Dilthey, Rickert, Bastien and others, and ultimately, fundamentally German values of Enlightenment and Bildung, it seems to me that his identification as a German was heartfelt. Remember that at the time of the German Enlightenment, there was no "German state;" this was a project of Bismark that began after Boas's intellectual development. The German values Boas identified so strongly with were it seems to me what we would call multicultural and internationalist values, as the very claim that they were German values meant that they were shared by people living under different rulers, speaking sometimes mutually unintelligible languages, of different religions, with different cultures. As I said Boas's German identity was anti-nationalist (well, Boas said this himself, and Cole emphasizes it). There is absolutely no evidence to think that Boas would have had any sympathy with Jewish nationalists. He viewed himself as an assimilated Jew and according to Cole saw Jewish assimilation - not into Christianity, but into some kind of community of humankind (consistent with his teacher Bastien's theory of the psychic humanity of mankind) as the ultimate and desirable fate of the Jews. To suggest that this was a representational strategy verges on judging Boas an insincere hypocrite - unless hart means it was a representational strategy to protect his efforts to argue not only for racial equality but for the thorough divorce of race and culture, and for his own humanistic ideals of people identifying with a common humanity and not identifying themselves with races or nations. Certainly, Boas's writings on race and his famous 1911 studies were not about the preservation of distinct but equal races; they were about the assimilation of people of different origins into America, an assimilation that involved not only the adoption of American culture but measurable changes in bodily form. Does Hart have any evidence that Boas "defended the racial equality of Jews" in particular? I know of no source that claims that he defended the rights of Jews to assimilate into American culture more than Blacks, Irish, Italians, or any other non-native group. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have still to respond to your earlier discourse. I have completed the response but will post it after this one. Boas did not just simply acknowledge his Jewish faith, and Hart is talking in terms of Jewish ethnic identity (which may or may not include the Jewish faith) not a religious one. I agree with many of the points you make here but in supporting multiculturalism, especially in the US, I don't see how Boas ever supported assimilationism except for that which would be necessary to live there under the societies laws. Clearly he did identify with the German country and it was heartfelt, but also I don't tihnk he ever sought to take away his own ethnic Jewish distinctiveness, or that of any ethnic group, in Germany or the US. Ultimately there is still nothing that shows he himself denied his Jewish ethnicity or considered himself more German ethnically than Jewish.

"Remember that at the time of the German Enlightenment, there was no "German state;" this was a project of Bismark that began after Boas's intellectual development."

There was no unified German state at the time, but a unified German culture and ethnicity (a grouping consisting of many more specific German groups) certainly had existed for many centuries. Political unification did happen in many respects during the Holy Roman Empire (yes it was multi-ethnic and did comprise of many non-German ethnic groups, but the majority of the HRE was inhabited by Germanic peoples). In terms of your views about Boas on Jewish nationalism, there is also no evidence that he did not have any sympathy for Jewish nationalists or Jewish ethnic concerns in general (in fact as I will show, there are examples of his connection with Jewish ethnic concerns in the US and Germany, but not nationalism). I do not doubt that Boas was anti-nationalsit, but I also do not think he was "anti-ethnic" or "anti-diversity" at all. Your views on his earlier writings that he emphasized assimilation is your opinion but most would not support that at all. As someone who had a passion for studying many different peoples and cultures, as well as stressing the equality between all of them, I doubt he would want to see sich diversity disappear under the pressures of assimlationism which destroys much of it rather than preserving it. Epf (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Response to Slrubenstein's first discourse (took some time); quotes in italics are excerpts from Rubenstein's discussion:
  • After reading your discourse more extensively Rubenstein, you yourself make some claims which are not supported by references in this article. There are many points I agree with and many I disagree with:
  • "Most German Jews following the Enlightenment considered Judaism a religion and considered themselves to be German."
  • I would like you to provide evidence that Jews of this period completely disregarded the ethnic aspects of their Jewish identity and only recognized that of their Jewish religion.
  • "You say that descent is integral to ethnicity; sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. You say that Boas's parents were Jewish; but from what we know of Boas and his family, they considered themselves to be German (the article quotes Boas saying "My father had retained an emotional affection for the ceremonial of his parental home, without allowing it to influence his intellectual freedom")."
  • Descent is integral to the concept of ethnicity and to the vast majority of ethnic groups. It does not matter when this aspect of ethnic identification is considered or by whom, but the fact that it remains does. Boas' parents were Jewish and he is clearly of Jewish descent as is evidenced by most sources I have read into, but here are some internet sources mentioning it:[3]

This source identifies Judaism as a religion Slrubenstein | Talk 22:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC) [4]

