Arranged marrage, and Russian mail-order brides

I can’t think of anything worse than spending your life with someone that you didn’t choose to merry. You would be forced to have a relationship with that person, and if you began to have true feelings for some one else, you would have to hide those feelings or your life would be at risk.

When I hear forced marriage, think of old medieval kings and queens and how people married into royalty way back then. Even though I know that it is still going on, I didn’t really think about it until I read this blog assignment.

When it comes down to it, if you life is at risk in this situation, I can see why you would choose arranged marriage. I can’t relate to this type of situation because I grew up in the great U.S of A, wear people have endless opportunities and choices. I also find it ironic that the divorce rate in the U.S. is the highest in the world.

Oh yeah and what about Russian mail-order brides? Do they really need to get out of Russia that bad? I think it’s funny that some of them are educated people that make a living in, but still would marry who ever just to move to the U.S

Non romantic marriages

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. Without the state to provide people with fundamental services such as clean water and sanitation facilities. Also, without the state providing certain social securities for the unemployed or disabled, citizens must rely on their social networking in order to survive. Without this intricate set of social networks, people would not have any sort of assistance when they are in desperate need. Therefore, social networks comprised of family and friends provide a very important safety net for billions of people in the developing nations of the world. In such societies, it may be risky for people to choose marriage partners exclusively based on romantic love. Due to the conditions described above, one in economic deprivation must consider the wealth of their future spouse, or the social networks that said spouse would provide for the family. Both economic status and potential social networks must be taken into consideration when one is searching for a marital partner. Choosing a partner based on romantic love alone could have economic repercussions or possible rewards, but the economic capabilities of that partner should be taken into serious consideration before marriage. Other factors that may contribute to the overall economic and social growth of a community include the education of the young citizens, the health care system of this community, and job-training facilities or programs. Both education and job-training programs will provide citizens with the knowledge and skills necessary to become a productive and well-paid member of society. Providing young individuals with nutritious food and health care facilities will ensure that they will be healthy enough to complete their education and/or job training, making the society more economically stable.

Marriage

In the society we live in most couples do not marry if a child is conceived. I dont see this as a problem because women are more than able to support themselves and a child in todays society. If the couple wants to get married because possible emotional damage to the child of not having a mother and a father in the home go ahead. In cultures where male presence is needed for the survival of the family without there being "love" its just survival theres nothing wrong with that. In societies were the marriage is chosen by the elders in the family the couple sometimes grow closer to one another after having children; initially getting married if they weren't in "love." The idea of love and survival are very different among societies. I think that if our society needed to change to a survival view of the way we go about reproducing our society would fall.

"All You Need Is Love" ?

As much as I would like to believe The Beatles that, “all you need is love”, I think it’s very risky to choose a marriage partner exclusively based on romantic love in countries where the state is weak or absent. I know somebody who just found out that they have some serious health problems, but they do not have any health insurance. As a result of this, they are unable to receive the proper medical treatment. That’s an awful situation to be in, and if it came down to it I would think there best bet would be to marry someone with health insurance that they could benefit from. You can’t survive on just love alone. So for people in countries or situations where they could greatly benefit from marrying someone whom they did not love, but could take care of them….then that is what they should do. You have to look out for your physical wellbeing first and foremost. And if you are lucky enough to find someone that you love who can also take care of you, then in the words of Michael Bluth, “Well, yeah you've gotta lock that down.”

Individuals and Western Culture

I find there is a relationship between those two factors. Western culture is a very individual driven culture. We tend to be more independent and not rely on society as much as people in other societies. They depend on other people to provide the essentials for living, such as food and shelter. In our western culture, we rely on our parents for such things when we are younger. However, as we grow our reliance on them becomes less. 

Because of this we can choose to go against the established traditions. Such as, getting married right away, having children. We do not fear shunning of our culture for doing these things. While in other societies you could become an out cast for not subscribing to these traditions and possibly not be able to care for yourself.

