Final Essay Questions

Essays (10 points each, Answer 7 Questions)

1) In what ways does magical thinking persist in contemporary America? Is it likely to persist into the future? How does it exist in American Sports? Please reference classroom discussions and at least one course reading.

2) In the essay “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight”, Clifford Geertz tries to read Balinese ritual and actions like a text in order to decode the symbols in their society. Leni Reifenstahl, the director of the film “Triumph of the Will”, argued throughout her life that this film was not a Nazi propaganda film, but a documentary. How might a symbolic anthropologist, like Geertz, approach the question of whether this film was a form of Nazi propaganda or a documentary? That is, what do the scenes, colors, and images in the film tell you? If an anthropologist were to read “Triumph of the Will” like a text, what might the images symbolize or say to the anthropologist?

3) What is a revitalization movement? Explain how and why they come into existence. Give an example of at least one revitalization movement and explain why it should be categorized so.

4) What is globalization? Is it something new? Is there anything unique about globalization today? For instance, is culture becoming homogenized? If so, then how? Is it becoming more heterogeneous? If so, then how?

5) Discuss the Trobriand interpretation of cricket? Explain how the game changed Trobriand society. How is this form of cricket different from the cricket played by the British?

6) Discus the case of the Gypsy offender. How do Gypsy’s tend to think of identity? Does this conflict of the way that identity is typically constructed in the U.S.? How much of the law committed by the young offender is due to cross-cultural differences according to the anthropologist who wrote the article?

7) Explain the phenomenon of ghost possession in Hindu village belief as discussed by Ruth and Stanley Freed in “Taraka’s Ghost.” What were the conditions that made ghost possession possible in the article? Do religious/supernatural ideas link with other social institutions in the article? Why is Sita a prime candidate for ghost possession?








8) Explain the role of the Shaman in Yanomamo society? What is the role of the shaman in Yanomamo society? Might you compare it to anyone in our own society? What does this film have to do with reciprocity? Is something give? Received? Given back? If so, then what is its significance? What was the function of this act of war? Did it accomplish anything?

9) What are the myths about the sex industry in the Dominican Republic town of Sosúa according to Denis Brennan? What draws women to the town to act as sex workers? How do European men find out about the sex trade in this town? What do the sex workers tend to believe that European clients can do for them? What is the usual outcome of sexual relations with European clients?


10) In the article discussing the Kayapo resistance. Who are the Fourth World Peoples? What is the Kayapo relationship with their natural environment? How do they subsist in the Amazon? What forces threaten their livelihood and social existence as a distinct cultural group?

I think the first time you rent out an apartment is a pretty big rite of passage. Having your own spit of property to call your own, at least till the lease expires, is a pretty momentous occasion. Its probably the first time you'll have everything up to you, sole responsibility to pay all the bills on time, make the money, cook, clean, balance a diet, deal with setting up and paying utilities, having roommates, dealing with neighbors, landlords, and any mishaps that result. Trying to organize everything, sorting out chores, ensuring they get done, and distinguishing each others personal space are also key elements to managing living on your own. It can definitely be difficult from time to time to make ends meet and manage a good relationship with your roommate but once you've done it your confidence improves ten fold and you feel much more comfortable and ready to rent out future apartments, even progressing to possible home ownership. I believe its definitely a big step, especially when compared to European countries in which people our age usually still live with their parents, until they get married really, something that seems really bizarre to most of us in the U.S. who move out at age 18-20. People tend to have more respect for someone once they've shown they can live on their own and manage bills without the help of mommy and daddy, something most people gradually ascend to.

New Job

I believe that starting a new job is a rite of passage because it may change someone's lifestyle completely. The amount of sleep, what you eat, and times you are able to see your friends are just a few ways in which your life may alter once a new job is started. I know when I started my new job, my lifestyle changed with everything from the amount of homework I would get accomplished each day to the amount of time I was able to see my family. I was forced into redeveloping my schedule in order to accomplish and manage my life in a equal manor

Apartment passage

I think that getting an apartment has a rite of passage to it.  Moving from a dorm to an apartment is a big deal. Your parents move you in, and then the first stage is to be alone from your parents and your school community. You are separated from having all your friends right next door to you, and are alone in your building most likely. Then you have to learn how to pay bills and make your own food. You also have to clean more rooms and become self-sufficient. This is the liminal period. Then in the period of re aggregation, you become more independent and start having dinner parties and learning to live on your own and be alone. 

The assembly of a young Adult

Every year that leads up to your High School graduation is a rite of passage in itself. The three stages being very simple: Grade School, Middle School, then High School, the ultimate result ideally being adulthood. By the end of these three phases of school you are to be considered an adult and should be able to make decisions on your own, whether that may be to attend College, or to go straight into the work force. Whatever decision you make should be influenced by the rite of passage you have just completed and should be able to make an educated decision determining the rest of your life. For me this was my main rite of passage. Every phase preparing you for the next, progressively getting more difficult as you matured and grew into being more of an adult. The phases act somewhat as an assembly line, starting with the basics and growing more complex when more parts are added, to ultimately create a quality end product, which is ready to be released into the world. Some abuse this passage, and some take full advantage of it, which is all part of the process. In the end, the only goal is to create an educated adult, capable of making his or her own decisions in pursuing their ideal life.

the scouts

The scouts have played a large role in my life growing up.
Being in the scouts really was a right of passage. After completing the three steps, manhood is achieved; The first being Tiger Cubs, then Cub Scouts, and finally Boy Scouts. Tiger Cubs was an introduction program. This was set up for young children, (in kindergarten) to learn how to work together. This will be important for the future, Boy Scouts is not only about one's self, but about teamwork. After Tiger Cubs comes Cub Scouts. Cub Scouts meet once a week. Children learn how to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, curdius, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. Boyscouts was the ultimate test of patients. From 5th grade till 12th grade, this taught a child to become a man. Not only was the progress noticable physically, but also mentaly. Boy Scouts led up to the final rank; becoming an Eagle Scout. As an Eagle Scout, one is concidered a man.

Driven

One right of passage I think most to all young people go through is getting their drivers license. The first phase could be having to take drivers ED, so we can take the written test and hopefully pass. Once you do pass, you then get to do your behind the wheel with some old batty man or woman telling you how to drive. After all the practice and preparation you turn 16 and can take your drivers test. 

Now not everyone passes there drivers test on the first shot. Specking as someone who had to take the test twice I know the trauma that goes into taking the test but it is something everyone must do if they want to get there drivers license at the age of 16. But once you do pass it has to be one of the greatest feelings of your 16 year old life. You could wait till your 18 and just take the test then but that would mean waiting.......

way over there compared to right over here

i found the article comparing rituals and taboos of the fishermen in southeast asia to those of american baseball to be super interesting. The more i thought about it i found comparisons in my own life, like very time i play a show i have to change the strings on my guitar regardless of how many times its been used or when i played hockey i had a similar ritual of retaping the blade of my stick before each game. i can even think of instances of other people being this way. i have a close friend who tightens the straps on his bike pedals even if it appeared they were nearly too tight for him to get his foot in initially. The comparisons between a culture on the opposite side of the world and my goofy friend are uncanny even those in which i take part in.  

Posessions as a coping method

Sita, being posessed by a ghost, was able to manage her fears and apprehensions about sexual relations and child birth, as well as adapt to her new life in her husbands village. Sita had many traumatic experiences in her short fifteen years, the death of multiple siblings, and the violent murder, raping, and suicide of her fellow classmates as well as her cousin. These past events along with her fears and the stress of marriage and a new life allowed for Sita to be posessed by the ghost of her cousin Taraka. In north Indian culture, people who have died by murder or suicide are the most likely to become malevolent ghost, and also more likely to linger and haunt their families and villages. After the birth of her first child, Sita's possessions turned into fits and became less and less frequent, having been possessed allowed for Sita's workload to be lightened, extra support from her marital family, and permission to visit her retired father every summer. It seems that while Sita's possessions may have been real in her own mind, that they also allowed her certain benefits and acted as a coping method to adjust to her new life at such a young age. When the writers checked in with Sita many years later they found her to be a confident woman managing her family and her childrens education. Sita herself said that her fits only came about "whenever there is a fight in the family or I see a dead body". 

Ghost possession or psychological distress??

