Thursday, April 9, 2009
What are some connections between Topology and Cultural anthropology?
It's probably an issue of topography more so than topology. The idea is that the shape of the land can relate to the culture that uses it, in terms of ceremonial sites, domestic sites, agricultural activities, water availability, trade routes, etc. There is a sense of "place" in any interpretation of cultural phenomena.
What does the month of June mean?
Not the origins ike it got it's name from Juno or something like that. I want . . . like how January is the month of New Beginnings.. and another one is the month or remembrance or something.
June is the sun at high noon. It is the height of joy. You might say it is the age of 30 for most people when they have gotten past the mistakes of youth but still have good physical strength. Their children have gotten past the age of being worried about and one can work on hobbies. It is a day at the beach walking in the sand listening to the sea. It is satisfaction.
Juno was the goddess of marriage and a married couple's household, so some consider it good luck to be married in this month
June is the sun at high noon. It is the height of joy. You might say it is the age of 30 for most people when they have gotten past the mistakes of youth but still have good physical strength. Their children have gotten past the age of being worried about and one can work on hobbies. It is a day at the beach walking in the sand listening to the sea. It is satisfaction.
Juno was the goddess of marriage and a married couple's household, so some consider it good luck to be married in this month
Caveman? is this year the year of the caveman - like b.c. real post-nuclear war cavemen?
Are we almost there? An apocolyptic answer is what I'm looking for.
There will be no nuclear war or apocalypse.
You will live for 60 more years at least.
So you better learn to write in proper English so you do not have to spend those 60 years as a caveman.
We haven't reached "the day after" yet. It will be a while. Sorry. You can come out of the fallout shelter for a while longer.
It doesn't hurt to know the shortest route to the nearest cave. cave/save
Uh, no.
You want people to tell you we're heading there WHY?
There will be no nuclear war or apocalypse.
You will live for 60 more years at least.
So you better learn to write in proper English so you do not have to spend those 60 years as a caveman.
We haven't reached "the day after" yet. It will be a while. Sorry. You can come out of the fallout shelter for a while longer.
It doesn't hurt to know the shortest route to the nearest cave. cave/save
Uh, no.
You want people to tell you we're heading there WHY?
Is Mercyhurst college a good college for archaeology?
And about how long would it take for me to get my degree in archaeo and anthro?
Mercyhurst is a good college for it. I have a few colleagues that graduated from there. I know a few of the professors as well. You must like winter though being so close to Lake Erie they get a lot of snow. Erie is a pretty cool city too.
Mercyhurst is a good college for it. I have a few colleagues that graduated from there. I know a few of the professors as well. You must like winter though being so close to Lake Erie they get a lot of snow. Erie is a pretty cool city too.
Are africans not as smart as the other ethnicity
call me racist but its not what im going for
what im saying is some of the first civilizations on earth were mesopotamia egypt Chinese and greek. but they are still undeveloped.
is it just location location location and lack of resources. are is their another genetic factor in it?
Whereas, of course, Matt - you're a prime example of white superiority!
Well Egyptians are Africans, not Sub Saharan Africans like the dark skinned ones, they are Mediterranian Africans, and there is a place called Great Zimbabwe that is a ruin of a once advanced people is Sub Sahara Africa that is just plain Neat, that up until a few years ago was said to be foreign construction, because of the same belief that Black Africans couldn't do it but the fact it exists proves they did have advanced skills why they lost them are unknown, and Ethiopia has many places that show advanced ability, mainly the Churches that are meant to replicate the Holy Land.
as for the current state of Africa, I dont know why they may have lost ancient skills but they have Lions and other major feline predators and a harsh enviroment so thot could be a contributing factor to the difference in developement,
They had some pretty advanced civilizations there before falling prey to the advanced weaponry of the Europeans. Unfortunately, the Europeans than got to write the histories.
Progress does not equal intelligence. Many 'profressive' movements have reaped extremely hazardous conseuqnces, and what we see as 'primitive' practices are often highly sustainable
wow, brian, your naivety and ignorance is baffling
There is no genetic factor involved in this. Its actually the need for resources, would you rather hunt for food and live or die soon but with knowledge?
No.
All people are open to equal education.
It depends on how hard they study and their efforts.
what im saying is some of the first civilizations on earth were mesopotamia egypt Chinese and greek. but they are still undeveloped.
is it just location location location and lack of resources. are is their another genetic factor in it?
Whereas, of course, Matt - you're a prime example of white superiority!
Well Egyptians are Africans, not Sub Saharan Africans like the dark skinned ones, they are Mediterranian Africans, and there is a place called Great Zimbabwe that is a ruin of a once advanced people is Sub Sahara Africa that is just plain Neat, that up until a few years ago was said to be foreign construction, because of the same belief that Black Africans couldn't do it but the fact it exists proves they did have advanced skills why they lost them are unknown, and Ethiopia has many places that show advanced ability, mainly the Churches that are meant to replicate the Holy Land.
as for the current state of Africa, I dont know why they may have lost ancient skills but they have Lions and other major feline predators and a harsh enviroment so thot could be a contributing factor to the difference in developement,
They had some pretty advanced civilizations there before falling prey to the advanced weaponry of the Europeans. Unfortunately, the Europeans than got to write the histories.
Progress does not equal intelligence. Many 'profressive' movements have reaped extremely hazardous conseuqnces, and what we see as 'primitive' practices are often highly sustainable
wow, brian, your naivety and ignorance is baffling
There is no genetic factor involved in this. Its actually the need for resources, would you rather hunt for food and live or die soon but with knowledge?
No.
All people are open to equal education.
It depends on how hard they study and their efforts.
HELP ME ON THE ANCIENT MAYANS!?
plz plz help me!!!!i have a big report due
tell me anything you can on the ancient mayans oral tradition, writing system and literature!!thank you!!
