Big+Man+Week+9

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/23/apes-brains-energy-body-size/

In this week's reading of "Potato Ontology", the section Potato Labor caught my eye. At the end of the section it discussed how for many Russian's the transport, labor, and growing of the potato is not the best economic option for the farmers, yet they still continue to grow it year after year. The people believe that if they have their potatoes they will be able to survive. What is also interesting is the fact that well-off families also grow their own potatoes. If growing potatoes themselves is not the most economical option why do they feel the need to do it? Would it not be better for their survival is they bought it because it could improve their economic situation? === After reading the article, "POTATO ONTOLOGY: Surviving Post Socialism in Russia," I was still very confused about the article as whole. I understand that the people of Russia treat the potato has the most important crop within that country.I feel as if the title instead should be "Surviving Socialism in Russia" instead though because the popularity grew during the years <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">before perestroika when most of the country was impoverished greatly. Is <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">the "PostSocialism" part within the title because the citizens simply took the potato <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">farming procedures they practiced under communist rule and continued applying <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">even after the fall of communism? Also could the title be in reference to the <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">people selling vast quantities of the vegetable, representing more or <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">less a capitalistic society and further breaking from the social or <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">communistic practices?

http://www.culanth.org/?q=node/52

http://books.google.com/books/about/Postsocialism.html?id=VI0PcRPXtIoC

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">Since potato is such a tightly woven component of Russian culture, is it truly possible for either Russians themselves or the global community to appreciate the significance of the role of potato? One could argue that Russians are too closely enmeshed with the subject to maintain an objective stance, for potato is the only way of life that they are familiar with. They know nothing different from all aspects of life revolving around a singular commodity. Can we really appreciate the role something plays in our lives if we have never known its absence? All parts of the world are plagued by the increasing reliance on and obsession with the material world, and although the potato serves as a "valid" means of survival, we cannot forget that the hopes, dreams, livelihoods, and appetites of Russians are placed on an object, rather than on humanity itself. While there is no way to truly combat this, does the idea that humanity can be held at the mercy of a seemingly commonplace object threaten the general morale of Russians? Or do these types of existential questions not even have a place in Russian culture especially in discussing such a pragmatic topic as the potato? <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">=== <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">While I was reading the potato article, I was struck by how much the Russians <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">really depended on potato. You don't really think about it, living in a <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">developed nation, but sometimes the simple things are the most important in a <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">society. I can't help but wonder; do you think we have anything in our <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">society that carries such importance that other societies probably don't even <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">think about?

http://www.ncga.com/uploads/useruploads/cornusesposter.pdf

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">In Chapter 10, the idea of cultural logic and relation to type of food eaten was introduce, “culture defines needs and provides for their satisfaction according to its own logic”. It goes on further to say that cultural logic is reducible neither to biology nor psychology nor ecological pressure. So I was curious as to what dictates this cultural logic, where it is derived from? However, in the next section it takes about how Jews cannot eat pork based on their culture and the definition of “clean” animals based the Book of Leviticus. So in this context cultural logic seems to be based on religion, however, in other situation it is not. Every human is essential all the same, so where do this difference in cultural logic in relation to food stem from? Is it just a combination of biology, psychology, and ecological pressure? <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">===

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">In Chapter 10, the book briefly mentions that when it comes to food, <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">"edibility is always culturally determined." This got me thinking to how we <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">eat certain things that are not eaten elsewhere and vice versa. For example, <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">there are societies elsewhere in the world that eat dog, which is something <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">that sounds completely wrong to us. I think that a large part of determining <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">"edibility" has to do with what's actually available, but if dog, for <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">example, is available in two societies, why is it viewed as food in one and <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">as a domesticated pet in another?

http://www.naturalnews.com/037328_Russia_GMO_Monsanto.html

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">My question this week relates to the staple foods we talked about briefly <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">Thursday and the film "Darwin's Nightmare". Most places seem to have staple <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">foods that are grains or starches: maize, wheat, rice, potatoes. This makes <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">sense because grains have traditionally been the base of our diet, the bottom <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">of the "food pyramid". Is fish the staple food for Victoria Falls, Tanzania, <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">the town in the movie? Can societies have staple foods that don't fall into <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">the traditional nutritional category of grains and legumes? If so, are these <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">still healthy societies?

http://www.fao.org/docrep/u8480e/u8480e07.htm

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Cambria,serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">I was interested in the portion of the chapter in friendship. Could it be possible that different cultures generate different types of friendships? That is- is it possible for cultures that are more interested in commercial and materialistic goods have a tendency to create more “commercial and materialistic” friendships? Or even- a culture in which is success driven cause “friendships” that are merely extended business relationships? <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Cambria,serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">===

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">The reading this week and the section on Friendship and Friendliness really <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">interested me because it really rang true to me. It reminded me of coming to <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">college for the first time where you were friendly with your roommate because <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">that is necessary in the circumstance. In the definition of "friendly", <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">Moffatt described it as an "abbreviated performance of the standard behaviors <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">of real friendship". This got me to thinking what does this say about <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">American culture, that we are willing to extend this friendliness when the <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">situation demands? Are we truly being friendly or are we being self serving? <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">Also what is the importance of those that we are friendly too? <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">=== <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">In every society, the definition of friendship seems to be different and serve a different purpose. In addition, these definitions and purpose keep on changing overtime. Ever since the creation of the internet and the ability to make friends online (via Facebook or other social networks), how has our society's view and value of friendship changed? Is friendship something that is easily obtained and discarded (adding friends, defriending)? How has this western idea of internet friends affected the view of friendship all around the globe?

https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+friendship+anthropology&oq=facebook+friendship+anthropology&aqs=chrome.0.57j62.7977&sugexp=chrome,mod=19&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

http://www.amazon.com/Ways-Friendship-Anthropological-Perspectives/dp/1845457315

http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2010/09/24/daniel-hruschka-and-the-book-of-friendship/