, 1881- 1965: A Historical Review Essay, Research Paper

This paper discusses Judaic engagement in determining United States in-migration policy. In add-on to a periodic involvement in furthering the in-migration of co- religionists as a consequence of anti- Semitic motions, Hebrews have an involvement in opposing the constitution of ethnically and culturally homogenous societies in which they reside as minorities. Hebrews have been at the head in back uping motions aimed at changing the cultural position quo in the United States in favour of in-migration of non- European peoples. These activities have involved leading in Congress, forming and funding anti- restrictionist groups composed of Jews and heathens, and arising rational motions opposed to evolutionary and biological positions in the societal scientific disciplines.

Cultural struggle is of obvious importance for understanding critical facets of American history, and non merely for understanding Black/ White cultural struggle or the destiny of Native Americans. Immigration policy is a paradigmatic illustration of struggle of involvement between cultural groups because in-migration policy influences the future demographic composing of the state. Cultural groups unable to act upon in-migration policy in their ain involvements will finally be displaced or reduced in comparative Numberss by groups able to carry through this end.

This paper discusses cultural struggle between Jews and heathens in the country of in-migration policy. Immigration policy is, nevertheless, merely one facet of struggles of involvement between Jews and heathens in America. The brushs between Jews and the gentile power construction get downing in the late 19th century ever had strong overtones of anti- Semitism. These conflicts involved issues of Judaic upward mobility, quotas on Judaic representation in elect schools get downing in the 19th century and peaking in the 1920s and 1930s, the anti- Communist campaigns in the post- World War II epoch, every bit good as the really powerful concern with the cultural influences of the major media widening from Henry Ford? s Hagiographas in the 1920s to the Hollywood Inquisitions of the McCarthy epoch and into the modern-day epoch. That anti- Semitism was involved in these issues can be seen from the fact that historiographers of Judaism ( e. g. , Sachar 1992, p. 620ff ) feel compelled to include histories of these events as of import to the history of Jews in America, by the anti- Semitic dictums of many of the heathen participants, and by the self- witting apprehension of Judaic participants and perceivers.

The Judaic engagement in act uponing in-migration policy in the United States is particularly notable as an facet of cultural struggle. Judaic engagement has had certain alone qualities that have distinguished Judaic involvements from the involvements of other groups prefering broad in-migration policies. Throughout much of this period, one Judaic involvement in broad in-migration policies stemmed from a desire to supply a sanctuary for Jews flying from anti- Semitic persecutions in Europe and elsewhere. Anti- Semitic persecutions have been a recurrent phenomenon in the modern universe get downing with the Czarist persecutions in 1881, and go oning into the post- World War II epoch in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. As a consequence, broad in-migration has been a Judaic involvement because? survival frequently dictated that Jews seek safety in other lands? ( Cohen 1972, p. 341 ) . For a similar ground, Jews have systematically advocated an internationalist foreign policy for the United States because? an internationally- minded America was likely to be more sensitive to the jobs of foreign Jewries? ( Cohen 1972, p. 342 ) .

However, in add-on to a relentless concern that America be a safe oasis for Jews flying eruptions of anti- Semitism in foreign states, there is grounds that Jews, much more than any other European- derived cultural group in America, have viewed broad in-migration policies as a mechanism of guaranting that America would be a pluralistic instead than a unitary, homogenous society ( e. g. , Cohen 1972 ) . Pluralism serves both internal ( within- group ) and external ( between- group ) Jewish involvements. Pluralism serves internal Judaic involvements because it legitimates the internal Judaic involvement in apologizing and openly recommending an involvement in Jewish group committedness and non- assimilation, what Howard Sachar ( 1992, p. 427 ) footings its map in? legalizing the saving of a minority civilization in the thick of a bulk? s host society. ? The development of an cultural, political, or spiritual monoculture implies that Judaism can last merely by prosecuting in a kind of semi- crypsis. As Irving Louis Horowitz ( 1993, 86 ) notes sing the long- term effects of Judaic life under Communism, ? Jews suffer, their Numberss decline, and out-migration becomes a survival solution when the province demands integrating into a national mainstream, a spiritual universal defined by a province faith or a near- province religion. ? Both Neusner ( 1987 ) and Ellman ( 1987 ) suggest that the increased sense of cultural consciousness seen in Judaic circles late has been influenced by this general motion within American society toward the legitimization of minority group ethnocentrism.

