Barack Obama based his election campaign based on one mantra – Change We Can Believe In! Unlike any election before it, this one managed to unite everyone by echoing the sentiment of change to every corner of the world thereby evoking strong emotions that indeed we can change the world we live in. It made us all optimistic about the future. Not surprising, the US election of 2008 became one of the most followed events of our time.

Obama’s journey to the White House is the epitome of determination, sacrifice and hope for all people regardless of their race or background. Being the first African American elected president of the US, Obama proved to the world that America is indeed a country of endless opportunities. His election as president united the country, bringing about the healing process that America needed badly following centuries of oppression and racial discrimination.

Never before have we witnessed an event hold such significant impact on the future of a country and the world at large as the 2008 US election. It has opened new opportunities for the minorities, created hope for the oppressed, united the world in a quest for positive change, and dispelled widely held beliefs that America is a white man’s country. Obama coined a creed which summarizes the spirit of a nation: ‘Yes We Can.’ The future holds endless opportunities for us if we only dare to dream and work toward fulfilling that dream. Then, with God, nothing is impossible.

1. Describe horticulture as a subsistence strategy, and contrast it with hunting-and-gathering.

Horticulture is a type of primitive agriculture that relies primarily on localized inputs: human labor, locally made tools, and sometimes animals for traction, plowing, pumping, and transport. Subsistence agriculture is generally aimed at household provisioning rather than investment, and it satisfies exclusively domestic needs. In contrast to foraging, horticulture involves domestication and management of edible species that are specially grown by humans for their subsistence. Horticulture is characteristic for the process of domestication that gives people the opportunity to procure themselves a continual increased supply of food and become virtually self-sufficient. Unlike hunters and gatherers, horticulturalists are sedentary and the population density is much higher. The social organization in a subsistence society is a lot more complex than among foragers, and is based most often on kinship relations. The basic unit is the household, and although land is thought to be property of the group, individual households have exclusive access to the crops they produce on a given plot. Horticulturalists work harder than their predecessors, but at the same time their basic needs are better met.

2. Discuss some of the reasons why domestication of plants and animals and eventual dependence on them for subsistence set human society on a different course from that followed during the millennia during which all humans were foragers.

The domestication of plants and animals made people sedentary. Unlike foragers, horticulturists were not forced to migrate frequently. Subsistence agriculture increased the carrying capacity of land, thus also increasing the quantities of food available. As a result, people developed new technologies and means of labor. Simultaneously, the population density rose significantly, thus necessitating the emergence of more complex political structures and tighter society ties.

3. Describe the characteristics of plow farming. Why do the Tamang work harder than the Yanomamo for their subsistence?

Plow farming is technologically different from the typical case of subsistence agriculture. It engages domesticated animals for traction, and makes use of their power to use the mountainous land in Nepal for producing crops. Plowing allows greater population densities because it is a lot more productive than ordinary horticulture. Plowing horticulturists can exploit almost every piece of arable land, thus making people more self-sufficient in food procurement. The mountain environment in which the Tamang work requires a strict division of labor and greater efforts than those made by the Yanomamo. The Amazonian horticulturists enjoy more favorable climatic and environmental conditions, and consequently work less. Unlike them, the Tamang have to gather firewood for the cold winter, prepare heavy clothing and fetch water from distant wells and rivers. This makes the Tamang work two times harder and lead a life of survival as compared to the relatively easy existence of their South American counterparts.

4. Given the different farming techniques, point out ways in which the Yanomamo and the Tamang are similar.

The Tamang and the Yanomamo share horticulture as the mode of food procurement. They are both sedentary and meet their subsistence needs relatively successfully. Both of them are divided into groups based on patrilineal descent and practice exogamy (marrying outside their clans). The Tamang and the Yanomamo are noted for their egalitarian domestic economy and independent households as the primary united of production and consumption.

5. Discuss Chagnon’s explanation for chronic warfare among Yanomamo villages, and contrast it with the alternative explanation advanced by Marvin Harris and others.

Chagnon explains chronic warfare among Yanomamo villages in terms of competition for women. The practice of female infanticide creates a severe sexual imbalance among the Yanomamo. The disproportionate sex ration increases rivalry over women, and triggers violent conflicts. Furthermore, the postpartum taboo, combined with the shortage of females, increases the chance for adultery, which is a major cause for fights and clashes among the Yanomamo men.
Conversely, Harris argued against Chagnon’s excessive emphasis on competition over men as the chief factor for warfare among the Yanomamo. He argues that the agricultural products in the tribe’s diet are deficient in protein, and consequently the Yanomamo have to compensate with meat. Fishing and hunting lead to the near depletion of game resources. Therefore, the Yanomamo eventually fight over hunting territory rather than for women.

