.Anthropologist Malcom McFee was the first to argue that the bi-cultural individual had more options and less constraints in his article, "The 150% man: a product of Blackfoot acculturation,"
American Anthropologist 70 (1968): 1096-1107; historian J. Frederick Fausz took the opposite view, depicting these individuals as "marginal men" in his article, "'Middlemen in peace and war': Virginia's earliest Indian interpreters, 1608-1632," published in the
Journal of American History 75 (June 1988): 41-64.Anthropologist James A. Clifton quickly counter-attacked, debunking the "older popular stereotype" that "culturally marginalized people became psychologically diminished," and arguing instead that as masters of two (or more) cultures, interpreters actually became "culturally enlarged."See the introduction to his
Being and Becoming Indian: Biographical Studies of North American Frontiers (Chicago: Dorsey Press, 1989), 28-29.Other historians have chosen – much like their "cultural broker" subjects – to straddle the fence between the warring camps, rather than take one side over the other.See, for example, Nancy L. Hagedorn and Alan Taylor's characterization of a Stockbridge Mohican mediator, respectively published as "'A friend to go between them'": the interpreter as cultural broker during Anglo-Iroquois councils, 1740-1770,"
Ethnohistory 35 (Winter 1988) and "Captain Hendrick Aupaumut: the dilemmas of an intercultural broker,"
Ethnohistory 43:3 (Summer 1996).