 Most people, at some time in their lives, have some sort of a midlife crisis. Other people have continued stress throughout their lives that they have to deal with. Different people find different ways of dealing with the stresses that present themselves. Sita is a prime candidate for ghost possession in her society because she has had many stressful things happen to her in her life. She had many friends and siblings that have died, and she was married into a family of higher status in society than herself. All of these things make her susceptible to ghost possession in their culture. Tarekas ghost possesses her because of her stress in her life, which could mean that the ghost possessions are only psychological. It seems from the reading that they happen only to gain something. Sita was possessed on the night that she was supposed to consummate with her husband, but it seems that the possession was a reflex of her brain as a way of handling with stress, because consummating was a stressful thing for Sita. Also, Sita was worried about her husband's family liking her, and the possessions are a way for his family to care for her so that she can feel their affection. I do not know if I really believe that the possessions are true, because since people believe that it happens, Sita can also make herself believe she is possessed as a coping device for her life. 

Gypsies: Hiding in America

2. How did the police interpret the lists of social security numbers and other evidence found in the young man’s apartment? How did their interpretation of this evidence differ from the Gypsy’s?
When the police found the lists of social security numbers, they immediately saw it as criminal activity. They considered the lists to be evidence of a “ring” of criminal activity, and that these numbers were being used for identity theft or fraud. This however, was not the case. Anne Sutherland wrote that in Gypsy culture, Gypsies tend to use the identities of family members and friends on purchases and in daily life as a way to keep them out of the non-Gypsy society. This is a common practice between Gypsies and has been for many centuries due to a large amount of prejudice against them. The defendant in this case did not intend on harming anyone or defrauding anyone by using their social security number, it is just common practice.

ice cream social security

3a. What is the argument advanced by cultural relativists for their position? Note: There is a quite specific and clearly defined answer here.


The term 'cultural relativists' was established by Franz Boez. This means that what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' is culture specific. Reading about the United States v. Sonny Nicholas, the Lawyer has to figure out how to support his client. The lawyer goes to an anthropologist for help understand the Gypsy culture. Gypsies are a lot different than you think they would be. They have a different belief system and a different way they opperate in general. I personally do not agree with everything they say for personal reasons. By taking somone elses private information, a social security number for example; they could cause pain for the victim. My mother had her social security number taken from her and she had to go through a lot of pain and suffering. The gypsies dont see why its wrong that they take other peoples information. In this chapter Sonny Nicholas took a social security number and payed off the car that he wanted. When he got in trouble he gave the car back. This may not seem unfair that he had to give the car back, but legally, he was a felon for taking this social security number.

I do not believe that he did the right thing by taking someone elses social security number. I know it was in his culture for him to use a false identity to avoid marime, but I dont think stealing should be right in any culture.

id first like to just respond to the article 'Life Without Chiefs.' The way the author goes about discussing the top at hand is clear and concise, without confusion, but what i found most interesting was the last section 'In the End,' here in the conclusion he turns the original idea of a big man on its head by reversing the big mans original intent from being selfless and helpful to conceded, wicked and presenting a caring side as a front to achieve his greater goal, full power. This said, i'd like to raise an idea, that the step from big man to chief was the worst of all the power transitions because it was a complete flip in the way things were conducted. Every power transition after, although allowing for greater control of the people, does not match this initial power shift. Not emperors, kings, prim-ministers, mayors or generals due to the unmatched changed of this entirely new way of group living. 

Secondly, i would also like to touch on the case of the gypsy offender. It was recently brought up in the federal courts ruling that a form a christianity which branched out of south america was allowed to drink the sap of a tree native to that region while practicing in the united states. the reason this went through the federal courts system is due to the fact that this sap has hallucinogenic powers. this case in mind, we are able to see how the courts can make rulings based on other cultural beliefs and allow things otherwise outlawed to stand. 

Anthropologists in everyday life

This is the first I have ever learned about gypsies. I've never honestly given the topic any thought, but having learned how they are constantly changing their names and identities definitely
surprised me. They are sticking to their culture in attempts to remain anonymous in America. Even though they stole other people's identity, they did not use it in a harmful way; they paid their bills on time, and didn't abuse their potential abilities to ruin other people's lives. From a situation such as this, a cultural anthropologist would come of good use on a police force in order to analyze similar situations of reasoning for a crime committed by someone who has strong beliefs, is dedicated to their religion, or people whom are just not fully aware of the laws they are breaking and see if it relates to their culture. I believe that having an anthropologist on the police force would help a great deal with creating conclusions for crimes that involve immigrants or culturally different people.

Question Number Three.

This case shows how important it is for there to be American anthropologists involved in everyday life. There are so many different cultures in the United States and when they get caught up in the court system it is great that they have the proper representation. Many people are unaware of the differences between themselves and other groups of people. For example, in a court a jury who is uneducated about the ways of a gypsy life might jump to the old stereotype that gypsies are law breaking criminal. However, when an anthropologist can show them the dynamics of the gypsy culture then the case would be judged more fairly.

Gypsy Misfortune and Being the Bigger Man

"The Case of the Gypsy Offender"
3.) It is quite apparent after reading this article the practicality and usage of anthropologists in similarly applicable every day situations. It is quite unfair and unreasonable to assume that everyone would think and act the same from across the globe. I understand their is some degree of necessity to law, however particularly in a country as diverse as our own a higher level of tolerance is required, as well as simple logic to understand that no two situations are the same. Obviously either method of going about it presents problems, but a higher degree of cultural understanding, something anthropologists can offer, would be highly beneficial and I believe necessary to truly make things just. Not implementing laws that have no room for gray scale, since everything is really a matter of ambiguity and not as simple as black or white.

"Life Without Chiefs"
1.) Harris basically explains the evolution of the headman to the big man, and then to the role of chief. We essentially started with this headman individual who gave the most and took the least, who then as a result of ego, feeling challenged by others (specifically males) who gave more at a muminai feast had to compete to give most and take least. This resulted in a competition for power of who was the bigger man. Once one could establish himself as a big man he has essentially raised himself to higher level than everyone else. In this position he had the largest surplus of food, the most wives, and eventually a monopoly of the resources. As he gained more and more he gave more too, building walls and moats to help and protect the people. After he died his son would inherit these things, establishing a sort of family bloodline predestined to rule. He had now become a chief thanks to the power and resources he had obtained and separated himself from his people and created a hierarchy. To some this makes logical sense for the evolution of humanity as a result of male ego, to others this seems tragic when juxtaposed with the present and how out of control its become, and to others it has happened necessarily due to population growth and diminishing resources, but that we will inevitably evolve beyond it.

Super Laywers

I would like to focus primarily on how we might be able to use anthropology in today's legal system; a link between cultures, which I feel, is becoming more and more necessary. Laws and rules are set in place for a reason, but than what is right to some obviously is not to others. How can we blanket out country with laws, which are set in stone for every person residing in our country's boarders? This relates greatly with giving the death penalty for mentally challenged individuals who have committed crimes which would lead to the same punishment outcomes had they been of reasonable mind. Rulings like this just don't work, people aren't the same and though our system would be blanketed instead of with black and white, with grey it would actually make our court system affective and not largely destructive as it is. If we could incorporate anthropology into the legal system in such a way that everyone could be spoken for by a representative who understood and respected their culture the scales might just begin to balance themselves. But instead we continue to have a majority of white male lawyers, and what happens? White males get away with heinous crimes where non-white males have a harder time because they are not being represented (commonly) by people who understand their lives on a more intimate level. Although when crimes from on culture affect another culture there is not as easy of an answer, but when we look at the case of S.N. I believe most of us would understand that he is innocent, especially since the car had been paid for and was even returned. If we understood and respected anthropology in the court system that whole debacle could have been avoided instead of making it worse. Food for thought at the very least, but I rather like the idea of super lawyers. - Bryan

Police and interpretitions

I think I see why the police thought the young gypsy was a thief. He had a lot of other people's social security numbers and identification cards. They just knew they had an identity thief in there clutches. If you look at it from an American view, identity thief i in America till this day is on the rise and with the ailing economy it seems the thing to do to some thieves. In the gypsy culture it is tradition to hide and use false identification for a cultural reasons. One to stay hidden from the persecution of Gypsies in Medieval Europe, two to survive the Holocaust and the early part of the 20Th century.

The American way of law considers these acts to be fraudulent. while the gypsies consider it a way of life and survival.

When I read I answer Questions

Reading Question: P.272 Cross Cultural Law
1.) The “crime: committed by the young Gypsy man was due to the cross-culture idea of establishing and using an identity through a number vs. having your identity only known by you and people close to you. In America every person is given a social security number to establish residence and identity. In Gypsy culture it is custom to keep your true name and identity a secret to the larger society. So the young Gypsy man was caught using a social security number that was not his, while trying to buy a car. He was then put on trail for intent to deceive. Which then lead to the clashing of two cultures at the hands of laws created by one culture.

