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.

Bushed

The author was quite sure from the beginning of the story that Hamlet had only one possible interpretation. Once the story had started it became very apparent that the Tiv had a completely different direction of interpreting the story. The Tiv only acknowledge the word "chief" as "king" or "ruler" and from that, different cultural responsibilities are lost in translation. The attempt is sincere, but with the construction of words being different from both sides, the true, once assumed universal idea of the story is no more. In the story we are presented that people in different societies put stories and conditions in terms that are more customary to themselves, and that experience with the idea is vital. I also feel that under the conditions the author was against, dealing with people who are foreign to her perspective and the story involving more than one person, with alcohol is a difficult task. I think over a period of time, dedicating time to one individual and explaining the story under conditions that are not so forced, a better outcome would be achieved.

The people of the Bush had a difficult time understanding the concepts of Shakespeare because many of the idea they could not grasp. Like the idea of only having one wife and why that wife was so important. So it made the idea of someone going mad over the one he loved hard to understand. Also the concept of a ghost became lost in translation, so much that they could not understand the fact that it was representing Hamlets father and was not just an omen sent by a witch. These ideas have different meaning to both parties as well as many other concepts in the story.

So with all of these cultural differences between the Western World and the men of The Bush, the translation of the story was altered and lost meaning. The two worlds have many cultural beliefs that do not share the same ideas and make it hard for this story to have the same meaning across the board.

Elders from the bush just don't understand

Bohannan tested the assumption that the story of Hamlet is universally intelligible due to the idea that, despite theory of naïve realism, “ the general plot and motivation of the greater tragedies would always be clear-everywhere...” Her assumptions were not verified, I believe, because she was unable to translate the whole story. Skipping over parts because she didn’t know how to translate them linguistically and/or because she was holding back based on her knowledge and understanding of their culture. This lead to the inability of the Tiv elders to grasp the western culture point of view, as well as, the understanding and meaning behind the actions in the story. The Tiv elders were also expressing ethnocentrism, relating only to their own culture, which only added to the struggle and ultimately hindering Bohannan from proving her assumptions.

Was it possible for the author to translate the concepts and emotions of Shakespeare’s world into the African language and context to render the story understandable to them?

Some of the concepts presented in Hamlet were lost in context. The people in the African bush insisted that it was not the soul of Hamlet's father, but an omen sent by a witch. One of the elders asks if Hamlet's father and uncle had the same mother. Bohannan is baffled by the question and says she is unsure. Another elder asks her who married the other wives of the "dead chief," she says he had only one wife, and the elder states that a chief must have more than one wife.

With that said, I don't think the emotions of the story were lost. The concepts that were lost in translation seem to be mere technicalities. Of course, it's impossible for any of us to say how the elders truly felt about the story. But trying to grasp their cultural differences, I don't feel omen or ghost would really change the feeling of fear, astonishment, or confusion.

The concept of revenge is lost to the elders. But even to me, a man born and raised in a western society, vengeance feels like a fruitless, vane self-righteous venture. I see it differently than Hamlet (even, perhaps, after the sight of a dead father), but that doesn't mean I can't understand his emotion. The elder says, and I quote, "But if his father's brother had indeed been wicked enough to bewitch Hamlet and make him mad, that would be a good story indeed, for it would be his fault that Hamlet, being mad, no longer had any sense and thus was ready to kill his father's brother." In a twisted sort of way, I do think the elder did understand, perhaps lightly, perhaps subconsciously, but in his own right.

Shakespeare in the Bush

It seems it would be nearly impossible to explain Hamlet to such a different culture considering that Hamlet (although it's read in many other cultures) requires the ablilty to accept the story with an impossible plot, and also, that it requires some knowledge of western beliefs. Ghosts, are a western belief, as well as marriage and life after death. It didn't seem that the tribe told stories that were fantasy, or that were completely fiction. Bohannan assumed not only that they were able to accept an impossible story, but also that they would understand certain characterisitics in humans that they simply don't believe in. The conflicts in Hamlet are dramatic because they go against the morals of our own society. ( unfortunately I haven't read it all the way through but I assume there is a lot of backstabbing between relatives, possibly some adultry, and most likely a simultaneous death or two). We have the ability to accept that Hamlet never happened and never could, but the tribe is obviously not accustomed to completely making up stories.

There was certainly no connection to the emotions that the tribe felt and the emotions that Shakespeare intended to provoke from Hamlet. To provoke the feelings of betrayal, anger, tragedy etc. Bohannan would have to completely change the plot, characteristics and morals of the story....... So no. I don't think it was possible for the author to translate the story.

The author tested out the assumption that Hamlet was "universally intelligible." I believe her assumptions were that the general idea of a brother killing his brother in order to win the throne was a universal concept. However the concept of a son avenging his father's death, such as Hamlet, was not a universal concept. The "old man" in the bush contended to the fact that Hamlet could not avenge his father's death, it wasn't customary for a youth to strike out against his elder relatives. Also Hamlet's mother wasn't thought of as being out of line for her marriage to Hamlet's Uncle, in the bush "who would hoe the field." Many of the general concepts of having only one wife, ghosts and vengeance were typically not customary to the people in the bush.

I believe the translation was a a good attempt to explain the story it's just a matter of ideology and customs that make the story of Hamlet unusual to the people in the bush. All in all in the end I think the general concepts were universal between the two cultures, I just think with such different views on a "chief" and his family that this story didn't have the same affect as it would to someone with similar western views.