The Proto-Mayan language began in the vicinity of Guatemala appx. 5,000 years ago. Their calendar, which has a 5,126 year cycle, would be an example of their "written" word, along with their Creation Legend, known as the Popol Vuh...
Many of their religious codices have been destroyed, or are yet to be found. The Mayan language is NOT dead, as appx. 1.5 million people today still speak it, in the vicinity of the Yucatan, Belize and Guatemala...
Everything was based primarily on the earth and nature. Mythology, religion, pottery and art reflected belief in earth and primarily sun cycles. Expert mathematicians and astrologists. Don't think there was any literature. I think that despite a highly evolved society, they never bothered with written word, prob because they didn;t feel the need to.
tell me anything you can on the ancient mayans oral tradition, writing system and literature!!thank you!!
The Proto-Mayan language began in the vicinity of Guatemala appx. 5,000 years ago. Their calendar, which has a 5,126 year cycle, would be an example of their "written" word, along with their Creation Legend, known as the Popol Vuh...
Many of their religious codices have been destroyed, or are yet to be found. The Mayan language is NOT dead, as appx. 1.5 million people today still speak it, in the vicinity of the Yucatan, Belize and Guatemala...
Everything was based primarily on the earth and nature. Mythology, religion, pottery and art reflected belief in earth and primarily sun cycles. Expert mathematicians and astrologists. Don't think there was any literature. I think that despite a highly evolved society, they never bothered with written word, prob because they didn;t feel the need to.
How are the Mayans and Aztecs different?
Is there a difference between them?
For one thing, The Mayans lived in Guatemala & Yucatan, while the Aztecs live in what is now Mexico City!
Secondly, While the Mayan Civilization extended from early pre-history, until modern day (Many people in the Yucatan speak the Mayan language today)...
The Aztecs, who referred to themselves as "Mexica", flourished from about the 13th Century, until they were conquered by Cortes in 1521!
their languages were completely different and coming from completely different language families.
For one thing, The Mayans lived in Guatemala & Yucatan, while the Aztecs live in what is now Mexico City!
Secondly, While the Mayan Civilization extended from early pre-history, until modern day (Many people in the Yucatan speak the Mayan language today)...
The Aztecs, who referred to themselves as "Mexica", flourished from about the 13th Century, until they were conquered by Cortes in 1521!
their languages were completely different and coming from completely different language families.
What are the effects of Donatello
...and what are the effects of donatello's accomplishments have on the world today?
Round in shape.
Round in shape.
Spanking Debate: Pros?
Ok, so for my civics class I have to debate about if spanking should be used or not and I have to do both sides of the case. I got all my points for why people shouldn't use spanking as a way of discipline but I'm having a hard time finding points for why spanking is good since I really don't agree with spanking. Can I get some help?
The benefits of spanking, and in fact, any form of corporal punishment, are limited and outweighed by the negative consequences. It is effective for establishing the parent as the authority figure, and it can stop behaviors from the child. The child may attribute the unpleasant consequence of spanking to the negative behavior, and thus spanking can result in conditioning.
um, you can get your kids to obey you for once
The benefits of spanking, and in fact, any form of corporal punishment, are limited and outweighed by the negative consequences. It is effective for establishing the parent as the authority figure, and it can stop behaviors from the child. The child may attribute the unpleasant consequence of spanking to the negative behavior, and thus spanking can result in conditioning.
um, you can get your kids to obey you for once
What is the relative importance of competition vs cooperation?
Does society place more value on competition or cooperation.
I don't think there's a more important question than this, but it needs to be rephrased, because there's no such thing as a single, all-encompassing human "society" and never has been. The biggest form of human association we have today that could conceivably be called a "society" is the nation-state (a "country"), which first appeared only about 400 years ago (the passport, for example, was first invented in the 17th century).
With that said, the answer to the question is this: Over the roughly 200,000 years that fully modern people (homo sapiens sapiens) have been around, the relative importance of competition vs. competition has varied very widely, through time and from society to society. Physical fossil, archaeological, and written evidence, along with carefully-developed and -refined hypotheses to explain this evidence, suggest that the balance between competition and cooperation that had been developed over most of those 200,000 years within the typical societies of most of those years ?that being a group of 20 to 40 individuals ?began to be disrupted at, or shortly before, the end of the last glacial period (about 11,000 years ago) when climate change (and changes in plants and animals accompanying it) led to the discovery and development of agriculture, which led, over the next 5,000 years, to the human invention of "improvements" in farm land ?the key example is often thought to be irrigation systems ?with such improvements either leading to or supporting the entirely new concept of the ownership of land. The concept of land ownership seems to have been well-established at, or soon after, the beginning of "civilization" (literally" "cityization"), defined by very small cities (sites of the food-storage that agriculture enabled, and eventually of palaces, temples, the offices of managing bureaucrats) that were surrounded by and supported by the agricultural fields. In such places ?which by 5500 years ago had become the first true states ?the balance had unquestionably shifted in favor of competition: a managing elite minority competed with a physically-working majority, and won the competition (part of the time at least) by either compelling or persuading (or both) the majority to give part of the (literal) fruits of its labor to the ruling/managing minority. A thousand years later, at the beginning of the Bronze Age (bronze being the first metal used to develop superior edged weapons, by those who had access to the materials for making it and knowledge of the technology) aggressive warfare for profit (as opposed to border conflicts) began, and one result of this was a further tilt in favor of competition, in the form of the routine enslavement of prisoners and their use as "instrumenti voci" (a Classical Roman term for slaves, which means literally "talking tools"). Within this framework of "civilizations" ?which co-existed with (an increasingly-small world-wide number of) band societies (most of them hunter-gatherer: food-collecting) ?until less than one hundred years ago (! : a very few remain, but are, as far as we know, at the point of disappearance)! Within both the group of societies at all the various stages of "civilized" development (from primitive agricultural to advanced industrial), there's variation from society to society (and also within sub-societies within the society: religious or utopian or specialized-industrial or academic communities, for example) of the degree of competitiveness versus cooperation. Just the widely differing North American Indian societies that existed at the time of Columbus's arrival ?the "500 Nations" ?displayed a range of competitive versus cooperative behaviors, including one that gives an example of the difficulty of precisely defining competition versus cooperation: the fierce competition to be the most generous giver to the society known as "potlatch". I think the real answer to your question lies in understanding why small societies were successful for a total of more than 3 million years of human-ancestral (hominid) life, and 195,000-plus years of completely modern human life; and why the much larger societies that began to appear six thousand or so years ago have begun to seem to be wildly unsuccessful, both in terms of the human happiness they provide, and in their adaptiveness to the continuing existence of the human species. Thinking about this shouldn't produce despair, because movement through time ?deep history ?always proceeds in a wave-like way, with experimental excursions from side to side, some in maladaptive directions that are then followed by corrections, always accompanying forward progress.
