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?

The Rite

Okay, so I guess the transition of high school to college isn't exactly an original topic for this whole rite of passage thing, but it's all I've got so too bad. Step one of this rite, was high school. Or more specifically deciding in high school that I wasn't going to go to college. Upon graduation, my mission was complete. Step two would be the acquisition of a job. After wasting my time and money, or more specifically, my parents' time and money, for about six months, I decided the next logical step in my progression would be to get a job. I picked up a job soon after, working for the school system that I had spent most of my young life attempting to escape. God has a sense of humor it would seem. After two years of that bullshit, dealing with people I hate and sleeping in my cubicle, I decided I wanted out. I began to look for colleges. I noticed Columbia's acceptance rate. I was sold. I told my mom I was going to College. She responded with a laugh. A few months later I got the acceptance letter, told everybody to fuck off and leave me alone and drove halfway across the country to attend school. Now I am a man.

Moving up

A rite of passage that I have gone through would be getting a drivers license. The first phase that I went through would be the classroom learning. Where you are first learning about the rules and everything that getting your license involves. This is just the early stage and it is all very new. The second phase that I went through involved actually practicing driving. A very hands on stage but a very in between phase where you have most of the skills but are just waiting to be tested and racking up hours. The final stage of this transition is the actual test. This is where I proved that I learned all of the rules and can now go about driving on my own and I was then part of a new group.

Due Next Wednesday

I'll be handing this essay out in class today.

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?

Starting out, starting over.

The right of passage of going to college is the best example I have of a right of passage experience I have been through. Other then my bat mitzvah that is, but the steps to that is a bit different! After I graduated high school and spent the summer at home working, I was off to Peoria Illinois to attend Bradley University. I began to experience the period of separation soon after I was all situated in my dorm and my parents drove off. I was excited and scared but mostly really happy. The college has a great welcome week to help new students become acclimated to their new environment away from home. My roommate and I, who I met at orientation, embarked on this new life together by attending the events, bbqs, parties etc. Since school didn’t start for a couple weeks we used our free time wisely, hanging out with other friends we met at orientation, exploring the campus and partaking in the mass consumption of alcohol and partying one can’t normally do in their parents house while in high school. I feel that the partying and free time to roam helps one deal with the period of separation very well. A few days before school started is when I would say the liminal period began. I picked up my books and found my classes, I had lived in the dorm for about a week and was now in routine as to where I kept my things, were I showered and got ready, where I ate or picked up my mail, all college ways of living. However, I wasn’t quite a college kid yet because I had never participated in a college class. Once classes started, I began to participate in the act of a college kid and after the first week or two of classes I began to transition into the third step to this right of passage. Although it was most likely official after I finished my first week of attending all classes, being assigned homework, and then participating in college activities that could symbolize the third step. Because all of these things means I am now assuming the role of a college student. The third step seems to drag out a while though, because you still have to experience first midterms and finals that can signify this as well. I never really felt homesick or out of place and feel that I transitioned fairly easily! I also then experienced these steps as I left Bradley and lived back at my parents attending a community college and then once again when i moved to the city to attened Columbia, and out of the three, the first was the easiest and best experience.

American's Life Timeline

When I first thought of a rite of passage that is familiar to me, the first thing I thought about was the timeline American society seems to live by. The first stage is college. I thought of this as the first stage because it seems like the first big step we make in beginning our lives on our own. The second is marriage. Marriage is the second large step we make in beginning another chapter in our lives. The third is retirement. After we've gone through the process of getting a college education, finding a job, getting married and having kids, the end chapter seems to be retirement. When you look at American society, most people live on this exact timeline and follow through these rites of passages. Each rite of passage shows that you are growing up. Based on what rite of passage a person is going through, it is simple to predict what age group one is in.

College

I suppose college is an American rite of passage. Not everyone goes through it but pop-culture considers it a substantial stage in ones life.

The first stage generally involves a separation from the family. One usually "goes away" for college and starts a new living arrangement either in a dorm or in an apartment for their first time. Along with this is the separation from high school, or a public school where the system of teaching is different from college level. Even if one doesn't "go away" for college, they are still separated from their previous and adapted lifestyle in high school. Or, if one takes time off between high school and college, they are still making a substantial separation from their previous lifestyle to go back to school.

During college they are forced to adapt to a new lifestyle among new people, in a new environment and expectations. They often have a new understanding of themselves during this time, either through social situations, or what they learn in classes. The individual eventually applies what they learn during college to goals and directions in life.

When one leaves college, the general expectation is to get a job, or to apply their knowledge toward a career. This is what culture assumes will happen although it doesn't always. Their social role as a "graduate" is either to use their degree or to then go back to college again to continue their education. Either way, society establishes an expected role for them every time someone asks, "what are you going to do with your major?"

My own rite of passage

When I was a child I was raised in the Mormon Church and subsequently left at the age of 18. However one rite of passage that stands out to me from my childhood is of the baptism. The Mormon church does their baptism at the age of 8, after they believe a child knows the difference between right and wrong.

In the first phase, people withdraw from the group and begin moving from one place or status to another. So in this case the child would know already what baptism is and start to become ready for it nearing their eighth birthday. Really its more of a mental thing than a physical one in this rite, and for an 8 year old it isn't really that substantial. However adults that convert go through the same process no matter the age so it can become more meaningful I guess the older you convert.

The next phase is one of cutting oneself off or being detached from the former self, in this case its as simple as maybe acting older or if an adult, dropping a long held habit of smoking or drinking perhaps.

The third phase of reentering the society happens after the actual baptism in water and the child is blessed with the holy spirit. They are now back in the society as a full member of the church.

Looking back at this ritual after leaving the church for 5 years I can see it more as a ritual based on many old beliefs. I guess I see it as an outsider now instead of an insider, and there is quite a difference.