Reading Question: P.292 Life with Out Chiefs
1.) A Headman, is a man, who is given all the food by the people that is gathered, then pools it together and then redistributing the food into portions back to the people. But also the Headman does his own hunting and gathering too. The Headman is known to work harder then any other person and receives the least amount of goods. Because they are giving greater amounts to their followers, in the end leaving less for themselves. Keeping redistribution to keep the economical and political stand of the people in the culture.
A Big Man came into view when a lot of Headman decided to compete on who produced the feast to the followers/people in the group. The Big man could almost be seen as the next level from the Headman. The Big Man still works very hard and sometimes goes hungry himself just to be abel to produce the largest gift of food.
The Chief would be the first on the scale of power, he now does not do any work in hunting and gathering food. He would have come to this status due to the fact his food supplies had become so great he no longer needed to worry about it. People would soon come to the Chief with questions and in need of help. The Chief would also take care of all the political issues and ties now. He would also live a finer and more grand life then others that followed him, by building bigger houses and wearing nicer things.

Cultural Relativism Questions

For this response, I want you to discuss one or more of the following questions. You can discuss questions with other people for your post, or you post, or respond to posts, more than one time in order to boost your grade.


Here are some of the questions that you could discuss. These questions are all drawn from your reading on cultural relativism.

1. What challenge does the case of Eskimo** behavior (or perhaps the behavior of the South American tribe that we watched in the film in class) present to the study of ethics?

**The correct term for Eskimos is Inuit.

2. What are the six elements in the article involved in the view of ethics called cultural relativism?

3a. What is the argument advanced by cultural relativists for their position? Note: There is a quite specific and clearly defined answer here.

3b. Is this argument persuasive? Why or why not?

5. The author asks us to assume that cultural relativism is true. He then sets out the negative consequences of holding such a view. What are the negative consequences that follow if these turn out to be true?

6. Why does focusing on values rather than customs undercut the cultural relativist?

7. The author argues that there are in fact certain values that every society must share? What are they and what reason does he give for claiming that all cultures must share them?

8. While the author ultimately rejects cultural relativism, what things does he think come out of the idea?

Class Tonight Cancelled

Good afternoon,

I just wanted to let everyone know that I’m having sort of a family emergency and I’m going to need to cancel class tonight. I’ve included a revised copy of the syllabus to an email I sent to your OASIS account so that you know what reading to do for class next week. That is, in the “Conformity and Conflict” book you should read:

Unit 7, “Law and Politics,” P. 260-264;

Chapter 24: “Cross-Cultural Law: The Case of the Gypsy Offender,” P. 265-273;

And

Chapter 26: “Life without Chiefs,” P. 284-293

On the blog, please respond to one of the questions that are listed at the end of each reading in the book.

I have graded everything of yours except the midterm. If any of you would like to pick up your grades, then you can stop by my office: Rm. 527, 600 S. Michigan Ave., but please call first: 312.369.7768.

Andre

One time...I went to church..

I was raised going to church every Sunday morning with my mom and my dad. That lasted until i was about eight years old, and my mother decided that she no longer was going to church, and if she didn't have to wake up at nine in the morning then i wasn't about to do it either. So, i stopped going as well. My father continued to attend our church every Sunday until i was in high school. Then, we all stopped going. However, since then, religion has been a topic of interest for me. I chose to have friends who were atheist, really religious, and nonsecular throughout my life after i stopped attending church. I think this was mainly to see where i fit in with the whole "God issue"-Do you believe in God or don't you? Today i feel like i know that i do not believe in an imaginary man in the sky, and i tend to go down the more scientific path. I went to church last Sunday though, and i found that even if the notion of coming from Adam and Eve is a bit far fetched for me i still gained a sense of inspiration and grounding and belonging from attending the service. Ironically enough, during the service we were talking about relationships. What it means to be single, married, or divorced. Marriage is such a big deal in the church community, because it is a commitment before god. It is a life time together, literally. It is not acceptable to have sex before marriage and so on, with rules and regulations about what goes on behind closed doors when it comes to church relationships. (mind you this is a large generalization from the service i attended and what i heard. it is, I'm sure, different from religion to religion.) anyways, I'm sitting there listening to this thinking that church people have immense self control, or at least they pretend to. Then, the next day i walk into anthropology class and I'm confronted with a cultural discussion of relationships and marriage, and I'm thinking, how bizarre, but i run with it. After listening and breaking down what a relationship was with the class, i leave and go visit with my friend who i went to church with, and we begin talking about the ideal relationship. How arranged marriages work, what doesn't work, and why people get divorced. We both came to the conclusion, mind you this is not scientific, and it is rather quite simplistic: if people can make arranged marriages work by whatever means necessary, then why is it that we cant willingly try and make relationships work that we have chosen? A friend of mine, who has been married and divorced said to me, that he believes he knows what didn't work about his first marriage and that he will, the next time around, be more willing to make the relationship work the second time around, because he is more aware of what he is looking for, and better understands how to make relationships work. I think he is lying to himself, but that's be going to back to science and statistics that say 85% of second marriages end in divorce. Maybe some people are "called" to be single, as the pastor said it in church, and maybe some of us are called to be married five times. However i would like to think that i am not called for marriage or divorce, but rather i live breathe and die happy knowing that i spent my life or portions of my life with people or a person that i loved, cared for, honored, and cherished...(or however those vows go) without having to put a ring on it like Beyonce or be bounded by god.

Midterm Essay Questions

Ten Points Each (Answer Six Questions) I want examples from the reading, class discussions, etc...

1) Explain the importance of language to group identity? Provide examples.

2) How do the Jesuit colonists portray Native Americans in the Jesuit Relations readings? How much do we learn about them from this reading? Do these accounts tell you more about the Native Americans or the Jesuit colonists?

3) What is the Kula ring? Why did Malinowski think that this practice was important? Did he find any rituals in his own culture that were analogous to the Kula ring practice?

4) In the article “The Hunters: Scarce Resources in the Kalahari”, the author assesses the day-to-day life of !Kung life. How does their day-to-day life as foragers compare with that held by many anthropologists in the 1960s. In a broader sense, how might the day-to-day life of such people differ from agriculturalists, or pastoralists?

5) What was the ecology of Easter Island when Polynesians first arrived on the island about A.D. 400? What did they eat? What changes happened to their environment? How did this affect their lives and does this apply to anything happening in the world today?

6) In the article “Reciprocity and the Power of Giving” and our discussions about gift giving, what do we mean by reciprocity? What is the social function of reciprocity? How can giving be used to intimidate other people or groups? Give examples from class, you own life, and the article.

7) Based on the article “Life Without Fathers or Husbands,” what is the basic domestic unit in Na society and what are its main social and economic functions? Describe the Na society. What are the culturally defined ways that Na men and women meet and set up assignations? Are there taboos and other restrictions on their sexual activity defined by their culture?


8) How does Laura Bohannan’s interpretation of “Shakespereae in the Bush,” fail in some ways? How does her story to the Tiv deomonstrate the concept of naïve realism? How does her story represent cross-cultural misunderstanding? What parts of Hamlet didn’t work for the Tiv?

As always let me know if you have questions!

Marriage for Love... not anymore

I see marriages more like a business venture. What can two people bring together to do better for their situations? Many marriages are prearranged in other countries and they seem to work out fine. That not to say all prearranged marriages work out, but they work and not off of love.

With the ailing economy, I’d rather have a business savvy wife, than a pregnant housewife, who doesn't contribute financially to keep debt in the house hold to a minimum.

m4rr14g5

I believe marriage is a great idea. It not only helps structure a good family system, but it also is the ultimate way to show you love for another individual. I think it depends on your backgrounds though if you decided to get married. If you are from a bad neighborhood with a very low marriage rate or if you have had a bad family life, it will either convince you to get married or to stay away from marriage. If you are an unmarried mother, you may be judged in society today. People may say that you are unfit to have a child, or even irresponsible. not being married is becoming more acceptable because it is becoming more common today.

Marriage...