More significantly, cultural and spiritual pluralism serves external Judaic involvements because Jews go merely one of many cultural groups. This consequences in the diffusion of political and cultural influence among the assorted cultural and spiritual groups, and it becomes hard or impossible to develop incorporate, cohesive groups of heathens united in their resistance to Judaism. Historically, major anti- Semitic motions have tended to break out in societies that have been, apart from the Jews, sacredly and/ or ethnically homogenous ( MacDonald, 1994 ; 1998 ) . Conversely, one ground for the comparative deficiency of anti- Semitism in America compared to Europe was that? Jews did non stand out as a lone group of [ spiritual ] non- conformists ( Higham 1984, p. 156 ) . It follows besides that ethnically and sacredly pluralistic societies are more likely to fulfill Jewish involvements than are societies characterized by cultural and spiritual homogeneousness among heathens.

Get downing with Horace Kallen, Judaic intellectuals have been at the head in developing theoretical accounts of the United States as a culturally and ethnically pluralistic society. Reflecting the public-service corporation of cultural pluralism in functioning internal Judaic group involvements in keeping cultural segregation, Kallen personally combined his political orientation of cultural pluralism with a deep submergence in Judaic history and literature, a committedness to Zionism, and political activity on behalf of Jews in Eastern Europe ( Sachar 1992, p. 425ff ; Frommer 1978 ) .

Kallen ( 1915 ; 1924 ) developed a? polycentric? ideal for American cultural relationships. Kallen defined ethnicity as deducing from one? s biological gift, connoting that Jews should be able to stay a genetically and culturally cohesive group while however take parting in American democratic establishments. This construct that the United States should be organized as a set of separate ethnic/ cultural groups was accompanied by an political orientation that relationships between groups would be concerted and benign: ? Kallen lifted his eyes above the discord that swirled about him to an ideal kingdom where diverseness and harmoniousness coexist? ( Higham 1984, p. 209 ) . Similarly in Germany, the Judaic leader Moritz Lazarus argued in resistance to the positions of the German rational Heinrich Treitschke that the continued discreteness of diverse cultural groups contributed to the profusion of German civilization ( Schorsch 1972, p. 63 ) . Lazarus besides developed the philosophy of double trueness which became a basis of the Zionist motion.

Kallen wrote his 1915 essay partially in reaction to the thoughts of Edward A. Ross ( 1914 ) . Ross was a Darwinian sociologist who believed that the being of clearly demarcated groups would be given to ensue in between- group competition for resources. Higham? s remark is interesting because it shows that Kallen? s romantic positions of group co- being were contradicted by the world of between- group competition in his ain twenty-four hours. Indeed, it is notable that Kallen was a outstanding leader of the American Jewish Congress ( AJCongress ) . During the 1920s and 1930s the AJCongress championed group economic and political rights for Jews in Eastern Europe at a clip when there was widespread cultural tensenesss and persecution of Jews, and despite the frights of many that such rights would simply worsen current tensenesss. The AJCongress demanded that Jews be allowed relative political representation every bit good as the ability to form their ain communities and continue an independent Judaic national civilization. The pacts with Eastern European states and Turkey included commissariats that the province provide direction in minority linguistic communications and that Jews have the right to decline to go to tribunals or other public maps on the Sabbath ( Frommer 1978, p. 162 ) .

Kallen? s thought of cultural pluralism as a theoretical account for America was popularized among gentile intellectuals by John Dewey ( Higham 1984, p. 209 ) , who in bend was promoted by Judaic intellectuals: ? If nonchurchgoing Congregationalists like Dewey did non necessitate immigrants to animate them to press against the boundaries of even the most broad of Protestant esthesias, Dewey? s sort were resoundingly encouraged in that way by the Judaic intellectuals they encountered in urban academic and literary communities? ( Hollinger, 1996, p. 24 ) .

