BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY
Bloomsburg
Pennsylvania
ANTHROPOLOGY NEWSLETTER
Vo 1. 17, No. 4
Jan-Feb. 1993

New Myths For Old: A Consideration of Susan Harjo·s Provost
Lecture by Torn Aleta: The quincentenary year of 1992 provided the
occasion for the world to take stock of the past 500 years and reflect on
the consequences of Co 1umbus· voyages. Bloomsburg University, along
with near l y every ma j or i n st i tut i on of 1earning i n the Western
Hemisphere, presented lectures and programs aimed at reevaluating the
processes set in motion by the bridging of the New and 01 d Worlds. As an
anthropologist whose interests lie in the cultures of the Americas, I
looked f award to the Quincentenary as an op port unity to rep 1ace the of ten
inaccurate and di started view of the Co 1umbi an exchange portrayed in
many histories and in popular culture with an understanding that reflects
modern scholarship. As a member of the Bloomsburg University Native
American Awareness Cammi t tee, I hoped that bringing a Native American
speaker to discuss Columbus and his aftermath from a di st i net i ve cul tura 1
perspective would f aci 1i tate this new understanding. So I v1as great 1y
disappointed when Susan Harjo, a noted political activist and poet,
de 1i vered a Provost Lecture 1ast November which sought not to destroy the
Columbus myth by interpreting it in 1i ght of sound scho 1arl y data, but to .
replace it with an equa 11 y di started version of hi story.
Most disturbing was her repeated misrepresentation of pre-Columbian
Native American culture. The central thesis of the 1ecture, which served
to introduce the dramatic reading of her very fine poem, "Jurnpi ng Through
the Hoops of History," was that before the arrival of Europeans, Native
Americans had 1i ved in b1i ssf ul harmony with nature and their f e11 ov-1
humans, in a paradise free from disease, vice, inequality, political
oppression, social problems, and w·arfare. Not only is this romantic notion
inconsistent with archaeo 1ogi ca 1 and anthropo 1ogi ca 1 data, but it does a
great injustice to native peoples by stripping them of their humanity and
making them si mp 1i sti c, stereotyped caricatures of the comp 1ex people
they rea 11 y were. A detai 1ed understanding of the entire range of Native
American cultures makes it clear that all of the ills that Ms. Harjo
attributes only to European society and culture a1so existed in the
Arneri cas 1ong bf:f ore Columbus came a1ong to spoi 1 Eden.

One might overlook Ms. Harj o·s 1oose play with tii stori ca 1 and
anthropo 1ogi ca 1 facts as nothing more than poetic 1i cense or as a device to
force a racist and ethnocentric society to take notice of Native Americans
and the soci a1 problems that afflict them. This is a position taken by a
number of my colleagues with whom I have discussed my dissatisfaction
with Ms. Harj o's ta 1k. An attitude common 1y expressed is .. If she got
people talking and thinking about Native American issues, what diff_erence
does it make if she had a few of her facts wrong?" Would a si mi 1ar point
of view be expressed if a speaker were to seriously misrepresent the
facts of the Ho 1ocaust? I hope not.
But Ms. Harj o's own words force the 1i stener to ho 1d her to a high
standard of hi stori ca 1 and cul tura 1 accuracy. At severe 1 points in her ta 1k
she stressed the need to present hi story honest 1y and reiterated her
desire to set the record straight about Native Americans and Native
American culture. She said that she felt compelled to write her poem on
the eve of the Quincentenary "because I knew what was ·coming; ... myths
being perpetuated, and new myths born, and Indians being written further
out of history." Later she continued, "I don't mean to write people out of
history because that is what has been done to us. See, we're always called
the cu 1t ura 1 revisionists and hi st ori cal rev is i on i st s by the peop l e who
have di started hi story and made a mockery of hi story as it is taught in the
educ at i ona 1 system. And it is ironic that we, then, are ca 11 ed the
revi si oni sts when we try to imp art truth and honesty into hi story ...
Gi v en her stated des i re to i mp art truth and honesty i nto the hi st ori ca 1
record, it is di sconce rt i ng that Ms. Harjo travels the country di starting
that record, giving birth to new myths. In the interest of correcting some
of the more glaring errors in her presentation and in the hope of avoi dfng
th_
e proliferation of new myths, I offer this critique of Ms. HarJo's Provost
Lecture.
·
One of Ms. Harjo's central theses was that, before the arrival of
Europeans, Native American society was ega 1i tari an and women enjoyed
equa 1 po 1it i cal and social status with men. She argued that democracy as
a political system existed in the New World before the Europeans and that
c 1ass soc i et i es based on dif f ere nti a1 weal th and pres ti ge di d not ex i st. I n
her view .. the European po 1it i ca 1 model based on the divine right of kings,
in which soverei !Jnty fl owed "from God to the kings, to some of the peop 1e