To my own knowledge, marriage can be a wonderful and loving thing, or it can tear two people apart and completely change them into completely different people. Someone whom I have known my entire life went through a divorce. Going through the divorce was enough heartache in itself, but the aftermath was even worse.
She has a young daughter who just started kindergarten and cant be there when she leaves for school or even gets home from school. She barely gets to spend time with her; the only time is when she tucks her into bed. The someone I know works downtown and lives in the suburbs, so the commute to and from work can result in hours of traveling depending upon what kind of traffic the streets provide that day. In addition to her barely getting enough time to spend with her daughter, she only sees her every other weekend because of shared custody with her bastard of an ex-husband.
Now don't think that the little five year old girl wakes up in an empty house and comes home to an empty house everyday; she has two loving grandparents that take care of her while her mom is gone at work all day. But even so, the young girl starts fights with her mom because she never gets to spend time with her. If the someone I know did have a husband, perhaps she would have a constant father figure and a mother who could be with her a great deal more.
Her divorce was inevitable, I saw it from the beginning, but I'm not saying that the little girls life would be any better because of the someone I know and her bastard of an ex-husband fighting constantly. Being a single parent is incredibly hard to my own personal knowledge, and I hope and pray for the people whose lives suffer because of it.

Not so much

The question here is does anyone believe that marriage on the basis of love is our cultures tradition, false. To even state the question in such a way isolates others outside of what stereotypes have dictated "the norm". Would it be risky to marry someone based on romantic love? I don't know about you but I don't believe anyone feels that way or falls into that beautifully illusionary image of America Romance. Don't get me wrong the problem I have is not with love but with the marriage section. People weigh a million and one options when deciding if marriage is what's best, never is it "Oh I want to jump their bones every time they smile their too perfect I need to marry them (a metaphor I use to express the concept of being in love in less common terms)." and if that is so, then the chances of success maritally, or otherwise. This might just be the part in me who loves debating philosophy but a question like this seems nearly as impossible to provoke anything of substance as is a debate about the afterlife, but much more boring. Call me Mr. pessimist over here, but marriage is hardly as beautiful a thing as people (most often extremists) want you to believe it is. If I ever get married you better believe survival will be an issue, if my family can't survive, the way they deserve to be living than that's not what I even call survival.

Marriage: a social contract on a smaller scale.

In some cultures, marriage is undoubtedly a measure intended for socio-economic stability. In the documentary we viewed the third week in class about bride kidnapping, it seemed that the traditional Azerbaijanis married in order to preserve their pastoral way of life. To marry for love in this culture was seen as foolish. We as americans can rely on people in our lives beyond our significant others. When there is not an established government, power is divided up among the strongest and most influential. A family can gain influence, power, and strength by carefully choosing or arranging who marries into the family. If in the Azerbaijani society, one married for love, one takes a great risk that the person they marry will not be a competant worker. In these instances marriage is is not only a bond between two people; it is a social contract ensuring the survival of an entire lineage of people.

Unmarried? thats cool!

In the United States and many European Countries, ones social status, financial security, and livelihood do not depend on being married to someone else.  For Men, there is not as much pressure to take on a wife and father children. For many, there is no land or animals to inherit, no legitimate reason to pass on your name. For women, there is even less reason to get married in this day and age. Women are finally on an equal playing field with men in business, politics, education, money making abilities, and every other sociopolitical sphere. In the past when women could not vote or own land, there would have been more of an appeal and necessity to be married. In both male and female cases, it would have been a way to gain social status and good standing in the community. In other developing countries, the choice to remain unmarried could hinder your life in enormous ways and is seen as somewhat of a taboo, especially for women. In many Middle Eastern countries, women will remain in the house of their parents for their entire unmarried lives. In many countries remaining unmarried is looked down upon and is looked at as being a burden on your family. Perhaps, as almost half of the marriages in the U.S. end in divorce, we as Americans take marriage for granted. Because there is no social reason that marriage is necessary, there is no need to remain married or work things out. Although it is important to keep in mind that even in America there are entire groups of people that are denied the right to marry, namely the GLBT community. 

Marriage and Family

I don't believe in marriage, it's simply a way for the government to validate an emotional and spiritual connection between two people that may or may not last like everything else in life. Forcing two people to be bound to one another for the rest of their lives at their expense to the state and well as the social and religious ramifications is just stupid and unnatural. One of the origins I am most familiar with, which is probably moreover the basis for how current marriages are done was initially created in the feudal system between a lord and his vassal, there was an exchanging of rings, the vassal getting to his knee, a public ceremony, and the promise of a pseudo-symbiotic relationship between the two parties. Marriage has seldom been based solely on love, many were for purposes of alliances between nations, exchanges of lands, class mobility, religious necessity, social pressure, protection, propagating the species, or doing what your supposed to. The increase in divorce, and the decrease in traditional marriage makes sense, and its good to see people finally start to realize that they're not permanently bound to one another.

I also think it's a great idea for people to have a child out of wedlock as long as they both actually intend to raise the child and do as best as they can, balancing the child between one another. Possibly even with the assistance of friends or relatives to help raise the child in a far more communal environment where they can experience a much broader variety of people than the traditional and flawed idea of the nuclear family. This leads children to growing up naive and trapped in a systematic box. Of course for different cultures and people of varying mentalities this ideology might not work as well for them, so i suppose this is really just based on one's own opinions and values. It makes sense that certain cultures and followers of certain religious beliefs adhere to particular rules for marriage and children but humans are constantly changing and evolving and as social and familial structures change and survival is not as pertinent this system will most likely change.

Out Of Wedlock

Europe and North America are predominatly Christian continents so the biggest problem in my opinion posed by having a child without getting married is the religious ramifications. People with strict catholic/christian upbringings tend to have it embedded in their mind that you have to be married to have a child, no if's and's or but's. Most people with that upbringing, were a pregnancy to arise, they'd get married right away. Thats what they're culture and upbringing has brought them to believe is the right thing to do.

But living in the free societies that we do, often times children are had out of wedlock. "Love Childs" are often looked down upon by the church and the extremely religious but the liberals of our nations completely support a woman's right to do what she wants. Now if a woman were to get pregnant in a less free society, the decision would not be hers, but that of her families. So despite the strict Christian guidelines for children and marriage, I feel fortunate to live in a society where we have the freedom to choose what we want to do despite any cultural negativity it might bring on.

marriage.

I am still a romantic at heart, in spite of a predominantly skeptical temperament.

That being said, I do think that marrying for love is ideal, and something I hope to achieve one day. The only problem is that, while it becomes clearer as I age, I have no idea what is required of someone in being faithful forever. It's a completely subjective idea -- can't really say you know until you know, and even then you can change your mind or discover something entirely different. Love differs between people, and then it differs between couples, and then you add in cultural background, beliefs, faith. How is it possible to line up your path in life perfectly with someone else's? I don't understand.

I can say though that marrying to better your life makes sense as well. Some people really have no choice -- it's either get married or be put in a corner. Financial and cultural reasons are just as valid if they're personal, and it's the same with not getting married at all. For some people, the official rites and titles simply have no context. I know a lot of couples who would like to and plan to spend their lives together, but don't like the legal responsibility of being married. On the other hand, some of these couples are also unhappy with the fact that, even if they might as well be husband/wife, they are denied some of the rights that come with the certificate. Married people do get benefits, and whether or not those are fair is entirely subjective as well.

It's all ridiculously complicated, but then ... Most things are. 

Blah.blah.BLAH Kids???

Its funny, as I was reading this blog it sparked a conversation with my group of friends that kind of took this blog off topic, but could still work. After we had all established the fact we are broke, I through out the idea of selling sperm and eggs for cash. Then everyone jumped on their laptops to check out the going rate. What we found according to the .midwestspermbank.com and conceiveabilities.com the going rate of sperm can rang from $30-$100 a pop after about 6 weeks of tests, screenings and while you know... While the average cost of an egg is about $7,000 after a one month cycle of getting hormones pumped into you. 

In the end, no one decided giving up over on month of their life would be worth the money. One of my friends also brought up a good ethical dilemma saying the females don't always make eggs, what's to say the one you sell would be the only one you could ever have? That kind of freaked me out, being someone who same day wants to have kids and some kind of family, what if the one egg I should sell is my only chance? Crazy to come to that conclusion, knowing in the end I wasn't about to spend a month going through the process anyway so I dropped my fear. 

So what does go through the head of someone wanting to donate their eggs, besides the idea of quick cash? Do they see it as some kind of civic duty or their way of giving back to their community? I'd really like to know what people are thinking right before they take the plunge. Maybe its woman who have already had the amount of children they wanted and wants to give other the experience of having children.

