ProfWeek7

The president of Liberia before Charles Taylor was Samuel Doe. At the appropriately named "Iconic Photos" website, you can find a (warning!) brief description and [|very graphic photograph of his end.] [|Charles Taylor] himself is likely to fare better. -- The Professor

While watching the film Iron Ladies of Liberia by D.Junge and S.Scott, I remembered listening to Ms. Scott complaining about how Liberians choose to listen to empty promises rather than accepting reality and promoting hard policies that would allow the mitigation of social and economical problems. I also remembered listening to the workers at Firestone complaining that they were offered by the previous government a high increase on salary, obviously there was a big disappointment when it failed to come through. My question is simple, how are we different from Liberians. Few years ago, we lived on denial of an economic crises and chose to ignore serious problems. A simple check from the stimulus plan ranging from $500 to $1000 bought us a false peace of mind. After two years under this new presidency we are once again turning back to the same people that started the whole mess. === On page 176, it states that in societies where spirits and ancestors define wrongdoing and punishment, guilt may be determined through trial by ordeal, a way of judging guilt or innocence in which the accused person is put through a test that is often painful. An accused person may be required to place his or her hand in boiling oil, for example, or have a part of his or her body touched by a red-hot knife. Being burned is a sign of guilt, whereas not being burned means the suspect is innocent. So, that means under normal condition, all suspects will be proven guilty! Is there any case showed that people didn‚t get hurt after such tests? Is there any group of people still practicing this kind of trial? http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/05/manning/index.html

While writing my annotation on "The Women's Kingdom" I started to question why humans cannot have better perspective for other cultures. As the smartest animals it would seem that humans would possess a greater mutual acceptance for there fellow man. What about our nature seems to inhibit us from being more accepting and understanding or difference?

While reading about the caste system of India, I began to wonder why a religion like Hinduism supported such a system. One of Hinduism's main beliefs is that of karma, the idea that treating others with respect will allow one to have a better next life when they reincarnate. How can a religion that is based on treating others with kindness support a system that degrades certain people and results in discrimination and wrongful treatment?

The question I have does not so much pertain to the reading we have done but it is one that has been plaguing me for a while. Where is the cut off time for when a culture goes from being under Cultural Anthropology to that of Archeology? Some of the studies used for reference in this course are what some would consider out dated (Mead or Malinowski) yet they are considered fairly current. Does it require the culture to no longer be in practice? Can such a thing ever truly be achieved?

My question this week pertains to the Yanomami discussion on pg.s 178-179 in Chapter 8. Something I found confusing was Chagnon's explanation of the violent raids conducted on other villages. He said that one reason raids are conducted is to steal wives, and that wives from another group are necessary due to the practice of female infanticide. This made me wonder; what is it that catalyzes cultural practices such as infanticide? Since Yanomami men prefer to marry within their village, I would have thought the practice would have died out since it causes population problems. If there's a shortage of women in your village, why would you kill possible wives for future generations? Do you have any insight into this conundrum? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FkiXu-7MuM http://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/yanomami http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=14&ved=0CF4QFjAN&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.143.4339%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=yanomami%20culture&ei=LK94TcCzOonCsAOPzuH8Ag&usg=AFQjCNE-1kyDdSp8Zr2DWEOKIRAmxeaqQw&cad=rja

What was so bad about the Kurds that they were outlawed and faced such repression? They were a nomadic culture at one point that was introduced to British nationalism in the early 20th century and just want a place to call their own. Are they rejected because they don’t speak the nations language or because they want to set up their own civilization inside other nations? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/feb99/kurdprofile.htm

In Chapter 8, Miller talks about the difference between norms and laws as forms of social control. She says that a norm is an unwritten accepted standard and that a law is a binding rule that is enforceable by punishment many times developed through religion. Why is it that norms not listed as having basis in religion as well? I know that not everyone is Christian, but "follow their parents' advice" sounds a lot like "honor thy father and mother". Also why aren't laws considered to be based on the norms of society? Many times laws are expected rules just written in a formalized way.

Give the new technological climate, what will the social ramifications of things such as "facebook" be? Seeing as we tend to take-in our experiences with technology as new modes of living/ "seeing the world", what what happens when even as a child you grow up, mentally connected to this electronic social web? What would happen if facebook shut down for a week, a month, a year, or more? I think our whole understanding of our "place" in society would be completely skewed.

Throughout chapter 8, it is quite clear that political anthropologists study all types of political and social systems. After studying these systems, it is inevitable that the anthropologists will develop personal preferences and opinions on which systems work best. The chapter also discussed influence, and that anyone can do so. Is it ethical for political anthropologists to influence a culture when they see a negative change occurring? Are anthropologists morally obliged to step in and change the course of history?

Language and the history of languages have been constant areas of study in the field of Anthropology. Many languages have died while others have arrived from their ashes. Languages seem to evolve and branch out over time creating an seemingly infinite array of possibilities for future generations. In the past there have been several attempts to create a universal language (most notably Esperanto). Why have these attempts failed? Do people simply not wish to be able to communicate with everyone else in the world or is there a cultural sense of pride in having one's own language that differentiates humans from one another? If so this is in fact contrary to Joe Bageant's article "Escape from the Zobmie Food Court" as in this aspect people are indeed unique and individual in the matter with which they communicate.

Additionally, would you consider programming languages (C++, phython etc.) to be universal languages of communication since all programmers across the world use the same languages?