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) In “Symbolizing Roles: Beyond the Veil,” explain the meaning to Westerner of the veil worm by Middle Eastern women. How does this view reflect Western values? What means does the veil have for many Middle Eastern women? How do these meanings relate to the Muslim concept of purdah and other Middle Eastern values?

9) 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!

Coming back of the Veil

The veil has been coming back to many Middle Eastern cultures. For some people the veil is coming back as people are trying to get back to their Muslim roots and moving away from the Western style of dress. Men are using this as a way in there home to show that they are head of the house and are in control of their women. On the other hand women are using it as a sign that even though they are now working outside of the house that they are still proper women and still follow Muslim traditions.

VEILED

I think it was that quote early on in the passage that talked about how the veil is just a piece of cloth, equality between men and women is not just an article of clothing. Its marriage rights, job equality, and just the way society views women that are way more important. Its just our outsiders point of view, its all we see so its what we get upset about.

Who are we to judge?

In the Middle East, the veil and purdah are symbols that represent their cultural beliefs. It represents restriction in men and women's behavior, social status, protection of women from outside the home, religion sanction, conceals identity, and signals, "Hands off! Don't touch me or you'll be sorry." Recently there has been a resurgence of the veil in several Middle Eastern societies. It may not mean anything to westerners, but to men and women in the Middle East it is a custom that women have gone through throughout history. Nouha al Hejelan, wife of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to London stated, "If I wanted to take it all off [the abayah and veil], I would have long ago. It wouldn't mean as much to me as it does to you." There is not only a simple social and wealth status, but it also is a symbol that women feel honored to obtain. I personally have always thought that wearing the veil is something Middle Eastern women didn't like and was forced upon them. Now that I read this it's clear that the women feel honored to wear the veil and respect what it stands for.

unraveling the veil of new meaning

The explanation behind the resurgence of the veil in Middle Eastern societies is that throughout the years and liberation of women in the Middle East there has come a new found meaning to the veil on a personal level. It’s in response to the evolution of their society, a mixture of the new liberated women and her religious heritage she was born in to. The veil is now seen in a non-constricting light, as a tool for empowerment and respect, showing the individuals morals.

Question One: Western women tend to consider the veil to be such a condescending item, when, there are so many other conflicts that Middle Eastern Women want to conquer. It's almost condescending for Western Women to assume that this is what Middle Eastern women focus on rather than perhaps, their right to have a drivers license or vote. The veil is a cultural custom and has been for centuries. Many women may not want to wear them and they certainly shouldn't have to. But on the other hand, many women do want to wear them and this shouldn't be so terrifying for Western Women to accept. They probably think it's odd that we insist on wearing ridiculous amounts of make-up and have no problem wearing revealing clothing. Talk about condescending. I think it reflects ethnocentricity upon Western perception.

Veil this MOFO

Some women see the veil as simply "a piece of cloth" whereas others view it as social status and respect. Some of the more feminist women in the middle east view the veil as nothing more than an idea which with or without it the women are still treated differently than men. The purdah and veil is a sign of restriction, according to the author. It is used to seclude women and "It expresses men's status, power, wealth and manliness", says Nadia Abu Zahra, an Egyptian anthropologist. Some women however wear the headdress for respect for themselves and their beliefs. They feel like it is a way to empower themselves towards men and say "Hands Off!" This is a tradition that may seem uncustomary to westerners but I don't really see the harm unless the woman is force to wear this.

don't release the veil

question one: The women of the Middle East wear the veil as a symbol of values.  As the book mentioned, this is different than the Western hemisphere.  Westerners often view the veil as a symbol of inequality.  The Middle East women wear the veil wear it to display values such as: honor, personal protection, the sanctity and privacy of their family, to show their wealth and high status, and city life.  Even today, the veil is warn by over 16 million Iranian women who are showing how far they have come.  In Islam the veil symbolizes that their is a difference between the Eastern and Western worlds.  This I think is the boldest way to state that they value their values.  The know there is a difference between the two sides and they are proud to stand up for the Middle East.   

Next Blog Post

I'd like you to choose one of the questions at either the end of the reading "Identity, Roles, and Groups," or "Symbolizing Roles: Behind the Veil" and answer one or more of these questions.

fend for your own.

well, I do think our society does take into consideration that marriage is, as somebody else mentioned, a partnership.  marriage is something i consider to be a perk to my life.  My idea of marriage is having somebody who you work well with and very much so enjoying being around.  But marriage does involve a lot of other things besides love.  marriage is bringing another individual into your personal life and allowing that person to rely on you, and vice versa. Somebody to work through your problems with. I do think this is a large part of what loving somebody is, are to want to do these things for each other.  But i think they also form their own category and are more of a role you develop rather than a feeling. with that being said, i do think marriage should revolve outside of loving one another. 

hmmm

I never got the idea of having kids without being married on purpose. I guess the reason its popular is that its possible to raise kids as a single parent in our society. Daycare and other resources allow for one parent to do both career and family. I would think, heck I know, it would be easier to raise kids with a pair of parents or a community. It takes a village to raise a child. Married couples get joint benefits from insurance other things that makes a married couple more fond to raise a child so I don't see why a couple would choose to raise a kid outside of wedlock. but maybe my view is a little too narrow.

shallow out them jeans

If a government isn't able to look out for the needs of the individual citizen, then the individual better start up a little community for himself. A great way to do this is to marry a fertile, sturdy mate who enjoys the act of procreation and working hard. After that, everything falls into place; you get kids, who are hardworking and fertile, not that you would think of your kids that way, and they have hardworking fertile kids, and everybody out of necessity looks out for each other and its one big happy family, literally, probably

we do what works best for ourselves.

