Margaret Mead speaking at UCLA 3/30/1966

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 22 лис 2024
  • From the archives of the UCLA Communications Studies Department. Digitized 2013.
    The views and ideas expressed in these videos are not necessarily shared by the University of California, or by the Communication Studies Department.

КОМЕНТАРІ • 18

  • @LezliByrum
    @LezliByrum 8 місяців тому

    14,000 views. Yes!

  • @Tsnore
    @Tsnore 8 років тому +1

    I was told Mead had "a reified view of culture" in my grad school classes at the Univ. of Hawaii in the 1990s.

    • @bethbartlett5692
      @bethbartlett5692 7 років тому +1

      Tsnore
      Well, by the standards of those today, whom struggle to gain a point of adapting to the, now *visible, (if one isn't afraid to do minimal research on Google, then assimilating these realities into the self - grab a breath and attempt to converse on that subject with a few, well thought out ahead of time, friends/peers), - well in this context - we see her as an "Insider, overly certain of her position, intelligence, and worthiness and what is an outright arrogance, (which further confirms my claim of her as an Insider)...
      However, one would have to either be a true participant of the era or have lived it in abundant research - reading, audio, visual, interviews, to grasp 1) just how outspoken with a **liberal tone, those of the era thought her to be - 2) the fact it was a woman in the era addressing the social topics with support of the males in charge, and with that attitude = she was mistakeningly assumed to be a "Learned Liberal exposing the deeper reality and attempting to correct the thought, approach, and need to formulate a working model for various ethnic groups, most importantly at the time - the Black/African Americans.
      When in reality - she was filling a need to address the topics, without any real expectations of "fixing it" but made for an appearance of good, positive marketing to stimulate attendance, and an audience interesting Keynote Speaker.
      Actually a most understandable take on her, as the subject was extremely relevant, sensitive, and one that all bureaucrats desired to deal with in the model of a "June Cleaver/Leave it to Beaver" (you see the entire focus of every type of Media - magazine, movie, sitcolms, commercials, music - every social promotion influence- was absolute perfection, absent of any flaws, stress, or potential for conflict/discomfort.
      This was the (other than war) 1940's, 50's, and 60's - up to about 68/60 when Vietnam reality forced the younger Americans to "Make a Statement", which was No, we don't want war that is all about everything generating control, profits for the elites, and not a point that is our business - by 66, it was obvious to even children, that war was costing us thousands of lives (big brothers and friend's brothers) and extreme war debts - loans from Rothschild the war funder/both sides - the silent head of CIA, Mossad, Owner of our Federal Reserve, (the one that had JFK removed, Bobby, and JFK, Jr too) and #1 elitist.
      Now with this picture drawn, (she very much appeared to have had a sort of refined image, mostly because of her British heritage, social circle, and all others that were or came to speak on the subject).
      What most don't recognize is/was, her attitude that the public needed to be controlled by limiting and selecting the information they received, because, largely they weren't edI cared well enough not refined, just like Freud thought, and his PR Nephew sold - through advertising psychology/strageties applied to public promotions for presidents and corporations -
      Now used by the Mainstream News Media, owned entirely, including "AP" by Rothschild/family/subsidiaries and partners...
      NOTE: See "Century of Self" available on UA-cam, a 3 he documentary - but worthy of everyone's time, and can be watched in segments - the first 20 minutes will be the most enlightening experience of a lifetime.
      My degrees: Sociology, focused on Research and Social/Psych - Behaviorism
      Journalism (focused on Public Relations)
      Minor: History
      Univ of Memphis, (Memphis State University, class of 1981) Go Tigers! 🐯
      1st grade 1964-65 👱

  • @limppimento55
    @limppimento55 9 років тому +1

    Kristen, I did not mean the possession of those objects, I meant the "magic" that those technically advanced objects must have had on the natives. Gunpowder, timepieces, optics, ships, maps, navigation.

