HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lither@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (litherland kathryn j)
Subject: Re: Clinton transition
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:11:42 GMT

Tom Hubbard <thubbard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:

>I'm a journalist, not anthropologist. I would appreciate comments from this
>group on an aspect of the Clinton transition that I find disturbing. (It is
>not important but I voted for the man and am happy to see him become
>President.As a journalist, I am an inauguration junkie. What I see on
>television (except for a few seconds on the news) is not substantive
>inauguration material but groups of celebrity entertainers performing. (I'm
>writing Wed. morning before the actual inauguration.) If I arrived from
>another planet, I would assume that an inauguration was some sort of
>entertainment event. Are entertainers the only context television producers
>think the American public will accept? I realize my question may have been
>asked a hundred years ago. "Hey, we swore the guy in, what's all this parade
>stuff?" I know the candidate and President control every second of exposure
>to the media. I just want to see more of him, even in contrived situations. I
>want to judge him as about-to-be President. Clinton tried to give me a day to
>observe him when he went from Jefferson's home to Washington. I did not see
>any of that. This has been rather long but my central question is, is popular
>entertainment the only context we will accept information? Thanks.

I'm an anthropologist-wannabe, not a journalist.  From the perspective of
ritual, rather than American politics, I find nothing wrong with the 
inauguration activities being entertaining--a circus, even.  It's a
circumscribed event that represents the special involvement of the _populus_
with the big, bad, government machine through the election process.  That
politics must at all times be serious seems puritanical.  So, if the public
needs pop music and TV stars to pay attention to the State of the Union
address, be worried.  But for the ceremony of inauguration, it's appropriate.


Kathy Litherland
From: jacobus@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Why do I bother?
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:21:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.C1FKrx.1MA
Organization: Purdue University



I use the current taxonomic model of things.

I ask "why" in my researches.

I even laugh at "Married with Children".

Why do I do these things?  Well, the first two are not too hard to answer:

Science is an endeavor of "works good enough for our purposes" and "we can
always revise to fit the facts when we have to".  I guess that, working in
molecular biology, a field rather devoid of theoreticians, we tend to forget
that some folks can actually purport to do science and forget that everything
they do is provisional.  More than once my lab has come across a little 
discovery or bit of information which we use to conclude that we have to
look at things differently.  Empiricism in action.

Yet, molecular biology does ask why.  Why does it ask why?  Because phrasing
questions in that way is a convenient tool for our studies.  I'm sure that
there are more "precise" or "correct" tools, but using them is quite like
using "precise" biochemistry to do molecular biology.  The results for our
purposes are no different, and all it does is just increase the workload.
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Jared Diamond's _The Third Chimpanzee_
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:54:00 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

It's worse than you think. Gil is not arguing about jargon here:
he actually does not believe that humans and chimps share a
common ancestor. Thus he has removed himself from a serious
discussion of the matter. Next question, please.
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: Re: Cultural bias in taxonomy
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:33:25 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <727759490snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>the previous idea being pushed here that the local people's *classificatory
>the local people's *classificatory system* matched that invented by Linnaeus
> ... thereby providing irrefutible proof that the study reveals the
>universality of taxonomy among humans.

No one claimed that taxonomy is universal let alone that Mayr's studies
provided irrefutable proof of this.

>Not taking into account the translation apparently of the local New
>Guinea dialect into English, of course. Or was it German, which was
>itself subsequently translated into English, the place being under
>German "protection" at the time?

I doubt translation took place. I expect Mayr just pointed to the bird (dead
or alive) and asked its name.  By the way, Australia seized German New Guinea
in 1914.  I think, Mayr's work took place in a very remote area of what
is now Irian Jaya which would have under Dutch control then.

Andrew Taylor
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: Re: Cultural bias in taxonomy
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:46:18 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <C185ML.2MC@brunel.ac.uk> mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter) writes:
>BTW, I remember one interesting study was made of names for the flora 
>and fauna of Papua New Guinea.  It turned out that there was very little 
>inconsistency between the local and Linnaean classifications.  Can 
>anyone recall the reference, please?

You probably talking about Ernst Mayr's work on birds in the Arfak Mountains
in New Guinea in the 1920s.  The local people's names matched the 136
species he found there with one exception.  They gave the same name to
two very similar species.  You'd probably find this described in one
of his books.

Andrew Taylor
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Clinton transition
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:41:35 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <16B5CA199.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>Clinton is a master of symbolism and devoid of substance.
>What did you expect his inauguration to be?  Substantive?  Haha!
>
>It'll be glitz, glamour, Hollywood, and a welfare nation for the US for the
>next four years.  Inasmuch as this is an empircally testable statement,
>don't bother to attack it.

