Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 20 2008, 10:00 PM EDT (current) | sarah091 | 9 words added, 1 word deleted |
| Aug 30 2008, 5:46 PM EDT | v_patel | 1 word added, 1 word deleted |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
August 27th 2008
Wesch started with his "Requiem for a Dream" speech.
He then gave examples of the extreme cultural differences he faced during his fieldwork in Papua New Guinea. These are similar to those European explorers experienced in the early days of exploration (c. 15th-18th Centuries).
This led Europeans to ask, "Why are these people different from us?"
First Answer: Theory of Degeneration: based in Biblical understandings of a creation that was relatively recent, spontaneous, and perfect => "Savages" degenerated from an original Godly Perfection
Second Answer: Theory of Cultural Evolution: Savages are less "cultured" than civilized humans. Savages are living fossils from Europe's rise to the top of the cultural evolutionary ladder. Sir Edward Burnett Tylor was the main proponent of this theory.
Both answers are ethnocentric- The belief that the ways of one's own culture are the only proper ones. and culture-bound- Theories about the world and reality based on the assumption and values of one's own culture. (see text)
Then came Franz Boas (1858-1942), a Jewish man growing up in Germany in latter half of the 19th Century, who knew what it was like to be discriminated against and thought of as "uncultured" and low on the evolutionary ladder.ladder, because he was Jewish growing up in Germany.
Wesch started with his "Requiem for a Dream" speech.
He then gave examples of the extreme cultural differences he faced during his fieldwork in Papua New Guinea. These are similar to those European explorers experienced in the early days of exploration (c. 15th-18th Centuries).
This led Europeans to ask, "Why are these people different from us?"
First Answer: Theory of Degeneration: based in Biblical understandings of a creation that was relatively recent, spontaneous, and perfect => "Savages" degenerated from an original Godly Perfection
Second Answer: Theory of Cultural Evolution: Savages are less "cultured" than civilized humans. Savages are living fossils from Europe's rise to the top of the cultural evolutionary ladder. Sir Edward Burnett Tylor was the main proponent of this theory.
Both answers are ethnocentric- The belief that the ways of one's own culture are the only proper ones. and culture-bound- Theories about the world and reality based on the assumption and values of one's own culture. (see text)
Then came Franz Boas (1858-1942), a Jewish man growing up in Germany in latter half of the 19th Century, who knew what it was like to be discriminated against and thought of as "uncultured" and low on the evolutionary ladder.ladder, because he was Jewish growing up in Germany.
He lived one year with the Inuit of Baffin Island (N. Canada) and found them to be no less "civilized" than people of his own culture.
He criticized Tylor's theory of Cultural Evolution on 3 grounds:
1. it is ethnocentric
2. it doesn't match the facts
3. it is based on a false idea of "Culture" (with a capital "C").
Boas proposes that all cultures are equal, and need to be understood in their own terms. Boas provided the groundwork of today's cultural anthropology, which includes a dedication to fieldwork, and a perspective of relativism, and holism (more on those terms later).
He also created the "4 fields" of anthropology: Physical (biological), Linguistic, Archaeology, and Cultural.
We will be focusing on Cultural Anthropology in this class.
We then looked more deeply into the anthropological model of culture:
To understand this further, we used this model to explain why Hindus in India do not eat cows:
General Information about India
Over 5,000 years ago: Indus Valley civilization
1500 BC: Aryan Pastoralist came from northwest, mixing with previous inhabitants to create the beginnings of Indian culture and the Hindu religion
8th C. Muslim - 12th C. Turkey
c. 1400s - 1947: European contacts. Becomes British colony.
1947: Independence
Today: India is a Federal "Democratic" Republic, similar to the U.S. (CIA-The World Factbook).
Over 1 Billion people
16 languages, English and Hindi most common
over 80% Hindu : (Some basic insight to the Hindu Relegion can be found here.)
73% rural
Over 250 million hungry, living in poverty
Over 200 million cows
WHY DON'T THEY EAT THE COWS?
One approach would be to say that they are just CRAZY! (bad approach. We don't learn anything.) Instead, we can:
Use the model above and look at the "Superstructure" - the native point of view.
Here we find that Hindus: * Love their cows
* give them pet names,
* feed them special food,
* adorn them for festivals,
* worship them in rituals
* think that eating cow meat would be like eating dog for an American (or worse)
*Milk, curd, ghee, urine, and dung ==> ritual purity Furthermore: Cow-dung paste purifies sacred space for deities Hindu sacred texts describe the tremendous care Lord Krishna provided for cows Cow is the symbol of all life and the producer of all life - The Divine Mother Killing a cow is worse than killing a human Ahinsa - the doctrine of non-violence - dictates that cows should not be slaughtered
Next, we can look at the infrastructure, to see how not killing cows might actually be beneficial to the culture's survival:
Cows are like "tractor factories" - producing oxen that plow fields and pull carts.
They require very little care, scavenging for and eating what humans will not eat.