You have raised the issues of Boas's interestes. As this article makes clear his research on race involved "seven ethnic groups: Bohemians, Central Italians, Poles, Hungarians, Scots, Sicilians, and a set of people of Jewish ancestry from five European countries" i.e. he neither singled out nor privileged Jews. The author says Boas was a German of Jewish descent, but so what? The author is not an historian or biographer of Boas and it is not the intention of thi article to provide a cholarly study of Boas's identity. So what does the author do? He doea what many people do: when not writing about his own field of expertise, he replies on his own culture's folk taxonomies and theories of identity. Of course in contemporary USA t say Boas was a German of Jewish descent makes sense and communicates information to a general audience. But I wouldn't take it as authoritative about how Boas identified himself. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • [5] That statement (from the biography you mention) about his parents' views on their German home still does not negate their Jewish ethnic identity or that they considered themselves ethnically to be German (especially in the same sense as "German-Germans").

You cannot argue from the negative. If you want to say that Boas identified as an ethnic jew, you can't provide a quote in which he doesn't say he is not an ethnic jew, that is silly logic. You need an actual statement in which he identifies as an ethnic Jews.

  • "You make remarks about "his extensive personal interest in and numerous studies involving ethnic Jewish populations as is evidenced in this article" and I must ask you to specify, because I am aware only of one study - his study of children of immigrants which included Jews and Germans and Italians and many other groups,"
  • Yes, his famous study involving immigrants in the US about the environmental impacts on cephalic index is one exmaple where he used extensive samples from Jewish populations. There are numerous other articles and studies he completed concerning his fellow Jews however. Consider this article about "Franz Boas on Jewish Identity and Assimiliation" [6]

Epf, do you mean Glick's assertion, "In particular, his unwillingness to recognize Jewish cultural identity as a reality was central to his persistent emphasis on human plasticity andhis insistence that people not be “classified” in groups. In support of this argument"Slrubenstein | Talk 22:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • "His parents were Jewish, but clearly identified also as German, and based on Boas's writings and things said by those who knew him, he explained his values and character in terms of his Germanness, not his Jewishness."
  • I'm not debating whether or not he identified as "German", but how he identified as German is still distinct from how ethnic Germans (German-Germans) identified in Germany. In terms of his writings, clearly he also explained many of his values regarding his Jewish heritage and descent, epsecially in terms of discrimination. "He left Germany as a young man because he knew, with the rising climate of repression, that he would not be allowed to dabble in social and political matters." [7]
  • "if one looks at the specifics of Boas and his family, what is most salient is his German identity."
  • That is your opinion, but his German national identity still doesn't negate his distinct Jewish ethnic identity and heritage.

Again, you ignor facts in favor of your own fiction. Boas did not consider himself an ethnic Jew. Sorry that reality doesn't fit your dream world; get used it it. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • "Now, liberal Germans, especially those who embraced the 1848 ideals and the ideals of the Enlightenment (Goethe, Heine, etc.) would have considered Boas German. I do not think that this means he was not Jewish, just as being Catholic or Protestant did not make anyone less German..."
  • It is a very broad and unfounded statement to say that liberal Germans and those who embraced the ideals of 1848 and the enlightenment would have considered Boas "German". You can't verify this but in any case, there would have been an equal number of Germans at that time (even more perhaps) who would have not seen Boas as German (hence why he emigrated to the US, fearing greater social, economic and ethnic repression, which you yourself admit near the end of your paragraph). I'm not even denying that he was "German", but only how he, as a Jewish-German, was distinct from ethnic "German-Germans". You also can not equate his Jewish identity in this aspect to Catholics and Protestants since those are religious identities, not ethnic ones which encompass other factors of culture, descent, langauge, etc. In any case, the original religion (organized) of ethnic Germans was Catholicism and eventually Protestantism, but again this has no bearing.

Non-sequitor. of course liberal Germans considered Boas a German. But not all Germans were liberal Germans. I made it clear that there are also conservative Germans, such as Nazis and anti-Semites. These are the ones who rejected Boas's Germanness, and in part led him to leave germany. But guess what? Liberal germans and anti-Semites are two different groups of Germans. I have no problem with the article acknowledging that racist anti-Semites do not consider Boas an ethnic German. I am opposed to letting those Germans speak with final authority for all Germans. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And of course like most german Jews, Boas considered Judaism a religion, not an ethnicity Slrubenstein | Talk 00:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • "remember too that prior to Bismarck Germany consisted of a great many independent polities that were (and in many ways continue to be) culturally and linguisticially distinct, and in this sense one could say that German identity was and always is hyphenated - Prussian-German, Bohemian-German; Bavarian-German; Silesian-German, and so on."
  • True, German ethnicity has traditionally been a macro-ethnic grouping of more local/regional identities, but most of those individual German ethnic groups (Prussian, Bavarian, Austrian, Swabian, Saxon, etc.) all shared a common cultural heritage, descent and were indigenous to Germany. "Prussian" was a broader definition itself, and included smaller German groups, while "Silesian" and "Bohemian" were more political entities as you say, consisting of many non-German groups, mainly Slavic groups such as Czechs (Bohemia) and Sorbs (Silesia).
  • "On page 280 of his authoritative 1999 biography of Boas (the full refereunce is in the article), Boas's biographer Douglas Cole writes that Boas was an ethnic (he uses the word) German, and did not identify himself as a Jew."
  • Alright, clearly there are those who focused on Boas' German identity (but not refuting his Jewish one) and you claim this author specifically used the term "ethnic German", but it is this author's specific opinion that Boas "did not identify himself as a Jew", not Boas himself. As I provided in the source earlier from Mitchell Hart, others clearly acknowledge that Boas was also ethnically Jewish and of Jewish, not German, descent.

