Nacierma

For those of you familiar with this article, I took it as serious as a student could. I did not question any aspect of it and took it at face value. As such my response is even more poignant. At the bottom of my response I've added the secret to this article for those that are not familiar to it.

Article 30: Body Ritual Among the Nacirema
The naive and primitive acts of body rituals in the Nacirema show the rest of the world faith is a truly powerful thing. The way this culture regards the body and then places their faith unquestionably in the hands of their “holy men”, “listeners” and “holy-mouth-men” shows learned behavior at its best; after all, faith is just another learned behavior. Even when things are at there grimmest the Nacirema still look forward to going to the said “holy-men” as if they will grant them everything they need for being healed. Exactly what that is unclear however, are they looking for rights of passage to the afterlife, are they looking for a miracle, what is it they really hope to gain from being mutilated by the “holy-men”?
While growing up Nacirema has its problematic situations, their children hold certain reservations about going to the “holy-men” showing faith in their gut feelings that marvels their adult counterparts. Perhaps if these children had more of a backbone they would be able to stand up for their rights and not attend the “holy-men” for healing. The benefit is undoubtedly longer lives by perhaps improved dental hygiene at the very least.
No matter how different the Nacirema are, they are a beautiful culture that deserves the right to practice their unique faith. The inclusion of this article in the class text is valid to show just how left cultures can be from American culture and still their cultures work for them. The American way is not always the best way and it can be certain the Nacirema would not want to live within the confines of the American culture anymore than any American would wish to throw themselves down at the feet of the “holy-mouth-men” for their semi-annual dentist appointment or the “holy-man” for their yearly physical.

***Spoiler Alert*** The article about the Nacirema is actually an article about Americans written in the 1950's. Some of the examples used of the culture are no longer relevant but the view point is. Here is someone looking at our culture from an outside perspective and this is what/how they saw it. Lesson Learned!

The Tall & Short of It

Article 38, Assignment 10

Is what we eat really a factor in how tall we are or does genetics play a part in the equation. In The Tall and the Short of It, Barry Bogin leads us to believe it is a mixture of both. He gives us argument supporting his thesis and it is sound argument. Mr. Bogin explains that humans have plasticity which enables us to grow to our surroundings and with what is available to us. Mr. Bogin down plays the importance of genes however, though he does give them a nod.

Mr. Bogin states on page 185 that the way to stop pygmies from being pygmies is to immigrate them to the U.S. but really is it that simple? I would argue not. Though the pygmy cultures may see an increase in height due to the better health and foods provided in the U.S. one would think these people would still remain on average smaller than there new U.S. counter parts or how else could we continue to call there original cultures pygmies. Wouldn’t they just be mal-nourished if they grew to average height once established in the U.S.? This would mean we would have to discontinue the use of the word pygmy in reference to their original culture. The continued use of the word gives meaning the culture really does have a genetic disposition to being shorter than average.

I would be interested to hear what Mr. Bogin has to say about my family, being how we are either short (below 5’5”) or tall (over 6’). My brother and I being a prime example of this, we grew up in the same house eating the same things and yet he is 6’4” while I am 5’3”. Mr. Bogins argument would have me to believe that somehow I didn’t get as much nourishment as my elder brother. I argue that this just could not be since we had the same diet growing up and were exposed to the same environment. Genes have to be a factor in this. This is not to say that Mr. Bogin doesn’t include genes in the equation, it just shows there is room for variance in the equation of height.

Primate Aggression

Assignment 5, Article 15
“Rethinking Primates Aggression” written by Richard Conniff tells about the need to reconnect after a fight only the subject matter is chimpanzees and not humans. This article shows basic need to be reassured that all is still well. It also points to a greater understanding of behavior, be it chimpanzee or human. Conniff chronicles Frans de Waal research of chimpanzees and his observations. His admiration for de Waal is evident in his writtings and his siding on the anthropomorphism debate also focused in this article. In short Conniff is paraphrasing de Waal.
The article gives examples of how making up after a conflict can strengthen the group and help keep them united, just like in a human family unit. This is a very important aspect of evolution since there is strength in numbers. Chimpanzees have simply figured out they have a better chance of survival if they stick together so they better make peace thus making the group stronger and more united.
What I found interesting however was de Waal’s research center erecting partitions in the chimpanzee habitat so the chimps could copulate without being caught by the alpha male. Was this really a necessary addition to the habitat? Doesn’t this stray from natural environments? Do chimpanzees really have strong enough sexual urges to need to fulfill them? Apparently de Waal felt they were needed but they still leave this reader puzzled.