Ferguson views the internal conflicts as arising out of the impact of external forces. The governments of Venezuela and Brazil have destabilized social relations among the Yanomamo by territorial alterations and interference.

6. Discuss some of the problems that the Yanomamo are facing with the arrival of roads. Discuss the role of international environmentalist organizations in defending the human rights of native peoples in the Amazon, and the premises on which this defense is based.

The introduction of roads in the Amazon basin brought the Yanomamo to close contact with the Brazilian culture. Many Yanomamo adopted Brazilian practices and habits, thus emulating the dominant culture. A lot of young men fled to towns to seek employment, but often they were maltreated and poorly paid. The previously high diet quality of the Yanomamo deteriorated. The arrival of many Brazilians introduced many diseases to which the Yanomamo had no immunity. As a result, much of the population died. Besides, the influx of workers and miners in the area triggered many conflicts and tensions among them and the local population.

In an attempt to save the Yanomamo, many respectable organizations voiced their concern with the human rights violation in the Amazon. They argued in defense of the indigenous Indians, but had to change their rhetoric in an attempt to make their claims heard. Environmentalist organizations stood up decisively for the Yanomamo out of considerations of conservation of the tropical forest. According to green activists, the Yanomamo did not disrupt the ecological balance in the vital oxygen-producing region. They strongly criticized the environmental harm the Brazilian workers and miners caused, and protected the Yanomamo.

There is much controversy surrounding anthropologys relationship to the colonial endeavour and some theorists have argued that European colonial projects provided the impetus for the discipline to grow and develop. The question as to whether anthropology is responsible for shoring up colonialism needs to be addressed and explained, however, firstly it is necessary to give a brief outline of the terms imperialism and colonialism.

The terms imperialism and colonialism go hand in hand. Firstly imperialism refers to the practice of extending political power, especially through the acquisition of territory: In its classic form imperialism can be defined as the military conquest of new territory by an expanding empire . Colonialism, on the other hand, can be described as a specific form of imperialism in which territories annexed by a dominant power are clearly defined as subordinate in status, where local government and political institutions are replaced by colonial authorities. It is said to be a system which uses direct rule, as opposed to indirect rule which is where the aforementioned are simply incorporated into the colonial power structure. A colony is a settlement made up from emigrants of its country. When the domestic life of a possession remains chiefly in the hands of the native people, it is called a dependency. As an example of this, Puerto Rico may be classified as a dependency of the United States. Most of the colonies that gained their independence after World War II are amongst the poorest nations world wide, many belonging to the underdeveloped countries that are so called the Third World. Whether colonialism is in some way to blame is not certain, however, it could be argued that imperialism is more concerned with exploitation as opposed to economic growth.

A combination of the two (imperialism and colonialism) has generally resulted in European countries (the major colonising nations) taking political and economic control over one or more foreign states in order to exploit the labour force of the indigenous people for their own benefits.

During the late nineteenth century, parts of Europe colonised Africa. This, as an example, demonstrates strongly the reasoning behind the colonial endeavour and subsequently, the impact it had on the African people. Between eighteen eighty and nineteen ten, Africa was divided up amongst many European countries the predominant three being France, Portugal and Great Britain. By nineteen fourteen African-Liberia and Ethiopia were the only two independent states left.

There were many reasons to explain why the European nations competed with each other to gain colonies in Africa. The foremost being that the more territory that any one country was able to gain and control represented the level of power and prestige it would have in the world at large. The additional bonus was that Africa was discovered to be extremely rich in natural resources, which could then be imported back to the European market, creating huge profits for the controlling nation.

European rule took many forms such as making agreements with African chiefs to maintain order in the area for the opportunity to conduct trade. In rare cases the tribal chiefs would voluntarily request that one particular European nation take control of their territory in order to prevent other countries becoming involved. Thousands of treaties were signed by the African rulers giving away almost all of their rights to the Europeans, simply because they did not understand the significance of these treaties, and were totally unaware of the full measure of the implications in the world outside of Africa.

