The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Anthropology and Imperialism
Abstract
This paper was first prepared for an audience of anthropologists in the United States of America, where I have taught and researched for the past twelve years. Some of the questions that it raises apply, although perhaps less acutely, to social and cultural anthropologists from the other industrial nations of Western Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand. The international circumstances to which I refer no doubt also create problems for anthropologists born and resident in a number of the Latin American, Asian, and African countries where much anthropological research is carried out. I should be especially glad if this paper stimulates some among the latter anthropologists to comment on how these circumstances are viewed by them and how they affect their work.This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website, where most recent articles are published in full.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“anthropology is a child of Western imperialism (1968)”
From Anthropology and imperialism: Past, present, future (2024) · cites this paper as Gough 1968
Citations
Cited by
Anthropology and imperialism: Past, present, future
Striffler, S. (2024) · Dialectical Anthropology · doi:10.1007/s10624-024-09725-z · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Gough, K.
- Venue
- Monthly Review
- Publisher
- Monthly Review Foundation
- Published
- 1968-04-02
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 12
- ISSN
- 0027-0520
- Cited by
- 126
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review