     

who knows?

to reply to the second of the questions posed. it is my belief that a large majority of people getting married are jumping the gun and if for no other reason people are living longer. so why hurry into marriage. im certainly not the same person i was four years ago. how do you account for that when you're getting married when you're still a kid yourself. i know this is unrealistic but maybe some sort legal age to be married, like 30, say you decide at 24 to get married. if that relationship last six more years, absolutely get married.  as far as the type of society this would represent to me is a realistic one and a smart one. young people should be more concerned about bettering themselves gaining knowledge, skills, even hobbies. In a society without marriage i believe the society has a better chance of furthering itself. although to play devils advocate a person could just spent that time wasting money and drinking.  

I do...not

In the more liberally free parts of the world like America, Canada and parts of Europe, more and more people are having children outside of marriage through a number of ways. Gay adults and singles are adopting more children, single women are opting for visiting sperm banks or finding a surrogate mother in order to have a child. I think this phenomena is occurring because life in these nations moves so quickly and the definintion of family has drastically changed. As opposed to the 1950's Leave it To Beaver era where men and women got married right out of highschool and started a family with 2.5 kids and a dog, most people choose to go to college and put their career before their personal life, which doesn't leave a lot of time for in love falling or getting married. Many people are also having kids really early. Like teenage pregnancy, which is most of the time a mistake or and accident but ends up turning kids into parents and forming families, defined by either single mother and fathers or a very young couple working through it. I think in the busy lives we lead and the impressive careers people aspire to have now put family building on the back burner. I mean think about all the singles websites like match.com and eharmony.com, people just don't have the time anymore to go out and find their soulmate, but the desire to pass on their genes and progress the community with a new generation is still there, so people drift to the alternatives. So to answer the question, of course there is a relationship between the society and the choices members make to start families. In countries where family is priority to gaining weath or retaining stature within the society, marriages are arranged and not based on love. In societies where a partner and children are needed to work or support the community, it is important just to marry and have the children to create a tightknit system.
However I don't see any problem with the ways that Americans and Europeans have families. I'm a firm believer in marriage that lasts a lifetime, but I'm a hopeless romantic. I think a lot of people just need someone there to love and to love them back. Its all about human connection, especially in the fast paced society we live in, and well who's better to love than a child? I think it makes perfect sense for our society to have a child outside of marriage. We aren't as much of a society based on tradtion and ways the bible teaches us to do things, it's a new millenium and people are moving away from how people used to do things, I think it only makes sense that family units change too.
My family didn't start as the 1950's stereotype. My dad was getting divorced and had a daughter already and I'm pretty sure I was an accident and they didn't get married until I was 11. Dysfunctional is just how America runs. I think that marriage is something that should be done out of love, no matter who the person, but I don't think that you need to be in love to have a healthy, happy child. I strongly believe you only need to love the child, loving someone else is just a bonus.

Blog Assignment: Marriage

For this week's assignment, then discuss one of the following topics:

1) People in traditional communities in countries where the state is either weak or absent depend on relatives to help meet the basic challenges of survival.

In such societies, would it be risky to choose marriage partners exclusively based on romantic love? Can you imagine other factors playing a role if the long-term survival of your community might be at stake?

2) Many people in North America and Europe choose to have children outside of marriage. Considering some of the major functions of marriage, do you think there is a relationship between the type of society an individual belongs to and the choice to forgo the traditional benefits of marriage? Under what cultural conditions might the choice to remain unmarried present serious challenges?

Life is a Gift

I believe that life in itself is the ultimate gift. You are given to it as soon as you are born and you are free to do whatever you want with it. You can take the easy way out or you can always try to improve yourself and become a more evolved, better human being. I also believe that learning is also an ultimate gift because that can't be taken away from you until your time on earth is done. You are always able to gain new knowledge and pass information you have acquired onto others. Experiencing life in today's modern day society is a blessing because our generation has already been able to see such great things happen as well as enormous tragedies. It may be a cliche, but I don't care, it is what I truly believe and I will never take my life for granted.

I want a Hot Wheels, and Crash Bandicoot, and Candy 4 mai Birfday.

I don't think all gifts have to be material things. I do consider gifts typically to be a positive thing given from one person to another, or to a group of people. Any way you give, it doesn't have to be a material thing. I think someone said in an earlier post that they consider something as simple as a smile to be a gift. I fully agree with this, I also think that things like helping with homework, or helping someone move into an apartment could be considered a gift. Anything done with the intention of helping or positively affecting one's life by giving your time and energy can be considered as a gift. Of course people may say, well if you are exerting time and energy then the gift is not free. This is only true if you live by that mentality, which brings me back to a previous blog entry about time as money, or time as a gift. If you consider time to be money, then giving up your free time to help someone out or do something positive for them would be considered a costly gift. But the mentality that I pursue is that If I am giving up my time for something positive, than there was no time wasted at all. In this way, I believe that any non-material gift can be considered free.

GifTS

I also agree that gifts are not always a bad thing. My parents have gotten me presents without wanting anything in return. But there are times they have gotten me something to keep me behaving well...
Some people may say there is no such thing as a selfless gift. I can see why they would say that. you may get something for your birthday, and they would expect you to get them something for theirs. I wouldn't feel bad at all if I didn't receive a gift.

Meditation is good for you.

I grew up volunteering and helping others. In fact, I am going to be spending a good chunk of my life after i graduate doing exactly that. I think it is very interesting to think about how people feel obligated to give when they have received a gift. In my case after i graduate i will be helping those who cannot help themselves let alone give a material gift. Sometimes people forget that a gift can be given to you from you. I get great satisfaction and inner enlightenment from helping others. Also, a simple smile or thank you from someone can mean much more than flowers or whatever the "gift" of thanks may be. I think that's one of the greatest things about volunteering. In a yoga class that i take, we talk a lot about non-obligation and non-attachment. This idea of non-attachment is great in theory, but i do think that the world does go round because of give and take.

Ritual Gifts

There's no such thing as a free lunch and there is no such thing as a free gift. In our culture, we throw celebrations for every event in a person's life, birthdays, mitzvahs, weddings, babies, you name it. If someone is reaching a new place in their life, more often then not they throw a big party and invite their friends and family, and what do these invitees bring...? GIFTS! Gifts are a form of payment for invitations to kick ass soirees. And giving gifts, at least when we were kinds was ALWAYS a competition, who bought Jonny the most rad action figure or who spent the most, ususally determined who was Jonny's best friend for the next week and a half. Gifts are a form of payment or bribery for invitations and friendships repectfully but they are also consolation. Take Christmas for example. I dont know too many people who scramble at the last minute to make sure they are prepared for midnight mass or reinactments of the birth of christ. No, people scramble to get gifts for the holidays. Gifts end up being almost a reward for the hard work and dedication it took to buy gifts for others. In most holiday cases, whomever you buy a gift for ends up buying one for you too. So gifts are rewards. And well, you dont normally receive a reward for free. Noone got the key to the city for sitting doing nothing, someone had to jump in front of a train or pull the child from the burning building.
I suppose there are circumstances where you can give or recieve a gift for free. But then, normally there is a feeling of guilt, like if your girlfriend buys you a shirt, you feel like you should buy your girlfriend something in return. Its a gratitude thing. And maybe gratitude is a form of payment? I feel like you would have to have an odd sort of conscience to not feel like repaying someone for a gift they give you. Unless, okay, take that back, a gift of monetary signifigance one should probably feel like returning the gift. I dont know if a macaroni necklace really constitutes purchasing a gift in return. But maybe I am wrong.
I was raised in a family where if someone does something for you, you do something for them. Favors are returned with favors no matter if they are family or friends. Gifts were returned with gifts. But I was also the kid who gave Jonny the most rad action figure....

What happen to the good old days?

Call me old fashion, but every Sunday I bake cookies or brownies for all my friends on my floor. It's a simple gift and I don't ask for anything in return. I do it as just something simply nice after a sometimes very long weekend.  I was raised with the notion that I should always give back, my mother had me volunteering at the high school she worked at by the age of 8. I worked with high school students until I was in junior high and then joined my own student organized volunteer program. Now I just like doing simple stuff for my friends that don't mean or ask for anything in return. 

But I know everything is not puppies and rainbows. I see the pressure for people to give and give back and I have felt it to. I hate valentines days and christmas. Two of the lamest holidays ever, now don't get me wrong there are some parts of each holiday I can stand. But now there is all this pressure to get what you really want and give and spend money no one really has, for things no one really needs. 

I have this friend who is very rich, I mean like money that I will never see in my life time rich. And just because she knows I'm no where near her level she pays for a lot of stuff for us to do and her parents take us out to dinner all the time at really (Really) nice places. But its hard because I can never really gift them back because it looks so pathetic to them.  So instead I try and be the most supportive and understanding friend I can be.  That really the only gift I can give her. Gifts....can't give them, can't not give them.......

