Gaylord Nelson RIP

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
Muir, Leopold, Nelson........nothing more than pure coincidence......

You don't think it might be more than coincidence?

Not possibly to some extent the influence of the culture of the state,
a consequence of the kinds of folks who emigrated there?

Possible? Sure, in a broad sense. As for these particular individuals,
Muir's family came to Wisconsin as homesteaders when he was a small boy,
Leopold came in 1924 as the result of a transfer within the U.S Forest
Service, and Nelson was born here. Nothing in Muir's biographical
information suggests that his father was the least bit interested in any
sort of nascent environmental movement (even assuming there was any such
thing), and Leopold's arrival appears to have been purely for professional
reasons. His stature within the movement may have derived from, or at least
been enhanced by, his later association with the University of Wisconsin
and/or like minded individuals within the state....including the Muir
legacy, I suppose, but I've seen no evidence of it. I don't know anything
about Nelson's family background. There may be something that suggests more
than coincidence is at work....or not.

I'd be very interested in any evidence for the notion that there is more to
it than that. I assume your question was meant in a broad philosophical
sense and that you didn't have any specific evidence in mind with respect to
Muir, Leopold and Nelson.......or?

Wolfgang

Not possibly to some extent the influence of the culture of the state,
a consequence of the kinds of folks who emigrated there?

Possible? Sure, in a broad sense. As for these particular individuals....

I was thinking "in a broad sense," not about individual family
backgrounds that you and George mentioned. Wasn't Wisconsin settled to
a large extent by Scandinavians and Germans of socialist political
leanings?

If those settlers brought with them atitudes about nature, the land,
public stewardship, etc., that found their way into the churches,
schools, and so forth, they would have some effect on the attitudes of
kids growing up in those states, wouldn't they?

Although we soak up a lot of our personal values from our parents, we
also assimilate a lot from the culture of the society around us. I
think I'm very different from what I would be had I grown up in
Brooklyn or Boston or Dallas instead of the little hick town of
Scottdale, PA.

I'd be very interested in any evidence for the notion that there is more to
it than that. I assume your question was meant in a broad philosophical
sense and that you didn't have any specific evidence in mind with respect to
Muir, Leopold and Nelson.......or?

Right, Wolfgang; I have no evidence. Just the notion, derived from my
dipping into sociology and anthropogy over the years, that we all--and
especially the young--are influenced by our social surroundings.

I gather that the concept of "national character" has been the subject
of numerous books and is widely accepted among social scientists .
Why could there not be an analogous "state culture" in a country as
diverse as the U.S.?

vince

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
Not possibly to some extent the influence of the culture of the state,
a consequence of the kinds of folks who emigrated there?

Possible? Sure, in a broad sense. As for these particular
individuals....

I was thinking "in a broad sense," not about individual family
backgrounds that you and George mentioned. Wasn't Wisconsin settled to
a large extent by Scandinavians and Germans of socialist political
leanings?

My knowledge of the political history of Wisconsin is shamefully scanty. I
do know that Milwaukee had a couple of popular socialist mayors early in the
20th century. Presumably their election reflected, to a more or less high
degree, the sentiments of the state's urban population but I have no idea
whether the predominantly rural citizens outside the Lake Michigan/Fox
valley corridor shared their political or economic views.

If those settlers brought with them atitudes about nature, the land,
public stewardship, etc., that found their way into the churches,
schools, and so forth, they would have some effect on the attitudes of
kids growing up in those states, wouldn't they?

Absolutely.

Although we soak up a lot of our personal values from our parents, we
also assimilate a lot from the culture of the society around us. I
think I'm very different from what I would be had I grown up in
Brooklyn or Boston or Dallas instead of the little hick town of
Scottdale, PA.

I'd be very interested in any evidence for the notion that there is more
to
it than that. I assume your question was meant in a broad philosophical
sense and that you didn't have any specific evidence in mind with respect
to
Muir, Leopold and Nelson.......or?