I don't think there's a more important question than this, but it needs to be rephrased, because there's no such thing as a single, all-encompassing human "society" and never has been. The biggest form of human association we have today that could conceivably be called a "society" is the nation-state (a "country"), which first appeared only about 400 years ago (the passport, for example, was first invented in the 17th century).
With that said, the answer to the question is this: Over the roughly 200,000 years that fully modern people (homo sapiens sapiens) have been around, the relative importance of competition vs. competition has varied very widely, through time and from society to society. Physical fossil, archaeological, and written evidence, along with carefully-developed and -refined hypotheses to explain this evidence, suggest that the balance between competition and cooperation that had been developed over most of those 200,000 years within the typical societies of most of those years ?that being a group of 20 to 40 individuals ?began to be disrupted at, or shortly before, the end of the last glacial period (about 11,000 years ago) when climate change (and changes in plants and animals accompanying it) led to the discovery and development of agriculture, which led, over the next 5,000 years, to the human invention of "improvements" in farm land ?the key example is often thought to be irrigation systems ?with such improvements either leading to or supporting the entirely new concept of the ownership of land. The concept of land ownership seems to have been well-established at, or soon after, the beginning of "civilization" (literally" "cityization"), defined by very small cities (sites of the food-storage that agriculture enabled, and eventually of palaces, temples, the offices of managing bureaucrats) that were surrounded by and supported by the agricultural fields. In such places ?which by 5500 years ago had become the first true states ?the balance had unquestionably shifted in favor of competition: a managing elite minority competed with a physically-working majority, and won the competition (part of the time at least) by either compelling or persuading (or both) the majority to give part of the (literal) fruits of its labor to the ruling/managing minority. A thousand years later, at the beginning of the Bronze Age (bronze being the first metal used to develop superior edged weapons, by those who had access to the materials for making it and knowledge of the technology) aggressive warfare for profit (as opposed to border conflicts) began, and one result of this was a further tilt in favor of competition, in the form of the routine enslavement of prisoners and their use as "instrumenti voci" (a Classical Roman term for slaves, which means literally "talking tools"). Within this framework of "civilizations" ?which co-existed with (an increasingly-small world-wide number of) band societies (most of them hunter-gatherer: food-collecting) ?until less than one hundred years ago (! : a very few remain, but are, as far as we know, at the point of disappearance)! Within both the group of societies at all the various stages of "civilized" development (from primitive agricultural to advanced industrial), there's variation from society to society (and also within sub-societies within the society: religious or utopian or specialized-industrial or academic communities, for example) of the degree of competitiveness versus cooperation. Just the widely differing North American Indian societies that existed at the time of Columbus's arrival ?the "500 Nations" ?displayed a range of competitive versus cooperative behaviors, including one that gives an example of the difficulty of precisely defining competition versus cooperation: the fierce competition to be the most generous giver to the society known as "potlatch". I think the real answer to your question lies in understanding why small societies were successful for a total of more than 3 million years of human-ancestral (hominid) life, and 195,000-plus years of completely modern human life; and why the much larger societies that began to appear six thousand or so years ago have begun to seem to be wildly unsuccessful, both in terms of the human happiness they provide, and in their adaptiveness to the continuing existence of the human species. Thinking about this shouldn't produce despair, because movement through time ?deep history ?always proceeds in a wave-like way, with experimental excursions from side to side, some in maladaptive directions that are then followed by corrections, always accompanying forward progress.
Interview with an anthropologist?
can anyone suggest an interview with an anthropologist, this is kind of urgent
I'd absolutely suggest an interview with an anthropologist! (I think it's urgent for _everyone_!)
Your query is fascinating, and I'd be happy to do what I can, on this forum.
If you want a more private interview than that, though, you might first want to check Wikipedia or similar to get an idea of what area of anthropology you're interested in: paleoanthropology, cultural anthropology, etc.. Then: the various department curators at the American Museum of Natural History used to take phone questions, and maybe still do. They are some of the top scholars in the world, though, and you should take the opportunity to talk to them very seriously, and prepare for it. If you want to see some interviews online, google "Marvin Harris" (Harris, chair of the Columbia University anthropology department, was a deeply humanistic, but objective, guy who founded the anthropological school called cultural materialism, wrote the standard but unique anthropological advanced college text (_The Rise of Anthropological Theory_), and also wrote three books for general audiences (_Cannibals and Kings_, very serious and concerned , and _Our Kind_, fatter and lighter (all two- and three-page chapters, because his publishers asked him to write about everything he knew). Harris's last book, published the year he died (2000 or 2002, close as I can recall) is called _Theories of Culture in a Post-Modern Age_. If your urgent issue has anything to do with confusion arising from what you've heard or been taught in the past 30 years of academic .... (can't remember the polite term for b-s) ... Harris takes on, one by one, each of the varieties of cultural interpretation of that bountiful substance. Besides Harris, Cambridge D-Space has about 50 years worth of filmed and taped interviews with leading anthropologists online, set up so you can watch either an excerpt or the whole interview. This would be truly great, except that the anthropology department at Cambridge leans heavily towards the "functionalist" school, which avoids the big picture (which cultural materialism emphatically doesn't ... I'm neither primarily a cultural materialist nor a functionalist, by the way).