Ha. "Empirically testable". Did you really think such silliness would be
immune from attack?        
<smirk>
My smirk *is* empirically testable, however, so don't bother to attack it.

Dan
remembering our Hollywood B-grade president and his glitzy wife

        
To address the journalist: I'm not sure what the anthropological perspective
on media would be, but I suspect that the media is simply engaging in
capitalism -- they are more efficient than ever at giving the public what it
wants. If the trend was for CSPAN style coverage of political events, the
clamor would be such that everyone, in order to stay competetive, would sooner
or later be doing it. But CSPANs fanatics are a minority, unfortunately.
People magazine's fans are legion.

Dan
From: mayoka@csgrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin A. Mayo)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Signlanguage & Gorillas
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:50:56 GMT
Organization: VPI&SU Computer Science Department, Blacksburg, VA

First off, please excuse my ignorance of this subject and anything I am
about to say.

I am looking for information concerning a low-land gorilla (or perhaps
she was a mountain) ... named, I believe Koko ... who loves kittens,
and has a rather advanced grasp of sign language.  (Okay, I know there
is controversy about this.)

Anyway, I saw, on CNN no less, that she signed for a mate to have a child.
She picked one out of a host of suitors by viewing them on video tape.
Apparently she picked a nice looking fellow from the Cincinnati zoo
(I seem to remember).  And when seeing him started to bounce her
back-side on the ground (translated:  Hey honey, your cute!)

The last I heard was that they were in quarantine for 45 days (standard
when moving primates).  But the zoo hoped for breeding.  She is, however,
somewhat old.

Okay ... so here is the question:  What has happened since?  Has she
had the baby?  If so, did she transfer any of the sign language to the
baby?  (etc ...)

Any information would be appreciated.  Please respond directly to
mayoka@vtopus.cs.vt.edu (or mayo@cs.vt.edu).

Thanks in advance.
--
+-----------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Kevin A. Mayo (mayoka@vtopus.cs.vt.edu) | The shortest path between any |
| Computer Science Department / VA Tech   |   two points is through hell. |
| Blacksburg, VA  24061 USA               |                               |
+-+------------------------+--------------+----------+------------------+-+
  | 703-231-5475/6931 (W)  | My thoughts are my own. | 703-951-4337 (H) |
  +------+-----------------+-------------------------+----------+-------+
         +-- A wild patience has taken me this far   -A. Rich --+
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Cultural bias in taxonomy
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 03:24:50 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1993Jan22.024618.31019@watson.ibm.com> andrewt@watson.ibm.com writes:

 > You probably talking about Ernst Mayr's work on birds in the Arfak Mountains
 > in New Guinea in the 1920s.  The local people's names matched the 136
 > species he found there with one exception.  They gave the same name to
 > two very similar species.  You'd probably find this described in one
 > of his books.

Now this statement that 136 local people's names matched those of
Ernst Mayr (actually meaning that everyone there recognised each of
the 136 birds in the area), is quite a different proposition from the
previous idea being pushed here that the local people's *classificatory
system* matched that invented by Linnaeus in Europe during the early
to mid eighteenth century, thereby providing irrefutible proof that
the study reveals the universality of taxonomy among humans.

Not taking into account the translation apparently of the local New
Guinea dialect into English, of course. Or was it German, which was
itself subsequently translated into English, the place being under
German "protection" at the time?

Can we please have some consistency here among the proponents of this
hypothesis.

Gil
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Jared Diamond's _The Third Chimpanzee_
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 05:05:01 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1993Jan20.170643.10946@eos.arc.nasa.gov> kyrsten@eos.arc.nasa.gov writes:

 > I'm coming in at the tail end here, I would think, but I am intrigued by
 > your arguments.  I am a second year Anthropology major and, being
 > cloistered in my own personal world, had not even *considered* the
 > implications of the European influence upon the classification system.
 > It's such a blatant thing i had not thought about it.  Your point is
 > well-taken and I agree that we should attempt to "shake down" our
 > sciences and expose and re-work everything tainted my unthinking
 > cultural biases. (Of course, i would think that previous European biases
 > would be replaced with out own, but at least that would keep things
 > moving...;-) 

Well, this interesting stuff from a second year student. Yes, keeping
things moving would be great.

 > However, I am a bit dismayed as to your comments... It seems that there
 > really *is* a lot wrong with the status quo, *but* how is a beginning
 > student to know the difference between real information and biased
 > accounts of reality?  Do you have any constructive suggestions?  Are you
 > saying that the comparison of humans to chimpanzees or even humans to
 > other humans is invalid?  Or merely that it something we do not need to
 > dwell upon?