Right, Wolfgang; I have no evidence. Just the notion, derived from my
dipping into sociology and anthropogy over the years, that we all--and
especially the young--are influenced by our social surroundings.

I gather that the concept of "national character" has been the subject
of numerous books and is widely accepted among social scientists .
Why could there not be an analogous "state culture" in a country as
diverse as the U.S.?

As I'm sure you know, there are all sorts of problems with the notion of
"national character," not the least of which is that insofar as any such can
be reliably identified at all, they are subject to change over time. That
said, I really don't have any trouble accepting any of what you say above.
Call it national character, zeitgeist, or whatever you will, there can be no
doubt that despite individual differences there are characteristic themes
and moods that run through populations of various compositions in geographic
and political units of all sizes.

I'd like to be able to say that the Muir, Leopold, Nelson lineage is
indicative of a particularly keen and widespread environmental consciousness
here in Wisconsin, or at least commensurate with one. Unfortunately, I just
don't see it. I have no reason to believe that our environmental record and
its concomitant reflection on our citizens is any WORSE than that of other
states in general but, despite some encouraging successes in recent decades
(George's example of the rehabilitation of the Wisconsin river prominent
among them), I don't have much reason to thinks it's any better either. We
have our fair share of intractable environmental problems, made all the more
troublesome by widespread indifference as well conflicting agendas.

Wolfgang
who would bet a shiny new nickel that the identities of muir, leopold and
nelson are a complete mystery to most of the state's residents.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Wolfgang.

As I'm sure you know, there are all sorts of problems with the notion of
"national character," not the least of which is that insofar as any such can
be reliably identified at all, they are subject to change over time.

Yes, but very slowly (as brought about by, say, the Industrial
Revolution) or rapidly, in the case of a cataclysm, such as losing a
war.

You may recall Ruth Benedict's _The Chrysanthemyum and the Sword_, a
study of Japanese national character done during WW II. I believe it
was done at the request of the military, to help plan strategy.

After VJ Day MacArthur was given the job of changing the Japanese
national character, and did he ever!

Recently the telly has shown WW II-era pictures of Okinawan
civilians jumping off cliffs to avoid captur by American troops. I
can't imagine them doing it today! Nor young men flying Kamikaze
missions, or even wives toddling along a respectful ten feet behind
their husbands.

Wolfgang
who would bet a shiny new nickel that the identities of muir, leopold and
nelson are a complete mystery to most of the state's residents.

I'm not foolish enough to take that bet! I know I'd lose.

vince

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Wolfgang.

As I'm sure you know, there are all sorts of problems with the notion of
"national character," not the least of which is that insofar as any such
can
be reliably identified at all, they are subject to change over time.

Yes, but very slowly (as brought about by, say, the Industrial
Revolution) or rapidly, in the case of a cataclysm, such as losing a
war.

You may recall Ruth Benedict's _The Chrysanthemyum and the Sword_, a
study of Japanese national character done during WW II. I believe it
was done at the request of the military, to help plan strategy.

After VJ Day MacArthur was given the job of changing the Japanese
national character, and did he ever!

Recently the telly has shown WW II-era pictures of Okinawan
civilians jumping off cliffs to avoid captur by American troops. I
can't imagine them doing it today! Nor young men flying Kamikaze
missions, or even wives toddling along a respectful ten feet behind
their husbands.

It's been a long time since I read Benedict's book......'76-'77 was the year
of anthropology and paleontology for me.....Boas, Mead, Montagu, Dart,
Chagnon, Leakey, etc......a trip down memory lane.

Even more interesting than her analysis of Japanese national character
(still controversial, but highly respected nevertheless), I think, is
Benedict herself as a harbinger of great changes to come in American
culture. It was quite a step forward for a woman to be entrusted with the
critically important task of assessing such a formidable enemy as the
Japanese in WWII.

Wolfgang
who would bet a shiny new nickel that the identities of muir, leopold and
nelson are a complete mystery to most of the state's residents.