One Zebu cow produces over 400 pints of milk per year.
Cows provide over 800 million tons of manure / 40% used for fertililzer, 40% for cooking fuel - equivalent to 40 million tons of coal.
What's left makes a smooth, hard floor when mixed with water.
Meat-centered diets are very wasteful of grain, land, water, fuel, and fertilizer.
The taboo on eating cows has long-term survival value. If they did not have a taboo against cow slaughter, the culture would not be as successful. The cattle themselves can survive almost anything - and don't compete with humans for food in times of scarcity.
Cows and humans are in symbiotic relationship.
Finally, we can look at the Social Structure - how these beliefs exist within the social and political context: Muslims began entering region in 8th Century Pluralistic Society: Muslims and other non-Hindus (19% of population) eat beef Caste system: Lowest castes "untouchables" eat beef Since the arrival of Muslims 1200 years ago, higher caste Hindus distinguish themselves from Muslims
and Untouchables by not killing and eating cows.
Today conservative politicians continue to seek a national law
banning cow slaughter to protect Indian traditional values
- Thought it was interesting to look up how people today have come to use the expression "holy cow" and how different it is from the initial meaning, or meaning that we are shown in class: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=holy+cow
Taking all three "levels" of culture together and examining it as a whole, is the "HOLISTIC" approach that is so important to anthropology.
He criticized Tylor's theory of Cultural Evolution on 3 grounds:
1. it is ethnocentric
2. it doesn't match the facts
3. it is based on a false idea of "Culture" (with a capital "C").
Boas proposes that all cultures are equal, and need to be understood in their own terms. Boas provided the groundwork of today's cultural anthropology, which includes a dedication to fieldwork, and a perspective of relativism, and holism (more on those terms later).
He also created the "4 fields" of anthropology: Physical (biological), Linguistic, Archaeology, and Cultural.
We will be focusing on Cultural Anthropology in this class.
We then looked more deeply into the anthropological model of culture:
To understand this further, we used this model to explain why Hindus in India do not eat cows:
General Information about India
Over 5,000 years ago: Indus Valley civilization
1500 BC: Aryan Pastoralist came from northwest, mixing with previous inhabitants to create the beginnings of Indian culture and the Hindu religion
8th C. Muslim - 12th C. Turkey
c. 1400s - 1947: European contacts. Becomes British colony.
1947: Independence
Today: India is a Federal "Democratic" Republic, similar to the U.S. (CIA-The World Factbook).
Over 1 Billion people
16 languages, English and Hindi most common
over 80% Hindu : (Some basic insight to the Hindu Relegion can be found here.)
73% rural
Over 250 million hungry, living in poverty
Over 200 million cows
WHY DON'T THEY EAT THE COWS?
One approach would be to say that they are just CRAZY! (bad approach. We don't learn anything.) Instead, we can:
Use the model above and look at the "Superstructure" - the native point of view.
Here we find that Hindus: * Love their cows
* give them pet names,
* feed them special food,
* adorn them for festivals,
* worship them in rituals
* think that eating cow meat would be like eating dog for an American (or worse)
*Milk, curd, ghee, urine, and dung ==> ritual purity Furthermore: Cow-dung paste purifies sacred space for deities Hindu sacred texts describe the tremendous care Lord Krishna provided for cows Cow is the symbol of all life and the producer of all life - The Divine Mother Killing a cow is worse than killing a human Ahinsa - the doctrine of non-violence - dictates that cows should not be slaughtered
Next, we can look at the infrastructure, to see how not killing cows might actually be beneficial to the culture's survival:
Cows are like "tractor factories" - producing oxen that plow fields and pull carts.
They require very little care, scavenging for and eating what humans will not eat.
One Zebu cow produces over 400 pints of milk per year.
Cows provide over 800 million tons of manure / 40% used for fertililzer, 40% for cooking fuel - equivalent to 40 million tons of coal.
What's left makes a smooth, hard floor when mixed with water.
Meat-centered diets are very wasteful of grain, land, water, fuel, and fertilizer.
The taboo on eating cows has long-term survival value. If they did not have a taboo against cow slaughter, the culture would not be as successful. The cattle themselves can survive almost anything - and don't compete with humans for food in times of scarcity.
Cows and humans are in symbiotic relationship.
Finally, we can look at the Social Structure - how these beliefs exist within the social and political context: Muslims began entering region in 8th Century Pluralistic Society: Muslims and other non-Hindus (19% of population) eat beef Caste system: Lowest castes "untouchables" eat beef Since the arrival of Muslims 1200 years ago, higher caste Hindus distinguish themselves from Muslims
and Untouchables by not killing and eating cows.
Today conservative politicians continue to seek a national law
banning cow slaughter to protect Indian traditional values
- Thought it was interesting to look up how people today have come to use the expression "holy cow" and how different it is from the initial meaning, or meaning that we are shown in class: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=holy+cow
Taking all three "levels" of culture together and examining it as a whole, is the "HOLISTIC" approach that is so important to anthropology.