I think it is merely something we might have jammed down our throats
less frequently, and a little more respect paid to other theories and
system at least more currently useful.

 > Where should one go to find culturally un-biased accounts?

If you can't find any, go and do you field work and write your own,
although be mindful you will be challenged in your turn.

Any account constitutes a contribution to debate, doesn't it? Is it
the quality of the debate we are concerned with, or the bias in the
account?

Gil

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,alt.mythology
From: danny@orthanc.cs.su.oz.au (Danny)
Subject: Book Review - The Raw and the Cooked
Reply-To: danny@cs.su.oz.au (Danny)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:05:14 GMT

The Raw and the Cooked - 
Introduction to a Science of Mythology Volume 1
Claude Levi-Strauss
Penguin 1986
pp. 369
[anthropology, mythology]

_The Raw and the Cooked_ is one of the seminal works of structuralist
anthropology, and probably the best known of all of Levi-Strauss' works.
It begins by looking at one Bororo myth and ends up examining a whole
collection of myths from tropical South America.  However it is not the
analysis of the myths themselves that is important, but rather the
methodology of the analysis, where Levi-Strauss sets out the basic
principles of a structural approach to mythology.  

The basic idea is that myths cannot be understood in isolation, but only
as parts of an entire myth system.  A structural analysis of a myth
system involves elucidating the shared features of different myths and
the transformations which link them.  It is these relationships and 
transformations between myths that are important, rather than the details 
of individual myths; it is the systems of these that are significant in 
the context of the broader culture.  Levi-Strauss' hope is that this kind 
of structural approach will provide new insight into the study of 
mythology, and the _The Raw and the Cooked_ is the first book in a series 
devoted to this end.

All this is not presented as abstract theory, but is demonstrated by
application to almost two hundred myths of tropical South America 
(with some references to North American and European myths and customs).  
Levi-Strauss' immense knowledge of mythology is apparent, and the result 
is very impressive.  

While some of the connections Levi-Strauss makes between myths seem a
little implausible, and some of his constructions a little contrived, it
is hard to argue with the barrage of evidence he brings to support them.
I suspect that some of his analyses are vulnerable to a "neutral model"
of myth employing some kind of statistical analysis, but that such a
theory would probably validate his basic ideas.  (I also suspect that he
would be very keen on seeing such a theory formulated.) At any rate, since 
his avowed goal was only to find a new and fruitful viewpoint from which to
look at mythology, it is hard to see _The Raw and the Cooked_ as anything 
other than an unqualified success.  

Some of the book is fairly heavy going, but anyone really interested in
mythology or anthropology will be well rewarded for the effort.  I look
forward to reading the other books in the Introduction to a Science of
Mythology series.  

14/1/93
From: jacobus@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Cultural Appropriation and the New Age
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:04:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.C1FJzv.Kpw
Organization: Purdue University




I have something to say:

Is the statement Christianity is Christianity absolutely and utterly true?

Allow me to put it another way:

Is it true to say that one African-American is pretty much identical to
any other African-American.


It seems that the term "Christianity" gets bandied about pretty darn loosely
in this group, simultaneously with people complaining about poor usages in
terminology--or is it valid to pick and choose where one will be rigorous
and where one will play fast-and-loose?

Just a question.
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Clinton transition
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 07:22:48 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <21612@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu writes:

 > To address the journalist: I'm not sure what the anthropological perspective
 > on media would be, but I suspect that the media is simply engaging in
 > capitalism -- they are more efficient than ever at giving the public what it
 > wants. If the trend was for CSPAN style coverage of political events, the
 > clamor would be such that everyone, in order to stay competetive, would sooner
 > or later be doing it. But CSPANs fanatics are a minority, unfortunately.
 > People magazine's fans are legion.

Perhaps we would be more inclined to stand back away from it a little,
and make some sort of observation on the event within a wider context.

The previous Stupor Mundi, Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (who had been
raised by Innocent III, BTW), also had a court to behold. If I were to
ever (heaven forbid) become the US President, however, I would be quite
interested also in distracting such an enormous crowd of sycophants
and lobbyists with entertainments while I settled in, while my aids
and courtiers achieved some semblance of a queue that I could finally
begin to hear their pleas in a reasonably coherent order.

That's what jesters are for, isn't it? Frederick had an entire mobile
zoo full of wild and exotic animals and a harem of Sracen women in tow,
I believe, as well as such celebrated mathematicians and scholars as
Fibonachi (sp?).