Of course, as you probably know, you can go to most good college or university website, look up the faculty list, and get the e-mail address of an anthropologist. Or call the American Anthropology Association.
Go to a University near you and check in the Anthropology department. According to what type of Anthropologist that you'd like to interview, inform the department head or the secretary what your intentions are and ask if you might be able to talk to someone.
I'd absolutely suggest an interview with an anthropologist! (I think it's urgent for _everyone_!)
Your query is fascinating, and I'd be happy to do what I can, on this forum.
If you want a more private interview than that, though, you might first want to check Wikipedia or similar to get an idea of what area of anthropology you're interested in: paleoanthropology, cultural anthropology, etc.. Then: the various department curators at the American Museum of Natural History used to take phone questions, and maybe still do. They are some of the top scholars in the world, though, and you should take the opportunity to talk to them very seriously, and prepare for it. If you want to see some interviews online, google "Marvin Harris" (Harris, chair of the Columbia University anthropology department, was a deeply humanistic, but objective, guy who founded the anthropological school called cultural materialism, wrote the standard but unique anthropological advanced college text (_The Rise of Anthropological Theory_), and also wrote three books for general audiences (_Cannibals and Kings_, very serious and concerned , and _Our Kind_, fatter and lighter (all two- and three-page chapters, because his publishers asked him to write about everything he knew). Harris's last book, published the year he died (2000 or 2002, close as I can recall) is called _Theories of Culture in a Post-Modern Age_. If your urgent issue has anything to do with confusion arising from what you've heard or been taught in the past 30 years of academic .... (can't remember the polite term for b-s) ... Harris takes on, one by one, each of the varieties of cultural interpretation of that bountiful substance. Besides Harris, Cambridge D-Space has about 50 years worth of filmed and taped interviews with leading anthropologists online, set up so you can watch either an excerpt or the whole interview. This would be truly great, except that the anthropology department at Cambridge leans heavily towards the "functionalist" school, which avoids the big picture (which cultural materialism emphatically doesn't ... I'm neither primarily a cultural materialist nor a functionalist, by the way).
Of course, as you probably know, you can go to most good college or university website, look up the faculty list, and get the e-mail address of an anthropologist. Or call the American Anthropology Association.
Go to a University near you and check in the Anthropology department. According to what type of Anthropologist that you'd like to interview, inform the department head or the secretary what your intentions are and ask if you might be able to talk to someone.
Why Filipinos are always insulting Koreans?
My theory is that they are just envious. Korean are richer than them, they are whiter, etc...
Any group, that insults another group or individual, is attempting to place themselves on a higher level than their target.
By placing themselves in an exalted position where they feel that they can pronounce Judgements on others, they feel that they have elevated themselves to a social position, way above their targets.
Which, of course is not true.
It's only in their mind.
And the real basis of their actions, is for reasons, that they feel so inferior.
I am part filipina and I have never heard of any filipino insult koreans?
What kind of question is this?
Any group, that insults another group or individual, is attempting to place themselves on a higher level than their target.
By placing themselves in an exalted position where they feel that they can pronounce Judgements on others, they feel that they have elevated themselves to a social position, way above their targets.
Which, of course is not true.
It's only in their mind.
And the real basis of their actions, is for reasons, that they feel so inferior.
I am part filipina and I have never heard of any filipino insult koreans?
What kind of question is this?
How do you become an artifact AUTHENTICator?
I am very much into Native American Artifacts and would like to know what steps must be taken to be a legit artifact authenticator.
the only way to determine if an artifact is genuine or fake is become a curator of a museum which involves obtaining a phd in either anthropology or art history. it should be understood that many of the great museums in the world still hold fakes within their collection and often it is quite difficult to spot the not.
There is no such thing as a "legit artifact authenticator," by authenticating artifacts you are perpetuating the idea that it is okay to loot and thereby destroy archaeological sites to find artifacts given superficial value by a grey market. Once an artifact is removed from it's primary context it will lose most of it's value to science. Plus you are being quite insensitive to the Native Americans whose ancestors made those artifacts. While archaeologists do dig and find things these artifacts would otherwise be destroyed by the roadway or pipeline that the archaeologist is digging in front of. Finally your authentication could support the illegal sale of artifacts and that could wind you up in hot water from the law.
If you really want to pay homage and do something creative I'd recommend you make your own projectile points, or other objects by imitating the style of the Native Americans you like. There are many books written on the subject of projectile point creation and the craftsmanship behind the bow and arrow shafts, and fewer, but still enough to let a lay person begin to learn how, to make other objects used by Native Americans.
Finally, unless you can be sure of the context (you dug it up) there is no way to say if an artifact is actually authentic. Therefore any arrowhead presented to you as real could have been made by a skilled replicator.
good luck gingerita
the only way to determine if an artifact is genuine or fake is become a curator of a museum which involves obtaining a phd in either anthropology or art history. it should be understood that many of the great museums in the world still hold fakes within their collection and often it is quite difficult to spot the not.
There is no such thing as a "legit artifact authenticator," by authenticating artifacts you are perpetuating the idea that it is okay to loot and thereby destroy archaeological sites to find artifacts given superficial value by a grey market. Once an artifact is removed from it's primary context it will lose most of it's value to science. Plus you are being quite insensitive to the Native Americans whose ancestors made those artifacts. While archaeologists do dig and find things these artifacts would otherwise be destroyed by the roadway or pipeline that the archaeologist is digging in front of. Finally your authentication could support the illegal sale of artifacts and that could wind you up in hot water from the law.
