I am now in the midst of directing my 12th consecutive archaeology field school.
I thought I had just about seen it all, but.....well today.....in the
forest....one student was surveying alone and he found me speaking with three
others, also in the forest. The student was rather excited because he thought he
had found something "cultural" and wanted to show it to me. I have always
instructed students to "Take the archaeologist to the artifact; Not the artifact
to the archaeologists", but this student had evidently forgot. So, I held out my
hand to allow him to show m what he had discovered.  He dropped what he thought
was an artifact into my hand. It was deer poop. He really thought it because it
was so neatly shaped (deer poop comes in the shape of pellets), it must have
been cultural. End of story.

Bob

Oh, dear..........

(Couldn't resist.)
Pam




________________________________
From: Bob Muckle <bmuckle@...>
To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 5:38:14 PM
Subject: [SACC-L] a fieldschool first

 
I am now in the midst of directing my 12th consecutive archaeology field school.
I thought I had just about seen it all, but.....well today.....in the
forest....one student was surveying alone and he found me speaking with three
others, also in the forest. The student was rather excited because he thought he
had found something "cultural" and wanted to show it to me. I have always
instructed students to "Take the archaeologist to the artifact; Not the artifact
to the archaeologists", but this student had evidently forgot. So, I held out my
hand to allow him to show m what he had discovered. He dropped what he thought
was an artifact into my hand. It was deer poop. He really thought it because it
was so neatly shaped (deer poop comes in the shape of pellets), it must have
been cultural. End of story.

Bob







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I held out my hand to allow him to show m what he had discovered. He dropped
what he thought was an artifact into my hand. It was deer poop. He really
thought it because it was so neatly shaped (deer poop comes in the shape of
pellets), it must have been cultural. End of story.



yup- nature deficiency disease is rampant.
Mike Pavlik





-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Muckle <bmuckle@...>
To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jun 1, 2010 5:38 pm
Subject: [SACC-L] a fieldschool first




I am now in the midst of directing my 12th consecutive archaeology field school.
I thought I had just about seen it all, but.....well today.....in the
forest....one student was surveying alone and he found me speaking with three
others, also in the forest. The student was rather excited because he thought he
had found something "cultural" and wanted to show it to me. I have always
instructed students to "Take the archaeologist to the artifact; Not the artifact
to the archaeologists", but this student had evidently forgot. So, I held out my
hand to allow him to show m what he had discovered. He dropped what he thought
was an artifact into my hand. It was deer poop. He really thought it because it
was so neatly shaped (deer poop comes in the shape of pellets), it must have
been cultural. End of story.

Bob







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

interesting Los Angeles Times article last Sunday for the archaeologists out
there...


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5164 (20100601) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

forgot to mention the link...

www.parade.com/atlatl






__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5164 (20100601) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

So in fact, Bob, you didn't not poo-poo the budding archaeologist's
discovery--that was already done by the deer....(the original "maker" of the
"artifact")



-----Original Message-----
From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com on behalf of mep1mep
Sent: Tue 6/1/2010 6:50 PM
To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [SACC-L] a fieldschool first

Oh, dear..........

(Couldn't resist.)
Pam




________________________________
From: Bob Muckle <bmuckle@...>
To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 5:38:14 PM
Subject: [SACC-L] a fieldschool first

 
I am now in the midst of directing my 12th consecutive archaeology field school.
I thought I had just about seen it all, but.....well today.....in the
forest....one student was surveying alone and he found me speaking with three
others, also in the forest. The student was rather excited because he thought he
had found something "cultural" and wanted to show it to me. I have always
instructed students to "Take the archaeologist to the artifact; Not the artifact
to the archaeologists", but this student had evidently forgot. So, I held out my
hand to allow him to show m what he had discovered. He dropped what he thought
was an artifact into my hand. It was deer poop. He really thought it because it
was so neatly shaped (deer poop comes in the shape of pellets), it must have
been cultural. End of story.

Bob







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Some interesting ideas regarding technology in the classroom.  - Dianne





http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/02/nisod




This electronic mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.  To the best of our ability and knowledge, this
mail message has been scanned and is free of viruses and malware.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Something has been bothering me big-time. And it has been going on for almost
five weeks. I can't seem to get it out of my head. I'm hoping by writing this
bit of a rant, I can transfer the thinking about it to whoever is reading it.

On a very general level, I get bothered by all the misinformation, bias,
ignorance, and such in the mainstream media. I get even more bothered when it
comes from a well-known "academic personality" who people might think he or she
really knows what they are talking about.

More specifically I am bothered by an article written by Michael Shermer, who is
the founding publisher of "Skeptic Magazine", book author, columnist for
'Scientific American' and appears to have carved out a career on the public
lecture circuit.  He wrote an essay called "Life Has Never Been So Good for Our
Species" or something like that. As far as I can tell it was originally
published in the L.A. Times at the end of April and has since been reproduced in
many kind of media, including the traditional print papers and the digital (eg.
Huffington Post). I used to be fan of the kind of work Shermer did, including
promoting rational thinking. But....in my view the article is crap. It reminds
my of the deer poop that the student dropped in my hand yesterday; except worse
because Shermer is dishing out the crap to hundreds of thousands, perhaps
millions.

