An historically accurate look into the life and hardships of a Revolutionary War era pioneer. This book is great for younger readers because it contains no gratuitious sex or violence. It focuses on NY state history. Extensively re-searched.

The is a most important book because it sets the record straign about Margaret Mead. Her book on Samoa created a false understanding of primitive peoples. She went to Samoa to do her PhD dissertation and came back with a myth that supported the prejudices and biases of her graduate advisor, Franz Boas. She purportedly discovered that the Samoans were the personification of Jean Jacque Roussoue's "Noble Savage." There were unspoiled by the vices of Western Civilization. The biggest vice was supposedly the West's repressive sexuality that gave rise to social aggression of various kinds. Derek Freeman blows all of this out of the water. He points out among other things that Mean did not know the language and stayed there only a few weeks. This does not come up to the standards of methodology that anthropologists have come to accept to accurately understand and describe a culture.

Elisabeth just longs for the time and space to write something other than laundry lists and read anything other than household accounts. It is apparent that the earnings from her witing and speaking tours are the only thing keeping the wolf or the bailiff from the door. Robert her husband is not supportive prefering to see these things as a distraction fom the real business of the day which in his view should be ensuring that meals are on time and plentyful, the children to be seen but not heard, no animals in the house and absolutly no conversation at breakfast. And if possible no visitors, and particularly not ones who stay. In this attitude he is rather like many men that one knows.
She is constrained on all sides by the demands of the unspeakable Lady Box who happens to be her husbands employer, the state of her overdraft, local difficulties with the servants, the house, the laundry, the women's institute. In other words she is of another time and place, on the cusp of the second world war when everything is begining to change. Somethings for the better others with less happy outcomes.
Through all the vissitudes that life throws at her Elisabeth copes as best as she can, seeing the humour to be had and best of all allowing the reader to join in. Women juggling with work husband and family is as current today as it was then and I must conclude that little changes. Still women are left fixing up dental appointments, taking the dog to the vet, the kids to the doctor, booking the baby-sitter, arranging visits to and from relations, and of course endless boring household shopping.
It doesn't matter that this was written 50 years ago, it is still fresh and very funny.
EM Delafield endured much sadness before she died, her only son was killed in a questionable shooting accident in the gunroom and she died of cancer a few years later in her early fifties. Her prolific output stands as a testament to her.

If you can find this book, LATCH ONTO IT AND DON'T LET GO! Now hard to come by, this book is well sought after (and well worth it, too)! This book includes fold-out detailed color plates of each of the tapestries along with a complete history on them. It is large and great for college-level classroom teaching material. I think every art library should have a copy. Beautiful book in every way, I give it an A++!

This book is yet another nitpicking attack on Derek Freeman that, as usual, treats disagreements on interpretation and judgment as if they were huge errors in concrete facts that discredited Freeman.

Martin Orans implicirly admits that Samoan society was as Derek Freeman depicts it (puritanical, authoritarian, unequal, and punitive) and was not as Margaret Mead depicted it (relaxed, sexually free, egalitarian, and permissive).

Orans makes it sound as if he had proven Freeman wrong or dishonest on key matters of fact, when the actual substance of his accusation is a mere disagreement with Freeman on motives, purpose, beliefs and intentions, a topic on which neither Orans nor Freeman have any special qualifications.

The substance of Freeman's criticism is that Mead, and the anthropology profession, presented an account of Samoa that was radically false

Orans writes as if showing Freeman wrong on the issue of whether Mead was hoaxed exculpates Mead, and anthropology. It does not. Orans writes as if he is accusing Freeman of important errors of fact and substance, but when we look at the actual details he is merely accusing Freeman of attributing incorrect thoughts and intentions to Mead's actions, issues on which the truth cannot be known, and is difficult to even define, issues on which neither Freeman nor Orans have any special qualifications or ability.

