ProfWeek3

My question relates back to the movie we watched in class, "Darwin's Nightmare". I was wondering why exactly was the woman hanging the fish skeletons on racks and why couldn't she talk about it? Also I was wondering about the what the little boys on the street were inhaling. They said that when the fish was boiled the gas was used as a drug to put the kids asleep. If this is so dangerous then how did the kids get a hold of it, especially if they are street kids who can't even afford to buy the fish remains?

So after reading about race and children's shopping in new haven, I was wondering as to how our society got to be this way. I know that the book stated that those who were able to go to college made money and were able to put their kids in college and buy their kids cars and down payments on homes and etc. But isn't our government suppose to be for the people? If the majority of our people are living in poverty, why aren't there more ways to help the people living in poverty? https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

The end of the chapter mentions that most societies have come to accept and embrace modern technologies (steel machetes, axes etc.) but there have exceptions in the past. Can we see specific examples of these "exceptions" that have shunned such technology? (Amish?) Additionally, how many exceptions must there be before the "rule" is considered broken?

In your powerpoint presentation during last class, you mentioned that women in India wear white to signify purity, cleanliness and that they were sexually inactive until marriage. But the thing is, they could always lie. Even if they were sexually active, why would they not wear white anyways? Why would they shamefully choose to display their status on such a private matter?

Annette Weiner brings a very different perspective than the Margaret Mead video we watched. As she says, they both "sift" and present their own interpretations of the information, much like the anthropologists she describes. How much does one's own perspective come into play in anthropology and is it even possible to have a perfectly objective analysis of another culture, given one's own biases towards his or her own culture and political leanings?

Taken from American Anthropologist by Annette B. Weiner, "Ethnographic Determinism: Samoa and the Margaret Mead Controversy":

"Both Malowinski and Mead saw that behavior and values surrounding the most fundamental human relationships they studied in the field differed dramatically from the morals and values of their own societies." [p. 917]

It is apparent that different cultures have a variety of ways of adapting to situations, and that traditions also vary widely across the world. But how about emotions? Are there any known societies that do not express, or seem to express certain emotions? Or, even stranger, is there or could there be additional emotions/ feelings that we do not have access to in our daily lives, but that other people have naturally learned to understand? http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_TheExpressionoftheEmotions.html http://www.paulekman.com/

On page 62 in 'Critical Thinking' it brings up the somewhat obscure idea that agriculture was an advancement that humanity could have done without. While I can see where they're comimg from I can hardly help wonder what these same people consider a needed advancement? Many modern advancements would have been impossible if agriculture had never been invented, and I don't just mean art. Electricity would never had been created. I wonder how these supporters would feel about that, if that is a good thing or not?

As I was reading the textbook this week, it talked a lot about different modes of livelihood. The one that stood out the most to me was pastoralism. I began to read more in depth about the culture of the Saami. I found out that they still participate in this practice and have been running into problems left and right. I was wondering how has mobile pastoralism survived for so long and how is it useful in today's society? With domesticated animals kept on ranches raised as livestock or even just for sale, there seems to be no benefit to constantly moving about to raise these animals. It seems as though the mobility would become more costly and time consuming, as well as have less livestock to sell. Also with all of the new environmental problems that exist, wouldn't it just be easier to stay in one place than to leave the herding up to chance?

I was particularly interested in the economic model of foraging because unlike how the chapter describes it as a dead art, i find that it is alive and thriving just in a different ecological climate than we naturally equate to foraging. Now a days, you are most likely to find foragers digging through trash heaps, salvation army, and craigslist.