Carbon Dating

Assignment 9, Article 26
The topic of dating is a very tricky one, be it carbon, argon or social dating, someone always has an opinion. In Article 26: Erectus Rising in the 2005 Annual Editions, James Shreeve relates his findings mixed with a bit of wit for a decent read on dating Homo Erectus. His main point being that erectus could very well have migrated out of Africa before the accepted date of 1 million years ago. He also plays with the idea that erectus is actually a separate form of the African Homo erectus referring to the African erectus as Homo ergaster and the Asian erectus as Homo erectus. He writes in a fashion that gives little to his actual belief on the topic of lineage other than he is acknowledging there are varried thoughts on the matter.
This article takes us for a ride with nearly five full pages of text, all of which very informative but lacking in opinion expected from an article punctuating Shreeves views. This was definitely one of the more text book articles in the Annual Editions with posturing a politician would appreciate. The empty feeling of contempt and open ended argument is non-the-less worth the read. Where the Javan fossils are in fact a separate species or one with the African h. erectus is one expected to be pinpointed. Shreeves never says this is what I interpret the finding to be, he just say here are the facts you decide.
Shreeves even ends his article with this statement “But this tenacious debate is unlikely to be resolved without basketfuls of new fossils, new ways of interpreting old ones- and new dates.” (132). What is that for a closing statement? He is saying yeah we don’t know what we are doing and cannot agree on what we do know. This is not very encouraging for a young student hoping to follow anthropology. This article while informative on the different views accruing in modern anthropology, only showed how much guess work is really in this field. For the record I tend to believe that Java and the African form are both Homo erectus even with all that I have read.

Making Good w/ Goodall

Assignment Four, Article Twelve
Zoologist Jane Goodall contributes to our text in Article 12: The Mind of the Chimpanzee and opens the door to a new way of thinking. She provides information into the depths of the chimpanzee mind and proves just how remarkable they are. Goodall tells us in her article that the chimpanzee is highly intelligent and offers up a few laughs as well. As with all things Goodall, never under estimate the possibilities.
Goodall starts off with introducing us to a very distinctive chimpanzee, Lucy. I laughed out loud as she described how Lucy was able to pour herself a gin and tonic. It isn’t important that Lucy poured herself an adult beverage so much as she knew what she would need to make the beverage and got it herself. Goodall proceeds to enlighten us on just how smart Lucy is by letting us in on her ASL ability though Lucy isn’t the only one mentioned with ASL knowledge. Goodall also offers Washoe, Moja, Dar, Tatu and Loulis[1] as examples of chimpanzees who sign. Unique to the group is Loulis who was provided to Washoe as an adoptive son who was taught ASL from his companions and not human interaction.
Though the previously mentioned chimpanzees were not raised in the wild, Goodall was able to point to intelligent behavior in wild chimpanzees also. With simple mention of problem solving abilities of a chimpanzee who fashioned a tool to achieve his goal, Goodall shows chimpanzees have a broader mind than we have initially given them credit for. Goodall concedes she only knows a “fraction of what was going on in a chimpanzee community” (67) and yet proves she should be taken seriously even if her ideas varied from the norm at first print. Our article was taken as an excerpt from Through a Window, and makes me want to read the full text, at no point did I find myself wondering if perhaps this article should not be credited or included in the assembly of works here in the Annual Editions.
[1] Goodall, Jane. “Article 12: The Mind of the Chimpanzee” Annual Editions: Physical Anthropology. (05/06). 63-67

A Womans Curse

I now know the three words that have prevented me from becoming pregnant: Short Luteal Phase. I guess this is God letting me know that now is not the time for me to welcome another baby into my family. The good news is it can be corrected fairly easily from what I've read, from just adding more B6 (which I already eat lentils for breakfast nearly every day.... so not sure that's the problem) to getting more doctor prescribed progesterone treatments.