some of the time., and most of the people none of the time," was unknown
among the native peop 1es of the Americas. She identified the
"confederacies" of the Iroquois., the Muskogee, and the Natchez as the
"working model"' for the United States canst itut ion.
\.vhi 1e I wi 11 1et the po 1it i ca 1 scientists and 1ega 1 scho 1ars discuss the
degree to which the Iroquois confederacy contributed to the Constitution.,
I would 1i ke to point out that the Natchez of the Mi ssi ssi ppi Delta were
not a confederacy, but rather one of the most stratified societies of North
America. Natchez society was based on distinct social strata which were
strictly defined by status and wealth; the lowest stratum was comprised
of slaves who had almost no rights and., of course, no personal sovereignty.
In addition, the Natchez ruler was held in awe by his people and treated as
a divine or semi-divine person who drew his right to rule from his c 1ose
association with the supernatural and his control of supernatural power,
The Natchez were one of the many high 1y ranked or strati f j ed societies
that existed in prehistoric and historic times throughout the Americas.
The Natchez., Kwakiutl., Cahokia., Mayas., Aztecs., Incas., Nazcas .. Moches and
Chi mus represent on 1y a few of the societies in which ega 1i tari ani sm did
not exist and in which peop 1e were organized into c 1asses .. castes or
ranks; a11 of these societies kept s 1aves. In each case .. the po 1it i ca 1 power
of the rulers and the ruling classes was religiously based, and it was well
understood by all that sovereignty flowed from god to the king ·to some of
the people some of the time. In the case of the Mayas and the Incas, at
least, the king was a living god.
Ms. Harjo attributed the supposed egalitarianism and the equal status
of vvomen that she believes pervaded Native American society to the
practice of matril i neal descent. She stated that "95% of our cultures"
·vvere matril i nea 1. Ho·vvever, the ethnographic record rev ea 1s that
matril i nea 1i ty in North America occurred in 1ess than 40% of the
societies. The majority were patrilineal or employed bilateral kindreds.
Furthermore, studies of matrili neal societies both in North America and
other parts of the world rev ea 1 that in them women p1ay a subordinate
ro 1e to men i n po 1it i ca 1 1i f e and are rare 1y the i r soc i a1 equa 1s. I n stating
that Native American societies were 1arge 1y matril i nea 1, Ms. Harjo
contrasted this with patril ineal ity. She implied that European societies .
· which brought inequality and inferior status to women to America . were
patrilineal. This . however, is not true. Most of the European societies
that contributed mi grants to the Americas in the first severa 1 centuries ..

