ProfWeek1

media type="youtube" key="ucAsLa61mV8" height="315" width="420" media type="youtube" key="T3E9Wjbq44E" height="315" width="560"media type="youtube" key="pXxwxEb3akc" height="315" width="560"media type="youtube" key="ggVbzqmBvp8" height="315" width="560"media type="youtube" key="6yCIDkFI7ew" height="315" width="560"media type="youtube" key="03YUgHAshSo" height="315" width="420"media type="youtube" key="29UMACdfyZw" height="315" width="560"media type="youtube" key="Xd8tOAJMA8Q" height="315" width="560"media type="youtube" key="8AEU5pBxY6E" height="315" width="420"media type="youtube" key="ThKNt-GY1ww" height="315" width="420"media type="youtube" key="RzhAS_GnJIc" height="315" width="560"media type="youtube" key="6SkT6vflu3M" height="315" width="560"media type="youtube" key="Ee_uujKuJMI" height="315" width="420"

As I was reading "Escape for the Zombie Food Court", the author talks about the lose of individualism, the conditioning of Americans through corporate America by them defining "necessities" and how we are corrupted by technology. That to break out of this imprisonment, we must in a sense like a simple life or provide service to other. My question is whether this is actually feasible possible for Americans to escape or want to escape on a large scale? In my opinion I feel like that the idea of escaping the so called comfort that has been established and we have been submersed in for so long would be too hard for Americans. Americans have become so lazy and have been conditioned to this environment that they will not want to leave it. In general, Americans have become so accustomed to this lifestyle that they would view this change as radical and crazy.

Here’s my question for this week: In Joe Bageant’s “Escape from the Zombie Food Court” he writes “ You will not do a single thing today, tomorrow or the next day that you have not been generally indoctrinated and deeply conditioned to do -- mostly along class lines.” As he continues to point out, much of what we do is a undisputedly a result of the society we live in and its influences through media and other tools. That being said, isn’t it possible, though rare, to deviate from the “norm” and do something that hasn’t been conditioned?

While reading the article "Body Ritual Among the Nacirema" it struck me <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">that throughout all of the body rituals and different rites, especially <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">the more torturous ones, that they didn't do them in worship of any <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">particular god or set of gods. Is this common among cultures that are <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">more magic-ridden or another unique trait of the Nacirema? <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">=== code My question is relating to the Nacirema reading.

How do such strong cultural beliefs and rituals develop, to the point where performing them is a hindrance to the existing members of the culture and also to their procreation? Can such strong beliefs lead some cultures to vanish and if there are any documented cases of this? === code <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">In reading "Body Ritual Among the Nacirema", I was struck by the concept of what constitutes being "healthy". When Miner wrote about the "mouth rites" in paragraph ten, he stated that, "this rite involves a practice which strikes the uninitiated stranger as revolting". When we look to find parallels in mainstream American culture, the first obvious connection would be the semi-annual "rite" of going to the dentist that a large portion of Americans deem necessary and socially acceptable. What is so different from Americans feeling the need to get routine medical care (although usually done with much complaining in a dramatic fashion), and the Nacirema using tradition to achieve a state of health? The American tradition of having to go to the dentist is more about psychologically satisfying that need to know that everything is alright and that one is actively doing something to ensure ongoing health. Although the Nacirema may not have a western scientific basis for their traditions and how they lead to good health, they are, in essence, doing the same thing but engaging in repetitive activity that at the least leaves them feeling like they are trying to reach a healthy state. Then the question is raised, how does a society define health? Is it about prolonging the inevitable pain and death, or is it about actually feeling good? The United States is largely stuck in a medical cycle of not treating injury and disease until the original issue is exasperated. Can we argue that the Nacirema are in fact, quite advanced in the sense that they incorporate holistic health-promoting ritual into their everyday lives, even if their rituals may not lead to any physical benefits other than those precipitated by the mental well-being achieved by engaging in medical ritual? <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">=== <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I have realized while reading the article on the Nacirema tribe of North <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">America that Nacirema is American spelled backwards and the article is in <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">fact a social criticism or satire of American culture. Is the article meant <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">to trick American readers into being appalled by the "primitive" customs of <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">the society, and then show them how someones' perception and uncommon words <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">can actually force the reader to perceive a culture differently than how they <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">normally think? ===

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I was most interested this week by the first article, "Body Ritual among <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">the Nacirema" by Horace Miner this week, although I found Joe Bageant to <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">have a very entertaining style of writing.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">It was interesting to see someone take American culture from an outside <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">view, describing it as if they had just happened upon a savage tribe. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I understood most of the references to doctors, dentists, pharmacists, <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">the medicine cabinet and bathroom. I didn't quite understand this reference:

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">"Most houses are of wattle and daub construction, but the shrine rooms of <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">the more wealthy are walled with stone. Poorer families imitate the rich <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">by applying pottery plaques to their shrine walls"

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">The shrine rooms are, I believe, the bathrooms, and I understood the <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">wattle and daub and stone construction, but what does it mean by pottery <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">plaques? <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">=== <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Why would a people see a place as a house of healing when they openly <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">acknowledge the fact that people "go there to die"?

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Cambria,serif;">I was reading the articles with the weekly question in mind and after reading “Body Ritual Among the Nacierma” I began to wonder what it takes to make a culture sustainable? That is- is there something that allows for cultures to thrive over a number of years? I wondered this because it seems as if the rituals that the Nacierma tribe preforms are so “sadistic” and torturous that people would eventually stop subjecting their bodies to such pain and instead begin to focus on other traditions that don’t involve as much physical pain.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Cambria,serif;">I also had another question that is not based off of the readings but I was curious about it: Is it possible for an anthropologist analyze its own culture without being subjective? <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Cambria,serif;">===

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Something I noticed when we were trying to understand the meaning behind <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">the, "Dog Days are Over," video is that we could only make parallels to <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">what we ourselves have experienced in trying to assign a meaning to the <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">video. How do cultural anthropologists prevent their own experiences from <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">misleading their understanding of other cultures? <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">===

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">In Joe Bageant's article, Joe makes a lot of conclusions based on what he observed. For example, he described the American Hologram in which Americans will like "bright and shiny things" and throw away old things. Although I do see that in our culture, I question what is the process that led him to this conclusion, and others. How did he come to these conclusions? Did he talk to and interview Americans? Where is the data? From their perspective will Americans agree with what he concluded? I think there is a danger when one just observes and makes assumptions based on his or her own social constructions and metal modes without consulting the source.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Overall, in Anthropology is it better to get data from the mouths of the primary source (those being studied) or from a secondary one (via just observation) before making conclusions?

media type="youtube" key="f22VsAlOwbc" height="315" width="560"media type="youtube" key="vgCDuuj6ksI" height="315" width="560" media type="youtube" key="N-sBtFJMNrA" height="315" width="560"media type="youtube" key="df9BlSbYiKY" height="315" width="560" media type="youtube" key="qAt3zhOjdtk" height="315" width="560" media type="youtube" key="8heZc_dB8NM" height="315" width="560"