My views swing both ways. On one hand I think that the society an individual belongs to definitely has influence on a person's idea of marriage. And on the other hand, it seems that most Americans today make their own decisions on children and marriage because we don't necessarily have a strict social norm. Things are different than they were in say the 1950's or 60's. The stereotypical suburban husband and wife with children isn't what we strive to be anymore. I think today the idea of marriage is based more around financial security and personal belonging. I think that society doesn't want to admit that most people get married today for those reasons, but we all know it's true. I know people personally who had  to of gotten married to their spouse for personal security because there's such a lack of "love" between them. Society can shape your decisions based on where you are located, but for the most part, I think we all just do what works best for ourselves.

Marriage

In other cultures marriage is viewed as a survival tool and they don't see love the same way others do. It would be very risky to choose love as the only reason to get married. Other factors that need to be taken into consideration are safety,money, food, shelter, children. There are so many factors that become more visible in other societies, that actually when you look at your own, they are the same in many aspects. 

If you need to depend on your relatives to survive, then it could very well be risky to choose marriage partners based on romantic love. This could work if the families got along with eachother, helped support eachother etc. but if they were enemies or disliked one another on some level, it could cause a lot of problems between the spouse and their own families or the way of surivial for the families in general.

I don't think that marriage is the only way to successfully have a relationship or raise a child. It all depends on the level of commitment and trust you have with someone and if you both agree to either get married or not get married. This might be challening in certain situations because of some feelings towards having children out of wedlock. It could present problems with family or religious institutions and may be harder to be accepted in certain societies. Although in others, it may not be looked at very carefully at all and simply seen as normal or completely acceptable. 

(Insert Witty Title)

It is true that many people in western society are beginning to have children out of wedlock. Just a couple of decades ago this was looked down upon. But, as times change so do attitudes. Now unmarried couples with children aren't considered the pariahs that they once were. Many people do not value marriage as a necessity anymore. One it was to provide security both physical and financial. Love was in there sometimes, too. Now, as the role of women in our society has changed, marriage is no longer viewed as a necessity, nor is the idea of having children necessarily. Women, being just as capable as men at making a living do not need to marry for this sense of security. However, that's western society. Take for example some societies in the middle east. Marriage is absolutely necessary due to cultural norms. In some of these societies, women are not allowed to have jobs. Some countries do not allow women outside unless escorted by men. If a woman wasn't married in one of these societies, she would essentially have no means of living. She would have to rely on her family for food, clothing and money, and due to the culture, she would most likely constantly be pressured into getting married. Sometimes this choice would even be taken out of her hands.

Whatever works best.

I definitely believe there is a correlation between the society one belongs to and the choice to have kids outside of marriage or just to not marry in general. In Europe and North America, it can be argued that, the institution of marriage was founded on is false as to how it is perceived today or what successful marriages have turned into. Originally derived around the idea to allow men more legal control over women didn’t sit to well in a society of freedom and liberty for all. Years and many civil rights acts later, plus and ever continuous growth in divorce rate, you have a society that is full of single parent households, unmarried parents, gay parents, etc. This, all going against the traditional view of marriage, because the traditional view, in the sense in which it was applied to society, didn’t work with the society.
The only way being married would be as to benefit a family situation is solely for the legal rights allowed to those who are married and to those who are not. Many people give their vows and don’t stick to them and many people who are in very committed long term relationships who never walk down the isle.

Do it for the kids.

Getting married should be considered a personal choice. However, many people often feel that marriage is somewhat of an obligation. This obligation is often scaled at different levels. The levels mostly depend on things like what culture you are from, what family you belong to, or how much you fear the future. While many people rush into marriage, few remain to keep their identity and their distance from the concept of marriage. While some make this choice, it doesn't stop them from doing the things married couples do, such as have children. The whole reason people have children is out of selfishness. No child is ever able to speak to someone stating that they wish to be born. When a child is brought into this world, it is nobody's choice but the ones conceiving the child. If the ones conceiving know they want a child, then it is important for the mother AND father of the child to be around during the years of growing up. Statistics show that children are less involved with crime, drug/alcohol abuse, prostitution, murder, and rape when a mother and father is actively present throughout a child's life. Marriage helps out a lot when it comes to these kinds of situations. Also, it is a vital part of a child's understanding of love. Knowing right from wrong is really an issue that exists in the minds of fatherless and/or motherless children. That is why when having a child, the responsible thing for a mother and father to do is to be married. Children whose parents are unmarried may find themselves a bit confused and have issues dealing with ethical understanding in this world and thats not fair to the child.

didn't some dude in Europe marry a vegetable?

Traditional views of marriage in America is based around "love" and respect. What i notice more times than not is it is based on an idea of love and respect, not so much the actual love and respect. I have a friend that just got married to his long-time girlfriend whom he kind of hates, alot. He married her because they both have decent jobs and have a good financial agreement. In other societies where marriage is based around the stability of the community it could be just as viable as a marriage in America which is loosely based on an infatuation that can and will dwindle. If an arranged marriage helps to support the stability between two warring communities it is a legitimate thing.

As for having children without being married, I think it is becoming more common in America because of many reasons. I don't necessarily believe a marriage has to be legally consummated in order to raise children in a proper household. My aunt is a lesbian with a woman she has been with for almost 30 years and they have a grown child who is relatively well-adjusted. I don't believe in marriage as much as I should i guess.

Loners

In Western society today, (and I focus more on the cities and faster-paced societies) I think we've become far more independent, and therefore, far more isolated. We are really a society of loners. It is far more common these days for someone to live alone for at least part of their life, if not all of it. My point is, marriage isn't as important as it used to be; it has become a piece of paper rather than a sacred commitment. Divorce is so easy an option, that what does a piece of paper mean anymore? The major functions of marriage aren't to raise children, be a part of your community, join the two families, etc. I'd say that the major functions of marriage these days are to attempt to survive a rapidly changing society, and for taxes. A lot of people these days aren't having children until their "careers take off" or they don't at all, or they have them young, divorce and someone takes custody and then they have children without marriage anyway. I think in other cultures it is still sacred. Within our own country there is a huge difference in the importance of marriage. It depends on your religion, community, up-bringing etc.