after Columbus were organized according to bil at era 1 kindreds. This is
the system that exists in European-derived cu1 tures of the United States
today. Patril i nea 1 descent groups, which are pub 1i c l_y recognized entities
comprised of the 1i nea 1 descendants of a common male ancestor, were not
characteristic of European cultures and cannot be held responsi b1e for the
absence of egalitarianism or the presence of inequality in Europe or the
Americas.
Another of Ms. Harj o·s theses was that crue 1ty, barbarism, religious
persecution, farced conversion, and cultural imperialism did not exist
among Native American cul tu res and were brought here for the first ti me
by Europeans. She attributed many of these evils to the Spanish
I nqui sit ion, which she i dent ifi ed as a pan-European institution that was a
driving force in European expansionism. Furthermore, she stated the
.. Spanish I nqui sit ion ... had sent (Columbus) in search of other peop 1e·s
property and gold ..... , which was taken by force when necessary. This
force inc 1uded not on 1y physi ca 1 mut i1 at ion and death, but cultural and
psychic mut i1 ati on brought about by farced conversion to Christianity. As
a result, .. barbarism of a ki _
nd that my peop 1e had never known was brought
here by the Europeans ...
I n a pa rt i cu 1arl y mo vi ng pa rt of her ta 1k, she conveyed her sense of
horror at seeing the bi 11 s of 1adi ng for the shipment of decapitated human
heads taken by the U.S. Army f o11 owing the massacre of the Cheyenne at
Sand Creek. Some of those i ndi vi dua 1s may have been her ancestors. This
i nc i dent 1ed her to i n tens if y her efforts to see 1egi s 1at i on enacted to
force the repatriation of Native American physi ca 1 rernai ns from f edera 1
museums. The law was passed in 1990. She said that Native Americans
did not engage in terri b1e acts such as decapitating human beings and
the knowledge that Europeans had done so made her .. understand exact 1y
how barbarous were the gifts of civilization brought to us from Europe."
Returning again to the barbarity of Europeans . their cultural
imperialism and their lack of respect for other cultures .. she said_... We
have no word in any human language in the hemisphere for reburial or
repatriation. No one in the Cheyenne hi story of tens of thousands of years.•
or in the Muskogee hi story . or in anyone's hi story in North America had
ever dug any one e1s e·s grave unt i1 re a11 y recent ti mes.• j us t a coup 1e of
hundred years ago. No one ever did that . no one ever came to us and said
that your children are going to a nightmare of a place when they die unless

they give up their beliefs, stop believing like their parents do and begin
be 1i evi ng in a foreign way when it comes to their pl ace in the cree ti on. No
one ever committed that kind of emotional violence on our children. And
that continues today, from good people who are well loved and have pets
and do good deeds. Those very people are committing that kind of
emot i ona 1 violence against our chi 1dren today. And it is unconsci onab 1e.
It is the mora 1 equi va 1ent of grave robbing; it is the mora 1 equi va 1ent of
chopping off limbs and noses just to make an example."
Fi na11 y, on th i s i s sue, she s ai d, 'The w hi t e peop 1e are al ways
wondering how vituperative the people of color (including Native
Americans) are and the big question in the white peoples· minds is ·once in
control of anything, will the people of color be as vituperative and as
mean to us as we have been to them?' That's not our history."
The preceding paragraphs make Ms. Harj o's argument c·l ear: cruelty,
torture, violence, terror, thievery, cultural hegemony, religious
intolerance_. and forced conversion were unknown to Native American
cultures and societies and that they appeared in the Americas in the wake
of Columbus. She presents a vision of pre-Columbian America in which
neighbors 1oved one another, respected each others· rights, did not impose
their wi 11 s on anyone; in which ethnocentrism did not exist; in which
everyone had adopted the 1au dab 1e perspective of cultural re 1at i vi sm. This
view, however, is in i rreconcil ab 1e conflict with the archaeo 1ogi ca 1 and
the ethnographic records. Throughout the Americas, just as in every other
corner of the world, warfare was an ancient and well developed art, in
vvt.i ch cruelty, rape and torture were essential ingredients. This was true
throughout the Great Lakes region, where native cultures waged vicious
campaigns against one another 1ong before the Europeans arrived; it was
true of the ho rs e-b as ed cu 1t ures of the Great P1ains, where soc i a1 1if e
was built around warrior societies and stealing from one's enemies. But
it was especially true of the cultures of Mesoamerica and South America
where, from the earl i est ti mes, nat i ve peop 1es 1eft an art i st i c and w ri tt en
· record of their inhumanity to their f e11 ows.
The Mayas of Mexico and Guatemala are perhaps the best example of
this. The painted mura 1s of Bonampak show graphic scenes of batt 1e in
vvhi ch combatants are being captured, tortured, mut i 1ated, murdered, and
decapitated by the victors. Sculptures at the great cities of Palenque,
Vaxchi 1an, and Toniha . to name a few, show kings and warriors standing on

