Search

This article aims to reconstruct Robert Lehmann-Nitsche's political ideology and links with the German-speaking community, in the light of a series of considerations on German anthropology and the contextualisation of the actions of German scholars between the end of the twentieth century and the first decades of the twentieth century. To this end, I will rely on the analysis and cross-referencing of a number of written sources, which contribute both to the elucidation of Lehmann-Nitsche's case and to a fuller understanding of early twentieth-century anthropological practices. Among these sources, the most important is "German Investigations of the Domain of Americanism", published by Lehmann-Nitsche in 1933 as part of a special edition of the journal Zeitschrift für Politik, entitled Ibero-America and Germany. A collective work on friendly relations, disarmament and equal rights. It is argued that Lehmann-Nitsche's characterisation as a Nazi and/or National Socialist Party collaborator is not supported by documentary evidence and that current interpretations so far inadequately equate "Nazi ideology" with orthodoxy, monarchist-anti-republican fervour and anti-Semitism.

The purpose of this article is to show how anthropologists and anthropological museums express the tension between humanitarian sentiment and scientific utilitarianism with respect to native peoples and indigenist policies in Argentina between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century and from the end of the 20th century until now. The methodology adopted was based on archival work, which involved a process of selection and analysis of documentary sources collected in Argentina and Germany. The starting point was the conviction that both the records drawn up explicitly to provide an account of professional life and private documents are fundamental sources of evidence. Furthermore, the analysis of the sources pointed to an anthropology of anthropology that provided an account of the complexity of elements present at each moment considered, as well as reconstructing the perspective of the natives in accordance with the reasoning of their time. The time period selected for the analysis corresponds to two distant moments of the discipline, with a view to contrasting them to ensure a lively discussion. Admitting the presence of tension between humanitarian sentiment and scientific utilitarianism in the two periods examined and accepting that the disciplinary past implies the adoption of a new attitude. One that is politically and ethically committed to both the recognition of the history of anthropological practice, and to the abuses committed against native peoples from and by anthropology, in the name of science and an ideal of progress conceived as inevitable. The study promotes the discussion of a little addressed issue of anthropological and socio-political importance for Argentina and the region, such as the restitution of the mortal remains of indigenous people and the right to access to public information.

El artículo examina el litigio entre Robert Lehmann-Nitsche y Alberto Vojtěch Frič en torno a los derechos de propiedad de Guido Boggiani. Se analizan una serie de documentos escritos relevados en el Archivo Histórico del Museo de La Plata y en el Instituto Ibero-Americano de Berlín. En 1901 murió Guido Boggiani, dejando en Argentina y Paraguay una gran cantidad de materiales producidos durante sus expediciones. En 1904, Lehmann-Nitsche publicó La Colección Boggiani de Tipos Indígenas de Sudamérica Central, que reunía una serie de fotografías en formato postal tomadas por Boggiani durante sus viajes. La obra le valió a Lehmann-Nitsche el reconocimiento del espacio científico-académico, pero desencadenó un litigio iniciado por Frič. Subyace al litigio el debate en torno al carácter desinteresado, universal, libre de valores religiosos, morales y políticos de una disciplina en proceso de consolidación a nivel local. Se muestra la relevancia de este tipo de episodios en la caracterización del alcance y significado que en cada época se atribuye al ethos científico.

The present article examines the dispute between the German anthropologist and Robert Lehmann-Nitsche and the socialistic senator Enrique del Valle Iberlucea in the context of the World War I and the attacks against the argentine german community. The examination of a serie of documents published and unpublished – from journalistic articles to personal letters –, conserved mainly in the Ibero-American Institute of Berlin, there is I allow to reconstruct the events and to extend some information that were on the fact. The analysis contemplates both the code of honor and the duel as symbol of belonging to the German highest stratum. It shows itself, also, that both Lehmann-Nitsche and the rest of his compatriots had to face countless setbacks, regardless of the contributions made to the local space, the prestige and reputation they had constructed during the previous years.