Kallen? s thoughts have been really influential in bring forthing Judaic self- conceptualisations of their position in America. This influence was evident every bit early as 1915 among American Zionists, such as Louis D. Brandeis. Brandeis viewed America as composed of different nationalities whose free development would? spiritually enrich the United States and would do it a democracy par excellence? ( Gal 1989, p. 70 ) . These positions became? a trademark of mainstream American Zionism, secular and spiritual alike? ( Gal 1989, p. 70 ) . But Kallen? s influence extended truly to all educated Hebrews:

Legalizing the saving of a minority civilization in the thick of a bulk? s host society, pluralism functioned as rational anchorage for an educated Judaic 2nd coevals, sustained its coherence and its most retentive communal enterprises through the asperities of the Depression and revived anti- semitism, through the daze of Nazism and the Holocaust, until the outgrowth of Zionism in the post- World War II old ages swept through American Jewry with a climactic redemptionist ardor of its ain. ( Sachar 1992, p. 427 )

Explicit statements associating in-migration policy to a Judaic involvement in cultural pluralism can be found among outstanding Judaic societal scientists and political militants. In his reappraisal of Kallen? s ( 1956 )

Cultural Pluralism and the American Idea looking in Congress Weekly ( published by the AJCongress ) , Joseph L. Blau ( 1958, p. 15 ) noted that? Kallen? s position is needed to function the cause of minority groups and minority civilizations in this state without a lasting bulk? ? the deduction being that Kallen? s political orientation of multi- culturalism opposes the involvements of any cultural group in ruling America. The well- known writer and outstanding Zionist Maurice Samuel ( 1924, p. 215 ) composing partially as a negative reaction to the in-migration jurisprudence of 1924, wrote that? If, so, the battle between us [ i. e. , Jews and heathens ] is of all time to be lifted beyond the physical, your democracies will hold to change their demands for racial, religious and cultural homogeneousness with the State. But it would be foolish to see this as a possibility, for the inclination of this civilisation is in the opposite way. There is a steady attack toward the designation of authorities with race, alternatively of with the political State. ?

Samuel deplored the 1924 statute law and in the undermentioned quotation mark he develops the position that the American province as holding no cultural deductions.

We have merely witnessed, in America, the repeat, in the curious signifier adapted to this state, of the evil travesty to which the experience of many centuries has non yet accustomed us. If America had any significance at all, it lay in the curious effort to lift above the tendency of our present civilisation? the designation of race with State. . . . America was hence the New World in this critical regard? that the State was strictly an ideal, and nationality was indistinguishable merely with credence of the ideal. But it seems now that the full point of position was a misguided one, that America was incapable of lifting above her beginnings, and the gloss of an ideal- patriotism was merely a phase in the proper development of the cosmopolitan gentile spirit. . . . To- twenty-four hours, with race triumphant over ideal, anti- Semitism uncovers its Fangs, and to the heartless refusal of the most simple human right, the right of refuge, is added cowardly insult. We are non merely excluded, but we are told, in the unmistakable linguistic communication of the in-migration Torahs, that we are an? inferior? people. Without the moral bravery to stand up forthrightly to its evil inherent aptitudes, the state prepared itself, through its journalists, by a long draft of smear of the Jew, and, when sufficiently inspired by the popular and? scientific? potions, committed the act. ( pp. 218- 220 )

A congruous sentiment is expressed by outstanding Judaic societal scientist and political militant Earl Raab 1 who comments really positively on the success of American in-migration policy in changing the cultural composing of the United States since 1965. Raab notes that the Jewish community has taken a leading function in altering the Northwestern European prejudice of American in-migration policy ( 1993a, p. 17 ) , and he has besides maintained that one factor suppressing anti- Semitism in the modern-day United States is that? ( a ) N increasing cultural heterogeneousness, as a consequence of in-migration, has made it even more hard for a political party or mass motion of dogmatism to develop? ( 1995, p. 91 ) . Or more colorfully:

The Census Bureau has merely reported that about half of the American population will shortly be non- white or non- European. And they will wholly be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi- Aryan party will be able to predominate in this state. We [ i. e. , Jews ] have been nurturing the American clime of resistance to bigotry for approximately half a century. That clime has non yet been perfected, but the heterogenous nature of our population tends to do it irreversible? and makes our constitutional restraints against dogmatism more practical than of all time. ( Raab 1993b, p. 23 ) . 2

Indeed, the? primary nonsubjective? of Judaic political activity after 1945? was. . . to forestall the outgrowth of an anti- Semitic reactionist mass motion in the United States? ( Svonkin 1997, 8 ) . Charles Silberman ( 1985, 350 ) notes that? American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief? one steadfastly rooted in history? that Jews are safe merely in a society acceptant of a broad scope of attitudes and behaviours, every bit good as a diverseness of spiritual and cultural groups. It is this belief, for illustration, non blessing of homosexualism, that leads an overpowering bulk of American Jews to back? homosexual rights? and to take a broad stance on most other so- called? societal? issues. ? 3 Silberman? s remark that Judaic attitudes are? steadfastly rooted in history? is rather sensible: There has so been a inclination for Jews to be persecuted by a culturally and/ or ethnically homogenous bulk that come to see Jews as a negatively evaluated outgroup.

Similarly, in naming the positive benefits of in-migration, Diana Aviv, manager of the Washington Action Office of the Council of Jewish Federations states that in-migration? is about diverseness, cultural enrichment and economic chance for the immigrants? ( quoted in Forward, March 8, 1996, p. 5 ) . And in sum uping Judaic engagement in the 1996 legislative battles a newspaper history stated that? Judaic groups failed to kill a figure of commissariats that reflect the sort of political expedience that they regard as a direct onslaught on American pluralism? ( Detroit Jewish News ; May 10, 1996 ) .

It is notable besides that there has been a struggle between preponderantly Judaic neo- Conservatives and preponderantly gentile paleo- conservativists over the issue of Third World in-migration into the United States. Many of these neo- conservative intellectuals had antecedently been extremist collectivists, 4 and the split between the neo- conservativists and their old Alliess resulted in an intense internecine feud ( Gottfried 1993 ; Rothman & A ; Lichter 1982, p. 105 ) . Neo- conservativists Norman Podhoretz and Richard John Neuhaus reacted really negatively to an article by a paleo- conservative concerned that such in-migration would finally take to the United States being dominated by such immigrants ( see Judis 1990, p. 33 ) . Other illustrations are neo- Conservatives Julian Simon ( 1990 ) and Ben Wattenberg ( 1991 ) , both of whom advocate really high degrees of in-migration from all parts of the universe, so that the United States will go what Wattenberg describes as the universe? s foremost? Universal Nation. ? Based on recent informations, Fetzer ( 1996 ) studies that Jews remain far more favourable to in-migration to the United States than any other cultural group or faith.

It should be noted as a general point that the effectivity of Judaic organisations in act uponing American in-migration policy has been facilitated by certain features of American Jewry. As Neuringer ( 1971, p. 87 ) notes, Judaic influence on in-migration policy was facilitated by Judaic wealth, instruction, and societal position. Reflecting its general disproportionate representation in markers of economic success and political influence, Judaic organisations have been able to hold a immensely disproportional consequence on United States in-migration policy because Jews as a group are extremely organized, extremely intelligent, and politically sharp, and they were able to command a high degree of fiscal, political, and rational resources in prosecuting their political purposes. Similarly, Hollinger ( 1996, p. 19 ) notes that Jews were more influential in the diminution of a homogenous Protestant Christian civilization in the United States than Catholics because of their greater wealth, societal standing, and proficient accomplishment in the rational sphere. In the country of in-migration policy, the chief Judaic militant organisation act uponing in-migration policy, the American Jewish Committee ( AJCommittee

) , was characterized by? strong leading [ peculiarly Louis Marshall ] , internal coherence, well- funded plans, sophisticated lobbying techniques, well- chosen non- Judaic Alliess, and good timing? ( Goldstein 1990, p. 333 ) .