"I do"/"I Don't"

In countries such as the United States and Europe it is becoming increasingly common to have children outside of wedlock. It no longer seems necessary to marry if a pregnancy occurs. This stand off approach to marriage could be linked to the increase in divorce rates; people are getting married at an older age than people did only a few generations ago. Typically, when two people were married that is when they would begin to live together and support themselves. In today’s society people live with their significant others without having to get married, and in many cases support each other even if they are not legally together.
Now even if marriage is happening at a later age, childbirth is still likely to take place around the same age due to the “biological clock” or, frankly, from accidents as our society is also increasingly promiscuous. These accidental pregnancies and planned unwed conceptions could lead to marriage for more traditional couples, but it doesn’t seem necessary anymore as women are now in the work force and in many cases support themselves for many years without the help of a husband.
In other cultures however where survival is more difficult than waking up at six am everyday, unmarried child rearing could be most difficult. If the “tribe” does not collectively help to raise children, then women may have a difficult time gathering, or planting enough food for herself and her children. Even in the US such legal arrangements exist like child support, where if the father is not wedded to the mother he is still obligated to help fund the raising of his child. If a man deserts a woman in a culture that cannot bind him to his new “family”, then the abandoned mother and child could suffer from a lack of support that would be offered in traditional marriages.
This being said, I think it is a cultural reflection to forgo marriage in some cases. In such cultures as our own, where women hold their own jobs and households, it may not seem as urgent a situation to marry. While a women being supported by her family in a culture where marriage and childbirth depend of the survival of the people, marriage would be a likely very urgent for the sack of procreation.

I'm Happy I live in the States and don't deal with this shit.

 I think in these situations it would be risky to get married based on romantic love.  Since survival is crucial in these types of countries marriage takes on somewhat of a different role than what we are used to in our society.  I think the people we are discussing would feel that it would be wise to find and marry a partner who could benefit their means of living.  In the text they discuss the notion of bride-price.  This term refers to the groom or groom’s family paying money or valuable goods to the bride’s family when the couple are married.  In this particular case marriage based on value might be more important for someone instead of marriage  based on love.  If a family is in desperate need of survival they may want their daughter to get married to a man coming from a wealthy family.  They would obviously want them to get married so they could receive the money or goods from the groom in order to suppor themselves.

            I cannot really imagine any other factors like this playing a role in my community if survival is at stake.  People dealing with these types of problems do not live in a Western based society such as the one we live in.  To be completely honest I do not think this would ever occur in the United States.  I might be naive but I just do not see it happening.

            I think that society plays a big part in whether or not a couple is married or not when they have children.  Either one’s society is accepting of it or not.  In the United States I think it is more accepting to have children when you are not married.  It may not have been seen like this in the past but it is 2008, things have changed.  I think that as long as the parents are able to give the child what he or she needs in order to prosper marriage should not be an issue.

            In some cultures if the children are born and the parents are not married it can have a serious consequences.  The family and particularly the child might be looked down upon.  This happens in the countries where people use principles such as bride-price, which I mentioned above.  So my question is are the parents wrong for not being married or does the country need to change their ways and get their head out of their ass?  I guess what I am trying to say is that I would not want to live in a country where I had to marry for survival.  Nor would I want to live in a country where I would be looked down upon for having a child and not being married.  

Love vs. Survival

I think by choosing marriage based exclusively on romantic love in such societies where the state is weak or absent is risky for reasons in terms of providing food and shelter for the family. In America, we have the option of choosing a partner, partners (in certain faiths) or remaining single. Choosing marriage based exclusively on love is risky due to our divorce rate. "American's marry quickly and just as quickly get divorced" as stated in chapter 20. Where in other cultures they take marriage seriously to save the reputation of their family. In most cases women are fortunate enough to be able to support a family with the help of other family members to survive if they cannot fully support themselves or their family. Traditionally, women rely on the man(spouse) to support them, where in this day and age, women are free to choose a partner, have children outside of a marriage or remain single and raise a child as a single parent and still make it in the world. I think over time women looking to find a partner based on love versus a support system for the family takes a toll making them less reliable on a man. Women also have an option where resources such as birth control make it easier monetarily, whether its right or wrong.
 

Marriage for love or survival?

In response to the question about childbirth outside of marriage in our society I feel that we are the odd man out in a world full of stronger “people based” communities. Western society no longer has what we view as “traditionally family values”. We fight as individuals instead of as a group. It is not out of the norm to have a child outside of marriage because people can support a child alone as a single parent with our types of lifestyles. In a culture where survival was depending on the members of your family would need to establish that family before reproducing. In the book there are different functions explained for certain family members in other cultures that we do not have in our own. The benefit of me having a husband if I lived in a different place may be for monetary reasons or I could get married for the perk of receiving three gifts a year. This would be in contrast of my American dream of a husband who takes me on long walks on the beach. It made me wonder how much those walks are worth when we don’t really take other supports into consideration. The way some of these arrangements were presented to me seemed sterile and more like a business arrangement than an arranged marriage. It was very un-anthropologist of me to give a chuckle when reading about the different forms of bride-compensation. “I will trade you your worker (daughter and now my wife) for this sum of money or goods and she will now become my worker.” I think that in reality I should be laughing at my own culture when I analyze how lousy our “marry out of emotion” program is working out for us. Look at our divorce rates, as we are doomed to a fifty/fifty chance. I think would be indeed risky to marry for “love” if we lived in a society where marriage helped your survival. As I mentioned before I don’t feel that marriage is necessary for survival in the American culture and until it becomes necessary I assume people will continue to marry thoughtlessly.