Note too that Boas's competitors on the US, like Holmes, considered Boas a "hun" it is in the article). That Boas identified as a German and not a Jew is not this author's opinion, it is his conclusion based on reading everything Boas wrote including private correspondence. I seriously doubt Mitchell Hart, who is not a Boas scholar, has read everything Boas wrote. I defer to the biographer's conclusions based on thorough research over Hart, much as I respect Hart's work. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree with your comments on verifiability and OR, and I am abiding by Wiki policy (as we all should). You yourself have not given any reference that Boas himself claimed he was not ethnically Jewish or that he was more ethnically German, but you have given the opinion of an author which is acceptable. I have in turn given the view of other authors that note his Jewish descent and his Jewish ethnic identity, as well as his focus and connection to matters of ethnic Jews in both Germany and America during his lifetime. I feel that since he is not ethnically German like other Germans ("German-German" of German heritage and descent) which the Germans article refers to (and originally referred to since it was created), that we specify Boas' German nationality and Jewish ethnic identity for now, rather than any German ethnic identity that is debated. Epf (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"You yourself have not given any reference that Boas himself claimed he was not ethnically Jewish or that he was more ethnically German, but you have given the opinion of an author which is acceptable. I have in turn given the view" Oh really? Well, aside from the obvious preference for secondary sources in our NOR policy, I didn't feel I had to. Surely you have read Boas's 1916 letter to the editor of the New York Times in which he explictly identifies himself as a German American? I mean, here you are blathering on about Boas as if you knew anything about him, surely you have read this famous and often-cited letter? As to Jews, can you please cite for me one place where Boas refers to Jews explicitly as an ethnic identity? He does on occasion talk about Jews, but i do not recall his identifying himself as an ethnic Jew publically - ever - and in his talk of Jews I never see him identifying them as an "ethnic group." As will be obvious in the quote i provide below, he certainly did not see them as a "nation."Slrubenstein | Talk 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As to Hart versus Cole, surely a book by Boas's biographer carries more weight than an article that mentions Boas in the context of other examples. Hart is indeed an expert in Jewish history, but not in the history of anthropology or Franz Boas; Cole was definitely the expet on Boas. Cole writes:

He certainly accepted the process of assimilation and anticipates its continuation. The end of the Jewish Question (as with the Indian and Negro Questions) would be assimilation into the family of man. He never expected ethnic qualities to disappear, but he did not consider Jewishness - certainly his kind of Jewishiness - to be an ethnicity. That view was shared by many of his generation and many of his parents', men and women who considered themselves fully emancipated individuals, discernably Jews at mos in their private lives or none at all. Boas's formative years were during the brief golden age of the convergence of Jewish values and aspirations and withthose of the majority of the German middle class. To many, Jewishness was merely a religious matter, a question of private Jewish belief; in all other respects jews were Germans. To some, like Boas, it was a matter of family extraction, an incidental feature of "Abstammung." Liberal assimilationism represented the views of the majority of German Jewsm even a larger majority of German American Jews (Cole 281-282; see Pulzer, Jews and the german State)

This by the way is consistent with the various writings of the most famous historian of anthropology, George Stocking; it is also consistent with research by others on Boas. Leonared Glick shares this view:

Boas's published writings on assimilation were deeply influenced by his German Jewish background. In particular, his unwillingness to recognize Jewish cultural identity as a reality was central to his persistent emphasis on human plasticity and his insistence that people not be "classified" in groups.

Glick goes on to demonstrate that Boas "advocated assimilation up to the point of the literal disappearance of the Jews." For Glick, this was precisely a liberal German reaction to conservative Germans: Jews would be ethnic germans if they assimilated. German Historian Heinrich Treitschke instited that while Germans should respect the Hebrew faith, Germany's Jews must become fully German. This was a discourse that ran through German life since the Enlightenment: before the Enlightenment it wasn't really clear what it meant to be "German," but Jews were not Germans because of a whole set of legal apparatuses that separated them from German society. The Enlightenment ended these apparatuses, leading to a debate among non-Jewish Germans about the character of the new Germany. For most Jews Enlightement meant they could finally assimilate into German life, and for many Germans this meant Jews were to become part of the German volk.