Given that Mead's depiction of Samoa was untrue, and was widely accepted and taught by the anthropological profession, as Orans implicitly admits, we must conclude that Mead, and the anthropological profession, are either fools or liars, and most likely something of both. Deciding where self deception ends, and deliberate deception of others begins, is more a job for a priest than a job for anthropologist, so if Freeman has got it wrong, as Orans argues that he got it wrong, that is both unsurprising and unimportant.

Orans writes as if Freeman's weakness on the question of the extent to which Mead was hoaxed show Freeman as a bad scientist, but rather than condemning Freeman as a bad scientist, the evidence and arguments presented in this book merely condemn him as bad priest, a condemnation that is probably accurate, but hardly surprising.

Orans argues that Margaret Mead, and the entire anthropological profession, was somehow being scientific and responsible in presenting a politically motivated image of Samoa that was clearly false, and that they were well aware it was false, and that Freeman is somehow unscientific and irresponsible in presenting an image of Samoan society that is clearly true.

Freeman argues that the Mead, and the entire anthropological profession, were hoaxed largely due their strong desire to be self deceived. If, as Orans argues, they were not hoaxed, that does not make the falsehoods that they presented about Samoa any less of a hoax, it merely makes them more guilty of wickedness, but less guilty of stupidity.

Neither Orans or Freeman are trained to distinguish between wickedness and stupidity.. It is not their job.

If Orans's position on Mead being hoaxed is correct, and Freeman's position is wrong, then the conclusion we should draw is not that Mead is right, but that she was a liar and not a victim of self deception. The hoax is Freeman's excuse for Mead's behavior, not the substance of his attack on Mead, thus for Orans to attack Freeman on this issue of Mead being hoaxed as if it was the substance of his accusation, as if refuting it exculpated Mead and anthropology, is irrelevant and deceptive, an attempt to manipulate the reader. If Orans is right on this issue, and Freeman is wrong, we should think worse of Mead, and of Anthropology and anthropologists in general, not better.

Derek Freeman's absurd, non-scientific attacks on Margaret Mead's early work are handily skewered by Orans in this study. That ANY scientist's work should be expected to weather 70 yesrs of subsequent scholarship and methodological developments is completely ridiculous, but Freeman uses this ploy as a way to attack not only Mead but all of anthropology that does not share his sociobiological bias. It is indeed those who believe in culture as a shaping force in human life that are Freeman's true target, and Orans exposes him for the blaggard that he is. It is noteworthy that Freeman's attack was not published until after Mead's death, so he is a coward to boot. Mead's pioneering works are now coming to the fore as the precursors to many significant modern trends such as collaborative research, media studies and cultural studies. Her contributions are far from dead, and will live long after Freeman's silly attack is forgotten. Bravo to Orans for exposing this fraud.

Anthropologists have been in damage control since Derek Freeman published Margaret Mead and Samoa (1983). Although Mead had long since ceased to be a research leader, Freeman linked her high standing with anthropology's research paradigm and threw both to the sharks. Anthropologists thus found themselves in the compromised position of defending a study of only historical interest, in order to save face. In the latest episode of the contest, Freeman inflicted a grave wound. Mead got Samoa so wrong, he claims, because she was hoaxed. 'A whole view of the human species was constructed out of the innocent lies of two young women', says Freeman. 'That one of the ruling ideologies of our age should have originated in this way is both comic-and frightening!' Plainly Freeman has fitted the dunce cap on anthropology.

Martin Orans's study gives anthropologists something to cheer about. It removes the dunce cap by presenting what to my mind is a conclusive rebuttal to the duping allegation. But it achieves something more important. Orans shows by example how to get beyond the storm of controversy and personal antagonisms and the mystique of prestige to examine the issues on the evidence. The book is a model of composure heedless of fear or favor. There is no impulse to vanquish, no concern to save or diminish face, no demonization or valorization of paradigms, no flag-waving. Refreshing!