Survival vs Choice

1) It would definitely be risky to choose a marriage partner based on romantic love if you are in a situation where you are going to have to rely mainly on that other person/union to survive. Love marriages come about with choice, but in order to have choice or freedom, one’s basic needs need to be met first. Example, people living in Africa dying from starvation are too busy with trying to get their basic needs met, food, shelter etc, that they don’t suffering from all the “illnesses” that Americans do: insomnia, depression, anorexia. Anorexia is a choice (technically it’s a disease, but for arguments sake). One needs to have food in order to turn it down. If food isn’t available then one cannot be anorexic because one does not have the choice of whether to eat the food or not. It is only when resources are available and basic needs are met that freedom of choice becomes an option. Same thing with marriage. If the basic needs of survival have to be met through marriage, then marriage is used to survive. If resource such as food and shelter can be provided or met outside of marriage, then the option of a “love” marriage is now available. In traditional communities, women have to rely on men to support them. It doesn’t matter if they love someone else if that man cannot support them. They will marry someone that can help them survive. In India, parents use arranged marriages to ensure the survival of their daughter by marrying her to whichever man can best support her. In China, the elderly are dependent on their daughter-in-laws to care for them when they get old. Therefore, they are very concerned and involved when their son is picking a bride because she will affect their lives too.
2) Back in the day (America), marriage used to function as a system of survival. A woman needed a man to provide for her. Now a day, a woman can have a career and provide for herself; she can be independent from a man. This is one of the reasons marriages are so easily terminated in America. People can survive without getting or staying married. I think it’s true that there is relationship between the type of society and the traditions of marriage. A woman in an American society is more free to remain unmarried, since she can support herself, than an Indian woman in India where it is less culturally accepted because of career issues and cultural norms.

risky

I think in a lot of societies, marriage based on romantic love would not be greatly appreciated by their extended family. In many cultures (outside the U.S.) marriage is not based on love at all, but instead, based on what would be best for the tribe depending on what the spouse can offer to the family and community. Many times, the elders make the decision of who their child will marry because the child would not be old enough or wise enough to be sure the spouse will be able to support and help their community. A marriage based on romantic love in these cultures could result in great disaster for the married couple, and even possible loss of their family, and their community if the couple can not provide any benefit for their tribe. Usually in these cultures however, it is understood as a child what is culturally accepted and the child is taught how that particular culture works. So yes, I think it would be risky if a couple got married based on romantic love in these countries.

Survival

To answer the first question, if I lived in a state where the head powers governing us were weak or absent, then I would marry for survival if I needed to be married. In that type of society, being with someone that would be able to best provide for you, I believe would be much more essential than marrying for love. If one's able to find someone that they love and would be able to protect them, than this would be ideal, but every situation is different and depends on many things. That was hard to write down for me since I am fortunate enough to live in a society where we don't have to worry about surviving, necessarily, and we can marry for love or not at all if we don't want. I would like to think that everyone has that that chance but unfortunately they don't. Also, back to the survival category, the families are much closer and supportive, so those families love and care for the family as a whole more so than a society like ours, where we are much more individualistic. There, it would be much easier to marry for survival because of the support and love of the entire family than here.