  • Do you mind giving the actual sources of these claims by Glick as well as George Stocking as you did for the quote from Cole ? The information from Cole's biography, Pulzer and Boas has been found and I will verify the information once I get copies of the material. In any case, none of this shows, as I stated further below, Boas identifying as an ethnic German in the same manner as other (indigenous) ethnic Germans or that he himself completlely refuted all of Jewish identity and heritage. Even according to Cole, Boas noted Jewishness "was a matter of family extraction" and you even mention below that Boas referred to Jews as a "race". In addition, all this extra scholarship regarding Boas and Jewish identity (including his own various works regarding or involving ethnic Jews) shows not only his association with such, but how he was perceived as being associated with such by others, Jews and non-Jews alike. Epf (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Epf tells me that I make unverifiable points but as usual is wrong. That German Jews viewed Judaism as a religion and viewed their national identification and loyalty to Germany, and that liberal Germans saw jews as part of the German volk, are all verifiable in Glick's article. And I have much more faith in Glick's research, which is exhaustive, than Hart's.

Boas's views on assimilation as presented in Glick's articles are grounded not just in quotes by Boas Glick cites. They are consistent with Boas's views as an anthropologist. In Anthropology and Modern Life Boas wrote, "When the Jew is separated from the rest of the people among whom he lives by endogamy within the Jewish people, he is not entirely a member of the nationality, although a member of the nation, for he particpates in part only in the interests of the community and endogamy keps him permanently separated. When he is completely assimilated, he is a member of the nation" (90) Note that Boas talks about Jews as people, but not a Jewish ethnic group, and he makes it clear that while they are not fully part of a (say, German) "nationality," they are of course part of the larger (e.g. German) nation. In this chapter, as anyone familiar with Boas's works knows, Boas presents nationalism as in part a positive step away from the parochialism of local identities; nations bring together people who otherwise would not view themselves as related. Boas clearly sees the development of nations as a stepping stone in a larger process that will bring about the unification of humankind: "Those of us who recognize in the realization of national ideals a definite advance that has benefitted mankind cannot fail to see that the task before us at the present time is a repetition of the process of nationalization on a larger scale, not with a view to leveling down all local diferences but with the avowed purpose of making them all subserve the same end. The federation of nations is the next necessary step in the evolution of mankind." (97) "Enlargement of circles of association, and the equalization of rights of distinct local communities have been so consistently the general tendency of huan development that we may look forward confidently to their consumation" (102). Those of you who have read the book know that he does not mean that cultural identities that are brought into the family of man will retain their traditional form; as he points out, the more contact local cultures have with one another, the more they change. For Boas, assimilation is part of a process of forming a larger, more inclusive, dynamic community. This is why in his 1921 essay "The American Negro" he declares that racism against Blacks will end only when Negro blood is so diluted that it will have disappearded, just as anti-Semitism will end when the jews have fully assimilated until "the Jew" has disappeared. As with everything else he wrote about Jews, he was refering only to Jews as a physical type (i.e. race). Just as he argued in his essay on "The American negro" that Blacks invented a great many things that now benefit all humankind, presumably, like other German Jews, perhaps, like Reform German Jews (who saw judaism solely as a religion) he saw the best aspects of Judaism, the moral message of the Prophets, to be a contribution to the culture of humanity.