I'm not foolish enough to take that bet! I know I'd lose.

vince

Rats!

Wolfgang

It's been a long time since I read Benedict's book......'76-'77 was the year
of anthropology and paleontology for me.....Boas, Mead, Montagu, Dart,
Chagnon, Leakey, etc......a trip down memory lane.

I've read a little by or about most of those--just for fun-- except
Dart. Never encountered him.

Napoleon Chagnon was on the faculty here at PSU for some years--1960s
- '70s. Used to come to our TGIF beer parties at a local pub but
never brought his own cigarets. What a cheap *******! But his films
of the Yanamomo are terrific!

Years later I read in the Washington Post that he was in serious
trouble for some kind of hanky-panky he had pulled but I can't
remember the details. Somehow it didn't surprise me.

I enjoyed Benedict's Patterns of Culture and a couple of Mead's books
but the anthropologists I found most interesting are Robert Redfield,
V. Gordon Childe and Karl Polanyi--though I'm not sure whether Polanyi
was an anthropologist or economist. His work overlapped both
disciplines.

vince

"vincent p. norris" wrote:

Napoleon Chagnon was on the faculty here at PSU for some years--1960s
- '70s. Used to come to our TGIF beer parties at a local pub but
never brought his own cigarets. What a cheap *******! But his films
of the Yanamomo are terrific!

You should count your blessing, Vince. Could have been a lot worse:

"The Yanomamo are quite sociable with their tobacco. When someone removes
a wad and lays it down for a second, another might snatch it up and suck
on it until the owner wants it back. The borrower may be a child, a buddy,
a wife, a stranger, or, if willing, an anthropologist."
[attributed to Chagnon http://ethnobotany.yage.net/article1.html ]



Sorry we missed you the last day of the clave.

JR

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
It's been a long time since I read Benedict's book......'76-'77 was the
year
of anthropology and paleontology for me.....Boas, Mead, Montagu, Dart,
Chagnon, Leakey, etc......a trip down memory lane.

I've read a little by or about most of those--just for fun-- except
Dart. Never encountered him.

Dart was one of the premier early twentieth century anthropologists, famous
chiefly for his discovery of the celebrated "Taung" child in 1924. I don't
know if any of his works are still in print, but older copies shouldn't be
hard to find. Some of his stuff may be in the public domain by now, and
thus available for free on line.

Napoleon Chagnon was on the faculty here at PSU for some years--1960s
- '70s. Used to come to our TGIF beer parties at a local pub but
never brought his own cigarets. What a cheap *******! But his films
of the Yanamomo are terrific!

Years later I read in the Washington Post that he was in serious
trouble for some kind of hanky-panky he had pulled but I can't
remember the details. Somehow it didn't surprise me.

Chagnon was (and presumably still is) at the center of the biggest ****storm
ever to hit anthropology. It all started with his study of the Yanomami
Indians and the subsequent publication of his enthnography, "Yanomamo: The
Fierce People." The book was hugely popular....the first to outsell
Margaret Mead's "Coming of Age in Samoa," and was a mainstay of college
introductory anthro courses, including the one I took in about 1976, for
decades. There were rumblings from skeptical colleagues from the beginning,
and they got continually louder and more strident as time passed, but the
excrement REALLY hit the air circulating device with the publication of
Patrick Tierney's "Darkness in El Dorado: How Scientists and Journalists
Devastated the Amazon" in 2000. The short version.....

Tierney (as well as many others) accused Chagnon (as well as many others) of
just about every possible ethical breach, sin, misdemeanor and felony
possible in their dealings with and exploitation of the Yanomami.....all
ostensibly in the name of science but, according to their critics, really in
pursuit of their own nefarious agendas. "Darkness in El Dorado" with its
references to the careless spread of disease, murder, economic exploitation,
incitement to war, sexual misconduct, illicit relationships with corrupt
govermental agencies, gangsters, gold miners and other ne'er-do-wells,
conflicts with missionaries, internecine strife among the princciple
anthropologists, etc., reads like some sort of demented acid-induced latter
day "Heart of Darkness."