Love and Marriage

It is much less uncommon today for two people to have a child outside of marriage, especially in the United States. In many societies when a child is born outside of wedlock it is considered to be illegitimate, meaning that the child cannot be a rightful heir to their parent's estate. Sometimes illegitimate children are also denied some basic civil rights based upon their status. In the United States, having an illegitimate child can carry a strong social stigma, especially for unwed teenage mothers whose children are often reared by their grandparents as their own child or the sister/brother of the actual mother. In many cultures the father assumes no responsibility due to apathy, attitudes about sex and difficultly determining paternity.
Considering some of the major functions of marriage such as creating a family environment for children to grow in, I think there is a relationship between the type of society an individual belongs to and the choice to forgo the traditional benefits of marriage. In religious communities as big as the Catholic faith it is against the will of God for two parents to have a children outside of marriage. I'm sure that there are other major religions that hold the same beliefs as well. In many Middle Eastern countries women are forbid from showing their hair and face, I can only imagine the consequences for having a child outside of marriage. In the United States having a child outside of wedlock is becoming increasing common due to the availability of services such as adoption. Yet, the American Dream is still a happily married couple raising their children together in a nice home.
There are many cultural conditions where the choice to remain unmarried may present serious challenges such as in societies with poor economies, or those who rely on men to do the work and women to raise the children. A woman with no husband will have no source of income in these countries and raising the child will be very difficult. Like I said before, there are many societies where a woman having a child outside of wedlock is extremely taboo and could lead to punishment for a woman as well. The cultural conditions vary due to values, religion, money and common beliefs of society.

Marriage

I think it would be risky if the partners in question marry based on romantic love. Reason being in those societies marriage is usually based on what is good for the overall society. For example arranged marriage can lead to a unity of tribes, exchange on livestock or material goods. Marriage under love there could be a chance the greater good wont is satisfied.

I think the choice belongs to the individual, I mean in this day an age marriage is just a pipe dream, a legal document that binds two people. That being said bringing a child into that environment is beneficial because that is the norm, a mom and a dad both there to support its growth and well-being. The stress for the parents is halved since both of them are there to support each other.

Cultural problems arise when a person decides to have a child outside of marriage. People are wired into the norm. If one goes against that the society could consider that decision taboo and frown upon that by calling the decision maker reckless and careless.

Blog Assignment #4

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?

To answer these questions, then you will want to take into account the Haviland chapter titled: "Sex, Marriage, and Family."

Love is sometimes free.

I can see why people today believe there is no free gift. Growing up I always thought a gift was something i received only on Christmas and my birthday. I never looked at gaining a friend or having someone tell you your special as a gift. If some one commented me on a skill of mine it would influence me to continue what i am doing, and i consider that a gift. If a person commented me it is not like they lost something form it. I guess it all depends on your perception of a gift.

Not-So-Free Gifts

There are no such things as free gifts. It’s unfortunate, but true. It does not matter if the “gift” is material, or not…there are always strings attached and/or reasons for giving something away. One of the biggest problems with giving away a free gift is the feeling of uninvited debt triggered upon the person receiving it. Consider the free, individualized address labels you get from some company asking you to donate money, or the flower that a Kirshna gave you in the airport. When you receive these free gifts, it makes something inside you feel wrong if you just take it without giving something back in return. And that’s exactly the reason why those companies and the Kirshnas due that. They know that by unexpectedly getting individualized address labels, or a flower, you will feel uncomfortable to the point of feeling like you have to donate something to them in return. Which brings me to my next point that free gifts can trigger unequal exchanges that mostly benefit the person giving the free gift.

Now lets say that you are the one giving the free gift. Why are you doing it? Is it because you know if you don’t give someone a birthday gift, it will reflect badly upon you? Or does it make you feel like a good person for giving something away for free? Although it is not wrong to give something away for those reasons, it still is not free because you are getting something out of it.

Gift or Bribe?

I think there is definitley such thing as a free gift.  At times I think people's motives are what interfere with this idea or concept.  I know for a fact that when my parents give me gifts they do not expect anything back in return.  They are doing something nice for a loved one.  I think at times people give others things because they want something in return.  I am guilty of this and I am sure that almost everyone esle is too.  I do not know if I would consider that as being a form of a gift.  If I were to give something to someone and want a favor or something back in return I would view it as some sort of bribe or agreement.

To me gifts have meanings.  You want to give something to someone out of love, pure friendship or as a reward.  If there is any other type of motive behind it I do not know how anyone can call it a gift because it simply is not.

there are free gifts...or at least, there should be.

we actually discussed this in my economics class in high school. my teacher said there was no such thing as a free lunch (or in this case, gift).  For example, if i buy a lunch for a homeless person, its not free because I'm obviously spending money on the food.  Not only that, but i'm spending time on getting the lunch; furthermore, I'm sacrificing energy.  I disagree with that though. the way i see it, the more attached you are to material matters, the more expensive gifts will be.  Personally, i don't care that much about money; if we really needed it to survive, it would grow on trees. Thats how the earth works: it gives us what we need to survive, and it gives us what  we need to die. Money is man-made; its unnecessary. Recently, i bought a bag full of food for a homeless man because i felt he deserved it. He's obviously going through some shit; he deserves respect. And yea, it cost around $30, but who cares? its money: worthless pieces of paper. he's a living, breathing human being with a story to tell just like any one of us.  In the economic sense, this wasn't free. In the human sense, it was.  I found a really good quote that goes along with what im saying:

“The sacrifice which causes sorrow to the doer of the sacrifice is no sacrifice. Real sacrifice lightens the mind of the doer and gives him a sense of peace and joy."