  • @francismausley7239
    @francismausley7239 5 років тому +1

    She said that life is a “Meaning-making activity.” "...your life may not be barren of results, for the life of the material man has no fruit of reality. Lasting results are produced by reflecting the heavenly existence." - Abdu’l-Baha, Baha'i Faith

  • @christinemartin63
    @christinemartin63 7 місяців тому

    How is it that some immigrant children come to the US (with parents having little money) not knowing a single English word and learn this second language, graduate high school, go to college, get jobs, DON'T collect welfare, buy homes, send THEIR kids to college, save for their retirement, etc. etc. -- and some native-born Americans, after three centuries (about ten generations) still cannot thrive and achieve? Look at Eastern European, Asian, and Nigerian
    immigrants and their kids; they consistently achieve through education, a strong work ethic, and self-sacrifice. It happens quietly, without their demanding reparations either.

  • @limppimento55
    @limppimento55 10 років тому +7

    One of the most important messages of our time (17:00 to 20:00) and there are 41 views. What does that say about us?

    • @skyjuiceification
      @skyjuiceification 9 років тому +2

      +limppimento55 ...its not as good a talk as many may think. she repeats too many entitlement cliches. which is always a signal that a person is being PC but is not aware that they're tactics duplicity are paper thin. the fact that a anthrop0ologist would say that a african american need not be related to africa to be understood.she clearly equates the optimal condition to integration of cultural others into a white supremacy construct. that is a truck load of bollucks. none obvious cultural paternalisms are still cultural paternalism. she lays out how multiculturalism was to dismantle all IDENTITY that has not been GENTRIFIED. also, the points she makes about linguistics part in all this was interesting. i can work with her notion of cultural deprivation in theory but we have had 45 years of multi culti shenanigans to see that it leaves much to be desired.

  • @AlvaSudden
    @AlvaSudden 3 роки тому

    Imagine the viewpoint of girls at UCLA in 1966 being told "Any boy can be president." and "Any boy can be a college professor." It's hard to imagine. What in the world were they doing at a major university if such jobs were not considered available for them? Asking for a friend....

    • @LezliByrum
      @LezliByrum 8 місяців тому +1

      We became nurses and doctors also researchers. In my biochemistry years at UCLA, my professor told me I belonged in the kitchen.

  • @limppimento55
    @limppimento55 10 років тому +6

    More thoughts that complicate any solution:
    When Native Americans (or New Guinea natives) saw incoming ships, it cant be easy to feel as equals. The Indians saw guns, timepieces, metals, eyeglasses etc.
    In todays world with welfare, you wont even see the most disadvantaged American citizens picking fruit in scorching heat. How can those who pick the fruit ever feel as equals? I am inviting others to join this discussion. Unless the 41 views (three of which are mine) are all mistakes and nobody is interested in this.

    • @Kirstyburst
      @Kirstyburst 9 років тому

      These are very interesting thoughts to think about, from my perspective it seems to be more broad than just possessing materials objects and or the access to them being seen as equal, I think the human race as a whole wants to feel accepted and connected. (As we should) but in order to do so many peoples regardless of their origin in all aspects of that meaning, give up certain things and give power to others. By this I mean we are conditioned to think certain ways about things especially in the Americas. There are those who know this and use this as a tool to manipulate people in masses, to divert attention from the things that really matter. Thus resulting in us giving power to those things we are being manipulated by whether they be people,material objects, beliefs systems, or limiting thoughts in general. Critical thought is not promoted in most cases this is evident all throughout history, those who did this were seen as "crazy" "bizarre" "absurd" or "irrational" until people realized they were simply genius. When someone is labeled any of these terms they are automatically discounted. Very telling and is still a very common tactic today in our "modern" societies. I personally believe ignorance is not bliss, it's injury.

    • @limppimento55
      @limppimento55 9 років тому

      Kirsten Nicole
      See my response. Could not "reply" on an iphone for some reason.

  • @Digiphex
    @Digiphex 6 років тому

    4:30 An anthropologist that uses the Welsh people to demonstrate dishonesty on something?

    • @deepcosmiclove
      @deepcosmiclove 2 роки тому

      The woman is not a beacon of enlightenment.