Marriage is a Partnership

In societies where a person must fend for themselves in every way, where the government does not supply a people with basic needs, I could see marriage based solely on romantic love to be a risk. I think it's hard for us Westerners to see it like that, because we all carry the notion that you should marry the person you love and not just the person you need. I whole-heatedly agree to that, but in a society where you have to fend for yourself, now I'm just guessing, but it would seem that instinct rather than love would have to drive one to marry. I don't think it necessarily means that they would have to sacrifice happiness. One must merely find a mate who can help in your survival. You need someone who will contribute, not burden.

The ironic part is I think even us Americans look at it that way, too. We just tend to put more emphasis on the love part. But love comes in many shapes. Marriage is, after all, a partnership. And in that sort of society, where ones relies on relatives to help you survive, you need a partner who can walk the walk.

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?

Freebee

As a gift giver I am completely obsessed with finding that "perfect" gift. So after reading the article and the blog assignment I had to sit down and think about it for awhile. Is there such a thing as a free gift? So after thinking about it I decided that there are different levels of free. Free in that this really reminded me of you and I can't wait to see your reaction. In that case the reaction would be your gift in return. The satisfaction that the person really enjoyed the gift. In another case there are gifts that someone may know that you need help with something, so they will help you out but then expect you to help them next time they need something. This would be free as in it did not cost you anything to return the gesture just time. Therefor I think that there are not many things that are actually free even thou they don't cost you anything.

it all depends

I think the idea of a free gift depends on the gift giver and the receiver, as well as the situation. Personally, when I give a gift I'm not expecting or wanting anything in return, I simply thought that the person I'm giving something to do would appreciate that gift in some way or another. Although when someone gives me a gift I feel that I need to return something in some way, probably out of respect for the person. I want them to know that I appreciate the gesture that they have shown for me. When talking about Christmas or something like that, generally I think that everyone who gives a gift expects to receive one as well, especially when it comes to family members. On the other hand, if someone buys something for somebody at random because they think that person will enjoy it, there probably isn't a lot of expectation for something in return.

Free Gifts (or, My Brain Is Too Fried to Think of a Better Title)

Is there such a thing as a free gift? I think it depends on how you define "free". If you mean free of any obligation whatsoever, then I say no. After receiving a gift, one is obligated to give something to the giver, whether it's an object, your friendship/loyalty, your affection, or at the very least, a show of appreciation.
It may also depend on how you define a gift. In a close friendship, two people regularly give eachother "gifts", so often that they can't really keep track of reciprocation. For example, imagine that you give your friend a small gift, like a book you think she'd like. A month or two goes by and she hasn't given you a physical gift. But she did buy you lunch a couple weeks back, and brought you coffee for a late-night cram session. In such a relationship, the focus is on showing that you care for the other person, not on competition or obligation.

I can't feel it..

Time rotates around us, people say every aspect of our living self involves time. Time is empty space, completely static and not real. You cannot handle time, you cannot live in the past or future, time is your body, your heart and your mind in the present. If you view time as a gift, you're acknowledging something given to you. Time is nothing, not a present, not an entity, only space. You cannot hold time or feel it, you belong to time, time does not belong to you. Time referred to as money just develops the idea that with money we can use our space on this planet however we choose. We can dedicate more time to certain things and we can reject time with others. Since time is not real, the only way to view it is through this present reality.Time is used as a reference. Time is nothing, you only permit time. 

my gift

When I started coaching the varsity swim program back in Michigan right before the old coach stepped down he told me that I was giving a gift. He explained that my knowledge of the sport was my knowledge to these students I was coaching. He went further to say that the Native Americans would give gifts to the new European settlers and would be completely baffled by their responses. The new comers kept the gifts. What the natives believed is that they put part of their soul in their gifts and that they were sharing their soul with these new people, but the thing is once you use the item you are to put part of your soul in it and pass it on. My coach called it an "Indian Gift". I chuckled when he said that. But that is what many of us do everyday. Our knowledge and time, every time you tell someone a story, explain how to do something, give a hint, or just a pat on the back is our "Indian gift" to the cycle. We don't expect a gift in return but just for our gift to continue down the path. I believe in free gifts because I give them everyday. I'm not obligated or expecting anything in return I just do them, and all I can hope is that they do the same. That they pass that little part of me to the next person so that my spirit will not perish

gift reciprocation as a form of respect

It seems to me that it is felt to return a gift after receiving one because you respect the person. They did something for you, so why shouldn't you do something for them? In our society it has gotten out of control with holidays, Christmas in particular. But in a normal situation of gift giving it is a natural urge to give something back.

On the question of a free gift I think that there is no such thing, and that isn't a bad thing. Giving gifts is a way to show our love or appreciation for someone, why would we want to stop them from doing the same thing? Not so that you receive something, but so that they can also give something.

This is a free gift, mother hubbard

A free gift can exist as long as the receiver doesn’t inscribe any meaning to the gift more than an object they have received.  It all depends on the receiver.  You could be trying to express the deepest part of emotions involved with your relationship to the receiver; but if the intent isn’t recognized by the receiver, as far as they are concerned it doesn’t exist.  So, all you did was transfer an object from your control to the receiver's control.  This means if you’re giving to a robot, or an asshole, then free gifts exist: unless your gift is free advice, or life, in which case it’s up to the receiver to determine whether it was actually a gift in the first place.  And the moral of the story is never give the gift of life to an asshole.

Now let’s everybody be a little less subversive and lay off on the holidays. 

Is it really the thought that counts?