In this respect, the Judaic success in act uponing in-migration policy is wholly correspondent to their success in act uponing the secularisation of American civilization. As in the instance of in-migration policy, the secularisation of American civilization is a Judaic involvement because Jews have a perceived involvement that America non be a homogenous Christian civilization. ? Judaic civil rights organisations have had an historic function in the postwar development of American church- province jurisprudence and policy? ( Ivers 1995, p. 2 ) . Unlike the attempt to act upon in-migration, the resistance to a homogenous Christian civilization was chiefly carried out in the tribunals. The Judaic attempt in this instance was good funded and was the focal point of well- organized, extremely dedicated Jewish civil service organisations, including the AJCommittee, the AJCongress, and the Anti- Defamation League ( ADL ) . It involved acute legal expertness both in the existent judicial proceeding but besides in act uponing legal sentiment via articles in jurisprudence diaries and other forums of rational argument, including the popular media. It besides involved a extremely magnetic and effectual leading, peculiarly Leo Pfeffer of the AJCongress:

No other attorney exercised such complete rational laterality over a chosen country of jurisprudence for so extended a period? as an writer, bookman, public citizen, and above all, legal advocator who harnessed his multiple and formidable endowments into a individual force capable of fulfilling all that an establishment needs for a successful constitutional reform motion. . . . That Pfeffer, through an enviable combination of accomplishment, finding, and continuity, was able in such a short period of clip to do church- province reform the foremost cause with which rival organisations associated the AJCongress illustrates good the impact that single attorneies endowed with exceeding accomplishments can hold on the character and life of the organisations for which they work. . . . As if to corroborate the extent to which Pfeffer is associated with post- Everson [ i. e. , post- 1946 ] constitutional development, even the major critics of the Court? s church- province law during this period and the modern philosophy of separatism seldom fail to do mention to Pfeffer as the cardinal force responsible for what they lament as the lost significance of the constitution clause. ( Ivers 1995, pp. 222- 224 )

Similarly, Hollinger ( 1996, p. 4 ) notes? the transmutation of the ethnoreligious human ecology of American academic life by Jews? in the period from the 1930s to the sixtiess, every bit good as the Judaic influence on tendencies toward the secularisation of American society and in progressing an ideal of cosmopolitanism ( p. 11 ) . The gait of this influence was really likely influenced by in-migration conflicts of the 1920s. Hollinger notes that the? the old Protestant constitution? s influence persisted until the sixtiess in big step because of the Immigration Act of 1924: had the monolithic in-migration of Catholics and Jews continued at pre- 1924 degrees, the class of American history would hold been different in many ways, including, one may reasonably speculate, a more rapid decline of Protestant cultural hegemony. Immigration limitation gave that hegemony a new rental of life? ( p. 22 ) . It is sensible to say, hence, that the in-migration battles from 1881 to 1965 have been of momentous historical importance in determining the contours of American civilization in the late 20th century.

The ultimate success of Judaic attitudes on in-migration was besides influenced by rational motions that jointly resulted in a diminution of evolutionary and biological thought in the academic universe. Although playing virtually no function in the restrictionist place in the Congressional arguments on the in-migration ( which focused chiefly on the equity of keeping the cultural position quo ; see below ) , a constituent of the rational Zeitgeist of the 1920s was the prevalence of evolutionary theories of race and ethnicity ( Singerman 1986 ) , peculiarly the theories of Madison Grant. In The Passing of the Great Race, Grant ( 1921 ) argued that the American colonial stock was derived from superior Nordic racial elements and that in-migration of other races would take down the competency degree of the society as a whole every bit good as threaten democratic and republican establishments. Grant? s thoughts were popularized in the media at the clip of the in-migration arguments ( see Divine 1957, pp. 12ff ) and frequently provoked negative remarks in Judaic publications such as The American Hebrew ( e. g. , March 21, 1924, pp. 554, 625 ) . 5