Indeed, the same can be said here as has been said of Frederick; that
"he struck men with awe and wonder, but he frightened them too much to
acquiesce in his rule with equanimity." (Keen 1968, p.165)

Maybe there is something to be said for power being distributed more
widely, instead of being focussed so in one place. In the end the
Mediaeval Papacy had itself had a gut full of its own creation, with
Sicily becoming taxed into oblivion as a locus of civilisation to pay
for the Emperor's endless wars. It was for no mere children's story
that the legend of Frankinstein's Monster came into being.

Maybe you bring such monumental bullshit entirely upon yourselves.

Gil

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: kyrsten@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Kyrsten Swazey)
Subject: Re: Dialects and the weather
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:16:16 GMT

moscoso@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Innocuous Punch) writes:


>	Basically, the question was, Is there any correlation between dialects
>(at the time, we mentioned southern U.S. dialects) and average temperature/
>elevations/rainfall/anything having to do with weather?

>	Could warmer weather demand less physical exertion, thus pushing those
>inhabitants nearer the equator to smooth out their daily speech, ending in
>longer vowel sounds/etc...?
>	A thought that occured to me was that maybe, indirectly, weather played
>an important role in determining how long the average person spent out of
>doors.  Thus, more time spent communicating outdoors may require more volume,
>thus more strain on the voice, and possibly a window to an evolved language.
>...Within my limited knowledge of southern dialects, I would guess the speech
>patterns would be easier to produce and sustain for long, louder periods of
>time.

>	Conversely, more time spent indoors would require shorter speaking
>distances.. lower volumes, and more energy could be placed on production of
>more "nasal-like" vowel sounds, sharpness of consonants, etc...

>	Being quite interested in this, I would appreciate any references or
>ideas on the matter.  Have there been any studies done on this?

-ivan 


Last summer i read a linguistics-type book, i believe called _The
Miracle of Language_.  In it, the author brought up the postulation that
there is some sort of correspondence between language and weather.  I
think the example the author used was the movement to colder climates
and the possibility for more nasal tones.  However, they concluded that
there was no correlation between the two.
I am not clear on how this was arrived, but i think part of the problem
with that theory is that language changes even when climate/environment
does not change.  And also that drastic changes of climate have not
seemed to precipitate a language change.

What i remember as the "real" cause for dialect drift was the human
penchant for expediency.  Words and sounds become shortened, or
lengthened, depending upon what is easiest for the situation.  One could
call it inventiveness (or more pessimistically, laziness).

This is all from memory, so i could be misrepresenting the facts, but
this sounds right to me.  

To any linguists out there, i recently read a book called _jocks and
Burnouts_ which was originally intended to be a field study of the
currently changing dialect in the Northern, Great Lakes area of the
U.S..  Does anyone have any further info on this?

--kyrsten
 
  
Xref: sparky sci.anthropology:1817 sci.archaeology:3247
From: brase@condor.ucsb.edu (Gary Brase;)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Evolution in anthropology
Date: 24 Jan 93 07:24:57 GMT
Followup-To: sci.anthropology
Distribution: na

In <1993Jan4.193550.12448@cs.tulane.edu> goff@intruder.navo.navy.mil (Victoria Goff) writes:
>And what impact do you think that the idea that things are always evolving
>to other (higher) forms means to modern culture? What do you think the
>word "theory" means?

	The process of evolution does in no way guarantee that the 
more advanced form will be "higher".  In fact there are many examples 
of evolutionary advances causing a species to go extinct (e.g. driving
Y chromisomes).  Evolution promotes whatever increases an organism's 
inclusive fitness, no matter what other effects there might be (that is,
other effects that don't affect inclusive fitness).  
	The theory of evolution is the best naturalistic explaination
for how humans, and other animals, came to be.  Note that the word "theory"
always needs to have an evaluative adjective attached to it.  There are 
tons of bad and so-so theories, but only a few really good ones.
Theories are like assholes: everyone has one.

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: mccomt@aix.rpi.edu (Todd Michel McComb)
Subject: Re: Jared Diamond's _The Third Chimpanzee_
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:32:49 GMT

In article <schumach.727671240@convex.convex.com> Richard A. Schumacher writes:
>It's worse than you think. Gil is not arguing about jargon here:
>he actually does not believe that humans and chimps share a
>common ancestor. Thus he has removed himself from a serious
>discussion of the matter. Next question, please.

And I suppose you've met this alleged ancestor, and that he is a meaningful
part of your life.

T. M. McComb

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology