ProfWeek13

http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/2011/04/19/two-cups-short-of-a-full-service/
 * //I don’t think cynicism is the issue. The thing we all really need is a sharper understanding of the development industry and a wiser appreciation of how our own desires for sweeping messianic transformations are as much of a target market as any other consumer demand. I don’t know that we can blame people like Mortenson for giving us what many of us want. Nor should we be surprised when people like Mortenson raise millions of dollars before anyone thinks to ask skeptical questions either about the concrete organizational principles involved or about the accounting. Well-meaning, smart young people all around the world who get involved in philanthropy, NGOs, community service, development work and the like frequently find that good intentions, passion, and a dollop of appropriately couched ideological genuflection to the audience for a given pitch are the equivalent of picking up the “Pass Go and Collect $200″ card. There’s little incentive to spell out plausible limits, models of organizational sustainability, or to downplay the potential positive impact of a project. Often it’s the opposite: the more messianic the rhetoric, the more likely the pitch is to succeed.//

For a collection of links on the Three Cups of Tea scandal, see http://goodintents.org/aid-debates/3-cups-of-tea

The Last Days of Shishmaref: http://www.thelastdaysofshishmaref.com/shishmaref3/cms/cms_module/index.php

Time/Money = Change (video on Sudan) http://vimeo.com/895502

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell

In the reading, there was a quote, “The British policy was ‘divide and conquer’. But I say ‘unite and conquer’.” Ironic how the British had this policy, but we live by a house divided against itself can’t stand. This isn’t a question, so I’ll ask one. Why did Rick James grind his dirty shoes on Eddie Murphy’s couch?

media type="youtube" key="V1dBstAIYtQ?fs=1" height="390" width="640"

How/ why are people given a label that is different from what they call themselves? In "The Last Days of the Shishmaref" book, it says these people call themselves the Inupiaq, the name "Shishmaref" comes from a Russian explorer of the Baltic, "Gleb Semenovich Shishmarev". This is a common situation throughout the world, and I've always wondered - why? http://www.hanksville.org/storytellers/pewe/writing/Rename.html http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/name.html

After watching the video by Brooks on South Sudan one discovers why most of the world is engaged on a deep dislike for American's international policies. It is of no surprise that our current economic system is unstable, any little disturbance could sent us back to an economic depression (hopefully, most of the people have realize this by now). It seems that in our search for stability we go around the globe looking for capital that could prevent us from falling into chaos, however, while engaged on this search we destabilize other nations and at the end this cycle continues because our need for more capital does not stop. This being said, how are we different from the Yanomami in terms of aggression?



In Chapter 13, it says that peoples cultural heritage can be a path toward improved welfare, but it’s a double edged sword. Promoting cultural tourism can protect culture but it can also lead to damage and destruction. We saw this in the film “Women’s Kingdom” but my question is, how does it pertain to other cultures? Does this always happen? Which happens more so, destruction or protection of culture?

It seems from reading the development chapter that the definition of development is extremely biased by western standards. I agree that technological advances are key to development as well as increasing social organization, but isn't pushing aside primitive cultures and their traditions until they are lost a step back in development? Since development is a building process, doesn't it require a foundation formed from human history, and by taking away cultures from the the foundation aren't the pillars for which development stands on crumbling?

In "Books vs Bombs", Ali discusses the problems of generalizing a group of traits beyond the people that were actually studied. He says that the book Three Cups of Tea causes a stereotyping of how destructive the "poor Muslims" can be to the U.S. and that these people are uneducated therefore easily influenced. Ali states that the problem with this idea is that it denies people agency. No matter what ethnography is written on any group, isn't there some form of agency being taken away? In order for an ethnography to be written such that it is not the life story of each individual in a society, don't there have to be some assumptions made about the group as a whole? I was confused about what Ali was stating was the ideal group size to study and report on in an ethnography in order for it to still be credible for most if not all of those included. http://www.amazon.com/Nisa-Life-Words-Kung-Woman/dp/0674004329

On page 286, Barbara Miller talks about the importance of cultural fit when planning a development project. Nonfits such as promoting increased milk consumption in an area where the local people are lactose intolerant, requiring a person's signature when people don't know how to write, or requiring photo identification from Muslim women (who are not permitted to show their faces in public) are mentioned. I was reminded of the Lila Abu-Lughod article we read earlier in the semester, which warned about the danger of pitying people in other cultures because this leads to an assumption that our way of life is better than theirs and also inhibits progress that can be made by local people. These development projects seem to be influenced by that same pity that Abu-Lughod warned about. While some of the goals may be in the interest of the citizens of the area, it seems to me that most of these development projects are designed and implemented by people that are not involved with the culture being affected. Do these projects really help the lives of people or is this forced development more detrimental than beneficial?