A real gift isn't free or expensive, it is just a gift. When I am given a gift, in most cases depending on who is giving me the gift, i don't necessarily feel obligated to give something back in return. Same as if i am giving a gift, i dont expect or necessarily want something in return. This might be because I have always thought its pointless to give nonsense gifts, like impersonal chachkee (sp?) holiday or birthday gifts, and have always thought if you are going to give someone a gift then it should be something specific and unique to them and something you feel you want and need to do. This would mean that you obviously have some type of close relationship with that person or have shared some sort of intimate moment with them and therefor could get actual enjoyment and use out of a gift as well as connect with you more. This is similar if not the same to the examples mentioned in our reading about the origins of gift giving, its supposed to be a process of thought, a way to show an interest and understanding in a relationship. When giving a true gift to someone you are in a sense giving them a part of yourself because its the way you interpret your relationship with someone. It is those gifts i receieve that i find it necessary to recipricate,ones that are impersonal or for selfish reasons i pretty much discard because its not "the thought of the gift" that counts if they have the same thought at one specific time a year, every year, and that is the only time you recieve gifts. Thats not a real thought, just a conidtioned habit.

Free Gift? Nah...

I've had some theories about gift giving in the past couple of years. Now, when I give a gift to someone, (and when I say that I mean that I just felt like giving them something. Not for their Birthday, Christmas, Valentines or any other white person holiday that doesn't mean shit) I don't expect them to reciprocate. That, to me, defeats the purpose of being a gift rather than an exchange. That's why I've had problems with the concept of Christmans gifts and birthday gifts. We aren't giving each other gifts, we're exchanging and competing. I just think it's extremely silly and in the past couple years I've done much less of the holiday gifts and more of the random ones. This article does well at explaining the cycle and process of gift "giving".

gifts are free if I dont feel like giving back

Whenever you receive a gift do you feel obligated to give as well? I do. On the other hand do we give gifts with the intention of the other person reciprocating the exchange? I don't. To ask if a gift is free is a weird question and I never really thought about before. I have given gifts and been bummed when the person didn't even reciprocate with what I thought was a proper praise or thank you. So in turn the thanks for a gift is as important as the equal return of giving a gift. Some gifts to the right person are free as well as from them are free. A loved one gives you a gift and you know that they are not expecting anything in return, just the same someone who knows you and that you would give a gift without wanting in return. I prefer to give gifts at random times when they aren't expected because the person receiving the gift seems more pleased and gracious, yet confused and appreciative. In my eyes I can give a gift for free without wanting anything in return except for praise or thanks, so maybe it's not free. Does the expectations of thanks make the gift less "free", perhaps? However it goes I don't really know if a gift can be considered free unless you truly expect nothing from the recipient.

I have a friend from Sweden who gives gifts but refuses to be there to give them to the person. She claims it's because she doesn't want the feeling of thanks or reciprocation to be obligated. Maybe i should follow her lead and go about gift giving in the same way.

Not in the culture I know

Take the holiday season as an example, particularly Christmas considering most Americans are Christian. People usually buy other people gifts in the expectation that they, too, will be receiving a gift. On Valentine's day, a couple is automatically expected to buy each other gifts because, somehow, that proves one's love. And I think we all know the consequences of not buying your "lover" a gift. That is a somewhat tainted ritual of buying love.

By the nature of our society there cannot be a free gift. We are a people who give rarely for the sole purpose of giving. In every instance I can think of, there is always some sort of motive for the giver. Some sort of repayment. Whether subconscious or tangible, there's always a reason.

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.

To say "time is a gift" is to say that we are blessed to be here and that you should make the most out of the time that has been given to you. The comparison between saying that "time is money"and "time is a gift" is that when you are saying that "time is money" there are many things to take in. Like when one is considering "time" are you thinking the time that you are learning, moving up the corporate ladder, or making something that you can then turn around and sell. In that aspect time may be money. When choosing what way you want to consider time one might want to consider what they want out of it. If they want to take in the happiness and and joy of life or if you want it to be consumed with the need for success.

No wonder...

Saying "time is a gift" and "time is money," are two complete different ways that people can look at life. To me, the people who think "time is a gift" are usually who people who live in the moment and look at life with a positive outlook. People who think "time is money" seem to be people who are work-driven and are always busy. Different cultures and different people all have different outlooks on how we should live our lives. When I think of "time is money" I automicaly correlate that statement with the United States. Here we are always looking to get ahead; who has the nicer car, whose kids go to a better school. Our society seems taken over by the idea that money is the answer for happiness. When I think "time is a gift" I automically thought of Spain and the Spanish culture. I remember learning back in high school that in Spain there's a time during the day where people take a break just for a nap. This has always stuck with me because I thought this concept of enjoying life and taking things slow was the way things should be. To me, "time is money" is negative within itself. Industrialist countries like the U.S. are always on the move and always busy. We want to get ahead in life and everything always has to be a competition. I feel like this is such a negative way to live. No wonder the countries with the industrialist subsistence strategy are the most stressed.

Don't have enough time

Time as money or time a a gift is an easy concept I believe to get behind. I see it as everyday we wake up is a privilege. We as a society put too much emphasise on setting time limits. the nine to five day and the hour and a half lessons don't usually fir the workload so we manipulate the workload to fit our time limit.

"You Are Not Your Job"

Time is money or time is a gift? I'd say things are a little more complex than that. On one hand, sure you could spend every second of your life earning, but what would be the point? So you could enjoy all the fancy shit you bought once you hit retirement and you're far too old to do the things you wanted to during you're youth? On the other hand if you spend your life enjoying the "precious gift" of time and never doing anything, like oh I don't know, actually making enough money to live, chances are you're going to end up homeless or dead (barring a trust fund of course). Essentially, we must strike a balance between the two. Sure, spend some time making money. But don't just work for the sake of it. Do what makes you happy. Otherwise you might just find that who you are and what you are, are becoming the same thing.

Time is... a sword!

To get a broader perspective on TIME, I asked my favorite Saudi Arabian to tell me his culture's view on the subject.  Mansour Ahmed Ibrahim Almubarak Altwaijri (we just call him Manny, but his full name makes him seem more "exotic," which of course we get a kick out of doing) told me an old Islamic saying:

"Time is like a sword.  If you don't cut it, it will end up cutting you."  