So basically, if you're giving a gift because you have to and not because you want to, it's not free. That's more of a burden than a gift. and i'm sorry, i've given this a lot of thought, but i'm having trouble explaining it.

Not a good image...

In reading this article, I agree that when giving and getting a gift, there is no such thing as a free one if the two are emotional attached, be it friends or family or even co-workers because there is an emotional value placed on that gift now. I do however think that a free gift is available when people are providing more of a service to people than a gift and there is no emotional attachment. For example, if the government is giving away money a.k.a. welfare programs where people are able to get money to support themselves and they have no gratitude for it, they just assume that it's their right and take full advantage of the situation. I know that most people are not like this but I have known these cases also. So in this example, the money is a free gift for the people and they have no intent on giving back. So in my opinion, there is such a thing as a free gift, it is just not in good circumstances.

free gifts.

I believe gifts ARE free for the person receiving the gift. Yes, there might be the feeling that you must give a gift back in return, but that feeling should not be felt by the person giving the gift. If you are giving a gift then yes, most of the time it is going to cost some money, but there must be a reason behind giving the gift whether it be out of love, friendship, condolences, kindness, etc. that should not require anything in return except for a thank you, forgiveness, I love you or whatever the cause may be. If the receiver feels like giving a gift back out of the kindness of his/her heart, then he/she is in turn the giver and the gift is free for the receiver. However, if it is a true gift that is given, there should be no obligation to give one back in return because, the reason it is called a gift is because gifts are meant to be free; and not as a "now you owe me."

Emotions Gifts?

I agree with Don and Sarah entirely. A gift is an act of kindness, but it does come free. In todays society gifts are usually purchased. A purchased gift costs money. A person has to work for the money; its not free. I think that the idea of a free gift is nice to think of but it is not possible. Also, if someone is given a gift out of kindness the person who received the gift feels obliged to give the other person a gift. A free gift could possibly the gift of trust between friends, but I am not sure if trust is a gift of one person to another. Are emotions gifts? Can I tell someone I love them as a gift?

Why Didn't I Get Them Anything?

I don’t believe that there is such a thing as a “free gift” for two main reasons. The first being the same as the others that economically at some point that gift was paid for. The other reason, and the one I will elaborate one because the others spoke enough about the monetary aspects, is the debt that is inherently earned with the exchange of said gifts. Although Chani would argue that she gives gifts without expecting compensation that does not mean that the receiver does not possess a sense of debt to the giver. When I receive a gift I feel that if I cannot repay the kindness with a gift as well that I must repay them in some other way. Either way, I feel a need to repay the gift, or I will be forever in debited to them. Although I do not keep track of the “score”, if you will, I do keep loose track of which I should be giving gifts to in relation to their gift giving activity.
One point that seems relevant to human interaction is the idea that gifts are exchanged in a new relationship as a way to progress and enhance the relationship. I find myself doing the same type of behaviors with new friends. I will lend them movies, or buy them drinks because in a subconscious way I am saying I want to share with them something that I enjoy, and would like them to do the same, which is the usual reaction to such acts. Although I would not consider this a debt per say I would consider it an act that is likely to meet with the same type of gesture.
So even if one does not expect payment for a gift the receiver may feel the need to repay anyways thus, a gift is never truly free.

Technically, there is no such thing as a "free" gift.

I don’t believe that there is really such a thing as a FREE gift, whether this gift be material or not. There is always effort involved in giving a gift to someone, whether it be physical or emotional. In the reading, on the first page, it states that charity is meant to be a free gift, yet whatever amount of money that a person donates to a charity they had to earn it by working. The work was an expense to this person perhaps both physically and emotionally.
I think that a “free” gift only works in theory as something is never entirely free. I agree with Don in his final sentences as he stated “So by handing off a “free” gift it doesn’t really entail that it is free, someone along the line had to pay for the product, the time, the labor for something in order to made that gift exist.” Let’s say that the person who donates any amount of money to charity feels reimbursed by the good feeling they get from doing it. In their minds perhaps the charitable donation was an even trade for sense of "good-doing" that they got from it.
In the literal sense perhaps a person can give a "free" gift such as a mother finally trusting her lying son. This gift of trust probably had to be earned by the son and it probably took the mother alot of time and worrying to be able to give this "free" gift to her son. The trust may not have cost any money however it was not free.