Selfless Giving

In my opinion there is no such thing as a selfless gift, even if you don't expect a gift in return, you are still recieving something. If you give a gift to a friend, you're expecting reassurance of the friendship. If you give a gift to charity, your recieving self-assurance of your quality as a human being. It is impossible to give a gift without recieving something in return. The only selfless gift I could think of is giving your life in service of something, a gift not often given.

giving as obligation.

I was not raised to specifically think that you HAVE to give something in return when you receive a gift, but it was certainly implied in my family, school, and throughout society while growing up.  This especially rings true during holidays.  You know the feeling... Valentine's Day comes along (which we all know is some stupid Hallmark holiday anyway) and you buy a gift for the special someone in your life... and you totally expect to get something back.  Otherwise, you feel as though you've been cheated.  You put all this effort, time, and money into getting someone something they might like in order to show your affection... and you got nothing!  That obviously means that this person does not like you anymore, and you are very offended.  This is the same way with most holidays in the U.S.  And this rings true for almost everyone.  (Don't deny it!)  Although, there are a few occasions where you just see something that you think someone might like and you happen to just pick it up and give it to them, but this often only happens after you get to know someone fairly well, and well enough to the point where they probably do the same to you, therefore you are still receiving something in return.  I know this all sounds incredibly cynical (and probably extremely generalized too) but like in the article "The Gift", it is almost as though we are programmed to give AND receive, not just give.

Gifts as Debt

I completely agree with Bryan's post in that I don't believe that gifts are necessarily a bad thing like that article seemed to express. I can understand how it can be potentially viewed as an obligation and a debt that needs to be repaid. But that is really only a fault in the perception of the receiver. A gift is, at least in my eyes something that is given not because the giver has such an excess or a will to dominate through this debt but simply and genuinely to show a physical manifestation, a creation whether bought or created themsleves in still something unique and helpful. It is something given simply to show appreciation and or affection for someone, at least that is if the intentions are pure, which is not always the case but you can't base everything on some people's deviant intentions for presenting someone with something. It is more of a "keep up with jone's" mentality that our social structure has generated that makes us think like this. Gifts in American culture tend to be something purchased, and the bigger and more expensive the better. Regardless of whether or not their is any significance to it. I hope to not change my beliefs on this and assume the best in people and in myself that their are no ill placed intentions.

A gift from you, does not mean a gift from me, ass!

Richard Bach, acclaimed author, philosipher and humanitarian once wrote "Every gift from a friend, is a wish for your happiness." I truly find this to be my belief and by in large the belief shared by the people I've revolved around in life. Maybe I'm just nieve, but I've always viewed gifts in any size for whatever reason (within reason) to demand no form of payment in return except gratfulness. One dictionary defines gift as 1. something given voluntarily without payment in return, as to show favor toward someone, honor an occasion, or make a gesture of assistance; present. 2. the act of giving. The way I was brought up gifts are generosity because they ask of nothing in return. I can understand an argument of America giving money to another country and the forced humility might not be too favorable, but regardless smiling nice for the cameras is nothing when considering what could be done with what has appeared from nothing. I don't believe unless for malicious intent a gift can be considered ill favourable just because the same could not be given in exchange. Gifts are beautiful because they are from someone, and each gift says somethign different about the giver. Just because America bleads money, doesn't mean it's obvious gift of money should be see as a way of asserting ourselves over others, but an embaracing, but otherwise a handy gift. The only implications I feel gifts make are the one assumed by the reciever and those are simply their own crosses to bear so to speak. I'm not going to cry myself to sleep because someone else can't think of a more badass present than mine was.

Blog Assignment: Free Gift?

Read "The Gift", then tell me if there is such a thing as a free gift.

Your blog posts can be very dynamic: you can talk about the essay, you can talk about your own life, you can talk about rituals.

Remember that additional participation on the blog will earn you course participation points.

Blog Assignment: Free Gift?

Read "The Gift", then tell me if there is such a thing as a free gift.

Your blog posts can be very dynamic: you can talk about the essay, you can talk about your own life, you can talk about rituals.

Remember that additional participation on the blog will earn you course participation points.

Catching up on Lost Time

I tend to take my time for granted. I do believe that time is precious and the concept of time as a gift probably means something completely different to me than it would to someone else. Every minute we are given on this Earth is a gift or an opportunity to do something meaningful or productive with it. A lot of people (including me) forget about the fact that their time on Earth has a limit, and every minute is precious. Saying "time is a gift" basically is saying to take advantage of what you are given benefit from it. The idea of "time as money" is commonly associated with greed. People who think this way in my opinion are not concerned about making the world a better place or making a difference, they are simply concerned with themselves and how if time is wasted it affects them directly. Living this way is a completely different way than living thinking that time is a gift. Personally I think if you believe as time to be a precious gift, you will live much more effectively and happily.

The Only Way I See It

Time is the future, the possibilities, and it is the first thing people think of when they need strength to grow. Anything is possible one day and that dream is at the heart of anyone who longs for more, but most importantly.

Time is the handbook that tells us what has happened around the world, and how people have reacted. Beyond anything else it is out gateway into the future by being able to dissect similar situations and life lessons learned by others years into the past. Everything that governs what we chose to do in the future is a direct cause of what has already transpired be it a week, or a thousand years ago.

It makes sense that time is money is a more popular saying in America than it is in other countries where saying such as time is a gift, might be more common. Just watching Slumdog Millionaire the other day it shows Americans are focused at money, as is most of the world, but not like our great country. Money is the goal, money is the end of the day, the end of the life, it's human's ultimate goal.

Even the idea of gifts in western cultures revolves around how much money we spend, and how great we are for selflessly giving our green to someone else.

Time makes fools of us all as the saying goes makes the most sense for me, and I have to admit I find the other two quite similar at least in my idea of western culture.

I don't have any money, but I have alot of time!

My mom has this saying that goes something like " Yesterday is History, Tomorrow is a Mystery, so thats why we call right now The Present... because it's a gift." Or something like that. She says it to me every time I get all freaked out about the future or stuck on things in the past. She is someone who really drills that idea into my head on a constant occasion. I feel that we live in a society that is so consumed with the idea of 'time is money" because people are go-go-go all the time. There is such a pressure to be the "perfect student" or "perfect mother" and so on. Our society is also very set on materialistic happiness and making money to create this unrealistic ideal and standard. But I also don't think you should wast your time by never doing anything. People sometimes take advantage of the idea of "living in the moment" by making very stupider dissections that could change your life forever. Like taking revenge on someone or doing something malicious to hurt others. My roommate is half Mexican and all she said Americans are too on time and in her culture they are a bit slower when is comes to the idea of staying on time. 

what time is it in ethiopian time?

2b) If you are from another cultural background than most of the students around you, briefly describe any differences or similarities you notice between your own notion and approach to time and those that are dominant here.

My father was born in Ethiopia and also lived in Greece for a while. Whenever we get together with the Ethiopian side of the family we never meet up at a definite time. They may say they are coming over at 1pm and they might not arrive until 5 or 6pm. My mom has taught my father to be on time more often. In the United States, if you say something starts at a certain time, or you are going to be somewhere at this hour, it is expected. Their perception of time is much different than what is 'acceptable' here. I have no problem with it, but it bothers my mother!

Time is not a commodity, nor is it real.

Why in the West has time been nothing more than a commodity that we never have enough of? First of all time is both the best and worst invention ever created, it has brought order to the world which has enabled us to progress but it has also given us countless stresses as we panic to find time to fit everything into our schedules. There is just so much that we have to accomplish in such a short span of time and we never take the time for ourselves to just sit back and relax. We have become slaves to the clock, a non existent concept that must be constantly checked in order to ease our minds that we are still on track and doing everything as we are supposed to. I wish more people would view time as a gift but the greater majority, particularly in America find themselves diagnosed with imaginary mental disorders from the fast paced, over demanding schedule we have generated for ourselves to insure our spot at the top of the pops as being the most productive and most progressive society in the world. If we could all just chill out for a second and relax, take the time to reanalyze our situation and understand whether or not we're content with this drone esc style of living we would most likely realize that filling every waking second of our lives with something to do has pre-mapped a dull, strained sense of existence. But the people in power know this so they make sure to keep you blind sighted, make sure to keep you slaving away accomplishing nothing but obtaining more crap you don't need, looking to acheive standards that don't exist, and all in the quest for "happiness". Religion especially the Christian faith and more specifically the descendants of the Calvinists, the Puritans brought about this aweful condition with their concepts of predestination, a tireless work ethic, and a socioeconomic hierarchy that placed the wealthiest people as the holiest. We have them to thank for our capitalistic society of fuck over who ever you can so you can make it to the top, and its all a mad dash since the clock is ticking! I say we stop playing their game and start living more fully by enjoying life more through leisure and less through preplanned "fun time". Life is supposed to be spontaneous, and "time" a gift.