At least now I know ;-0 This does remind me of an article however so here we are:

Assignment 6, Article 19
“A Woman’s Curse” by Meredith F. Small was deeply interesting to me. Small writes about an anthropologist Beverly I. Strassmann and her observations on women’s menstrual cycle.
The article follows Strassmann through her weeding process for an observation group and her final pick of two from the fourteen original possibilities. Strassmann believed she could “see the connection between the physiology of women and the strategies of men and women to exploit that physiology for their own reproductive end” (96) better in a more natural birthing society. The end results and numbers are what I found most surprising.
Strassmann picks two villages for observation over a 2 ½ year time span in which she and her assistant immerse themselves into the culture of the society. They lived in huts without running water and electricity, learned the local language and observed the menstrual huts. These huts proved to be the main object of her study. They were cramped and crowded yet most of the villagers knew who was in them and when. Their way of life decreed it necessary for these women to give up their privacy and take refuge in huts during their cycle, they couldn't even use their own cookware all because of religion. But in all this nightmarish existence there is a silver lining. The findings.
Strassmann found that on average her subjects only had about 110 cycles during reproductive years, compared to our 350 to 400. Not fair I say. Those menstrual huts are looking pretty comfy if it means cutting the amount of cycles by ¾’s, though the eight to nine children is a little much by most western standards. So the woman in Strassmann’s study can keep their huts but they also benefit from lesser chances of reproductive cancers. Whose society ultimately has the better ideology on how to deal with the woman’s curse is unclear or just personal, but one thing is for sure, it definitely makes you think.

Of Mice & Men

This was one of my all time favorite articles to read and to review. I quote this article frequently so here it is:

Assignment Three, Article Eight
“Of Mice, Men and Genes” proved to be an excellent read. Robert M. Sapolsky gave convincing portrayal of how “environmental influences don’t begin at birth” (45). In his article he uses the example of mice and how they are tested in laboratory environments to clue us in on the nature vs. nurture debate. Most interesting of the points used was the first example of the testing done by Darlene Francis at Emory University, though the use of Beatrix Potter images was lost on this reader.
At Emory, Francis was examining the effect of being cared for by a parent whose constitution was more relaxed or timid than that of the baby and found that the trait in question was not being passed on to baby when the parent was an adoptive parent. Now here is where it gets interesting, Francis was able to provide evidence that when timid mama mice were implanted with embryos of relaxed babies the baby would grow to be just as timid as mama! Now who would want to take the time and effort to do such a thing other than a dedicated scientist.
Sapolsky also has a second example of a study done in New Zealand on one thousand children and the potential for clinical depression. Though this example has some merit, it could also be argued that no matter a persons genetic-make up there are always going to be some things that may trigger depression. He did a much better job of substantiating his claim on nature vs. nurture by the first example.

Anth 2

ARTICLE FOUR, ASSIGNMENT TWO

Dread began to settle as this weeks reading assignment loomed overhead. Both articles proved easy to read, however, and dread was soon replaced with interest in the first paragraphs of Patrick Huyghe’s [1] article profiling Dr. Clyde C. Snow, anthropologist extraordinar. Huyghe skims over Dr. Snow’s career in this article to give the reader an overview of his achievements. At times the article could have been better scripted for a popular movie than a text book, it was a nice change from traditional text.

Few men have done as important work as Dr. Snow has done with the FAA, Cook County Medial, with Aquino’s Human Rights Commission, and the American Association for Advancement of Science. On top of all these intriguing work places Dr. Snow has also assisted to unmask King Tut, identify JFK and track down Nazi “Angel of Death” Josef Mengele. Dr. Snow worked on bodies found on the Battle of Little Bighorn site and many airline crash sites. His knowledge of forensic anthropology helped put it on the map and give families identities to their loved ones. He, at one point, was the go to guy and he knew it and if we are to believe the author, he is modest as well. At the time of this reading little information is available on Dr. Clyde C. Snow other than he was born in 1928, which shows Huyghe point on Dr. Snow‘s modesty. Dr. Snow had a career spanning over sixty years and may still be consulting.

Who can ask for a more exciting career? At the same time though, who can believe all of this to be true of just one man? Perhaps the article glossed over the details with to wide a brush fore at times the image of Sean Connery as Indiana Jones father crept into view. Whatever the interpretation, the out come is the same, Dr. Clyde C. Snow was a tireless man who was quite good at his job and became a hero to many.