The argument over group differences in IQ was besides tied to the in-migration issue. C. C. Brigham? s survey of intelligence among United States ground forces forces concluded that Nordics were superior to Alpine and Mediterranean Europeans, and Brigham ( 1923, p. 210 ) concluded that? ( I ) mmigration should non merely be restrictive but extremely selective. ? In the Foreword to Brigham? s book, Harvard psychologist Robert M. Yerkes stated that? The writer presents non theories but facts. It behooves us to see their dependability and significance, for no 1 of us as a citizen can afford to disregard the threat of race impairment or the apparent relation of in-migration to national advancement and public assistance? ( in Brigham 1923, pp. vii- eight ) .

However, as Samelson ( 1975 ) points out, the thrust to curtail in-migration originated long earlier IQ proving came into being and limitation was favored by a assortment of groups, including organized labour, for grounds other than those related to race and IQ, including particularly the equity of keeping the cultural position quo in the United States. Furthermore, although Brigham? s IQ proving consequences did so look in the statement submitted by the Allied Patriotic Societies to the House hearings, 6 the function of IQ proving in the in-migration debates has been greatly overdone ( Snyderman & A ; Herrnstein, 1983 ) . Indeed, IQ testing was ne’er even mentioned in either the House Majority Report or the Minority

Report, and? there is no reference of intelligence proving in the Act ; test consequences on immigrants appear merely briefly in the commission hearings and are so mostly ignored or criticized, and they are brought up merely one time in over 600 pages of congressional floor argument, where they are subjected to further unfavorable judgment without retort. None of the major modern-day figures in proving. . . were called to attest, nor were their Hagiographas inserted into the legislative record? ( Snyderman & A ; Herrnstein 1983, 994 ) .

It is besides really easy to over- stress the importance of theories of Nordic high quality as an ingredient of popular and Congressional restrictionist sentiment. As Singerman ( 1986, 118- 119 ) points out, ? racial anti- Semitism? was employed by merely? a smattering of authors ; ? and? the Jewish? job? . . . was a minor preoccupation even among such widely- published writers as Madison Grant or T. Lothrop Stoddard and none of the persons examined [ in Singerman? s reappraisal ] could be regarded as professional Jew- baiters or full- clip propagandists against Jews, domestic or foreign. ? As indicated below, statements related to Nordic high quality, including supposed Nordic rational high quality, played unusually small function in Congressional arguments over in-migration in the 1920s, the common statement of the restrictionists being that in-migration policy should reflect every bit the involvements of all cultural groups presently in the state.

However, it is likely that the diminution in evolutionary/ biological theories of race and ethnicity facilitated the sea alteration in in-migration policy brought about by the 1965 jurisprudence. As Higham ( 1984 ) notes, by the clip of the concluding triumph in 1965 which removed national beginnings and racial lineage from in-migration policy and opened up in-migration to all human groups, the Boasian position of cultural determinism and anti- biologism had become standard academic wisdom. The consequence was that? it became intellectually stylish to dismiss the really being of relentless cultural differences. The whole reaction deprived popular race feelings of a powerful ideological arm? ( Higham 1984, pp. 58- 59 ) .

Judaic intellectuals were conspicuously involved in the motion to eliminate the racist thoughts of Grant and others ( Degler 1991, p. 200 ) . Indeed, even during the earlier arguments taking up to the in-migration measures of 1921 and 1924, restrictionists perceived themselves to be under onslaught from Judaic intellectuals. In 1918, Prescott F. Hall, secretary of the Immigration Restriction League, wrote to Allow that? What I wanted. . . was the names of a few anthropologists of note who have declared in favour of the inequality of the races. . . . I am up against the Jews all the clip in the equality statement and thought possibly you might be able offhand to call a few ( besides Osborn ) whom I could cite in support? ( in Samelson 1975, p. 467 ) .