The African colonies were completely dependent on export trade, which was based on the exchange of Africa?s raw materials for manufactured goods from European nations. Not satisfied with the vast profits the colonial nations were making; it was then deemed necessary to divide its colonial subjects into a similar class structure to that which existed in Europe. They discovered that a form of class structure also existed amongst the African nations. Those with a class formation, were part of a relatively small group of bourgeois Africans often belonging to a particular tribe, however, they were given a limited bureaucratic authority by the colonial rulers, thus making them an elite group.

Whilst European countries were in the process of extending their power and control over continents such as Africa, for the purpose of capital gain, there was also felt to be a need to understand and interpret the lives and power structures already in place amongst the indigenous people so as to maintain control. British colonial powers were finding difficulties in maintenance and control of one notable group of individuals in the Sudan, namely the Nuer. This particular group of people were especially hostile to the British take-over and it is for this reason that the British colonial authorities decided to recruit the assistance of anthropologist E. E. Evans-Pritchard.

Early in nineteen thirty, Evans-Pritchard was already involved in an ongoing fieldwork project, observing the Azande. He was reluctant to interrupt his work, but did, however, agree to do the research aiming to document Nuer political institutions, so that this people could be more effectively brought under British rule. On completion of his research Evans-Pritchard named his book The Nuer with the subtitle ?A description of the modes of livelihood and political institutions of a Nilotic people. The contents of the book were intended to assist the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan government who was employing Evans-Pritchard for his expertise in ethnography. British colonial officials relied heavily upon knowledge of native governments to enable them to put structures of power into place that would imitate native political systems, the objective being to endorse control of native populations in the most effective manner.

As an ethnographer, however, the position that Evans-Pritchard found himself in did present him with a dilemma. In order to conduct his research as a professional ethnographer, he was primarily concerned with the protection of his subjects, yet was expected by the government to betray the Nilotic people to some extent with his findings.

Evans-Pritchards research portrays the Nuer as a unified and pastoral group largely unaffected by colonialism. It could be argued, however, that he was not entirely capable of extracting the information that would oppose this portrayal. To demonstrate this argument, Evans-Pritchard notes a conversation he attempted with a man called Cuol. It is apparent from this example just how difficult and frustrating it was for Pritchard to gain Cuols trust ? I defy the most patient ethnologist to make heading against this kind of opposition. One is just driven crazy by it. When questioned Cuols remarks are naturally of a suspicious nature, a prime example being when Cuol is asked for the name of his lineage: Cuol; What will you do if I tell you? Will you take it to your country? With this kind of response one can understand why Pritchard became frustrated at times.

Whilst most anthropologists agree that the impact their discipline had on colonialism was slight, there is plenty of evidence to show that anthropology did try in several ways to be of service to the colonial effort. The formation of applied anthropology and the educating of the colonial office administrators support this statement. There is of course, the realisation that the relationship between anthropology and colonialism must be explored from more than one angle. Conducting ethnography under the conditions brought about by colonialism while it is happening is not the ideal approach of the anthropologist probably the most favourable moment for ethnographical work is from ten to thirty years after a people has been brought under the influence of the official and the missionary.

This would be because people who have already been subject to European invasion and missionary control will be less likely to fear the white man who comes into their territory holding a white flag.

British Anthropology was indeed very interested in assisting the colonial officials in their work and therefore put many proposals to the Prime Minister, Mr Asquith. They requested funding of a mere five hundred pounds a year in order to establish an anthropology school that would be of benefit to the colonial officials and traders. The anthropologists interest in the colonial government was spurred on by the prospects of both financial support and recognition for a discipline which was often met with ignorance and scepticism. If the British government and public were not easily stirred to sense of the possible uses of anthropology, the colonial governments were equally impresses The colonial governments in the East were already aiming for their administrators to study the legal systems and languages of the colonised people but sociological research was not generally encouraged.

Anthropologists were, however, appointed in the African empire and by nineteen twenty in Papua, of the Australian administration. It emerged, however, that the ethnographic research was of less benefit to the colonial government than they had anticipated it would be. The record in Africa is not very striking,?after difficulties with local administration, but their contracts were not renewed. It appears also that little or no use was made of Evans-Pritchards study in the Sudan. Evans-Pritchard commented Professor seligman once told me that in all the years he had worked in the Sudan or on the Sudanese problems he was never once asked his advice and that the only time he volunteered it, in connection with the rain-makers if the Nuba Hills, it was not taken. During the fifteen years in which I worked on sociological problems in the same region I was never once asked my advice on any question at all.