If you really want to pay homage and do something creative I'd recommend you make your own projectile points, or other objects by imitating the style of the Native Americans you like. There are many books written on the subject of projectile point creation and the craftsmanship behind the bow and arrow shafts, and fewer, but still enough to let a lay person begin to learn how, to make other objects used by Native Americans.
Finally, unless you can be sure of the context (you dug it up) there is no way to say if an artifact is actually authentic. Therefore any arrowhead presented to you as real could have been made by a skilled replicator.
good luck gingerita
Victimization is most likely to occur when?
is the answer a when a person is alone or in unfamiliar sorroundings b when a situation is resolved quickly c when thier is history of violence or d when a dispute is left unresolved
When you wear a t-shirt with a bright, red bull's-eye target, on your back...
Victimization occurs when:
1. One or more persons feel they are more entitled to something than any one else.
If you put one person in a room alone that one person can not victimize any body.
Now put two people in a room with nothing but a plate of food enough for one. All sorts of social phenomena starts to happen.
1. They fight over the food.
2. They share the food.
3. They divide the food according to size, wieght, age, sex, and social standing etc. etc.
4. The more aggressive of the two will try to dominate the other and try to establish "The Alpha" rule.
5. Both will begin to hoard. They begin to steal, trick, lie, or cheat to get more food.
All this could have been solved if there were enough food for both to begin with.
That is the case for everything in society today. Violence and victimization occurs when one person or a group feels they are deserving of something better than others. Exploitation to get at resources is nothing new. Cavemen did it. The animals do it all the time for their survival.
The trouble is we as human and as creatures of reasons tend to over aggressively exploit to get what we deem are necessary.
People had killed each other over food, money, job, love, and land. It it will keep on going until the human as a race is pure energy. Then we won't need those things any more.
Victimization is most likely to occur when an event tales place and you are left feeling the negative repercussions.
When you wear a t-shirt with a bright, red bull's-eye target, on your back...
Victimization occurs when:
1. One or more persons feel they are more entitled to something than any one else.
If you put one person in a room alone that one person can not victimize any body.
Now put two people in a room with nothing but a plate of food enough for one. All sorts of social phenomena starts to happen.
1. They fight over the food.
2. They share the food.
3. They divide the food according to size, wieght, age, sex, and social standing etc. etc.
4. The more aggressive of the two will try to dominate the other and try to establish "The Alpha" rule.
5. Both will begin to hoard. They begin to steal, trick, lie, or cheat to get more food.
All this could have been solved if there were enough food for both to begin with.
That is the case for everything in society today. Violence and victimization occurs when one person or a group feels they are deserving of something better than others. Exploitation to get at resources is nothing new. Cavemen did it. The animals do it all the time for their survival.
The trouble is we as human and as creatures of reasons tend to over aggressively exploit to get what we deem are necessary.
People had killed each other over food, money, job, love, and land. It it will keep on going until the human as a race is pure energy. Then we won't need those things any more.
Victimization is most likely to occur when an event tales place and you are left feeling the negative repercussions.
Characteristics of nomadic pastorial societies?
CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY:
1.well organized goveernments
2.sedentary lifestyle
3.social organazation of clans and tribes
4.moved around alot
5.livestock was the only surplus
3 4 5
Are you reading Veiled Sentiments? That book is twisted. I know 3 and 4 are true. Maybe 5.
1.well organized goveernments
2.sedentary lifestyle
3.social organazation of clans and tribes
4.moved around alot
5.livestock was the only surplus
3 4 5
Are you reading Veiled Sentiments? That book is twisted. I know 3 and 4 are true. Maybe 5.
How come the Aztecs or Incas didn
If these civilizations were so strong, how come they didn't event firearms? I think I know the answer, but I want to hear what other people think.
The only iron in the cultures was from meteorites. The copper, silver, and gold they used weren't strong enough for guns.
Sulfur, saltpeter and charcoal were known but it's a fussy formula to make black powder.
When the Native Americans finally got guns from the newcomers they became totally dependent on the Europeans. The Native Americans didn't have the industrial base to repairs and replace the guns or to mine the lead and make gunpowder. Even by 19876 at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, muskets were often preferred as mismatched cartridges could be broken down to powder and lead that a musket could use.
Perhaps the biggest reason was culture. Both groups didn't encourage initiative or individuality. Leonardo Da Vinci would wouldn't have done well. Alchemy the basis for chemistry and gunpowder never developed.. While there was lots of warfare it wasn't the European type. In the Americas it was among warriors where one gained fame and prestige and was a rite of passage. Simply look at the elaborate dress of the warriors. There's more culture then practically. Counting coup was purely American (getting close to slap of tough an opponet. Killing or shooting them counted much less) In Europe fighting was intended to kill. With the Aztecs it was to obtain prisoners for sacrifice.
Finally, both empires were relatively recent and had rolled over their opponents. In Europe there were many small states that were constantly fighting with each other and seeking to obtain an advantage. That encouraged innovation and technology.
Just the way it was! They didn't have the wheel either. Anyway, the use of firearms was only just getting into it's stride in China and the West at the time the Aztecs were being conquered. You may as well ask why the Arabs didn't invent gunpowder, or why the Chinese, or the Romans didn't invent a numerical system as simple and the one invented in India.
Clearly the Europeans who had the benefit of gaining technology from all of Asia and Africa as well, were more advanced. Perhaps the Aztecs would have eventually invented them but the Europeans conquered them first. Europeans developed shipping before Aztecs had any hope of inventing those things.
Uh,only ONE civilizations invented explosives: Chinese.
So you should also ask "Why didn't Europeans or Africans also discover explosives" rather than targetting those two civilizations.
They WERE strong. There's no reason to assume every strong civilization would invent firearms.
The concept wasn't in their minds yet. It was probably too early for them to discover this.
The only iron in the cultures was from meteorites. The copper, silver, and gold they used weren't strong enough for guns.
Sulfur, saltpeter and charcoal were known but it's a fussy formula to make black powder.
