ProfWeek8

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

http://crookedtimber.org/2006/05/23/incarceration-rates/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prisoner_population_rate_UN_HDR_2007_2008.PNG

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/RACIAL/RacialDisparities.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_caused_by_ISAF_and_US_Forces-_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

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

http://ran.org/content/rainforest-action-network-and-amazon-watch-statement-ecuador-court-ruling-against-chevron

During the first (or second?) day of class, you asked us to respond to a brief survey about ourselves. One of the questions involved our religious beliefs, and the results were surprising: many of the students in the class are Catholic. Considering the percentage of Catholics in the world relative to other religions, the results make little sense. The concentration of Catholicism in the US is greater than in most other countries, yet still not enough to explain the ratio in our own class. Are Catholics drawn to the more conservative and 'stable' engineering field? Of course, the sample size of our class is rather small, so a judgement such as that would be unfounded. However, is there something about cultural anthropology that intrigues Catholic people? If so, why?

I found an interesting picture that goes along well with what we discussed last class. http://imgur.com/gallery/r7F2d

During the film, it seemed like the natives were enjoying all the attention they were getting while having their picture taken. Do you think they were doing so because they were getting attention or thought they would receive some form of fame? As proved by buying cars and other un-essentials with the money they received instead of putting it back into the community.

In Geoffrey O’Connor’s documentary of indigenous people in Brazilian Amazon, he shows the consequences of remote Indian societies coming into contact with our civilization. The invasion of miners in the land of the Yanomami during the gold rush severely affected their food supply. They polluted the water so fish were dying and animals were harder to hunt because they were being frightened away by planes and other vehicles. The Indians were left with their only option, to beg for food. This is a very dramatic situation of the influences people outside their communities have on their lifestyles. I wonder what changes, if any, are brought upon the subjects of study when anthropologist go and live with them for their field study. Even if precautions are taken to be as invisible as possible and careful not to disturb their society, sometimes things slip and the next thing you know you caused an uprising. What do you do then? === The movie on Monday about the Kayapo tribe in Brazil encouraged me to research about their current situation. I initially expected that the high popularity of President Lula would be a reflection of his effort to protect the Indian population in Brazil. However, I found that not much has been achieved after many years of protests. Last year on May 21st, a group of Kayapo people led by Chief Megaron Txukarramãe blockaded the Xingu River in criticism of plans to build the massive Belo Monte Dam. With little doubt the constructions plans from the government could represent the end for many of these tribes. One could argue that thousands of natives would lose their lives at the hand of the government. I then remember what is happening to poor Gaddafi in Libya. He also plans to kill thousands of his people, the only difference is that he uses guns and no hydroelectric plants. To his demise the UN decides to bomb his bottom while Obama goes to Brazil to play soccer with children. Why does our perception of genocide mostly involves guns and no other means?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084 http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/22/news/la-heb-diarrhea-deaths-un-20110322

It is mentioned, several times, that there things that the English language does not have a word for (such as barrels being filled with gas fumes). My question is, why don't we just invent words for them? Language is always evolving so what is preventing us from changing things?

On page 194, the book mentions that Euro-American culture values eye-contact in conversations. I've also heard the phrase "the eyes are the window to the soul" uttered by more than one person. Staring deeply into someone's eyes is considered to be romantic. I even found several links about eye quotes, such as these:

http://www.midnightangel308.com/eye_quote.htm

http://thinkexist.com/quotations/eyes/

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/eyes.html

Why are we as a culture so fixated on eyes? They're just another facial feature, but we place so much symbolic importance in them. Are there examples of other cultures being similarly fixated on particular body parts?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15625720/ns/technology_and_science-science/ http://www.santiagosr.com/ensayos/eye_gaze http://www.eidactics.com/Downloads/Refs-Methods/KobayashiH-2001-Extern-primate-eye-morphology.pdf

Why is it so difficult to describe spatial phenomena? I was recently reading about synesthesia and it was cited that those people experiencing seeing/feeling objects in conjunction with another sense were the most difficult to analyze. The scientists said this was because of the subjective nature of viewing and describing objects.

Also, it seems like languages emphasize time, space [as a dimension outside of the body], and relationships among things [obviously with different ideas about time continuum and what an "object" is comprised of]. But why is it so difficult to understand objects and shapes that do not adhere to pure geometrical form? In addition, it is amazing that we can create things so far beyond our individual mental capacities - we have created the internet, but we don't know or can't point out "where" it exists - and yet we describe it as though it takes up space. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.000521?journalCode=anthro

As stated in the book, the Pirahã of Brazil have no words in their language to describe colors. This reminded me of the book The Giver by Lois Lowry. In this book, there is no such thing as color, but the main character develops the ability to see it as the story goes on and does not know what to think of the idea of color. Both instances made me think about what it would be like to not have a defined way to describe something like color. It's impossible to know if others are seeing the same thing as us. How was language developed to do such a thing, or describe senses in general? And how can these ideas be translated? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_colapinto http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003125.html

http://neuroanthropology.net/2008/04/27/a-softer-neo-whorfianism/

When translating from one language to another, usually, if there is no direct translation, one would find rough equivalent of a word. In the example of the French word Œdistingue‚ in „The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis", there are many different uses which English users would not use its comparable word: distinguished (Thomson 85). Other situations of use caused the definition to expand to Œsuitable‚ and Œin keeping with polite standards‚. If there are many different ways in which the word is used, and not all uses are understandable for the equivalent word, how does one know when the definition of a translated word in a new language covers all aspects of the word? Does someone who is fluent in both try to state all of its possible uses? What happens in the case of dead languages or when only limited writings exist, how is a definition of a word determined to be „true‰?

http://www.culturalsurvival.org/programs/elc/program

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070918-languages-extinct.html