To summarise, it could be argued that anthropology as a newly established discipline was reliant upon the colonial endeavour to gain recognition for there work and in a hope to become acknowledged as an expert ethnographers. Although, anthropology did play a minimal role in the appalling manner of which the colonised were treated, it was of little benefit to the European control as the stigma surrounding sociological work meant that it remained of little importance.

Anthropology is the study of mankind across time in all places of the world. The word derives from the Greeks. The study of mankind everywhere, throughout time. It seeks to produce reliable knowledge about people and their behavior, both about the things they all share in common.

There are major subdivisions. First is physical anthropology, which is the study of evolution of our species and biological aspects of our species. It’s the study of primates and fossils. Also there is applied anthropology which falls under physical. This specializes in the forensic field and the identification of human skeletal remains for legal purposes. Next there is cultural anthropology that deals with humans as a culture-making species. There are several different types of cultural anthropology. One is Linguistics. Linguistics is the study of language. True languages only existed with humans but animals communicated directly whereas humans communicated indirectly. The next is Archaeology. This branch is the study of the material remains in order to describe and explain human behavior in the past. This is known as extinct culture. For example, Americans study and are interested in pre-history and Europe is studying the Romans and Greeks. Lastly is enthology. Enthology is the study of existing present day of societies. Same issues as sociology’s issues, which would be interested in families, values and relationships among its various aspects.

In Anthropology, cultural comparisons need not be restricted to ethnographic data. They can turn to archaeological or historical data to test hypotheses about culture change. Other studies include analyzing human behavior or records of deaths, birthes, etc…Anthropology has essential skills to offer the modern world, where understanding the other people with whom we share the globe has become a matter of survival.

Discuss the 6 major paradigms in anthropology

The six major models of anthropology is first, survival of the fitness. Darwin meant that a creature that will survive best in their ecological natural niche. Not the strongest but whoever adapts to their ecological niche the best will soon be applied to humans. Mutation is the first process of evolution.

Second is the cultural model. Society goes through developmental stages like humans. The model goes from lower civilization to higher civilization starting with inanimals, animals, humans, spiritual then God being the highest. Third is Neo-evolution. People went back and gathered the information that was put together through an evolution model. We have found evidence that is different developmental stages in society from what the cultural model was trying to explain to us. The progress of the model is all different in each society.

Next is the diffusion model, which deals with the human consciousness. Where did it begin. We know that we are humans but how? We try to search for the crater of civilization. Next is the structural/functional model. It’s the business of sociology’s and archaelogies that will make up these models. Questions that would derive from this model would be is what would families do for our culture, what would our religion do for this culture and where do our values fit in this culture? What is the structure and function of these beliefs? Lastly, the model is cognitive anthropology. This is the study of the relationship of language, thought and reality, what’s out there in the world?

Define ethnocentrism and cultural relativism, and compare their positions on how customs of other people may be evaluated.

Ethnocentrism is the belief that the ways of one’s own culture are the only proper ones. That it is superior to all other cultures that people involve themselves in. Cultural Relativism is the thesis that one must suspend judgment on other peoples’ practices in order to understand them in their own cultural terms. To avoid making ethnocentric judgments, anthropologists adopt the approach cultural relativism, which requires that each culture be examined in its own terms, according to its own standards. The least biased measure of a cultures success, however the term employs information indicative of its effectiveness at securing the survival of a society in a way that its members see as being reasonably fulfilling.

The Evolution of Bipedalism

Bipedalism was the first hominid feature to evolve millions of years before our big brains and flat faces. Each new fossil or new date or new interpretation of ancient environments changes the outlook slightly. Early hominid fossils found in eastern and southern Africa have long been linked to the Savannas that began expanding because of climate changes about 5 maya. It freed the forelimbs to carry things, including offspring and food. The vertical orientation helped cool the body by exposing a smaller surface area to the intense equatorial rays of the sun, and by placing more of the body above the ground to catch cooling air currents. It was very efficient and required less energy for long periods of steady walking.