When the Native Americans finally got guns from the newcomers they became totally dependent on the Europeans. The Native Americans didn't have the industrial base to repairs and replace the guns or to mine the lead and make gunpowder. Even by 19876 at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, muskets were often preferred as mismatched cartridges could be broken down to powder and lead that a musket could use.
Perhaps the biggest reason was culture. Both groups didn't encourage initiative or individuality. Leonardo Da Vinci would wouldn't have done well. Alchemy the basis for chemistry and gunpowder never developed.. While there was lots of warfare it wasn't the European type. In the Americas it was among warriors where one gained fame and prestige and was a rite of passage. Simply look at the elaborate dress of the warriors. There's more culture then practically. Counting coup was purely American (getting close to slap of tough an opponet. Killing or shooting them counted much less) In Europe fighting was intended to kill. With the Aztecs it was to obtain prisoners for sacrifice.
Finally, both empires were relatively recent and had rolled over their opponents. In Europe there were many small states that were constantly fighting with each other and seeking to obtain an advantage. That encouraged innovation and technology.
Just the way it was! They didn't have the wheel either. Anyway, the use of firearms was only just getting into it's stride in China and the West at the time the Aztecs were being conquered. You may as well ask why the Arabs didn't invent gunpowder, or why the Chinese, or the Romans didn't invent a numerical system as simple and the one invented in India.
Clearly the Europeans who had the benefit of gaining technology from all of Asia and Africa as well, were more advanced. Perhaps the Aztecs would have eventually invented them but the Europeans conquered them first. Europeans developed shipping before Aztecs had any hope of inventing those things.
Uh,only ONE civilizations invented explosives: Chinese.
So you should also ask "Why didn't Europeans or Africans also discover explosives" rather than targetting those two civilizations.
They WERE strong. There's no reason to assume every strong civilization would invent firearms.
The concept wasn't in their minds yet. It was probably too early for them to discover this.
Racial origins of North Caucasians?
Im very curious about the racial and genetic characteristics of the Chechens and other peoples of the Caucasus whos speak North Caucasian languages. If they do have common lineage with other "white" indo-european peoples then why do they speak unrelated languages(N Caucasian languages are agglutinative, unlike Indo-European toungues which are fusional)?
like Q said, language and skin color do not correlate. the true caucasians, that is speakers of the caucasus languages, have their origins extending back to the some of the ancient anatolian languages such as hattic and kaskian and perhaps hurrian.
Language groupings don't follow genetic groupings. It's as simple as that. Plus, we know that there was a European language group that preceded and was replaced by Indo-European (and Indo-European likely originated in the Caucasus region, for that matter--possibly from the Kurgan area. The pre-European language remains only in groups like the Basques.
UP survivors
like Q said, language and skin color do not correlate. the true caucasians, that is speakers of the caucasus languages, have their origins extending back to the some of the ancient anatolian languages such as hattic and kaskian and perhaps hurrian.
Language groupings don't follow genetic groupings. It's as simple as that. Plus, we know that there was a European language group that preceded and was replaced by Indo-European (and Indo-European likely originated in the Caucasus region, for that matter--possibly from the Kurgan area. The pre-European language remains only in groups like the Basques.
UP survivors
..........Are Persians Asian?
Geographically? Yes, they are. But how about racially?
Middle Eastern?
Asian?
Caucasian?
Iranian are persians and they are in fact considered Causcasians.. Afghani's are also considered Caucasians. Go to the east one country and the Arabs and considered Asian
caucasian. Most of the forefathers of Europe exited the near east from around this area over 10,000 years ago....Green and blue eyes and fair hair is not uncommon and many have what is now considered standard 'European' mtdna (H,T, J etc)or else the older haplogroups (pre-HV,JT) from which Euro dna branched off from.
Depends on what you consider 'Asian'
If you mean "people living the non-European areas of Eurasia" yes.
If you mean "far eastern Asian" no.
'Race' is a comp0letely arbitrary concept, with no reality.
Arabs are also caucasion. Asian isn't a race. Obviously it is a continent. That is one problem in using things like African American and Asian American.
Racially they are considered Caucasian.
Nope, we are Caucasian.
Yes really.
Middle Eastern?
Asian?
Caucasian?
Iranian are persians and they are in fact considered Causcasians.. Afghani's are also considered Caucasians. Go to the east one country and the Arabs and considered Asian
caucasian. Most of the forefathers of Europe exited the near east from around this area over 10,000 years ago....Green and blue eyes and fair hair is not uncommon and many have what is now considered standard 'European' mtdna (H,T, J etc)or else the older haplogroups (pre-HV,JT) from which Euro dna branched off from.
Depends on what you consider 'Asian'
If you mean "people living the non-European areas of Eurasia" yes.
If you mean "far eastern Asian" no.
'Race' is a comp0letely arbitrary concept, with no reality.
Arabs are also caucasion. Asian isn't a race. Obviously it is a continent. That is one problem in using things like African American and Asian American.
Racially they are considered Caucasian.
Nope, we are Caucasian.
Yes really.
What racial phenotype woud be rarer? in your opinion?
a north or central european who looks like a north african or arabic/mid eastern? or a arabic mid eastern or north african who looks northern european? what woud be rarer?
I think an Arabic mid eastern or north African who looks northern European, usually dark genes are more prominent.
I think a mid eastern person who looks Northern european would be more rare, there are some middle eastern people who have green or blue eyes but they still don't exactly look like a Norwegian, on the other hand in Europe they have found small amounts of DNA from the middle east, in European populations Tomas Jefferson had DNA similar to that of an Egyptian even though he was of Welsh origins, in an ancient grave in Denmark they found the remains of an arab man, and of course the Jews have been in Europe for a very long time and some intermarrying both ways took place
I think an Arabic mid eastern or north African who looks northern European, usually dark genes are more prominent.