Free Gift? Bah Humbug

In my honest opinion there is no such thing as a free gift if you look at the logistics of things. Receiving a gift for nothing gives the person an illusion of the idea of “free.”

Thinking about this prompt reminds me of an Economics lesson when I was taking that class in high school. My teacher Mr. Bills engaged the class with a question similar to that of the free gift. He said, “Is there such a thing as a free lunch?” Many kids who just talk for the sole reason to hear their voice would say yes without even thinking of the question. The problem lies in how the lunch came to be, much like the “gift.” The lunch/gift didn’t just appear to the giver to hand off to someone, one must take in account that someone had to pay raw materials to make the finish product, as well as transportation, marketing and all that mumbo jumbo. So by handing off a “free” gift it doesn’t really entail that it is free, someone along the line had to pay for the product, the time, the labor for something in order to made that gift exist.

Formal Vs. Informal

There is such a thing as a free gift. It just depends on who is giving the gift and who is receiving the gift. While there are times of the year that people give gifts, such as Christmas, birthdays, or anniversaries, there are other times that people give each other gift purely because they care for each and are not expecting anything in return. I give my close friends presents all throughout the year, not just on their birthdays. These gifts are given not as a way of ensuring that I get a gift in return (economical gain) but to express my feelings for them. If I see an object or item that reminds me of one of my friends, I will buy it for them because it has special meaning: it reminded me of them and I chose it carefully. I would be insulted if I gave a friend a gift and they turned around and had to rummage through their room to find a gift to give back to me. It would both demean my gift and not be heartfelt from them. Yes, it would be nice to always get presents in return but only if they are genuinely given. I have numerous times given friends Christmas presents even when they have told me they can’t afford to get me a Christmas present. While I do probably subconsciously expect a birthday gift in exchange for the gift I gave them for their birthday, as is tradition, I do not expect gifts in return for “unannounced” or random gifts that I wish to shower my friends with. Nor, if I found out a friend would not be giving me a gift for my birthday (because of funding) would that lead me to refrain from buying them a gift. However, if a friend did not buy me a gift because they were either too lazy or spent their money on something else, I would probably be upset. Not because they didn’t get me a gift but because their actions (or lack of action) shows their carelessness and how they value our friendship.
However the reading does make valid points about other gifts that are given voluntarily but a gift is expected back. When my relatives send me cards (a form of a “gift) I have been taught to send a card back thanking them. In formal relations, as opposed to informal ones, I think it is polite to exchange gift for gift. But the key is that most of the time, when we perform these “voluntary” gift exchanges with expectations, we both know the expectations because it is more of a business exchange. It would be completely different if one of us was sending a gift and expecting something in return, but the gift receiver was unaware of the gift’s implication. It all depends on the relationship between two people: formal or informal.

Blog Assignmet #3 Due by Thurs. Feb. 28th

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

This essay is available on the course OASIS page. 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.

Again: each blog assignment is worth 6 participation points. If you don't do the blog assignment, then you get 0 out of 6 points. If you put in extra work into the blog, e.g. commenting on other people's posts, then this will earn you points towards your overall class participation grade.

If this isn't clear to you, then you can email with questions or bring them to me during class.

For Clarification

There is no blog assignment due for this week.

Survival of the Fittest?

Although it’s not a good thing that all these languages are rapidly dying out, from what I have read it doesn’t seem so awful either. Except for the case in eastern Siberia where the government forced speakers of minority languages to use the national and regional languages, most of these languages are dying out because the younger generation no longer seems to need them. A fine example of this is the sole speaker of the Amurdag language in Australia who strained to recall what little he knew from his father. Yet, he obviously was able to communicate just fine with the people interviewing him so the loss of his native tongue wasn’t detrimental.