The issue is the reliability of Mead's Samoan ethnography. Orans places this examination on a factual basis by comparing the text of Coming of Age with Mead's field records. The leading questions informants and what are their reliability? how did she evaluate the information she collected? what was her methodology for weaving the extraordinarily intimate portrait of Samoan psychology? does the evidence support her global claim that coming of age in Samoa was unperturbed by adolescent storm and stress, and does this evidence support the conclusion that adolescent psychology and behavior are not materially affected by the biology of sexual maturation?

The contested ethnographic terrain concerns Mead's descriptions of sexual moeurs and of aggression. According to Freeman, she greatly inflated the degree of permissible sexual congress and greatly diminished the degree of competition and aggression. Orans examination of the field record shows that Mead collected substantial evidence of norms and practices restraining adolescent sexuality. Freeman's countervailing evidence adds little to what she knew. Orans writes, Mead 'knew perfectly well' that free love did not prevail in Samoa. There is very little support in the field materials for numerous particular claims about sexual license and no support for generalizations that depicted Samoa as a free love paradise. Mead purported to have obtained the information primarily through interviews with adolescent girls. But the records of these interviews are sparse and do not support her claim. Her principal informant on sexual practices was indeed not a girl but a male of her own age, who did not remotely suggest Mead's sensational reports of stress-free homosexuality and lesbianism among adolescents.

How on earth, then, did Mead arrive at her celebrated conclusions? Orans points out that Mead did in fact report many of the restrictions on adolescent sexuality. The result was a deeply inconsistent text, which she reconciled by repeatedly suggesting that strict norms were winked at in practice. For example, the conspicuous Christian worship of the Samoans she squared with free love by claiming that they did not internalize the teaching on sinfulness of the flesh. In addition, Mead made 'extravagant claims' on the basis of 'exceedingly limited data . . .'. This she did because she was 'not [on] a voyage of discovery' but was 'out to make the strongest possible case for her position'.

The rebuttal to the hoax allegation is straight-forward. Mead did not record the specious information and demonstrably did not credit it because she knew-and stated in her book-that ceremonial virgins were chaste. In addition, by the time the duping occurred, she had already collected testimony that she interpreted as evidence of promiscuity among adolescents of common status. So the prank was not credited and added nothing to what she thought she knew.

This book takes its title from Orans' assessment of Mead's global claims to have proved the independence of cultural practices from biology in this test case, and in particular to have proven that Samoan adolescents are free of stress. These arguments are so vague that they cannot be empirically tested and hence haven't reached the threshold required of scientific claims. 'Not even wrong', Orans advises, is 'the harshest scientific criticism of all'. It strikes both Mead's global claims and Freeman's purported refutation.

In drawing out 'lessons for us all', internal contradictions and grandiose claims to knowledge that she could not possibly have had and is so weakly supported by data, could have survived and formed the foundation for an illustrious career raises substantial doubt regarding improved standards of research'. This statement is highly 'incorrect', viewed from the perspective of controversy, but it is wholesomeness itself judged from the point of view of the rejuvenation needed by anthropology. Orans' book deserves to be studied in every graduate seminar on method and evidence.

It is not a criticism to note that the author has not spoken the last word. While we can now better understand how biases shaped Mead's evaluation of her evidence, there remains the problem of claims made in the complete absence of evidence. These are many, the most sensational being alleged homosexuality and lesbianism. In addition, she endowed herself with omniscience about adolescent experience that only novelists can have.

Did she, then, spin a yarn?

Hiram Caton Griffith University Editor, of America, 1990.

Although he is a New Zealander I had not heard of Derek Freeman until the play about his work appeared in Wellington as part of an arts festival.

His published findings then got rehearsed through the media and were attacked sufficiently to persude me to buy the book through Amazon.

In part his book is an examination of the theoretical upbringing of Margaret Mead, one of the icons of Anthropology. It is clear that she did not have an open mind and failed to find an approprite historical context for her work in Samoa.

Freeman spent a lot longer than Mead in Samoa. He has held his fire for a long time, which is rather a pity as I am persuaded that Margaret Mead's conclusions were based on seriously flawed research.