Epf characterized Cole's propositions as "opinions." They are not. They are conclusions reached by someone who has read virtually all of Boas's writings including letters. They should be given their due weight. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I have only just read your discourse here Rubenstein (none of which shows my points as "wrong" despite what you claim) with references to Glick amongst others (if you dont mind, can you give me some more details on those actual sources you claim to quote from ?). I don't have time right now to go into another very detailed response. I can say this though, that even in your own discussion you constantly make reference to the impact and influence of Boas's Jewish German background, not specifically his "German" one. You also constantly mention his supposed views about assimilation of Jews into the German nation (which would have a distinct definitions for example to German ethno-nationalists), but not specifically the German people or ethinc group. Obviously many Germans (even at the time of the englightenment) woud note the distinctions between Jews and indigenous ethnic Germans. Yes, I did know that Boas rarely (if ever) mentioned the Jews as an ethnic identity, but I have never read anything about himself explicitly denying it. The fact that Jews had been a relatively endogamous population for fairly a long time was obvious to many, so I also find it highly unlikely that 'Jewishness' as an ethnic identity was a an 'invention' of Jews in Boas' time. Obviously there are ethnic, "racial", cultural, linguistic (Yiddish, Hebrew, Ladino) ancestral, etc. aspects to Jewish identity, not simply the religious. I do not doubt that Jews who did not practice Judaism often faced exclusion by some in the wider Jewish community, but few would ever state that Jewishness is only a religious identity. No, I never did read his 1916 letter to the New York Times about him identifying as German American, though if you could provide a reference with it, I'd be interested in reading it. From what I have read about Boas', including his own fascination for and works about indigenous peoples, I highly doubt he would favour assimlationism as much as you claim. The fact remains that there is no evidence that Boas' himself denied any connection at all to his Jewish heritage or saw himself as German in the same manner as indigenous ethnic Germans. As for those "liberal Germans" at the time of the enlightenment, who you claim would have seen Jews as part of their "Volk" if they assimilated fully, I doubt their views can be lumped up in such a manner. "Volk" was in fact a term more often used by those of generally opposing viewpoints (including ethno-nationalists) and I strongly doubt that Boas would ever endorse the forced assimilation of people into another group (which in order to happen "fully" would require extensive inter-marriage). Again, I have to read into the sources you supposedly claim to have quoted from, but you will have to give some more details on them for me to find. From the sources we have both cited, we currently do not have any direct evidence for several things: 1) if Boas considered himself the same as indigenous ethnic Germans 2) if he denied any connection whatsoever to his Jewish heritage or the Jewish community and 3) if he did not consider the Jews to be an ethnic group, as you claim. I find the third point personally difficult to believe, especially since in many studies (especially with the one on plasticity in cephalic indexes), he often chose Jewish groups as part of his selection for ethnic groups to be observed. As for Cole's views, they are conclusions based on his own opinions, but nothing more than that. You also describe many peoples opinions through your own description rather than the actual material itself. An example of this is how you discuss Boas' (now widely unaccepted) views that discrimination against Jews and Blacks will only cease when all traces of their distinction has disappeared (again more evidence he realized there were other aspects to Jewish identity, besides the religious). However there is nothing in that essay that states he himself supported such a thing (which would be offensive to most) should occur. I will provide a more detailed response at a latter time, especially if you can provide me some more details on the Glick and other references you are quoting. Ciao, Epf (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I retain my view that in the opening statement, Germans be changed to Germany for the description of Boas, since we have nothing that says he saw himself the same as indigenous ethnic Germans or that anyone else saw him as such. I will however not make any changes until we come to some sort of conensus on the matter. Epf (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we have a consensus here Epf, on the one hand there's you and your personal point of view, and on the other there's everyone else. The fact that you are in a minority of one means that consensus is against you. Consensus does not mean pushing your personal point of view until everyone else is so sick and tired of listening to whining that they just give up. You don't appear to understand what a consensus is, and you don't seem to know when consensus is agianst you. No one here has agreed with your proposition, nor have they supported your attempt to redefine what ethnicity means. Can't you understand what this means? It means that you do not have any support for the changes you want to make. When consensus is against you it's time to move on. Alun (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No Alun, we don't have a consensus and it's not simply just my point of view but also that of others and from evidence I have provided so far (and will provide). I am not pushing my POV, but am making a well formulated argument in a discussion with other users. There is nothing wrong with this. You may in fact appear to not know what consensus is or when one is actually reached. The whole point of consensus is to involve all aspects of the major points being debated in the final outcome. I have not sought to "redefine" ethnicity, and please cease with your ignorance of descent and other diacritics in many ethnic identifications since you have nothing to support your claims. No one else has made similar comments to your own regarding this. As for my proposition, few users have actually disagreed with it openly, but in any case I still felt is was worth discussing. There is no consensus and no need to move on altogether, but (for myself) just not at the moment. I will re-open this matter more thoroughly at a latter time. Ciao, Epf (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you know what a consensus is? Take a look at the comments in this section, I can find no evidence of anyone agreeing with you about your proposal. You have written voluminous amounts of text, but there is not a single instance of anyone else stating specifically that they agree with your suggestion that we should change the redirect to Germany rather than German. So it is clear that despite your long winded replies you have failed to make a convincing case. Indeed there are at least four editors who disagree with you, and only yourself who supports the change. Therefore there is a consensus against you. It's disingenuous to claim