So the big question is why are all these languages dying out? I believe that for the most part, aside for cultural appreciation, these small languages are unnecessary and the younger generation would rather spend their time conversing in a more popular and widespread dialect. If they really felt that the language of their ancestors was really important, I’m sure that they would have taken the time to learn it. Now it is sad that all these languages are being lost because they would be very interesting to study. However, times change and people have to change with them in order to keep up with the world. If the younger generation feels that keeping an ancient language alive is not worth it, who are we to blame them? It’s their decision. But like I mentioned earlier, if people are being forced to drop their language in favor of a more popular one, then that is just wrong.

Death of a Language

Language does play an important role in cultural identity and we should care because the language goes hand in hand with its tradition and its rituals. It may have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years and is also a creative way of separating one culture from the next. Language and culture would evolve over time, but if a language is lost, there would be other dialects or forms of communication that would stem from it. Preserving the language is the responsibility of those that remain.

Languages Die, Is it my responsibilty to save them?

To be completely honest I am not sure if we should care about these languages dieing out.  They are obviously dieing out for a reason and that is probably due to the fact that not many people are speaking them.  If we were to preserve them I am not quite sure what good that would do in the future.  If anyone should take the time to save these languages it should be the people that speak them.  If the language is important to them they should make some sort of documentation to ensure that the language will not be forgotten.  Otherwise I am not sure that I feel any sort of responsibility to try to preserve something that is only spoken by a small minority of people.

            I think language is important to a culture’s identity to a certain extent.  The main languages that are used today have strong importance to their cultures, such as English, Greek, Spanish etc.  When it comes down to the vase amounts of dialects based off more common languages I do not think they are too important.  As I mentioned above if they were truly important to the people who spoke them they would be trying to document in some way themselves instead of letting them fade away.

            I am not exactly sure what is lost in a culture when their language becomes extinct.  From what I read in the article we are still able to identify the people who spoke the languages.  So I would argue that while something is lost we still have some information to rely on.            

On the Fence

Dealing with the subject of losing languages is a very difficult subject for me to really have an opinion about. For instance, the “threat” of globalization doesn’t seem like that much of a threat to me. It opens the world up to vast communication where all cultures can easily communicate. However, I do see the downside to the loss of a language as well. My main concern for losing languages is the fact that with the loss of these languages we lose historical knowledge that was written in languages now dead (i.e. Egyptian).
This being said, I believe it is a great idea to record languages that are on the way to extinction for records, and in case written documents exist. Other than that though, I can’t say I am really completely for or against the preservation of spoken languages. I sit on the fence with this subject and choose not to take one side or the other.

The Inevitability of Language Death

I think its important to note that the “language” discussed in the article “A Language, Not Quite Spanish, With African Echoes” is actually a Creole. It was composed of two languages that already existed to create a communication form. Spanish is still in high use! It doesn’t really mention the African language influences, but there is a possibility that that language is also in still in use. Also I feel that by accepting technology and outside contact into the culture people must have known that change was inevitable.

It seems that everyone has responded that language is culture. If there are only three people in the world who speak a language, is that really a strong culture? While reading “Languages Die, but Not Their Last Words” I was curious why the languages were being studied. If those three people do die out and the language no longer lives on, I don’t really see how that negatively or positively effects the people left living on earth. Just as easy as gaining new culture, it is unavoidable to lose it. I had to step back from these two articles and remember that they are both from the New York Times. Pure American media. All of our bits of news made to look more exotic than necessary. For instance look at how dramatic the titles of the articles are. They should be Broadway musicals. I can’t help but wonder what the views are of the people in these cultures. I’m not trying to be a Debbie-downer, but when I think of cultural anthropology I often get conflicted with that everlasting question of “why?” Don’t get me wrong, I think Anthropology is really thrilling and I enjoy reading about these things (especially the parts about language!), but I don’t know that I believe that studying dieing language is important. In a sense I suppose we could predict how to stop others from dieing. But isn’t it natural for them to die?

(P.S. I needed a title for my entry. The New York Times has taught me well!)

Paper #1

Hey everyone,
I've decided to make your first paper due on 2/28th instead of 2/21. I put a description of the assignment up on the OASIS page. I'll discuss this on Thursday.
-Andre

Death of a language

To be honest I don’t think we should be spending that much time worrying if a language dies or survive. Language is a living breathing entity, and over time it evolves. If a language dies there will be other dialects/ languages that will stem from it. And if a language dies and takes form into a more common mainstream language that mean the language barrier is crumbling due to globalization. Forms of communication will extend to the far reaches of the Earth and I can see people benefiting from it.