At times I felt that Freeman was getting a bit obsessive about trivia, but one part of his work which is very good indeed is the study of violence in Samoa. Freeman comes at this from several perspectives in what I think should be a handbook for social workers and policy analysts.

Freeman writes well. His theoretical work is concise and coherent. His practical examples and other evidence from Samoa are excellent. I take care here not to tell his story for him , buy it and read it .

He has a light touch once he gets over Margaret Mead's lapses and gets on to his own work.

I think if ever there was a spare place at a dinner table then Derek Freeman would have to be an excellent choice to fill it.

As an anthropology grad student, I've been studying the subject long enough to see the currents of opinion regarding Mead oscillate as a power struggle is played out both inside and outside of the discipline. First comes Freeman's first book, attacking Mead for shoddy methodology and a naive and slanted viewpoint. Then come the defendants of Mead and the critics of Freeman, arguing that many of his criticisms of Mead are in fact true of him and his reasearch. This book from Freeman attempts to answer those critics, but to be honest I don't buy it. Read between the lines of scientific rhetoric here: it is already clear that Freeman's misogynistic perspective couldn't be more slanted, but also pay attention to what he reveals about his own methodology and key informants! Are they any more "objective" than Mead's? When you've got two conflicting bodies of field research amounting to two completely different conclusions, examine the intentions. Mead may have suffered from the dreaded curse of "subjectivity" as she attempted to show that americans' ideas of gender do not signify innate differences in men and women (read: that women are not biologically or naturally inferior to men, and that female adolescence does not have to be a painful experience). What can possibly be Freeman's excuse for his subjective maliciousness? Well, perhaps it is to keep Mead with her still threatening ideas in her place.

It has been over seventy-years (74 to be exact) since Mead's first study took place in Samoa (American Samoa specifically). Her study revealed some of the controversial matters pertaining to adolescents in Samoa. By controversial I mean "a superficial interpretation" of the Samoan lifestyle and cultural norms and, at the same jeopardizing its principles. This not only place the reputation of the Samoan adolescents in a rut, but may also do an injustice to them. The 'truth' about the Samoan adolescents is something that has never been revealed to an outsider. I am a Samoan; born and raised in Samoa--Manu'a. I had lived the life of adolescence; dreamt the dream of adolescence; envisioned the vision of adolescence. The bottom line is, the culture of a Samoan adolescent is a culture of "absurdity and gagging." Nothing that comes out of it is absolutely true. An outsider's perpective is merely a twisted interpretation of it. A few months, or even a year (or two)of study will not surface the true reality of the Samoan adolescent world. Mead's field-study in Manu'a, I believe, was based on information from her closest informants of a very short period of time. It is aweful difficult for me as a Samoan with many sisters to accept Mead's findings on the Samoan adolescents. I appreciate Freeman's work in reevaluating Mead's work for a better understanding (about the truth) of the readers. Thank you. Any correspondance, please send to: Moreli J. Niuatoa, 1325 North College Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711. Or email: mjniuatoa@hotmail.com. Thank you and God bless.

Although this book smacks of comeuppance in the nature/nurture wars,with Freeman somewhat preditorily showing an excessive ... factor with his prey, it is interesting reading nonetheless, as it shows indirectly the whole dilemma of fieldwork, with its question mark, how observe another culture at all. The account of the genesis of Coming of Age in Samoa is convincing, although the issue of the hoaxing of Mead as to the actual facts of this coming of age remains slightly ambiguous. But the overall account suggests that the entire project was a bit thin in substance, of excessively short duration, and a prime example of prior assumptions influencing results. It is also a story of how our theories end up influencing our present, which is a challenge to our claims on science. The influence of this book on general culture is therefore a considerable irony. I think Freeman is on guard, hence his account stands up fairly well, but I would also check the challengers here, to this, and to the previous work on this subject by the author. In fact, what is the basis for any claim to observe another culture? Not via tourist photography, in any case.