In other words, you are to take advantage of time,  value it, or it will just pass you by.  I thought this was interesting because the typical American views of time- as a gift or money- makes it seem as though it is controlled by us, as though it is something that we can hold, take, or give away.  The Arabic culture sees time more as what it really is: something that will exist, and move along, whether or not we chose to acknowledge it or do anything about it.

Manny's behavior reflects this belief in a rather amusing way.  He is a blur of constant motion.  He doesn't procrastinate on things that he wants to do or has to do, and a particularly important goal will always be on his mind.  His time in America for school is rapidly drawing short and his behavior is becoming more frenzied each month.  I sometimes wonder if this is the effect of blending his culture's belief in taking full advantage of time, and the Western ideal of  placing a value on time in light of what was accomplished within it.

Time is never time at all

When first thinking of the idea of time as a gift one might think it would be appreciated more then if thought as the idea of “time is money.” I think both ways of thinking of time are a way of appreciating it. One who thinks of time as a gift might value the physical and emotional relationships they have with people and the world around them. Someone who views time as money might value hardworking ways and the importance the dollar has on the ability to live and sustain a certain way of life. Neither is necessarily a better way to look at time because overall everyone comes upon their viewpoints based on experiences they have had during their life. In addition, just because someone might stick to either motto doesn’t mean one can’t ever see through the eyes of the other. However, the downside or negative aspects of viewing time as money is that you can get caught up in the nonsense, man made ways of life and miss out on what, perhaps, is really happening around you. And being able to view time as a gift could allow you to live and lead a more healthy balanced life.

dear time,

Society is sorry for taking you for granted.  People don't take the time an appreciate the now. We surround ourselves in deadlines, and the idea of going back and trying to fix our past. If we read, and understood the phrase 'time is a gift' opposed to "time as money' our outlook on many day to day events would change. I once read an article on doing what you love, and the money following. This couldn't be more true. Society stresses in the business world to make money and spend so much of their time thinking about what needs to be done, not what they are really doing. Not enjoying the time in a day, makes us loose a lot of who we are. Mayans were way ahead of their time with the development of the calendar and although the were also concerned with time, I bet they viewed time more as(is) a gift, than time as money. 

Time is a Gift

I would assume "time is a gift" would refer to the idea of making every minute count. Time is money refers to the idea that every minute is a minute you could be making money. It's what most Americans live by, and in consequence, we've turned ourselves into a stressed society where your line of work defines who you are. Even if you hate what you do, it has to be done because it is the "responsible" thing to do.

In a society that defines time as a gift, the people spend their lives doing what they can to enjoy it. They spend time doing things to, forgive me for being cliche, better the soul. Some Americans view this as an irresponsible way of life because you can't buy the so-called necessities of life. I disagree with this view, though. Personally, I would rather do something I enjoy and look forward to.

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.

they probably talked too much anyway

Of course we should care that languages die out. Language is an invention of a particular culture. It’s how a culture assigns meaning to the world around it, how a culture defines and constructs the world around it. If we lose a language we lose a large aspect of how that culture lived.

Languages also preserve a culture’s history, or how they developed. In America, vernacular is changing all the time. France has a regulated language, and they have only so many words. They drop some, or pick some up. Language helps us understand the process in which a culture grew, and according to the Language Out Of Time article, how they understood the world. All I’m saying is, let the whales save themselves.

something clever

The fact that half the languages will be gone in a hundred years. What if Italians stop speaking Italian... well if you believe that cultural identity is important, then that would be a catastrophe. Language is one of the most easily identifiable part of any culture. Accents are a huge for identity on where your from. I'm from Michigan, Born and raised in the city and even thirty minutes outside the city there is a rural michigander accent being spoken. You don't really notice it that much if you come from outside of michigan but its there. If they stopped speaking that accent it wouldn't be the end of their culture but thats because they will most likely blend into another culures accent. I think thats what other language and culture will end up doing, it might be the end of one but the old culture will still interwind itself into the new. Thats not bad, thats what the united states is supposed to be right? I still celebrate my polish roots, don't speak polish at all, rarely ever hear it unless my mom stubs her toe or something and she starts cursing in languages i've never heard of. Well, I guess I'm saying languages might die of but their culture won't ever go away.

a little piece of the whole

I had no idea that so many languages were spoken in the world today. It's sad to think that nearly half are in danger of extinction and that every two weeks one falls out. I think that we should care that these languages are dying out. Language is a cultural identity in itself and I feel like if we help preserve the languages, or at least make sure that they are documented, it will help to expand our knowledge on other cultures we didn't know about before. I think we should care simply because it's part of the world's past. When we loose a language a whole culture full of history and knowledge disappears. If we can document these languages before they become extinct, we can help preserve a little piece of the whole.

Come Together

The extinction of uncommon languages? Actually, I dont think its all that bad. It would only make the world that much more united. I would love to be able to communicate with someone from a different country or culture as the result of us knowing the same language. I think that by eliminating some of these (what is considered) "unpopular languages", and teaching the world more predominant languages, human interaction (culture to culture) would begin to flourish. Communication between cultures we never thought would exist may soon begin to exist. Im thinking circa 2050... global issues being resolved as a result of effective communication and collaboration,  youth of all different cultures communicating and collaborating on myspace.. maybe on things such as musical projects? 

When you have a positive outlook on this situation it doesn't seem all that bad. We need to accept growth and development in this world lingually and learn that there are other ways to preserve culture through medians such as food, art, design, style, architecture, stories, etc. It might be hard for some, but people need to be bold and be open to change. Im more glad to hear that some languages will become extinct long before any wildlife and plantlife does.