In this article we analyze the entry of human remains to the Ethnographic Museum between 1904 and 1916,requested by his director Juan B. Ambrosetti to different persons and institutions. We will focus on those belonging to the remains of natives of the Argentine Gran Chaco, in the context of the military advance on this territory and the consequent dismantling of its ethnic organizations groups. We pointed that members of the army sent ethnographic objects and body remains to the Museum, upon a direct request from Ambrosetti to the Army. In particular we will examine the information about the remains that can could be identified: the indigenous chief Carayá, and Illirí; the latter was murdered being murdered in an ambush and sent directly to the Museum once the flesh of his body had been removed (from the bones). Those cases allow us to concentrate on the nexus between the anthropological science and the military campaigns, framed by the territorial advance of the state at the beginning of the twentieth century.

During a fortnight in the month of July 1924, the German physician and anthropologist Robert Lehmann-Nitsche traveled to Napalpí´s Reduction in the National Territory of Chaco, with the aim of studying the myths and astronomical ideas of the Toba people. In this month one of the cruelest massacres of indigenous people in Argentina was perpetrated. Since the very first moment when the massacre gained visibility, mainly through the work of Edgardo Cordeu and Alejandra Siffredi (1971), historians and anthropologists have questioned whether Lehmann-Nitsche, who kept silent about the events, had witnessed them. This paper analyses unpublished sources and documents found at the Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut of Berlin, to demonstrate the anthropologist had full knowledge of the situation, providing strong evidence of his presence on the site and new elements to interpret the reasons for his silence.

The objective of this article is to analyze the Truth Trial for the Napalpí massacre and the previous process, which began about fifteen years earlier. To this end, we take up the contributions of Sheila Jasanoff (2004), for whom co-production is more than a theory, it is a language that allows us to account for complex phenomena, such as the processes of seeking justice for human rights violations. Specifically, it is based on a commitment to an interactional co-productionist dimension, insofar as it allows showing that every problem of the social order implies, at the same time, a problem of the order of knowledge. As a space for co-production, the trial enabled the interaction of a multiplicity of social agents - survivors and descendants; indigenous teachers and researchers; academics and scientists, among others - and the construction of a collective voice from which to reconstruct what happened before, during and after the Napalpí massacre, as well as the broader context linked to the process of indigenous genocide. The analysis is based on my own experience as a researcher who collaborated with the case since 2015 –when I was summoned by the Human Rights Unit of the Federal Prosecutor's Office of Resistencia to provide an initial testimony– and as a witness in the oral and public trial, which took place between April and May 2022.

Background: There is an increasing demand for physicians in Germany. At the same time, there are many licensed doctors who are not actively working as physicians. To win them back to their original field of expertise would be a policy to bring doctors into the health care system in a timely manner. The aims of this study were therefore, on the one hand, to explore individual reasons for leaving the medical profession and for deciding to return to the medical profession. Furthermore, the value of participating in a re-entry seminar was assessed in this process., Methodology: As part of a qualitative study, 28 semi-structured interviews were conducted with former participants in a re-entry seminar of the Bavarian Medical Association. These were recorded with a dictaphone, pseudonymised, transcribed and evaluated according to Mayring's qualitative content analysis., Results: Reasons that led to a career break were the family situation, unappealing working conditions, a change of residence as well as the mediocre job situation at the time of the so-called "doctor flood". The reasons for the resumption of medical work were decreased familial demands, financial necessity, the fear of missing one's professional connection, being under-challenged in the current job and the desire for approval. The re-entry seminar was evaluated by the majority as being "decisive" on the way back to the medical profession. Positive aspects were the exchange with like-minded people and the regained self-confidence in one's own abilities., Conclusion: Making it possible to combine family and career is a central task in preventing the loss of highly qualified workers. Re-entry seminars should specifically address the aspects of compatibility of family and career, individual fears and peer exchange., Competing Interests: Die Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)