.
bound captives .. throwing captives down temple steps, and excising the
sti 11 beating hearts of their defense 1ess enemies. Throughout the Maya
world, it was necessary for a king to sacrifice a captive as part of his
coronal ion ceremony.
The practice of decapitating enemies .. which Ms. Harjo identifies as a
si ngul arl y European atrocity, is of great antiquity in the Americas. It was
practiced throughout much of North America .. with the practice of sea 1ping
representing an early historic variation on the theme. In South America.,
the iconography of such cultures as the Moche an9 Nazca contains
thousands of images of decapi tat i ans and ri tua 1 torture. Warriors are
depicted going to batt 1e with the severed heads of their victims hanging
as trophies from their belts. Severed human heads with cords strung
through their skul 1s have been recovered in excavations in the dry deserts
of northern Chile and southern Peru.
·
While it may be true that words for reburi a1 and repatriation are alien
to Native American 1anguages . the practice of grave robbing and
desecration of human remains is not. Excavations throughout Mesoameri ca
have shown that many tombs were defiled and ransacked in prehistory.
Recent work in the Temple of the Feathered Serpent at the site of
Teotihuacan shows that the grave of the person buried in the pyramid was
1ooted., and that his physical remains were desecrated., over a thousand
years ago. The same occurred at many Classic period Maya sites.
Defilement of human remains also was a central aspect o-f Aztec
culture. Every year throughout the Basin of Mexico., thousands of war
captives were put to death by heart sacrifice. Their remains y,tere not
returned to their communities and families for a proper .. di gnif ted buri a1.
but inste.ad were put on public display. The bodies were decapitated . and
the heads were skewered on posts i _n skull racks in the centra 1 p1az~ of
every city. The skull rack in the capita 1 of Tenocht it 1an contained
thousands of heads.
Cultura 1 and re 1i gi ous i mperi a1ism and farced conversions wer~
common throughout the Americas, with the Aztecs and the .Incas providing
just two well documented examples. In the case of the Aztecs, :t ~,e
destruction of the pyramids dedicated to the gods of their enemies was
such an important aspect of their warfare that a burning t.empfe was the
s y m bo1 used i n the i r writ i ng system to i ndi cat e the subj ugat i on of a

population. Upon entering the city of a newly defeated rival, the Aztec
warriors removed the sacred images of the 1oca 1 deities from their
sanctuaries and destroyed the i do 1s by casting them from the top of the
pyramids. In their pl aces the Aztec priests p1aced images of the true
supreme god, Hui tzi 1i pocht 1i.
The Incas a1so forced their subjects to accept and pay homage to the
cult of their primary god, Inti. However, rather than destroying the
images of the deities of their defeated rivals, the Incas carried them off
to Cuzco where they were helds for ransom. In exchange for obedience to
their new king and for cooperation in the administration of the empire .. the
Incas promised to conserve and protect the idols and to allow the faithful
periodic vi sits to see that they were we 11 cared for. In the event that the
sequestration of the sacred images was not sufficient to insure the
allegiance and peaceful collaboration of the defeated people . the Inca
frequently resorted to an institution called the mitmt1 The mitmo
i nvol v ed the re 1ocat i on of re be.11 i ous or rec a1cit rant pop u1at i on s to di st ant
corners of the empire through forced marches reminiscent of the Trail of
Tears . Often the Incas divided the offending communities into a number of
parts .. sending each to different districts of the empire with the result
that close family members were separated permanently from each other.
With out in any way di mini shi ng the horrors and depredat i ans that the
Europeans visited on Native Americans over the last 500 years .. the
preceding examples illustrate that cruelty., lack of respect for human life.,
l ack of concern for the cu 1tu ra 1 and re 1i gi ous t rad it i on s of others.. and
genera 1 barbarity were we 11 estab 1i shed features of 1if e in the Americas
1ong before the Europeans arrived. As such., Ms. Harj o's statements that
Europeans brought "barbarism of a kind that my people had never known" to
the New World and that vituperation "is not our history" are unfounded.
In light of these and other gross misrepresentations of the
archaeo 1ogi ca 1 and ethnographic record., it is hard to see how Ms. Harj o·s
presentation achi eves her goa 1 of imparting "truth and honesty into
hi story... In the end, Ms. Harjo is the cul tura 1 and hi stori ca 1 revi si oni st
that she protests not to be. She has missed the opportunity to replace the
old myth of Columbus as conquering hero .. which she so justifiably
despises .. with a view that more accurately reflects historical fact.
Instead, she has offered up a new myth that portrays all Native Americans
as saintly and Europeans as the source of a11 the world's i 11 s. This f ai r!d

