At 1:01 PM -0500 3/8/00, Beth Benoit wrote: > Having also heard the Mead controversy (I also alluded to it in a >recent post), > I thought it might be interesting to compare notes about studies, >"facts," etc., > about ethnicity which were held to be true but later dismissed. (I'm looking > for Mead controversy sources...) > > One that immediately comes to mind, as discussed in Janet Hyde's Half the > Human Experience, my text for Psychology of Women: > > The belief that menstruating women in American Indian tribes were isolated > because they were "contaminated." > > This belief was described by Stephens in 1961. (Stephens, W.N. (1961). > A cross-cultural study of menstrual taboos. Genetic Psychology > Monographs, 64, 385-416.) > > "Firsthand accounts from Indian writers provide a different interpretation: > Menstruating women were not shunned as unclean, but rather were > considered extremely powerful, with tremendous capacities for > destruction. Women's spiritual forces were thought to be especially > strong during menstruation, and women were generally thought to > possess powers so great that they could counteract or weaken men's > powers." (quote from Hyde) Source: LaFramboise, Teresa D., Heyle, > Anneliese M., & Ozer, Emily J. (1990). Changing and diverse roles > of women in American Indian culture. Sex Roles, 22, 455-476.) I'd have questions about _any_ attempt to treat 'Indians' as a signle homogenous group. There's some linguistic and anthropological evidence that there may have been as many as three separate Asian migrations from Siberia, as well as some recent speculation (again) about a possible southern migration route (some recent preÇlovis South American artifacts would support this). * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