Grant besides believed that Jews were engaged in a run to discredit racial research. In the Introduction to the 1921 edition of Passing of the Great Race, Grant complained that? ( I ) T is well- near impossible to print in the American newspapers any contemplation upon certain faiths or races which are hysterically sensitive even when non mentioned by name. The implicit in thought seems to be that if publication can be suppressed the facts themselves will finally vanish. Abroad, conditions are to the full as bad, and we have the authorization of one of the most high anthropologists in France that the aggregation of anthropological measurings and informations among Gallic recruits at the eruption of the Great War was prevented by Judaic influence, which aimed to stamp down any suggestion of racial distinction in France. ?

Particularly of import was the work of Columbia University anthropologist Franz Boas and his followings. ? Boas? influence upon American societal scientists in affairs of race can barely be exaggerated? ( Degler 1991, p. 61 ) . He engaged in a? life- long assault on the thought that race was a primary beginning of the differences to be found in the mental or societal capablenesss of human groups. He accomplished his mission mostly through his ceaseless, about grim articulation of the construct of civilization? ( p. 61 ) . ? Boas, about single- handedly, developed in America the construct of civilization, which, like a powerful dissolver, would in clip expunge race from the literature of societal scientific discipline? ( p. 71 ) .

Throughout this explication of Boas? s construct of civilization and his resistance to a racial reading of human behaviour, the cardinal point has been that Boas did non get at the place from a disinterested, scientific enquiry into a annoyed if controversial inquiry. Alternatively, his thought derived from an ideological committedness that began in his early life and academic experiences in Europe and continued in America to determine his professional mentality. . . . there is no uncertainty that he had a deep involvement in roll uping grounds and planing statements that would refute or rebut an ideological mentality? racism? which he considered restrictive upon persons and unwanted for society. . . . there is a relentless involvement in pressing his societal values upon the profession and the populace. ( Degler 1991, pp. 82- 83 )

There is grounds that Boas strongly identified as a Jew and viewed his research as holding of import deductions in the political sphere and peculiarly in the country of in-migration policy. Boas was born in Prussia to a? Jewish- broad? household in which the radical ideals of 1848 remained influential ( Stocking 1968, p. 149 ) . Boas developed a? left- broad position which. . . is at one time scientific and political? ( Stocking 1968, p. 149 ) and was intensely concerned with anti- Semitism from an early period in his life ( White 1966, p. 16 ) . Furthermore, Boas was profoundly alienated from and hostile toward gentile civilization, peculiarly the cultural ideal of the Prussian nobility ( Degler 1991, p. 200 ; Stocking 1968, p. 150 ) . For illustration, when Margaret Mead was looking for a manner to carry Boas to allow her prosecute her research in the South Sea islands, ? she hit upon a certain manner of acquiring him to alter his head. ? I knew there was one thing that mattered more to Boas than the way taken by anthropological research. This was that he should act like a broad, democratic, modern adult male, non like a Prussian tyrant. ? The gambit worked because she had so uncovered the bosom of his personal values? ( Degler 1991, p. 73 ) .

Boas was greatly motivated by the in-migration issue as it occurred early in the century. Carl Degler ( 1991, p. 74 ) notes that Boas? professional correspondence? reveals that an of import motivation behind his celebrated head- measurement undertaking in 1910 was his strong personal involvement in maintaining America diverse in population. ? The survey, whose decisions were placed into the Congressional Record by Representative Emanuel Celler during the argument on in-migration limitation ( Cong. Rec. , April 8, 1924, pp. 5915- 5916 ) , concluded that the environmental differences consequent to in-migration caused differences in caput form. ( At the clip, caput form as determined by the? cephalic index? was the chief measuring used by scientists involved in racial differences research. ) Boas argued that his research showed that all foreign groups populating in favourable societal fortunes had become assimilated to America in the sense that their physical measurings converged on the American type. Although he was well more discreet sing his decisions in the organic structure of his study ( see besides Stocking 1968, p. 178 ) , Boas ( 1911, p. 5 ) stated in his Introduction that? all fright of an unfavourable influence of South European in-migration upon the organic structure of our people should be dismissed. ? As a farther indicant of Boas? ideological committedness to the in-migration issue, Degler makes the undermentioned remark sing one of Boas? conservationist accounts for mental differences between immigrant and native kids: ? Why Boas chose to progress such an adhoc reading is difficult to understand until one recognizes his desire to explicate in a favourable manner the evident mental retardation of the immigrant kids? ( p. 75 ) .