..
t~J e is inaccurate and unBcceptable. To edmit

that Native American
cul tu res - 1i ke a11 of the cultures of the world in 1492 and before contained repugnant and morally repulsive elements in no way minimizes
or justifies the horrors visited upon them by Europeans.
By ignoring these unseem 1y aspects of Native American culture, she not
only falsely depicts and simplifies very complex cultures, but she also
undermines her own integrity as a knowl edgeab 1e advocate for other
~!~ti ve Americans and their causes. Thl s is unfortunate si nee the issues
she addresses in her poems and her 1ectures - po 1it i ta 1
di senf ran chi sement., teen suicide., raci a1 and cultura 1 prejudice., 1ack of
economic opportunity - are serious ones that need to be much better
understood in the larger society. However, when Ms. Harjo clearly knows
so little about much of which she speaks., or chooses to intentionally
misrepresent hi story., she s_tands naked before the pub 1i c with 1it t le
credi bi 1i ty.
(Edi tor·s note: quotations from Ms. Harjo in this essay were taken from
a tape recording made of her talk by University Relations.)

Love &. Cu1 ture: The January 18, 1993 issue of NEWSWEEK contains an
art i c 1e., .. I sn·t It Romantic?", which ta 1ks about the universality of love
and which criticizes anthropo 1ogi sts for failing to pay enough attention to
romance in other cultures. The article correctly notes that
anthropologists have often pointed out that the basis for marriag.e in most
cultures is something other than 1ove - such as keeping property within
the family or pro vi ding an heir. But then the article goes on to suggest
that anthropologists failed to realize that 1ove existed in those cul tur~s,
even if it wasn·t expressed in marriage. Anthropologists are accused of
that most heinous of crimes in modern academics - being Eurocentric - in
presuming that romance has been predominately a feature of Western
culture.
In this essay., we would like to present the anthropological perspective
on 1ove . suggesting in the process that the anthropo l ogi ca 1 discussion of
love is more complex than the NEWSWEEK article suggests. The
anthropological discussion of love generally does not start ·vvith the
history nf romance or with sexual ·chemistry . but with a fundamental
issue in human culture., the struggle that goes on in every society bet ween
the rights of the i ndi vi dua 1 as opposed to the rights of some larger soci a1

group, such as the family. Human nature creates this struggle: we are at
every moment both unique i ndi vi dua 1s with persona 1 ambit i ans, goa 1s, and
needs, and members of a social group, dependent upon one another for our
economic and psychological well-being. The two facets of our being pull
at us; do we do what we want to do or do we do what the group wants us
to do? Anthropologists point out that no human society entirely resolves
this struggle, but that ordinarily a society chooses to emphasize one or
the other, the individual or the group, as having the edge in social life.
Americans 1i ve in a culture which emphasizes the rights and privileges of
the individual; most other cultures emphasize the rights and privileges of
the group - _the f arni1y, some other kinship group, the community, or
whatever. In a culture where the group is emphasized, the individual is
socialized to believe that their needs are secondary to those of the group.
To use an example often seen in the United States in the interaction
between a middle class health care pro~ider and a minority_ patient, the
i n,ji vi dua 1 patient shrugs off his/her hea 1th care needs if the family
,jeci des that it has other priorities.
Anthropologists have often noted that there has been a correlation
bet ween a cul ture·s emphasis of i ndi vi dua 1 or group rights and romantic
1ave. In genera 1, cultures that favor i ndi vi dua 1 rights encourage romantic
1ave; those that favor group rights downp 1ay it. In a sense the fit bet vveen
i ndi vi dua 1 rights and 1ave is a natura 1. In a culture that favors i ndi vi dua 1
rights, a key right is the one to choose one's own spouse; what better
mechanism, given the cultural emphasis, than love as the basis of choice?
Love is first and foremost individual and personal; how else can some
matches be explained? Love bonds individuals to each other; the
maintenance of the bond is a personal i_ssue. If romance disappears, the
bond falters, and di v ore e often occurs. Thi s s c en ari o i s not st ri ct 1y an
Eurocentric one. It can be found in any culture that favors individual
rights. Other examples include many American Indian cultures, especially
those of the Great Plains, and the lgbo people of West Africa.
But i f a cul tu re favors the ri ght s of the soc i al group, then person a1
attachments are seen as dangerous to those rights. Marriage is once again
the prime example. In a culture favoring group rights, marriages are
arranged bet ween f ami 1y e1ders to suit f ami 1y needs. A good examp 1e is
cross-cousin marriage, a common pattern in many cultures, where the
point is to keep prnperty within the family. In other cultures, marriage
becomes a way of cementing economic or political alliances for a family.