Class Tonight Cancelled

Hey everyone,

I have a stomach flu today. I'm going to have to cancel class tonight. Sorry about this.

Andre

Pace of Time Living in Italy

I grew up in America and started my life at America's fast pace. I suffered through beyond full workdays from both parents, both with several post graduate degrees, some obtained after I was born. School took up a majority of my time and when I wasn't busy with assignments, even from an early age, I had social obligations that filled my calender. But then I moved to Italy with a friend and experienced an entirely different pace of life.

Their workday start much later in the day than ours, and their jobs are much less labor intensive except in the worst of situations. They get multiple breaks during the day and it is expected that they have an easy day at their jobs. Leisure is far more important to them than work, and their leisure is much more laid back than ours. Americans schedule their leisure, make plans with friends weeks in advance, throw planned parties, and celebrate every little detail of a persons life on schedule. In Italy, leisure means simply doing nothing, sitting on the bridge/ledges overlooking the town, walking around bridges and boardwalks, playing in piazza's, or enjoying fine italian quisine (only during their limited open hours). Going to the clubs is also much different, its far more impulsive, you don't plan it with your friends in advance, especially not days, much less hours. When it gets late enough you simply feel like going or you don't, people don't get overly dressed up, people don't plan on going to the clubs, its simply, if your out and in the mood, you go, if your in, you stay in.

Time passes much slower in Italy than in America, their economy is probobly worse off for it, but to me, their way of life is simpler, easier. It also makes appreciated the beuty of the country much easier since you actually have time to stop and look around.

Time is all we have.

"Time is a gift."  You really don't think about time as a gift on a daily basis.  Most people think they have all the time in the world, so they waste time or they wait to do something they always wanted to do, or they forget to catch up on life, talk to those they love.  Time truly is precious like a gift.  You never know when you won't have any time left.  I had a very good friend pass away yesterday, so this concept of time is hitting very close to home.  And it makes me even more sad to think that we don't even realize how much of a gift time is until it's too late.  If we only thought of time as a gift more often then I believe people would be happier.  People would probably do more with their time, make the most of it, and truly desire to be all they want to be.  I can't really think of anything negative about believing that time is a gift.  It needs to be thought of like that way more often.

Time: A history of Misunderstanding.

Time as a scientific concept has truly only existed since the Renaissance. Galileo (c.1540) was the first to accurately record time in order to calculate the force of the earth's gravitational pull on a falling stone. Since then, time has been seen as a universal constant, something that will exist indefinitely. In the modern, westernized, perspective, we measure our own lifespan against this infinite value. One finds that we will always come up short. For many in our society, this is disconcerting; from a psychological standpoint, it could be argued that one of our primary motivations in life is the fear of death. 

The concept of time in relation to money developed around the period of the industrial revolution. Farmers moved en masse to the cities, and were paid by the hour to increase mechanical productivity at the cost of their physical health. They were paid well below what anyone could call a subsistent standard of living. They began working for more than 15 hours a day. This is in stark contrast to the lifestyles of the Hunter-gathering peoples, whose short periods of high intensity work strike us as uncivilized. No, we the "civilized" people would much prefer to work ourselves to death. The phrase "time is money", is a misnomer. Work is money. People think that working longer, while being paid at an hourly rate, results in more money. This is simply an exploitation of an unfair system. In the early industrial age, people's life expectancies were so short that money became more important than lifespan, as it assured an immediate improvement in the standard of living. 

Time is only a gift to those that are willing to appreciate it. We measure it, trade it, sell it, alter it. We treat time as a resource that we can control. The Hunter-Gathers see time as a privilege, a blessing. They value time far more than our materialistic civilization. Time truly is priceless. And no, they wont take your mastercard. 

Slow it down

I take a lot of interest in how we in America view and approach time, so I'll spend most of this post answering the second question. A female student in my photography class is originally from Columbia (and is now here at Columbia, heh) and I recently spoke to her regarding her home country's relationship with time. She explained how different it is back home, how in the city, everyone is "always running, always too busy, I don't like it." Just from hearing other people discuss city life, it appears that a lot of hispanic nations have a much slower cultural lifestyle. Based on my own travels and studys abroad to Europe I've seen the same thing. I studied in France for a while and noticed something similar. Other than in Paris, the smaller cities I visited had a much slower and relaxed sense of time. It wasn't like they were "wasting time" by moving at a slower pace, but they were seeming absorbing time, they were not concerned with getting things done "now" "instantly" "in a hurry." This was completely new to me.
I grew up spending my time downtown St. Paul, Minneapolis and so forth where things move fast. Even where I lived, in the suburbs, people drove fast, walked fast and spent most their time in express lanes at the supermarket or in drive thru lanes. This, to me and apparently to my Columbian photo-pal is how America lives. We live fast. We dont take any time to just, live, and this whole process doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Take for example the express-lanes and the drive-thru; we use those everyday because we think it'll save us time, we go to fast food restruants so we don't have to "waste" time cooking. We have credit cards that are simply touch and go processes where the cashier isn't even needed any longer to hand over a reciept. We have mircowavable meals that take mere minutes to cook. It leaves us extra time.
But what do we then do with that time? Watch television? Vote for a crappy new popstar? There is no time literally spent, we waste our time by, trying not to waste time. These other countries I visited and spoke about take time slow, walk places, don't build super highways and go to food stores where food is wrapped up with care and relationships are built with their neighbors. I never see the same person twice at Jewel, that I know of. Every person, in every country around the world, is given the same amount of time everyday to do with what ever they please. I think in America, we think, the less amount of time we spend doing other things, like eating...the more time we'll have to make money. We value money over time, which brings in the question of "time as money," the more time we have, the more money we'll have, in theory. That's why we run around the city and complain when the train is delayed, because we won't have enough time to get every minute on our timecard. It get to the point where when we do have...nothing to do. We get bored. We get bored so easily because in America we don't know how to relax, how to have good relationships where in person conversation is valued higher than a text message. Its unfortunate but its how our culture is.

Blog Assignment #3: "Time is Money" or "Time is a Gift"

Of course Stonehenge:



The Mayan calendar:




Here's an artist's depiction of woodhenge:






Please answer one, or more than one of the questions below:

1)What would it mean to say “time is a gift”? How different is “time as a gift” from “time as money”? How might such a view change our lives? Can you think of any negative aspects to this view of time?



2a)Talk to a student with a cultural background different from your own. Ask that person what they have noticed about Americans’ view approach to time. How is it different (or similar) to the approach with which they are familiar?

OR

2b) If you are from another cultural background than most of the students around you, briefly describe any differences or similarities you notice between your own notion and approach to time and those that are dominant here.

More than just losing a language

By losing languages we are missing more and more aspects of human nature, and how we came to be in our present form. It should be everyones concern to preserve languages because by losing our diversity of language, we are losing our diverse understanding of ourselves as humans. The articles also bring up a point that by losing languages, we are also losing possibly valuable insights into medicinal plants. Every single one of our drugs we have today is derived from our natural world, and we certainly have not identified or discovered all plants that could prove to be revolutionary in the medical field. By losing native languages that have identified and used medicinal plants, we could be delaying the process of or entirely missing out on the further development of extremely valuable medicines and drugs that coule be used on a more universal level. So saving languages goes beyond getting a a better cultural understanding, it reaches out into how each and everyone of us could be living in the future