that others agree with you when no one else in this section of the talk page has supported you, it is disingenuous to claim that there is no consensus against you when it is clear that there is. It just makes it look like you don't understand what a consensus is, it also looks like you just can't accept that it is only you want to make this change. So please look over the discussion above and point out to me exactly where someone has supported you. I can count six contributors to this section. Of these Threeafterthree hasn't contributed to the debate about changing the article. Of the others myself, Slr, Ramdrake and Newsroom hierarchies disagree with you. Indeed Newsroom hierarchies makes the same point as I have, that you are just trying to redefine ethnicity in your own terms, and that this amounts to original research. Still four editors disagreeing with a single editor amounts to 80% against you, a clear consensus. Alun (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you know what a consensus is ? There is not enough people in this section disagreeing with my edits, really only two really in you and Rubenstein. You are the only one claiming there is a consensus and I have every right to continue on the discussion with more evidence than what I have already provided. I have obviously made a very convincing case and again only you and Rubenstein have stated specifically that you disagree with my proposal. No one else has explicitly disagreed with it. I have not claimed that anyone else in this section has agreed with me, but it doesn't matter that only two users disagree. The matter is not resolved and there is no deadline for matters like this to be resolved. In addition, I have also provided valid evidence to back up my proposal. I again only count two contributors who have explicitly said they disagree with my edit or further discussions. The other users did not continue on with the discussion and therefore did not read my further points or evidence. Whether or not they agreed with my proposal no longer matters. I am not trying to "redefine ethnicity" and am only pointing out aspects of ethnic identification held by the vast majority of anthropologists. Your extremist views and unfounded, ridiculous claims otherwise confound me. I have provided evidence and will continue to do so. Again, there is no consensus and I have every right to keep pressing my point and argument. If you don't like it, then leave this discussion entirely, plain and simple. Epf (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean "there is (sic) not enough people disagreeing with my edits", everyone who has posted disagrees with your edits. Only two? No there are four. "I have obviously made a very convincing case", that's why there are such huge numbers of people swarming here to agree with you then (that's sarcasm in case you can't recognise it). "The matter is not resolved and there is no deadline for matters like this". I don't think I ever said the matter was resolved, consensus can change, but for the moment you appear to have convinced exactly zero people with your hugely convincing case (that's sarcasm again). But clearly at present you are just wasting your time. "only pointing out aspects of ethnic identification" quite, but these aspects are irrelevant to how Boas identified, are they not? It is valid to claim that the perception of descent is sometimes important, it is also valid to claim that sometimes it is not important. In this case Boas identified as German, and was so identified by others. You are fetishising a single aspect of ethnic identification, but in truth this single aspect may or may not be important, it is certainly not the defining facet of ethnicity you claim it to be. Alun (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, only you and Rubenstein have continued to disagree with me in this discussion, therefore there is only two of you. I have made a very convincing case, hence why Rubenstein, a much more knowledgable and composed user in this matter (and overall subject area, no offence to you Alun) has continued to discuss it with me. My case is convincing and only you seem to have a problem with it due to your own personal issues with myself it appears (I do not know why since i enjoy discussing with you). Consensus obviously does change and for the moment I have convinced Rubenstein and you at least on some points, even if small. I am only stating that this matter is not "closed" (and I will never allow it to be until my points and evidence are fully displayed for you guys to consider), though clearly you wish it were. The ethnic aspects identified with Boas are relevant to how he himself identified (I'm currently reading another biography about him, but I haven't purchased the one by Cole) but also how others see him now or saw him then, including Jews, Germans, and outsiders. The fact is that descent, and what traits are associated with it, are often important (not merely sometimes) in ethnic identity. Descent is a very defining aspect in most ethnic identities. The sooner you realize this, the less problems we will have. I'm not saying it is the only diacritic that matters, only that is one of them. I find it difficult to believe you think otherwise since you obviously do not have to be an anthropologist to notice this in daily life, no matter where you live. You told me once that your kids would be considered British ethnically as well despite not being born and raised in Britain like yourself. Is this not part of their descent, family and ethnic community ? Boas was identified by some others as "German", but we don't know in what manner (ethnically, nationality or otherwise) and only that to one biographer, he "did not identify himself as a Jew" (again, in what manner we do not know). I do not really see the problem here though since I am discussing the matter in an appropriate way, reading through cited material provided both by me and Rubenstein. I am also not making any changes until we reach a consensus or my viewpoint is fully heard. With this in my mind, what else is an issue here, Alun ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epf (talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not know why Epf would claim that I believe he has a convincing case. Epf, you do not have a convincing case. You seem to be suggesting that Boas was not an ethnic German because his parents were of Jewish descent. So far, this is just your opinion and violates NOR. I have provided a verifiable source that Boas did not identify himself as Jewish, and I have presented a verifiable source that in the US he was identified as a Hun, a derrogatory word for German. My own opinion is irrelevant; here at Wikipedia we rely on verifiable sources. When you can provide a verifiable source for a notable point of view that explicitly states that Franz Boas either identified himself or was identified by his contemporaries as an "ethnic Jew," by all means share it with us. In the meantime, please show me the respect of not misrepresenting my views. I defy you to identify any edit on this talk page or even your or my user talk page where I state that I believe you to have a "very convincing case." Once again, you seem to be making things up. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All I meant by that was clearly you were taking part in the discussion I was presenting and therefore at least recognized I was making a valid point. Whether you found it convincing, obviously I have no idea. I felt it was a convincing argument (although unfinished) and frankly I don't really care if you or Alun think otherwise since obviously I made a solid point. So far it is not just my opinion and I already entered a source, from Mitchell Hart, of someone else who saw Boas as someone who deemphasized being Jewish or at least his Jewish heritage (and was distinct from other Germans in the US). You have only provided a source (that is still acceptable obviously) of a biographer who claims that Boas did not identify himself as Jewish. The way he meant this is not further divulged. As for your source that he was seen as "a Hun" in the US, please do provide the source or exact reference to this. You mention a letter Boas wrote to the newspaper to clarify that he was supposedly German and not Jewish, but this further enhances the point that others saw him as Jewish as well. I am still looking through sources to find an example of someone else claiming he identified as a Jew, but we still have nothing of Boas himself claiming he did not identify as Jewish whatsoever. This also is not the debate here. The debate is whether he identified himself as ethnically German, similar or in the same manner to indigenous ethnic Germans. You have provided nothing which states this. Yes at Wikipedia, verifiability is what we rely on, and that which is accurately found in the article, not filtered and changed from its original meaning through the POV of users who enter the information. As for some of the quote you mention above, you need to provide actual information on the sources so they can be accessed by other users. Verifiability supersedes good faith on Wikipedia since verifiability is a cornerstone of this project. Epf (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to involve myself in this lengthy discussion, and I think I risk miring myself in this conflict (or being seen as an interloper). I have been observing for some time, and I honestly do not understand why this has gone on so long. I believe the anthropological position would be that he was a German citizen, later a U.S. citizen, of Jewish extraction, and his "ethnicity" would be whatever was appropriate in the situation, because ethnicity is notoriously malleable and used contextually for appropriate social goals (I personally self-identify as American, Irish, German, Saxon-German, and Munster-Irish depending on whom I am speaking with). None of these features (U.S. identity, German identity, Jewish identity) trumps the other, and all should be mentioned, regardless of how Boas self-identified OR how he was seen be others. Because of the malleability and contentiousness of the concept, I would always suggest avoiding ethnicity in favor of more easily determined questions- such as citizenship. I understand that three of you have been fighting about ethnicity for a long time- I think that this problem can be avoided on THIS page. I would suggest entirely removing the whole German-American issue from the first sentence, because Boas was important first and foremost as an anthropologist. Later in the introduction I would suggest mentioning his German and Jewish background in non-ethnic terms. TriNotch (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I think this is a generally constructive suggesion, the botton line is we have to follow our V and NPOV policies and provide accounts of all notable views from reliable sources. If Biographers or other scholars with expertise on Boas claim that he was an ethnic Jew, it is reasonable to include that claim in the article. I know the major books about Boas and none of them make this claim; indeed, Boas's one biographer claims the opposite. But if someone can show that a source is a reliable source on Boas, and provides a notable view, and claims that Boas was an ethnic Jew, well, we should cite that source. The thing is, no one has provided such a source. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree Rubenstein but again we have nothing so far that claims he was an ethnic German, only a reference that he didn't identify as a Jew (according to Cole) and I think the suggestion by Tri-Notch is an excellent suggestion. I have provided an example of one researcher, Mitchell Hart, who recognizes Boas' Jewish heritage and you even provided examples of others seeing him as Jewish (i.e. his letter to a newspaper where he supposedly claimed he wasn't). You go on often about no original research and NPOV, but if you are surmising that Boas is an ethnic German just from a statement that says he didn't identify as Jewish, that itself would be original research. Epf (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Cole says Boas considered himself German, read the book. And again, please show where on this page or any other page I have ever said you are or were making a valid point. Nowhere have I ever aid this. You seem to have a strong propensity to make things up. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I plan on reading it at some point but I'm having trouble finding a copy since the book is pricy in most stores here in Canada and it's unavailable at my nearest University library (I'm not in Toronto for the time being). If Cole claimed he identified himself as German, then I don't know why you didn't enter that into the article, but regardless of this, it is only a subjective view of his own identity (one that is also ambiguous, and was it ethnicity or nationality he was referring to), not how others perceived him (which clearly there is evidence showing that people did not see him as German in the ethnic sense they would see Nietzsche for example). So when I have time I'm going to research through another biography on Boas, plus some of his own works such as "The shaping of American anthropology, 1883-1911", ed. George W. Stocking Jr. I never "made anything up" or said that you claimed I was making a valid point, but clearly I feel I am and don't need you justify such. Also, just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you don't feel they are at least making a valid discussion or argument. Epf (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We all have subjective views of our own ethnicity Epf. Alun (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Alun, Epf just keeps demonstrating his lack of good faith. All he is saying is, is this: "If I do not agree with the view expressed, it doesn't count." Epf has made it clear that there is no reason why any reasonable person should have a conversation with him. Epf has made it clear that he will never change his mind, that it is impossible to change his mind. This is more like religious dogmatism than science. A scientific hypothesis should be falsifiable; it should be possible to prove it wrong. I have made it clear how one could prove me wrong: provide me with a text by Boas in which he writes "I am an ethnic German." Provide me with that text and I will acknowledge I am wrong. But nothing will prove Epf wrong - he is like an unfalsifiable experiment, just not science. He just said that no matter what quote anyone provides from Cole it is just a subjective view, so what is the point of providing any evidence or argument, Epf will dismiss it, no matter what.