Chagnon was a protégé of James Neel who in turn was (if memory serves) a
student of Claude Levi-Strauss. It seems that all three had some very
strong ideas concerning the salutary role of violence in human reproductive
success. At the heart of the accusations against Chagnon and Neel is the
widespread belief that they were more than willing to do whatever was
necessary to ensure that an already notoriously violent people would behave
in such a manner as to corroborate their claims and validate their theories.

Needless to say, Tierney doesn't lack critics of his own, but he also has a
lot of support from other heavyweights in the anthro business.

If you're interested, a Google search on Chagnon, Neel (who died recently, I
believe), Jacques Lizot (a French anthropologist and Chagnon rival working
in the same area at the same time.....and a serious whack-job if Tierney is
to be believed), Tierney, and Terence Turner (another major Chagnon critic)
should turn up millions of hits. Good luck!

I enjoyed Benedict's Patterns of Culture and a couple of Mead's books
but the anthropologists I found most interesting are Robert Redfield,
V. Gordon Childe and Karl Polanyi--though I'm not sure whether Polanyi
was an anthropologist or economist. His work overlapped both
disciplines.

I'm not familiar with Redfield, Childe or Polanyi. I'll keep an eye out for
them......I still have a bit of uncovered floor space somewhere.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

//snip//
After VJ Day MacArthur was given the job of changing the Japanese
national character, and did he ever!

Recently the telly has shown WW II-era pictures of Okinawan
civilians jumping off cliffs to avoid captur by American troops. I
can't imagine them doing it today! Nor young men flying Kamikaze
missions, or even wives toddling along a respectful ten feet behind
their husbands.

It's been a long time since I read Benedict's book......'76-'77 was the
year of anthropology and paleontology for me.....Boas, Mead, Montagu,
Dart, Chagnon, Leakey, etc......a trip down memory lane.

Even more interesting than her analysis of Japanese national character
(still controversial, but highly respected nevertheless), I think, is
Benedict herself as a harbinger of great changes to come in American
culture. It was quite a step forward for a woman to be entrusted with the
critically important task of assessing such a formidable enemy as the
Japanese in WWII.


I bought Ruth Benedict's book (I have it on the same shelf with Chagnon's
book about the Yanomamo) when I went to Japan with the Navy in 1970.
Remarkably insightful book, and I still read portions of it from time to
time. 1970 was my year to read about Japan (Lady Murasaki, Kawabata,
Mishima, Reischauer, etc.) Combined they gave a pretty good insight into
Japanese national character, which Americans seldom understand. (Actually, I
don't think many Americans understand our own national character.)

It's unfortunate that Benedict's book seems to have been about the last
analysis of "national character" that got much attention from U.S.
policy-makers before taking on the job of running another country.

Bob

Even more interesting than her analysis of Japanese national character
(still controversial, but highly respected nevertheless), I think, is
Benedict herself as a harbinger of great changes to come in American
culture. It was quite a step forward for a woman to be entrusted with the
critically important task of assessing such a formidable enemy as the
Japanese in WWII.

I would guess she was selected on the basis of her _Patterns of
Culture_, which I understand was a landmark.

I began teaching (as a "T.A.") in 1958. For about the first ten
years or so, when I asked my classes (mostly juniors and seniors) if
they had read_Patterns of Culture_ in some other course, dang near
every student raised his or her hand.

So it was still "standard reading" in the middle 50s and beyond,
although it was written back in the '30s.

(Actually, I don't think many Americans understand our own national character.)

Perhaps understanding one's own national character is especially
difficult. Bobbie Burns said something like "Would the Lord the
giftie gie us, to see ourselves as others see us."

The only studies of American national character by Americans that I
can recall, offhand, are Frederick Jackson Turner's Frontier in
American History and David Potter's People of Plenty. Are there any
others?

vince