Lost Tongue, lost wisdom

I agree with some of the previous posts that dying languages is just "the way the world works," especially in the past couple centuries.  The world is rapidly growing smaller as civilization takes giant leaps of "progress," for better or for worse.  The important thing is that we document and record these dying languages before they are lost forever, and with them knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.  

The part of the article that stuck out to me most was the paragraph about the Kallawaya people who have a language used to pass along ancient knowledge of healing herbs.  An area of great interest to me, I was shocked that some of the medicinal plants were "previously unknown to science."  The formulations for most modern drugs were taken straight from nature, many from some indigenous plant in the Amazon.  Contraceptive pills, for example, were first made using progesterone extracted from Mexican yams found in the rain forests of Veracruz.  And where would we be, ladies, without this precious little pill?  Unhappy, at the very least!

Potentially empty existence

Language over times accumulates immense amounts of geographical, natural, and cultural knowledge that we encode in the names we attached to particular places. We become intimate with our lands and the identity of our places become our own.  Both landscape and cultural identity is learned through words that we identify with at early periods. The loss of language can potentially destroy individuality and initiate confusion of how we relate to ourselves and the world and cultures that surround us. Culture's prolong there way of life for significant reasons that do not necessarily need to be domestic to us, or just. 

If language dies, we are limited to perspectives, that may open different ideas within us. Language brings order and reference to societies and create a balance of harmony within a particular community. The loss of language, I feel dehumanizes people and there culture. Loss of a language brings ideas of a particular language being disabled, disordered and weighing importance when it is unnecessary. The idea of language's dying is ultimately destructive.

Langauge is the key to the soul.

Languages come and go as do parts of the human anatomy. A language that may have once been useful, and universally used, will fall to the wayside when I more concentrated, or easier language comes to take its place, making the use not only easier, but negating the need for the older one.

While a language is part of the core of a cultural identity, as cultures change, so does the identity itself. If a language is in a transitional phase, it could be swept up and replaced by a new one.

Whenever a language dies, or is pushed to the wayside (not commonly used) part of history is changed. As people forget, things like documents, carvings, anything used in that dead language begin to fade from human knowledge.

Lost in Assimilation

As a writer, language is the only tool I have to get my work across. So, of course, I am going to defend it's disappearance, even if it's not my native tongue that's vanishing, but that's how I like to picture it. I think a good way to try to understand what's happening to languages all across the reaches of the earth is to imagine that the English language is dying. I know personally, I would feel somewhat threatened. Look at everything the English language stands for, every image it conjures up in history, in today's world. Why do people speak it today? What kind of weight does a language like English carry? Remember, we think to ourselves in English, well, most of us.
While I'm being pretentious and asking rhetorical questions, I'll say that each language in the world paints a portrait of the speakers culture. The way they structure sentences,the complexity, the simplicity, the words they choose to hold a lot of meaning, words with multiple meanings, borrowed words, things that were not assigned words at all. Some languages include single words that refer to specific and complex situations that take other languages sentences to tell. It speaks volumes of a people, really.
Language, to me, is the cornerstone of all human civilization. It goes hand in hand with just about everything. What if the Egyptians couldn't have communicated verbally or otherwise, with one another. We would probably have some pretty shitty pyramids. Language allows us to live in groups, and conduct politics. It's such an inherent mannerism, to talk, that taking a language away from a culture would be like removing the composer from the symphony orchestra.
Sure, trying to revive every language that is dying is futile, and no doubt streamlining our list of world languages is a product of globization, among other things, but losing a language altogether means losing a history. Every sound and symbol of a language may be arbitrary outside itself, but collectively, languages and their evolution through time help us understand who we were, and who we've become.
One more language dead is one more language Columbia College students can get tattooed on themselves, and nobody wants that.

I'm a bit of a pessimist continued......

Okay I just realized that I ranted and didn't completely answer the questions. ( I just read a lot about Native American genocide. I get worked up)

I do think that languages are important. I think we should certainly do our best to preserve them. Many will die out but that doesn't mean their existence should be completly forgotton. I believe Latin was a dead language until some philosophical dudes during the renaissance reinforced its importance. (Sorry if I made that up).

I think identifying ones self with the language that they use is very real. I choose to use English in a way that makes me feel comfortable. I'm not bilingual but I would assume that many Mexican Americans feel a sense of identity by speaking spanish at home etc. So yes, it is important to preserve even if it wont be used. Language is part of history and I believe that history is extremely important. It is to me at least.

I'm a bit of a pessimist

Cultures are deteriorating in general as the big, shiny, new globalization and colonization stomp all over the little old cultures that have been developing for hundreds, if not thousands of years. With globalization, we'll continue to infect other cultures until it's all just one big bad collage of mindless pop-culture. I'm sure hundreds of languages went extinct during the colonization of America and the Native American genocide that took place. (Not to mention every other part of their culture that was forced to be forgotten). It's still happening today. Every day that goes by, another Inigenous child forgets about his ancient tribal language learns slang from MTV instead. The problem is we're just now figuring this out. Had we addressed the issue a hundred years ago and realized that brainwashing and exterminating all of these people would be wiping out complete histories, maybe we could have approached things a little differently. For now, all we can really do is document and pay tributes. We gave globalization a mind of it's own and there isn't much we can do to prevent it from happening.

That's the way the world works...

The dieing out of languages is a symptom of globalization. I do think that language is important to cultural identity, in that every sound and syllable can distinguish you from other similar cultures, and language is the backbone of gesture. And gesture can sometimes define a culture (look at the Italians).

The idea of losing so many languages is a tad depressing, but that's just the route we've taken. With the advent of accessible, long-distance travel, we're slowly heading to what America started off as; a gigantic mixing pot of culture and language. You can make a good argument for weather this is a good or a bad thing, but either way, it is what's happening and there's no way to really stop it. Preserving language by writing it down could be a useful historical record for future generations; but beyond that, there's nothing we can really do. I say ride with the flow and see what happens.

choose your words carefully.