►

!n these cases .. i ndi vi dua 1 choice is secondary to f ami 1y choice . and there
are of ten institutions to keep young unre 1ated peop 1e of the opposite sex
apart so that sticky .. personal entanglements which might interfere with
family wishes are kept to a minimum.
However.. as that last thought suggests . the fact that families may
have rights over i ndi vi duals does not rule out the possibility of romanU c
1ov e. Both the ant hro pol ogi ca 1 1i t era tu re and the folk 1ore of cultures
favoring group rights are full of stories of people meeting accidentally.,
fa 11 i ng i n l ov e.. and then either be i ng dri v en apart by fa m i1 y ob li gat i on s or
the coup 1e conspiring to overcome f ami 1y objections. A earlier issue of
this news 1etter described a Chinese movie video popular among Chinese
Americans in which a martial arts hero saves a beautiful princess from
band its and fa 11 s i n 1ov e with her at first s i ght on 1y to f i nd that she i s
from a r-i va 1 c 1an to his and the ref ore unavail ab 1e. The anthropo 1ogi st who
describes this ta 1e found her Chinese American informants to be
sympathetic to this tragic romance .. but firm in their con vi ct ion that the
coup 1e had done the right thing by separating. (see Jesse Nash .
"Confuscius and the VCR," NATURAL HISTORY . May 1988_. pp 28-31.) But
the anthropo 1ogi ca 1 1iterature shows that in rea 1ity a 1ove coup 1e
sometimes gets their way .. even in a culture that denies the possibility.
Similarity., there are many cases in the West of marriage being more a
matter of obligation than of personal choice_. as Charles and Diana could
probab 1y at test.
One common so 1ut ion to unexpected 1ove in a culture that favors group
rights is e1opement . Anthropo 1ogi sts have of ten discovered coup 1es who
have run off, trying to create a ieit eccornpli Sometimes it works; in ·
some cultures it is a grudgingly admitted alternative to accepted
marriage farms - di sreputab 1e, but not i mpossi b1e. Coup 1es who f o11 ovv
this path of ten are farced to sever their ti es to their families and may
carry the scent of scandal with them throughout their lives .. but the
alternative exists. In other cases, families may reassert their rights,
tracking down the fugitive pair . separating them . and exacting harsh
punishments .. including occasionally death . to make the point that group
rights come first.
For instance, Longina Jakubowska .. in a 1989 article in THE WORLD & I .
examines a case of elopement among the Bedouins of Jordan which
illustrates this point. The Bedouins have historically been a culture of

nomadic came 1 herders with a fl erce code of f ami 1y honor., but in the
modern world., many 1i ve as 1aborers in Middle Eastern cities. In this case .
the young man was a construction worker; he and his 1ovemate made off
into the night in an o1d Chevro 1et. Seeking asylum .. they turned themse 1ves
over to the respected family head of a clan unrelated to either. To
rnai ntain his family honor., the family head separated the two., put them
under- the equi va 1ent of house arrest., and notified their families.
Jakubowska notes that of ten families wil 1 accept e1opements.,
pa rti cu 1arl y if the coup 1e has had sex., but i n th i s case., the bri de was st i 11
a virgin and her father chose to assert his authority over the couple.
After 1engthy negotiation_. she was returned to her f ather·s household.,
most likely to remain single for life as punishment for having gone
against her family's wishes., while the young man and his family were
assessed a fine of $ 7 5 .. OOO i n a t rad i ti on a1 court. Thi s., of course., i s
serious business .. and tradi ti ona 1 cultures of ten have gone to great 1engths
to avoid messy cases such as these by keeping young unmarried men and
women carefully chaperoned and separate.
In the modern world, as cultures come into contact with more and more
ideas from outside their tradi ti ona 1 arenas . culture change becomes
i nevi table. Anthropo 1ogi sts have noted that a11 over the world there is
cul tura 1 movement towards greater i ndi vi dua 1ism., and with that, greater
emphasis on romantic love. The NEWSWEEK article gives a good example:
"Anthropologist Victoria Burbank reports that when she first visited an
Australian Aboriginal community in 1977., village elders were blaming
V./estern films for the growing number of adolescents running off to ·1 ove
each other.,· in defiance of prearranged marriages. Elders told her that ..
actually., affairs of the heart long predated the arrival of Westerners . but
·vvhen European mi ssi onari es did show up in the 30's espousing romantic
lave as a re qui site for marriage., the idea gained 1egit i macy... The
assertion of i ndi vi dua 1 rights 1eads to the be 1i ef that one has the right to
fall in love., as well as do other things for one's own benefit., often over
the objection of family elders.