I run an organization in troy called the troy bike rescue, an organization focused on the empowerment of bicycle culture in the capital district, as well as focusing on the general education and re-skilling of the community to give them power over their means of transportation. Everything at TBR is foraged, from one source or another with extremely minimal economic investment. The entire shop runs on strictly a "donation only" model and no services or items are weighed in value by typical currency, everything is viewed by what one has to offer in trade or what one things something is worth, free to make their own choice. Although this slightly spins off topic, i think it is a good example of how the foraging community is in some ways growing... faced with massive junk heaps of usable resources and perfectly good food. We have at this point probably over 500 bicycles we have not paid a dime for, and on average about 5-10 of them get built and taken out of our shop a week with no currency exchange.

in particular, the save-a-lot on hoosick has a great dumpster that gets filled every sunday night pre packaged vegetables/bread all for free. We are now living in a world dominated by waste and over abundance, rather than the death of foraging i see that the crucial skill of foraging will become an ever present necessity as this cultures lack of sustainability finally topples everything over (not like it hasn't already started too).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumpster_diving

On page 65 of the textbook, it states that: "consumption patterns are often marked by gender and related to discrimination and inequality. Specific foods may be considered 'men's food' or 'women's food.'" The book then goes on to give an example from Papua New Guinea; however, my question is, does this statement apply in the 'western world' today in the modern day? And if yes, how so?

After reading the first 3 chapters of the cultural anthropology text book, the articles, and watching the Margret Mead video, it seems that all the examples and sample cultures that anthropologists study are primitive and come mostly from the third world. How can one fully understand culture when the majority of anthropological studies ignore modern societies? It seems that humans, as Prof. Fortun stated a few classes ago, need to be doing something different and forget to study the society that we ourselves live in.

[]

[]

media type="youtube" key="ucAsLa61mV8?fs=1" height="385" width="480" From my own experiences of complete immersion in another culture, the first three days are more exciting than scary. However, the 3rd and 4th days are often the most difficult, because one's body is running almost entirely on food consumed in the new culture, and natural homesickness sets in. A different language is also frustrating because of difficulty of communication. The issues associated with culture shock are prevalent even between very similar cultures. Why is it that humans get so emotionally distraught over language barriers when body language is used just as easily?

In Chapter 3, page73, I learned that potlatching(a family or hereditary leader hosts guests in their family's house and holds a feast for their guests) was banned by the government. I don't understand what was the purpose of the government in banning this activity, and why did they have the right to ban a cultural practice that did no harm to others? The government claimed that this practice was wasteful and excessive, but I think the native people have their right to decide what they want to do with their own wealth. It is just same as if I have a lot of money, I want to give some of the money to my friends, why couldn't I do that? That is my money. Why would such activity become illegal? media type="youtube" key="N_gYjQw9Bf4?fs=1" height="385" width="480" media type="youtube" key="tpXNS-ZnKoQ?fs=1" height="385" width="480" media type="youtube" key="9JVJ76FVVxY?fs=1" height="385" width="480" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch

"The insight and validity of an ethnographic study depend on how perceptively the weighing and the sifting are done. " (913) Weiner uses this to say that Freeman has not accepted that Samoans from different islands have different cultures, that he has not considered all of the possibilities before writing his refutation. What did Mead do to say that there was a difference in Samoan cultures? Since the two points of view on Samoan culture greatly differ, who is to say that one is more right than the other? Or if Weiner is just saying that Freeman did not go about writing his ethnography correctly, shouldn't she also accept the possibility that Mead may not have done all the research she could have and that her book may have been written based on lies?

Margaret Mead http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/mead/mead-over.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/08/science/a-new-look-at-old-data-may-discredit-a-theory-on-race.html?scp=1&sq=nicholas%20wade%20new%20look%20at%20old%20data&st=cse http://www.gravlee.org/research/boas/ Franz Boas

media type="youtube" key="GOvFDioPrMM" height="385" width="480" Is it common now to do fieldwork like Mead did for graduation in anthropology? How has the field work changed since then?

media type="youtube" key="f22VsAlOwbc?fs=1" height="385" width="640" media type="youtube" key="vgCDuuj6ksI?fs=1" height="385" width="640" media type="youtube" key="XXLe-IvDk3M?fs=1" height="385" width="480" media type="youtube" key="df9BlSbYiKY?fs=1" height="385" width="640"

media type="youtube" key="DzVoyfqBCBs?fs=1" height="385" width="480" media type="youtube" key="8heZc_dB8NM?fs=1" height="385" width="480"