I think a mid eastern person who looks Northern european would be more rare, there are some middle eastern people who have green or blue eyes but they still don't exactly look like a Norwegian, on the other hand in Europe they have found small amounts of DNA from the middle east, in European populations Tomas Jefferson had DNA similar to that of an Egyptian even though he was of Welsh origins, in an ancient grave in Denmark they found the remains of an arab man, and of course the Jews have been in Europe for a very long time and some intermarrying both ways took place
Do you think that the lack of
I've wondered this. it's important to realize that Survival of the fittest does not mean the same thing for a civilized people as it does for other animals. We don't yet understand all the traits that contribute to our own survival and it's possible that some of those that might be weeded out by natural selection could prove useful in the future.
Will our medicine adn other practices mean that individuals who would not normally survive, grow and procreate? yes. Is that bad for the species? I'm not sure. In my experience those with the best genes tend toward others with the best genes and those with the worst tend to the worst so I think there will be a core of people that have the qualities needed for survival in tough times should civilization collapse.
My real concern is the weight of carrying all those people with bad genes causing the collapse. OTOH with medicine able to identify and fix the most obvious problems in the near future it may never be an issue at all and natural selction will progress beneath the surface, operating on the parts of the genome we leave alone or don't understand.
BTW there is recent evidence that the rate of mutation in humans has increased mostly due to the surge in population in the last 5000 years
The survival of the fittest is still in effect. However the definition of "fittest" has changed & no longer applies to strictly physical fitness. The fittest now adapt to cultural changes rather than survival of harsh environments.
No doubt advances in culture & medicine have allowed many that in the past would not have survived long enough to reproduce to do so. However, physical robustness is no longer a major survival factor. Perhaps the existence of those in need of help tends to increase empathy among our evolving culture(s). Certainly diseases like diabetes would have doomed many major contributers to our culture to a short & unproductive life in the past.
Not having survival of the fittest causes would mean no natural selection though mate choice and environment.
Though there always will be mate choice, so some natural selection is occurring. Also there is some natural selection occurring in people who have such genes making them unable to survive certain circumstances, such as genes causing mutations at birth making them unable to live.
But that obviously is significantly less natural selection then we've had before, and is affecting us. Two negative things are happening due to the lessening of natural selection: Increased mutations left to exist in world, and our species not evolving as much in a specific direction.
The increase in mutations can be helpful because it increase diversity, which will help combat diseases, it will often be curbed if it gets to far out of hand by the mate selection we still have. Our species not evolving isn't very harmful because we are surviving in our environment and have very little competition to face.
Overall the decrease in natural selection will not affect us significantly because the more harmful genes will still be eliminated through natural selection. And it will increase diversity to help us have better chances to evolve in the future during a time of pressure.
It depends on how you explain harmful. On one hand, it is, as by keeping people alive who by natural selection would have not survived we are in a sense preventing our own evolution and any further development of our species. However, the lack of survival of the fittest could be said to be beneficial to society as it gives us something that other creatures do not have, more of a conscious perhaps? I'm not sure if that helps but that would be my opinion on the matter.
Will our medicine adn other practices mean that individuals who would not normally survive, grow and procreate? yes. Is that bad for the species? I'm not sure. In my experience those with the best genes tend toward others with the best genes and those with the worst tend to the worst so I think there will be a core of people that have the qualities needed for survival in tough times should civilization collapse.
My real concern is the weight of carrying all those people with bad genes causing the collapse. OTOH with medicine able to identify and fix the most obvious problems in the near future it may never be an issue at all and natural selction will progress beneath the surface, operating on the parts of the genome we leave alone or don't understand.
BTW there is recent evidence that the rate of mutation in humans has increased mostly due to the surge in population in the last 5000 years
The survival of the fittest is still in effect. However the definition of "fittest" has changed & no longer applies to strictly physical fitness. The fittest now adapt to cultural changes rather than survival of harsh environments.
No doubt advances in culture & medicine have allowed many that in the past would not have survived long enough to reproduce to do so. However, physical robustness is no longer a major survival factor. Perhaps the existence of those in need of help tends to increase empathy among our evolving culture(s). Certainly diseases like diabetes would have doomed many major contributers to our culture to a short & unproductive life in the past.
Not having survival of the fittest causes would mean no natural selection though mate choice and environment.
Though there always will be mate choice, so some natural selection is occurring. Also there is some natural selection occurring in people who have such genes making them unable to survive certain circumstances, such as genes causing mutations at birth making them unable to live.
But that obviously is significantly less natural selection then we've had before, and is affecting us. Two negative things are happening due to the lessening of natural selection: Increased mutations left to exist in world, and our species not evolving as much in a specific direction.
The increase in mutations can be helpful because it increase diversity, which will help combat diseases, it will often be curbed if it gets to far out of hand by the mate selection we still have. Our species not evolving isn't very harmful because we are surviving in our environment and have very little competition to face.
Overall the decrease in natural selection will not affect us significantly because the more harmful genes will still be eliminated through natural selection. And it will increase diversity to help us have better chances to evolve in the future during a time of pressure.
It depends on how you explain harmful. On one hand, it is, as by keeping people alive who by natural selection would have not survived we are in a sense preventing our own evolution and any further development of our species. However, the lack of survival of the fittest could be said to be beneficial to society as it gives us something that other creatures do not have, more of a conscious perhaps? I'm not sure if that helps but that would be my opinion on the matter.