British Wor Brides: Even in the v./est .. 1ove and 1ove-maki ng are not the
same from culture to culture. A recent art i c 1e by Juli et Gardiner
reprinted in TALK I NG ABOUT PEOPLE., edited by Wi 11 i am Havi 1and and
Robert Gordon (Mayfield 1993) . talks about the differences in approach to
love and dating that occurred during World War 11 bet ween Ameri an, G1·s
and young British ·vvornen. The fl rst American servicemen began to appear

in Grec1t Britain in 1942; by the end of the war .. over 1 million American
men would have had pro 1onged stays there. And British women f e11 for
these Americans in droves., a fact which alarmed both British and
American authorities. To try to determine what was going on., the U.S. \-\1ar
Department hired anthropologists, including Margaret Mead., to study the
situation.
These ant hro po 1ogists found major differences between Americans and
the British with regards to dating and sex in the 1940's. In general, they
argued that in the United States the pat tern was for ma 1es to push for
sexual favors while females had the responsibility of drawing the line.
Thus, American females were socialized to resist the advances of their
eager paramours. But in Great Britain - at 1east in the 1940's - ma 1es
were taught to restrain themselves, to keep their sexual desires under
control. As a result British f ema 1es did not 1earn to resist men's sexua 1
come-ans; they didn't need to. And when an American serviceman and a
British woman got together .. the American found that the woman gave in
much mo re ea s i1 y than he ever expected.. no doubt to hi s de 1i ght. Mead ti es
these patterns ultimately to sex imbalances in the two populations. In
1940., there were many more American men than women, but in Great
Britain., marriageable women significantly outnumbered men.
But American servicemen also found, often to their dismay, that after
one or two dates, their British companions were expecting marriage as a
natural outcome: "But I thought we were just having a _good timer' This
\•Vas due to differences i n dat i ng. I n the Uni t ed St ates.. then as now, men
and women started dating early and spent years in each other's social
company before marriage became a viable option. To support this
practice, dozens of institutions catered to the date, e.g., the corner
maltshop (Remember, we·re talking about the 40's!) But in Great Britain,
young men and women soci a1i zed separate 1y. Many schoo 1s were
segregated by sex, and even those that weren't de 1i berate 1y kept ma 1es and
females apart. Males and females didn't talk with each other much, and
they se 1dom dated. Flirting, sexua 1 joking, and even po 1ite conversation
between males and females was pretty much missing from British culture.
When men and women did get together, it was usually in their late teens
or early 2o·s, and one or two encounters 1ed to the young man being taken
home to meet the folks. Interviews from the time showed that British
women thought American servicemen were incredibly witty and fun to be
with; the servicemen thought the women were shy and tongue-tied - and

way too serious!
Foll owing these anthropologists· studies, the U.S. War Department tried
to inf arm American servicemen about what to expect, using a host of
cartoons, circulars, ta 1ks and film shows. They a1so created p1aces for
dates - light refreshment rooms with soft drinks, low 1ights, continuous
dance music and a p1easant atmosphere. American G1·s were to 1d to teach
British women the American dating game. Maybe it worked, but 70,000
Americans came home with British wives.