[1] “Profile of an Anthropologist: No Bone Unturned” Annual Editions: Physical Anthropology (05/06) 24-28

The Native Right

When does ones ancestry become less of that one person and more of an united ancestry? In the movie watched on September 21st, the question was posed to all Americans and not just the tribes that can date their ancestry to pre-Columbus. The ethical stance of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is brought into question when challenged with the collective rights of the American people to have prehistoric clues saved for study. Our film lasting just over an hour examines what may be lost to the NAGPRA if prohibited.
Our film starts unassumingly enough with an archaeologist discovering what would be the find of his life on a beach, bones from a male about 45 years of age with a stone aged weapon lodged in his hip. After more analysis by both the archaeologist and a forensic investigator the modern man found on the beach proves to be nearly 9000 years old. The remains of this man tell a major story of brutal existence. NAGPRA hears about the find and invokes their right to the bones, demanding the bones be returned for proper reburial, causing the archaeologist to file a law suit to prevent the return of said bones.
Upon further examination of the bones it is believe he had a more Caucasoid facial structure than that of the Native structure giving clues to mans existence in the Americas before the Clovis migration. This pre-dating Native existence and falsifying the NAGPRA’s claim to the bones. The beach bones where not the only ones providing evidence of pre-Clovis inhabitants, there was also a man found in a bear cave being called Spirit Cave Man with facial similarities to that of the beach man and dating to the same period. Sharon Long reconstructed his face and hypothesized the two bones of being more like the Japanese Inuit than the Native Americans. Which brings us back to the question at hand, just because these bones pre-date Columbus, does that mean the Native Americans can invoke NAGPRA when there is clear evidence of the bones pre-dating their known entry into the Americas? The question is being examined in the trail of the beach bones and hopefully justice will be served to the greater good of knowledge.

Anthropology 1

I had a dream last night that I was a professor. Well I don't see that happening soon but one of the reasons I gave in my dream for being in this profession was that I wanted to share what I knew before I forgot. It struck home when I awoke so I will be adding more of my old college articles ;-) In my Anth 101 class we had to read two articles and do a write up on one of choice... some of my siting my not be correct as it wasn't necessary for that class and it's been a few years since I attended these courses. I apologize for the inconvenience.

Article two, assignment one

Having read both the first and second articles in a short period of time, I found large similarities in their bodies. The stand out of the two articles is Darwin‘s Influence on Modern Thought by Ernst Mayr. Mr. Mayr goes so far as to say “no biologist has been responsible for more-and for more drastic-modifications of the average person’s worldview than Charles Darwin” (13) within the first two paragraphs. This is a brave statement that pulls the reader into the body of the article trying to prove the statement false.

Darwin may have published first but only because he had gotten wind of Alfred Russell Wallace drawing similar conclusions independently of Darwin. Had Wallace not lived at the same time as Darwin, there is a chance Darwin may not have published. Though Mr. Mayr does mention Wallace, he fails to mention Darwin’s reluctance to publish, and to give a nod to Wallace for being the great instigator. Nowhere in the text of Mr. Mayr’s article is there mention of the race to the printing press.

Charles Darwin did print first, however. The courage needed to print must have been great but his hesitation nearly cost him. In the end Mr. Mayr is correct in saying Darwin is responsible for vast changes in the layman’s view, but Darwin did not get there without a bit of provocation. Mr. Mayr’s lack of detail to the origins of Origins was an irritation that could have been eased with an acknowledgement of Wallace being on the same track. Had Wallace been a bit quicker the article could have just as easily been Wallace’s Influence on Modern Thought. The rest of the article was well composed and concurred with other studies of mine so much so no larger impression was made. Ernst Mayr merely found a new way to paraphrase the acknowledge fruits of Charles Darwin, which in itself is an accomplishment.

Older than Lucy?

With all the famous Lucy's out there you might be wondering which one I'm referring to... It's not Lucille Ball, or Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds but none other than Lucy our 3 million year old ancestor. I tried to share this article from it's page but apparently it doesn't "talk" with blogger so you'll have to follow the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucy

Let me know what you think