Boas and his pupils were intensely concerned with forcing an ideological docket within the American anthropological profession ( Degler 1991 ; Freeman 1991 ; Torrey 1992 ) . In this respect it is interesting that Boas and his associates had a much more extremely developed sense of group individuality, a committedness to a common point of view, and an docket to rule the institutional construction of anthropology than did their oppositions ( Stocking 1968, pp. 279- 280 ) . The licking of the Darwinians? had non happened without considerable exhortation of? every female parent? s boy? standing for the? Right. ? Nor had it been accomplished without some instead strong force per unit area applied both to stem friends and to the? weaker brethren? ? frequently by the sheer force of Boas? personality? ( Stocking 1968, 286 ) . By 1915 the Boasians controlled the American Anthropological Association and held a two- tierces bulk on the Executive Board ( Stocking 1968, 285 ) . By 1926 every major section of anthropology in the United States was headed by a pupil of Boas, the bulk of whom were Jewish. Harmonizing to White ( 1966, p. 26 ) , Boas? most influential pupils were Ruth Benedict, Alexander Goldenweiser, Melville Herskovits, Alfred Kroeber, Robert Lowie, Margaret Mead, Paul Radin, Edward Sapir, and Leslie Spier. All of this? little, compact group of bookmans. . . gathered about their leader? ( White 1966, p. 26 ) were Jews with the exclusion of Kroeber, Benedict and Mead. Indeed, Herskovits ( 1953, p. 91 ) , whose hagiography of Boas qualifies as one of the most adoring in rational history, noted that

( T ) he four decennaries of the term of office of [ Boas? ] chair at Columbia gave a continuity to his instruction that permitted him to develop pupils who finally made up the greater portion of the important professional nucleus of American anthropologists, and who came to adult male and direct most of the major sections of anthropology in the United States. In their bend, they trained the pupils who. . . have continued the tradition in which their instructors were trained. By the mid- 1930s the Boasian position of the cultural finding of human behaviour had a strong influence on societal scientists by and large ( Stocking 1968, p. 300 ) .

The political orientation of racial equality was an of import arm on behalf of opening in-migration up to all human groups. For illustration, in a 1951 statement to Congress, the AJCongress stated that? The findings of scientific discipline must coerce even the most prejudiced among us to accept, every bit unqualifiedly as we do the jurisprudence of gravitation, that intelligence, morality and character, bear no relationship whatever to geography or topographic point of birth. ? 7 The statement went on to mention some of Boas? popular Hagiographas on the topic every bit good as the Hagiographas of Boas? prot? g? Ashley Montagu, possibly the most seeable opposition of the construct of race during this period. Montagu, whose original name was Israel Ehrenberg, theorized that worlds are innately concerted ( but non innately aggressive ) and there is a cosmopolitan brotherhood among worlds ( see Shipman 1994, p. 159ff ) . And in 1952 another Boas? prot? g? , Margaret Mead, testified before the President? s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization ( PCIN ) ( 1953, p. 92 ) that? all human existences from all groups of people have the same potencies. . . . Our best anthropological grounds today suggests that the people of every group have about the same distribution of potentialities. ? Another informant stated that the executive board of the American Anthropological Association had nem con endorsed the proposition that? ( a ) ll scientific grounds indicates that all peoples are inherently capable of geting or accommodating to our civilisation? ( PCIN 1953, p. 93 ) . By 1965 Senator Jacob Javits ( Cong. Rec. , 111, 1965, p. 24469 ) confidently announced to the Senate during the argument on the in-migration measure that? ( B ) oth the dictates of our scrupless every bit good as the principles of sociologists tell us that in-migration, as it exists in the national beginnings quota system, is incorrect, and without any footing in ground or fact for we know better than to state that one adult male is better than another because of the colour of his skin. ? The rational revolution and its interlingual rendition into public policy had been completed.