I think what we lose in the loss of a language is the diversity in the human race. Language disappears and some could say a cultural is lost or at lease a part of it is lost.

death of language vs. the death of culture

Despite the inevitable threat of globalization and the unifying of tongues that it brings, I think we should definitely care about dying languages. Through unique languages unique culture is expressed and perhaps with the death of a language also comes the death of that particular culture. I think that we should care because it is important to perserve culture. Some have said that it is better for us all to speak one language, or similiar languages but I don't believe that is the case. Many speakers of these "dying languages" are members of self sufficient communities. So why should we force these people, who can take care of themselves, to abandon their culture and conform? These languages have obviously survived for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years and I don't think that there should be any reason to not support them in the future.
Language is very important to cultural identity, perhaps they are even synonymous. Language is how we express ourselves and how we express ourselves is essentially our cultural identity. The traditions, rituals, stories, and history of individual language groups dies along with the language if we do nothing to record or preserve it.

From now on...

From now on, for your regular blog assignments, I want you to start new threads for each assignment rather than publishing new posts on other threads. That is, in order to earn all six participation points for each blog assignment. If you're one of the people who already posted your response to blog assignment #2, then don't worry about it. This policy is going to count towards all blog posts after this post.

I do, however, encourage you to comment on other people's threads. Any extra work and thought that you put into the course blog will earn you points towards your overall participation grade.

Oh, and please don't name your threat "blog assignment #2". It'll make it easier for your classmates and for me if you title your blog post something different....AND I know that you are all creative, unique, and different, right?

I'm available if you have questions. Have a great weekend.

I'll go second

The Old Nacirama culture described is similar to the modern Nacirama culture. All of the rituals described have been for the most part unchanged for 50 years. For example the modern counterpart of each of the rituals are the same, people still use medicine cabinets, people still go to the Pharmacist, prescriptions are well over priced and people go to the dentist and fear the drilling in their mouths.

The only differences are the Ritual ablution of the mouth for children have vastly changed. That Ritual does not occur anymore since it is borderline child abuse in this day and age. Punishment for children in this modern age is less drastic in fear that an extreme punishment would do more harm than good.

I think the culture of the Nacirema of yesteryear and the culture today are quite similar with a few exceptions. For the most part the people of the Nacirema are still driven by the same desires and motives from 50 years ago.

Blog Assignment #2

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. [I'll hand this article out in class tomorrow and it's on the course OASIS page.]

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?

Feel free to post your own thread or to comment on other people’s threads or to their responses. Again, blog responses will count towards your participation grade.

Responses to blog questions will be due by the beginning of each class. Responses to blog assignment #2 are due by the beginning of our third class on February 14. Responses to blog assignment #1 are due by class time tomorrow.

Each blog question will be worth 6 participation grade points. You should, however, feel free to continue commenting on threads after the due date. Any extra activity will help you earn additional participation points.

All right...I'll be the first post

In the article, Miner looks at the Nacirema as being obsessed with their body. Today, the Nacirema are still obsessed with their body except perhaps even more. People see thousands of ads everyday. Most of these ads point out deficiencies in people’s appearance. I think that Capitalism has gotten more predatory over the last 50 years. People’s obsession with their body has increased too. Think about how many ads pointing out your deficiencies that you see everyday: ads telling you that you smell bad, that you’re too fat, that you’re ugly, etc. I’m a girl and I get spam email a few times a week telling me that I’d be happier with a bigger penis.

I think that a lot of people buy into the deficiencies too. I’m sure that I buy into it to an extent too. I think that it’s impossible not to! So yes, I think that we’re the same culture as the Nacirema of 50 years ago, except we’re even more obsessed?

Blog Assignment #1

Horace Miner wrote the article on the Nacirema almost 50 years ago. How do you think that the Nacirema from 50 years ago are similar to the Nacirema of today? How do you think that they are different? Do the Nacirema have the same culture today as the Nacirema from 50 years ago?

To Post Here

Hello and WELCOME!

This semester, we'll be trying to establish a class 'discourse' by creating a class blog. I'd like you to interact with each other and respond to each other's posts when appropriate.

Hopefully....it will be fun too.

First, I'll need to invite you to the blog. To do that, you'll need to provide me with an email address that you'd like your blog identity to be associated with.

Next, you'll have to log in through blogger.
After you've done this, your email address should appear in the top right corder of this page, along w/ the option to make a "new post."

When you've created a new post, click "publish post" and check to make sure it's up.

Make sure that you publish your posts.