Problems With Translation: As the global economy continues to
emerge, more and more stories come out about misunderstandings due to
prob 1ems of trans 1at ion. A 11 too of ten, trans 1at i ans are 1it era 1, word for
word transcriptions without taking into consideration cultural nuances or
social context. Sometimes the consequences are serious.· For example,
vvhen Soviet Premier Kruschev made a speech at the United Nations in
1958, he was translated as having said (with regards to U.S./U.S.S.R.
competition), ··we wil 1 bury your- This shocked Americans and helped
ur,derwri te a general ion of fear about Soviet intent i ans. Unfortunate 1y,
the verb Kruschev used does 1it era 11 y trans 1ate as "bury"' but without a11
the negative connotations. A better trans 1at ion of the Russi an verb would
have been "to surpass ... Since Kruschev was talking about world economic
growth and competition, his speech would have been seen as 1ess of a
threat in the context of the Savi et Uni on surpassing the U.S. as a producer
of e:~ports.
Happily, most mi stransl at i ans 1ead to humorous outcomes. v·/itness this
announcement from a Yugoslavian hotel: "The flattening of underwear with
p1easure is the job of the chambermaid. Turn to her straightaway... Or
·vvhat about these directions on a packet of convenience food f ram I ta 1y:
.. At 1ast, for a safe success in cooking, shed the remnant sauce, cover the
baking pan, and put her in the oven."' Another example comes from a
Japanese translation of an American's speech in which the American said
"Tm tick 1ed to death to be he re... The Japanese trans 1at ion was 'Tm
scratching myse 1f unt i1 I die ...
In the world business arena, American businesspeople are finding that
they have to be careful with their advertising, si nee s 1ogans do not a1ways
translate well. The classic example of this was Pepsi's "Come Alive viith
Pepsi .. s 1ogan which trans 1ated into Mandarin Chinese came out as "Pepsi

brings your dead ancestors back f ram the grave... Or the f arnous slogan .
"Body by Fisher" which in Flemish became "Corpse by Fisher." A favorite
example of this writer's is a Nike ad from some years ago which shows a
Samburu tribesman from Kenya wearing Nike hiking shoes. At the end of
the ad., the Samburu speaks into the camera in his own 1anguage . foll owed
by the Nike logo., "Just Do It." The vi ewer is left with. the impression that
"Just Do It" is what the Kenyan said when in fact he says "I don't want
these. Give me big shoes!"
Compare that example with this Japanese interpreter's translation of
an American's speech to a group of Japanese businesspeople:
.. American businessman is beginning speech with thing ca 11 ed joke.
am not certain why., but a11 American businessmen be 1i eve it is necessary
to start speech with joke. (Pause) He is te 11 i ng joke now .. but f rankly you
would not understand it so I won't trans 1ate it. He thinks I am te 11 i ng you
joke now. _(Pause) Polite thing to do when he finishes is to laugh. (Pause)
He is getting c 1ose. (Pause) Now!"
The audience not only laughed., but in typical generous Japanese style .
they stood and applauded as well.
I t ·s ap;, .- op ri ate perhaps to end with th i s Chi nes e proverb: "We get sick
from what we put in our mouths . but we get hurt by what comes out of
them."

BU Anthropologists ore Busy: Over the Christmas break . Tom Aleta
and Karen El we 11 trave 1ed to the Mexican state of Chi apas where they
vi sited important Mayan archaeo 1ogi ca 1 sites such as Pal enque and
Vaxchilan. They al so vi sited contemporary villages in that part of Mexico
where preColumbian customs are still maintained and the various Mayan
1an guages are st i 11 spoken. Tom took 2 6 ro 11 s of f i1 m du ri ng the t ri p.
which t1e is eager to share with his students and colleagues.
Over Christ mas Dee Anne Wymer comp-1eted her report of the
archaeo l ogi ca 1 work done at the Serpent Mound in Ohio during the summer
of 1991. The report has been submitted to the j ourna 1 AMER I CAN
ANTIQUITY for publication. Dee Anne is receiving preliminary radiocarbon
dates from the Serpent Mound site which seem to confirm her suspicions
about the site . but she is not ready to pub 1i sh the dates unt i 1 al 1 the

samples she sent out have been analyzed.
Dave Mi nderhout received the news that the entries he had submitted to
the new ENCVCLOPED I A OF MULTI CUL TUR AL I SM have been accepted for
inclusion in the volume. The encyclopedia is scheduled to be published by
Salem Press during the summer of 1993.