The Early Hominids

Beginning with the first evidence of habitual bipedalism a little over 4 maya, the hominid fossil record becomes more complete and more complex. The hominid fossil record begins with an enigmatic set of specimens from Ethiopia dated at 4.4 maya. At present place in a separate genus, Ardipithecus, these fossils have been described as belonging to a forest dwelling, very ape-like biped. The earliest well established hominid fossils are placed in genus Australopithecus and are often divided into as many as three or four species. Their bones show full upright walking, but their faces are ape-like, their brain sizes approximate those of chimpanzees, their bodies average about 105 pounds, and their arms are long and heavily muscled. They were probably well adapted to both arboreal and terrestrial environments, and microscopic analysis of their teeth indicates a mixed vegetable diet of fruits and leaves. Early hominids made tools from stone as far back as 2.6 maya. Stone tools last for millions of years and provide evidence that were tools. Tools were used for such as: sharpening branching for crude spears or sticks for digging up roots, or cutting up plant materials for food or other purposes. It appears that stone tools allowed early homo to better exploit a source of food that was no doubt exploited before but would have entailed difficulty and danger – the scavenging of meat and bones from the carcasses of dead animals.

Around the World

Evidently the adaptation of early homo proved so successful that hominid evolution seems to accelerate every 2 maya. Within about 800,000 years of the first evidence of stone tools in Africa, fossils of homo are found as far away as Georgia, China, and Java. Homo sapiens are seen as a 2 million year old species that displays a great deal of variation over time, but has always maintained enough to remain a single species.

The Homo erectus Stage

Beginning about 1.8 maya, we find fossils representing what looks like a fairly sudden jump in our evolution. Body size is now within the modern human range and is essentially modern in shape. From the neck up, the bones reveal the retention of primitive features with one notable exception. Brain size has now evolved to an average of 960 ml and a maximum of 1250 ml. This is the Homo erectus stage named because when the first of these fossils were found in Java around the time of the 20th century, they were thought to be the first humans to walk upright. Fossils belonging to the Homo erectus stage are dated from 1.8 maya to perhaps as recently 100,000 years ago. Homo erectus members were expanding their range, they were coming into contact with the changeable environments of the ice age. This period was from 1.6 maya to around 10,000 years ago, when a decrease in the earths average temperature caused great sheets of ice, glaciers, to advance in the polar regions and out of higher elevations.

The Archaic Homo sapiens Stage

The brain size, and some other detailed features associated with modern humans, appears to have been achieved by some fossils from Spain dated at 780,000 years ago and from Tanzania and Ethiopia at 700,000 and 600,000 years ago. An early achievement of the stage dated to around 200, 000 years ago and appearing first in Africa, was a new tool marking technique. It’s called Levallois, or prepared-core, technique and essentially allows for the production of a number of predictably shaped flakes off a single core – historys’ first example of mass production. Although the Neanderthals are sometimes considered a separate species, we will here include them in Archaic Homo sapiens because of their modern size brains and retention of primitive cranial features. The bones of the Neanderthals, even the finger bones, were sturdier with heavier muscle markings than those of modern humans or for the matter, other archaics. They were stocky, muscular, powerful people, and these traits are even seen in Neanderthal children, so they are assumed to be the result of inheritance, not simply a hard working lifestyle. Based on features of fossils, as well as genetic analysis, some authorities feel Neanderthals are a separate species that made no contribution to the modern gene pool. According to them, the Neanderthal set of physical features died out when the species was replaced by more modern humans. Neanderthals were certainly a long lived group who were successful in adapting to some harsh and demanding climatic conditions, and who were clearly intelligent and sentient beings.

The Anatomically Modern Homo sapiens Stage

Beginning perhaps as early as 300,000 years ago, fossils with near modern features appear, earliest in Africa and later in other parts of the old world. We call these fossils anatomically modern because they lack some features characteristic of earlier hominids and possessive features common to humans today. Stone tools now show a great deal of craftsmanship. Some are so thin and delicate they must not have been made for a utilitarian purpose. There is clear evidence of big game hunting. And art makes an appearance in the form of carvings, and starting about 32,000 years ago, paintings in caves that rival art produced today.

Contemporary Issues
Have we found the “missing link”?

A missing skull was discovered in England 40 years later proven to be a fraud. It was considered a missing link because it possessed traits that were a perfect mix between those of human and ape. Its cranium was the shape and size of a modern human and its lower jaw was decidedly apelike. For much of the history of evolutionary though, evolution was conceived of as a ladder or chain progressing from primitive to modern. We can recognize today that living species are not leftover primitive links on an evolutionary chain but rather contemporary products of evolution. A missing link in the traditional sense an intermediate between modern humans and modern apes simply does not exist. What does exist is a common ancestor of humans and our closest relatives the chimpanzees and bonobos, and we have reason to think that the common ancestor resembles a bonobo or chimp more than a modern human. This is because evolution happens to have taken place at a more rapid pace in hominids than in apes are still modern species.