respond half page each, what their article connect with Cultural Anthropology and what question you have
This week’s text identified different ways that people exchange goods. Reciprocity was one way goods are exchanged and the text identified three forms of reciprocity, generalized, balanced and negative. In the article,https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160615142823.htm, the reasons people help distant relatives was discussed. According to the article there is a genetic pay off to helping close kin, but the reason people help distant relatives has to do with socially enforced nepotism. In other words people help distant relatives because society deems it your responsibility and duty. There is social pressure to do so. This is an example of generalized reciprocity. Generalized reciprocity is defined by the text as gift exchange with no precise accounting of value or expectation for type or time of return. Often families will help one another, each family member helping where they can.
But the article also points out that there is some thought that people want to help distant relatives because it will boost their reputation and thus they will be rewarded for it. This is more an example of balanced reciprocity. Balanced reciprocity is defined by our text as a form of exchange where roughly equivalent goods or services are exchanged. In other words, by helping their distant relatives, the person can expect to be helped by these same people when they are in need of something.
My question after reading this article was do you think people help those not immediately close to them (such as a distant relative or acquaintance) because they wish to be rewarded in some way? In other words do people help others not because it is the right thing to do but because they want to be praised or rewarded in some way?
Here is the reference for the article: University of Utah. “Why people help distant kin.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 15 June 2016.
While reading chapter six of our textbook, I became interested in how Ethnocide and Genocide transform cultures, and discovered how these concepts relate to the United States through an article titled: Understanding Culture and Language Ethnocide: A Native Perspective, written by Neyooxet Greymorning. Within the common U.S. history class, students learn about the attempts of Adolf Hitler, who planed to wipe out the entire Jewish people group. Somehow the, just as gruesome, colonization of the Americas gets left out of the conversation and the ethnocide and genocide of the Native American people is ignored. The attempt to wipe out the whole entire culture, language system, and way of life of the Native Americans was followed through and successful by and for the European people.
Before the ethnocide, which means “death of a culture when its members shift to a different way of life”, there were six hundred distinct languages spoken on the American continent by natives, as well as more than fifty million Indians living there during the time before colonization. A common phrase used by European colonists at the time was, “Kill the Indian, save the man.” When it was all said and done, the Europeans spent the equivalent of one billion dollars on boarding schools and other systems that killed the Native American culture and valuable, beautiful history that went along with it.
After reading this article, my question for you is this: as the article asks, would you give up your entire culture and language if forced to leave it behind? Do you find value in your culture even if nobody else does, if so, why?
Article Reference: https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/understanding-culture-and-language-ethnocide-native