It's all in how you say it

{empty blank space}

Without the English language, I wouldn't have been able to communicate that. I wouldn't be able to write out anything here either. The English language is the foundation of American culture and something, I believe, a lot of us take for granted. There is no foreseeable threat to our language, millions speak it, it's written for advertisements, literature, translated in our movies and music for other countries around the world, it is a very stable form of communication, however this isn't that case for a lot of languages in the world.
As it is our foundation, other cultures take pride in their language because it serves the same purpose, to communicate abstract ideas from person to person. Without language, stories and fables teaching morals and lessons could not be passed down from generation to generation. Also, art holds a different meaning when you cannot have the words to support something you have created. Even music has it's own language, a set sort of rules to abide by in order to create something beautiful. Without these languages, cultures start to lose their identity, and with that, people start to lose their identity.
It is important for people to hold on to their native language reguardless of where they immigrate to, however it is just as much their responsibility to learn communication skills of their new country. I use Spanish as an example. I believe that it is great that Mexican immigrants have held on to their native language while living in America, however, I feel like both English speaking Americans and Mexicans have the responsibility to learn the basics of the other's language in order to create a cohesive, comfortable environment and culture. I think the acceptance and understanding of the other languages and cultures surrounding you or that you interact with leads to peace and comfort as well as amazing creativity. I mean, japanese fusion food came from somewhere.
I find it saddening that so many smaller cultures are losing their language. However, I only find it upsetting that these cultures are literally disappearing because nobody practices the tradtions of the culture anymore, or that all the people have died out. However, I do feel that there is light at the end of the tunnel. One language will not only birth one culture. With dialects and regions comes new cultures. While these older languages have died out, new ones have been replaced and new cultures are born from the influences of the past and present. It is impossible to hold on to every piece of your old culture for the next generation. Your parents took pieces they have pride in and passed them onto you and you'll take pieces and pass them onto your children, but they won't nessicarily be the same because of experiences and what-not. And eventually, quite possibly a new language could be born from your great-great grandchildren learn. Take for example slang and internet lingo, your parents didn't teach you those things. They are things you learn and you will pass on. Times change and as they do culture develops and changes right along with it. While I find the extinction of these languages sad, I cannot help but think that with the addition of the new language, the dominant language, more diverse cultural identies will be born. But that's just one way to say it.

Stayin' alive in 09!

We should care about languages dying out because they show the rich cultural differences in the world. If all of the people in the world converged into speaking one language we would also loose a great amount of history. The language of a culture shows a great deal about the people themselves and their way of life. Imagine if French ever became a dead language, the French people in themselves would loose a piece of their identity. France would still be France essentially; their customs may not change. But I can’t imagine if for whatever reason, old languages started dying out that the way the society functioned collectively would not change. So, lets keeps these languages alive.

jessie little doe

I found it almost unbelievable that jessie little doe started to have weird dreams and realized she was the one to bring back a language that had not been spoken in 7 generations. It was pretty cool how she connected the language that was spoken in her dreams to the street signs she passed one day and followed through with the research.

Since we only use about 10% of our brains as humans, to my knowledge, what does the other 90% do? From what I have learned in the past, there are electrical waves running through our brain and I believe it is possible and almost inevitable for one of the sparks every once and awhile to jump over to a part of our brain that we never use. They do say that if we were able to use all of our brain power that we would be able to walk through walls, fly, and move objects like John Travolta did in that one movie he did in the 90's (I can't remember the name). I realize that I am going a bit off topic, but what I am trying to get at is that I believe that it is possible that jessie used a different part of her brain while she was asleep to understand that the people who were speaking in her dream were speaking her ancestor's language.

Baaahhhzzpp...that means i had a good day.....?

I was actually having a conversation with one of my friends the other day about language and its evolution. We began to hypothesize that language would eventually just be noise that we make (well actually that's what we kind of do now). What i mean is, for example, we thought that one day you would be able to express how you were feeling, what your day was like generally, and talk about the weather all in one sound like, "BAAhhhzzzp". At the time it was pretty hilarious to try and come up with sounds that would describe an emotion, situation, or event, but i began thinking again about this conversation after reading these articles. I don't think that language dies, but rather i would like to think that in some ways we as a human race, and I'm sure other species, become more efficient with communication over time, and thats why language changes, "dies", or evolves. We are making life a little easier when it comes to communication. For instance you can have an entire conversation with someone now without even uttering a sound via your cell phone. Making life easier one less sound at a time.

So your language died, what next?

Unfortunately like most things, languages will decrease and condense. This is not necessarily a bad thing, since a common language will prevent misperceived communication and ideas. It has the potential to help unify people in a collective conscious which can be beneficial, but of course there are also tragedies to consider such as the central means of communication for an entire culture disappearing and the Orwellian factor of becoming mindless drones as we lose ourselves. However since all of the world's problems stem from inexperience with various situations and misunderstandings as a result of everyones unique life experience, a lessening of languages could help in massive ways to resolve issues and bring about global understanding to higher degree. People fear what they do not understand and even if everyone were to learn one common language which currently is pretty much english with spanish and mandarin somewhere behind we could communicate with a more similar understanding. This is of course scary at the same time since losing these unique languages only able to be spoken and understood by a select group of people would no doubt be a tragedy. So I believe it is up to people to record these languages and inform people that they once existed.

What if no one speaks my language anymore today?

That is not a normal question that we ask ourselves every day, however lately people should be asking themselves just that. Language is very important, but how many languages do we really need? When one country has several different languages it would be hard for a language to survive. In the United States Spanish is the second language spoken, however in the current working world, many jobs you need to know a second language. When someone is standing in front of you at a store and they are speaking another language that you don't understand, it gets very annoying. When you are in another part of town, and no one speaks english, that is annoying too. I believe that there should be one language that everyone should have to know how to speak. If everyone can speak at least one common language everyone would be able to communicate much easier than in today's world. If a cultures language dies out it is because the culture either doesn’t want to carry on the language or they can’t. When someone loses a language they may lose communication between them and older people, but as for the younger generations, I don’t believe they lose anything. Cultural identity doesn’t necessarily have to do with only language. Identifying your culture could include cultural ceremonies, the way in which you live, and many other things.

Language Preservation

I think that languages do evolve, but these languages that are becoming extinct should definitely be preserved because they tell a lot about a culture. The people who speak these indigenous languages might not be adopting to the homogenizing cultures because they want to, but because they do have to. If they do not receive the education to record their language, but do learn how to write another, then they will have to adapt, which makes their language extinct. I think that the researchers who are preserving the languages are doing the right thing because languages are evolving against the will of the people who speak these languages.

Our Land

When reading these articles one thing above all else stood out in my mind, and though I agree with it with all my heart, in an Anthropology class it may not be taken too well. The movie Hero recalls a time of chaos in China where lands were being conquered and absorbed into the central nation. In the movie a assassin who had the chance to kill the emperor responsible stays his hand, and not until the end do you realize why, when he writes the 20th form of the word sword, which shares the shape of a phrase in Chinese which stands for "All under Heaven."

The point of all this is to say languages are an important part of culture and are the words in which we use to channel our ancestors and history, but we live in a world of suffering and only feel more isolated the harder it is to communicate what's in our hearts. The emperor of China saw this as well, he laughed at 20 ways to write one word, how confusing, how useless. Now I don't hold those same views, but I do believe that there is a benefit in being able to communicate with people at ease.

Language is an art which should never be lost, and should remain as diverse as the people speaking it, however I do believe that a globalized language is not the enemy of these endangered languages, I don't believe it even belongs in the same category, the enemy of these dying languages is laziness, is the cultures themselves. I will always morn Bloody Sunday, but what do you think when I say Bloody Sunday? Chances are that event is something different to you than it is for me, but being that the Irish rebellion was so important in my family's history how could anyone think that would die? Just like my friend who's first language is Spanish, though was born and raised in Minnesota, that part of him will never die, and it won't die with his children either. Now after that who knows these languages are an art, but their also a choice.

Save them or not I won't be forgetting my culture any time soon, and for those who do I only hope they can find an amazing ray of new and exciting pieces of themselves to replace whatever is lost, so that their children too can channel their history, their ancestors.

-Bryan D. Racine

preserve a language, preserve a heritage.

In the book Conformity and Conflict Language is defined as " a system of cultural knowledge used to generate and interpret speech". If language is meant as a way to express ideas and opinions, to keep records and hold conversations,  to pass on cultural knowledge, then how can it be that so many languages are slipping away every day, some with only single members that remember how to speak it? When I read the article from The New York Times I imagined what it would be like if I were the only person on the planet that knew how to speak English. How would I even begin to explain the intricacies and small complexities to somebody, especially when there would be no practical use for them to learn it. I soon stopped thinking about this because it made my brain hurt, but the thought remained that preserving a language, any language, is important not only because it can help us understand a culture, but because it can help us to understand our current position in the world. While it is true that cultures both big and small often live and die like a living organism, it is important to keep a record of these languages and their people, to learn from them and record their histories. We as modern citizens and as human beings owe it to these people to at the very least make a record of their language. To note that they inhabited the planet and made some sort of mark. Languages and cultures evolve just like people, certain things become homogenized or antiquated, but it is important to recognize these things and their significance in the grander scale.