How can the human race survive the next 100 years?
l like your question..
the best solution is a war.. it's not a joke, there are too many persons on the world, and just thanks to the wars - human race was able to survive until these days.. that were no wars- the earth would be overpopulated, we would be like sardines . just human race is not controlling birth-rate, has no enemies and has no sense for a responsibility. make your own calculation that - if be a peace (and so on)- within 100years, the population will be 3 times bigger then now.. so, if people do not want to stop with making kids and kids and kids and kids- there is just one solution for it. earth is like and island, has limits and humans do not want to accepted.. so what to do? let humans destroy all other species of the globe and, then, all will dye of hunger or will become cannibals..
terrorists do not exist, exist just an enemy who try to defend the home of others.. why don't you ask your ex-president how they became your enemies and why, didn't want to judge them in front of face of the world? cause they didn't do it. and the true who did it - would come out.. never happend in human history that someone had a prisoners but was afraid to judge them in front of others.. isn't that strange? he wasn't afraid to accuse them openly, he wasn't afraid to capture them - but was afraid to judge them on same way- so everybody can see what they really did.. a persons who organized the destruction of 2 towers walk free..
the towels were constructed to support the strongest earthquakes and couldn't crash down because of those planes. just one nation saved all her stuff- and were adviced day before so not even one of them didn't come to work (and they should be - at least- one thousand persons- strange?). pentagon supposed to be hit by plane- but when was obvious that wasn't plane- all had to disappear!!!
go ahead, and check it.. bil aden just said what was true "l didn't expect that the towers will crash down" and in front of any court- is not any prove that he ordered it.. he is not standinding behind it..
now comes out the real reason why the towers were destroied...
that is a real america and a real story about international terrorism
You are talking about a species that rose from prey to top predator in less than 2 million years and survived catastrophic events that rendered 100s of other species extinct (ice ages, drought and the eruption of the massive Toba volcano 74,000 yrs ago). While humans have suffered numerous reversals of progress, their ingenuity & ability to adapt to conditions has allowed them to overcome those obstacles & prevail.
While global warming may pose a problem in the future, it will not be an insurmountable obstacle. I suspect humans will someday stand on a planet circling a distant star & look back at this small sun in the night sky.
win the war on terrorism, f.u.c.k.i.n. hippies! screw global warming. what will you do about a nuclear winter?
????
There's no reason to think that every human will be dead in 100 years.
if they only worshiped Allah {SWT}
How can it not?
Keep things running
the best solution is a war.. it's not a joke, there are too many persons on the world, and just thanks to the wars - human race was able to survive until these days.. that were no wars- the earth would be overpopulated, we would be like sardines . just human race is not controlling birth-rate, has no enemies and has no sense for a responsibility. make your own calculation that - if be a peace (and so on)- within 100years, the population will be 3 times bigger then now.. so, if people do not want to stop with making kids and kids and kids and kids- there is just one solution for it. earth is like and island, has limits and humans do not want to accepted.. so what to do? let humans destroy all other species of the globe and, then, all will dye of hunger or will become cannibals..
terrorists do not exist, exist just an enemy who try to defend the home of others.. why don't you ask your ex-president how they became your enemies and why, didn't want to judge them in front of face of the world? cause they didn't do it. and the true who did it - would come out.. never happend in human history that someone had a prisoners but was afraid to judge them in front of others.. isn't that strange? he wasn't afraid to accuse them openly, he wasn't afraid to capture them - but was afraid to judge them on same way- so everybody can see what they really did.. a persons who organized the destruction of 2 towers walk free..
the towels were constructed to support the strongest earthquakes and couldn't crash down because of those planes. just one nation saved all her stuff- and were adviced day before so not even one of them didn't come to work (and they should be - at least- one thousand persons- strange?). pentagon supposed to be hit by plane- but when was obvious that wasn't plane- all had to disappear!!!
go ahead, and check it.. bil aden just said what was true "l didn't expect that the towers will crash down" and in front of any court- is not any prove that he ordered it.. he is not standinding behind it..
now comes out the real reason why the towers were destroied...
that is a real america and a real story about international terrorism
You are talking about a species that rose from prey to top predator in less than 2 million years and survived catastrophic events that rendered 100s of other species extinct (ice ages, drought and the eruption of the massive Toba volcano 74,000 yrs ago). While humans have suffered numerous reversals of progress, their ingenuity & ability to adapt to conditions has allowed them to overcome those obstacles & prevail.
While global warming may pose a problem in the future, it will not be an insurmountable obstacle. I suspect humans will someday stand on a planet circling a distant star & look back at this small sun in the night sky.
win the war on terrorism, f.u.c.k.i.n. hippies! screw global warming. what will you do about a nuclear winter?
????
There's no reason to think that every human will be dead in 100 years.
if they only worshiped Allah {SWT}
How can it not?
Keep things running
Are there any good sources on sumu (
I've got a project to do on witchcraft or sorcery for my anthropology class, and I chose to do sumu because I've heard of this type of magic when discussing Dian Fossey...I haven't even found out if it was a particular tribe/group that practiced this sort of witchcraft or if it was widespread across Rwanda.
However, I've searched on Yahoo and Google for good, reliable sources on this topic and I've come up short. I was wondering if anyone could offer help. :]
I can't find a thing on Amazon, the entire Chicago public library database...or my university's Illinois shared library database (includes 70 schools' books). I even tried an article search and nothing specific came up. I suggest you swing to Haiti topics or broaden your discussion of black magic beyond "sumu", it's not coming up in any of my searches.
Try a book called,
Witchcraft and Magic Among the Azande. By E.E. Pritchard.
It's a staple anthropological text and discusses a form of magic/witchcraft called Mangu practiced by a group living in the Sudan. Theres a ton of material on it too so you should be more productive in your search.
However, I've searched on Yahoo and Google for good, reliable sources on this topic and I've come up short. I was wondering if anyone could offer help. :]
I can't find a thing on Amazon, the entire Chicago public library database...or my university's Illinois shared library database (includes 70 schools' books). I even tried an article search and nothing specific came up. I suggest you swing to Haiti topics or broaden your discussion of black magic beyond "sumu", it's not coming up in any of my searches.
Try a book called,
Witchcraft and Magic Among the Azande. By E.E. Pritchard.
It's a staple anthropological text and discusses a form of magic/witchcraft called Mangu practiced by a group living in the Sudan. Theres a ton of material on it too so you should be more productive in your search.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)