Another sign of Epf's bad faith is his continue disingenuousness. Above he writes on 07:15 11 march that he never "said that you claimed I was making a valid point" (you meaning me). But at 3:59 March 9 he wrote that I "recognized I was making a valid point." Guess what, this is a claim that I recognized he was making a valid point. And guess what? i nave claimed he made a valid point. Let's look at Epf's MO: he says I claimed he was making a valid point. Then I ask him to tell me where I said he was making a valid point. Then he says that he never claimed I said he was making a valid point. Epf is a joke, and he is just turning this discussion into a joke. Now everyone knows I have tried to deal with Epf reasonably and in good faith, but given that he has returned to his pattern of lying and misrepresentation, I don't really see any purpose in going on. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • You twist and misrepresent what I say because you have some personal issues regarding myself. I already said that I meant to say that I felt you thought I was making a valid point, and I acknowledged that you never actually stated I was making a valid point (not that it matters). I suppose we may never resolve our dispute due to your immature behaviour and consistent resort to attacks and insults. Often when I have a dispute with you on an issue, you get unnecessarily personal and heated. You know that I have caught you not properly entering sources (yet again recently with the Cohen article, though I didn't say much about it) but whether this was unintentional or purposely done to misrepresent them to fit a POV, I don't know. This is why, despite your consistent rejection of such, you perhaps can't stand discussing any anthropological issues with myself. It is ironic you mention "religious dogmatism" because from the basis of your edits and interests, this classifies yourself more than me or anyone else. What you may see as demonstrating "a lack of good faith", I see as respecting WP:Verifiability, one of the cornerstones of the Wiki project. As an empiricist, this is most important to me than any other policy. I do admit to being wrong about some issues, and have, when this is the case. Even though Alun and I have crossed swords, he will even admit that I have acknowledged such (even if it seems rare). Regardless of this though, if I have a point that I'm strongly behind with what I see as valid reasons and evidence, then I have every right to continue with it. This goes for all users on Wiki. Hypotheses are consistently challenged to be right or wrong, but the issue on this article is not something so clear-cut (in terms of empirical evidence) since it deals with people's subjective opinions about various factors in Boas' identity, in terms of nationality or ethnicity, including his own. Honestly, I don't know what the issue is or why you are claiming these things about me, but it's not true. Maybe this discussion is getting out of hand, but ultimately we have nothing stating he identified himself ethnically as German and perhaps the whole nationalistic and ethnic aspects to the opening paragraph be removed, as was suggested by TriNotch, for the sake of article stability. Boas probably would have preferred such anyway considering he often spoke about being part of "humanity" more than any specific grouping. Ciao, Epf (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse, me, I think I just made it very clear to you that it is you who have twisted and misrepresented my words. You just wrote a very lengthy response to a short comment in which I provided clear evidence of your making claims about my views that are simply false and for which there is no evidence. I do not mind discussing anthropology with you, except you seem to feel a need to make claims about people whom you have not studied. I simply do not understand this. Surely there are things you really do know about, why not focus your energies on these topics. As for the matter at hand, the article makes it clear that he was brought up in a German household and identified strongly with German values. It is a logical inference to view him as an ethnic German - if you do this based solely on the text of the article and on no other assumptions about ethnicity. But it is clear to me that you do make assumptions about ethnicity and that you read statements in terms of your own bias. How else can we make sense of your call to remove verifiable information from the article (that he did not identify as a jew, that he was brought up in a German household)? This is from a reliable source and provides valuable information about Boas, why on earth would anyone want to remove it as you suggest? The issue is not what Boas woud have prefered - it is downright silly for either of us to pretend to know what Boas prefered; to guess what Boas "would have" prefered is just a disingenuous way of forwarding our own preferences. No, we have verifiable information from a reliable source, let's not remove it just because it confuses you or makes you feel uncomfortable. Be that as it may, I have added a quote that should settle the matter. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)