First of all I was shocked to read the number of languages circulating round the world today, and the danger so many are in. I think that down sizing in languages to an extent would be healthy for the world. It has the possibility to bring cultures closer together and become a learning experience.  As some languages die, I feel like others are becoming more advanced.  The English language is spoken in many different forms.  Americans use similar words for very different meanings.  

I do think it is important we have documentation for all the languages that have been developed. As well as do our best to preserve the cultures we can.  Knowing as much as we can about other cultures will continue to define what being a individual in this universe entails. 

I speak the oldest language ever. the language of Slack

I think when a language is lost, also lost is the expression of the people who spoke it. A language isn't just a communication tool it's an expressive tool, a gestural tool, and a educational tool. The English language, for example, has many different versions of slang and pronunciation. This isn't just in what words you say but rather how you say the words and their inherent meaning. I work with a Russian man who speaks English, Polish, Russian and Ukrainian. His responses to relatively simple and light-hearted questions come across in English as being crass and "mean", but he is far from being either of those things.

I imagine that in some of these lost languages, that are being lost on a daily and weekly basis, teach us not only how they use language but also how they communicate with one-another. An in learning how they communicate and the idioms in their communication could teach more about them as a people.

Living in Chicago we have a way of speaking to one-another that too comes across as crass and harsh to people with more of a rural or southern dialect.

I believe language and how you speak it it important to individuality and culture completely.

Following the Fate of the Dinasaur

and the dodo...



According to the NY Times article “Languages Die, But Not Their Last Words”, there are about 7,000 languages spoken in the world today. Of these languages, nearly half will likely be extinct in the next 100 years. [Read this article before your answer these questions.]

In your blog response, I want you discuss one or more of the following questions:

Should we care about languages dying out? Why? Is language important to cultural identity? What is lost when we lose a language?

Please think of an original title for each of your posts. I will count comments on other people’s posts as your post for the week when your posts respond to something that the original poster stated in her/his blog response.

in the bush

Reading this passage, and the other posts so far, its rather apparent that the Tiv people show naive realism. But so do the author and her english buddy who gave her hamlet. He stated that Shakespeare is relative to everyone, which proven in this this piece is very untrue. Even the author believed that Hamlet would translate to everyone at first. She was quickly corrected by the tribesman. They couldn't even understand the concept of ghosts, which is a very common myth in our own culture. But I got a kick out of is when she first started telling the story the Tiv people saw Hamlet as the wrong doer and she had to do quite a bit of thinking to get them to think otherwise and then how the elder goes and tells her the ending, I enjoyed that so much I made my room mate read it. But going back to my point of naive realism, in the passage one of the elders even says that they are not that much different from Europeans, but he was referring to hamlets uncle marrying his mom which is big taboo for us and not so much for them.
Don't know if this is what we are supposed to write about, I guess I'll find out in a little bit.

From the bush view

In the beginning the author tells us that everything humans experience is the same, regardless of who interprets it - that the translation/meaning would remain not far from the original. The people of the Bush interpreted and found it hard to understand Shakespeare. The whole concepts of "ghosts", "dueling" and what not seemed baffling to the people; for in their culture most of those things are not practiced or seem possible. Although those things are often relevant and understood somewhat in Western cultures it does not translate to others and from the text, the people of the Bush. Sure they were able to piece things bit by bit, the story was understood in a sense but it was perceived from a different angle. The Tiv Elders were able to relate to their culture but in the end it debunked Bohannan's assumptions.

Tiv Elders Portray Naive Realism

After reading Shakespeare in the Bush it was evident that Bohannan was trying to get observations by simply telling a story. The Tiv illustrated naive realism by thinking that their way of interpreting the story was the right way. At the end of Shakespeare in the Bush, one of the old men stated, "when you return to tour own land your elders will see that you have not been sitting in the bush, but among those who knows things and who have taught you wisdom." The Tiv honestly believed that people everywhere see the world in the same way they do.

shakespeare translation

Shakespeare to the majority of cultures, including our own, has always been know as one of the greatest English poets; but also one of the most difficult to understand. I found Laura's desire to explain Shakespeare to the people of the bush interesting. The cultural differences she had to explain were hard for them to understand.  The idea of having only one wife was not something they understood or could relate too. The Western beliefs are far different from the people of the bush, making the two societies difficult to connect. Emotional connections could not be made between them. Shakespeare's messages was lost, which was partly because she was unable to explain the entire story, as well as taking time to explain all the cultural differences.  I don't think the author would be able to explain Shakespeare's Hamlet to the people in the bush with out loosing the significance of his writing.

The author begins to tell the story with assumptions that it is a universal text and that no matter who hears or reads the story, the conclusion from it will be somewhat similar. When he shares Hamlet with the people of the Bush, it is obvious that just about everything has an entirely different meaning to them. They seem to think it is almost rediculous that Hamlet wanted to kill his father's brother because of a "ghost"; something that they were unable to grasp because they don't believe in it. It was almost as if they viewed it in an opposite way; while for the author it is clear that Hamlet should be upset about his mother's quick remarriage, the people of the Bush see that it is an entirely good and normal thing. This story is nearly impossible to be universal because while they were able to understand what was going on, they viewed what was happening in a completely different way. 

Bushwhacked

What assumptions did the author test out in the bush?

His primary goal was to see how Bushman in Africa would respond to Shakespear's "Hamlet" through their own set of moral and family values. The author thought, from his knowledge of the story, that there was only one possible interpretation.  Being a story rich in European history and morals, it was taken completely out of context by the natives. Ghosts, rulers, duels, and revenge, while all to common in western culture, such concepts did not translate into their culture. There was no such thing as ghosts, madness was something only achievable through bewitching, water itself could not kill someone, and familial quarrels where taken from a completely backwards stance. While they formed a story forged with the values of Shakespear, it was formed of their own values.