I haven't actually read the article for weeks, so my info might be a bit off,
but not much. Shermer's basic argument, as I recall, is that despite what some
from the envrionmental movement say, we should not be thinking all gloom and
doom about the present or the future. He basically says that we have it pretty
good, better than ever before. He might be right, but I still don't like the
article.

What bothers me is the way he presents his argument. He is all over the place
with odd comparisons, and uses data from where I don't know.  Right from the
get-go, he says that humans are far better off now than at any time prior to
10,000 years ago. To illustrate his point, he uses an example from the Yanomamo,
which he must think is representative of everybody prior to 10,000 years ago,
which is absurd. Equally absurd, he suggests that based on the Yanomamo, and
presumably by extension all prehistoric peoples, he suggest the amount of
poverty can be extrapolated by the fact that an average village has only 300
artifacts (he doesn't actually use the word artifact). This is grossly absurd.
I've excavated in many preshistoric sites. Many prehistoric sites can reveal 300
artifacts an hour during excavation. One local prehistoric sites has over 60,000
artifacts cataloged, and I'm not talkign lithic flakes or potsherds.

For comparison (with his 300 artifacts representing a village of prehistoric
people), he says someone living in Manhattan has 10 billion products available
to them. An obvious indicator of how good we have it, in Shermer's mind.

There is so much more, but I am running out of time before I head off to work in
the forest, in the rain....

He compares the average annual income of hunter/gathers with those in
industrialized nations, as if the average annual income in USD is important to
foragers. As further proof of how good humans have it today, he notes that we
have to work less now that a few decades ago to purchase....get this: a
cheesburger.

He thinks we have it really good now compared to the past, because we can buy
tv's, dvd's, brand name jewelry, and SUV's.  He thinks this is the best time
ever because there is less pollution now in some American cities than there was
20 years ago. And he thinks we have it really good now because the crime rate
has gone down in some American cities over the past few decades.

I think a lot of his argument is really faulty. He is all over the place. I
think a lot of the problem has to do with his ignorance of anthropology, both
archaeology and cultural. He seems to have no appreciation of what was happening
in prehistory; nor does he seem to appreciate other cultures may have other
values that are important to them, rather than being able to shop forever or buy
an inexpensive cheeseburger.

I wonder what many ethnic minorities would think of Shermers' statement that we
are better off now than at any other time. He talks about how it is easier to
ride a bicycle in the LA smog now than 20 years ago, but doesn't mention that
there actually used to be no smog at all. I wonder if he asked any Indigenous
people if he though their people were better off now than 500 years ago. My list
goes on and on.

I'm not actually doubting that for some, this is a pretty good time for the
species. Especially if you restrict the species to  wealthy, middle-aged
American males of European descent, living in Southern California, who writes
and lectures for a living.

Rant over.

Bob

excellent article...SACC has had this discussion before, and at my college
the faculty tech center seems to be a little too enthusiastic at times in
pushing technology without considering the holistic ramifications...
----- Original Message -----
From: <dianne.chidester@...>
To: <SACC-L@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:11 AM
Subject: [SACC-L] FW: Technology versus Tradition


> Some interesting ideas regarding technology in the classroom.  - Dianne
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/02/nisod
>
>
>
>
> This electronic mail message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.  Any
> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If
> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
> email and destroy all copies of the original message.  To the best of our
> ability and knowledge, this mail message has been scanned and is free of
> viruses and malware.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Find out more at our web page :http://webs.anokaramsey.edu/sacc/Yahoo!
> Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5166 (20100602) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5166 (20100602) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

I agree with you...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Muckle" <bmuckle@...>
To: <SACC-L@...>; <SACC-L@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:35 AM
Subject: [SACC-L] Rant


> Something has been bothering me big-time. And it has been going on for
> almost five weeks. I can't seem to get it out of my head. I'm hoping by
> writing this bit of a rant, I can transfer the thinking about it to
> whoever is reading it.
>
> On a very general level, I get bothered by all the misinformation, bias,
> ignorance, and such in the mainstream media. I get even more bothered when
> it comes from a well-known "academic personality" who people might think
> he or she really knows what they are talking about.
>
> More specifically I am bothered by an article written by Michael Shermer,
> who is the founding publisher of "Skeptic Magazine", book author,
> columnist for 'Scientific American' and appears to have carved out a
> career on the public lecture circuit.  He wrote an essay called "Life Has
> Never Been So Good for Our Species" or something like that. As far as I
> can tell it was originally published in the L.A. Times at the end of April
> and has since been reproduced in many kind of media, including the
> traditional print papers and the digital (eg. Huffington Post). I used to
> be fan of the kind of work Shermer did, including promoting rational
> thinking. But....in my view the article is crap. It reminds my of the deer
> poop that the student dropped in my hand yesterday; except worse because
> Shermer is dishing out the crap to hundreds of thousands, perhaps
> millions.
>
> I haven't actually read the article for weeks, so my info might be a bit
> off, but not much. Shermer's basic argument, as I recall, is that despite
> what some from the envrionmental movement say, we should not be thinking
> all gloom and doom about the present or the future. He basically says that
> we have it pretty good, better than ever before. He might be right, but I
> still don't like the article.
>
> What bothers me is the way he presents his argument. He is all over the
> place with odd comparisons, and uses data from where I don't know.  Right
> from the get-go, he says that humans are far better off now than at any
> time prior to 10,000 years ago. To illustrate his point, he uses an
> example from the Yanomamo, which he must think is representative of
> everybody prior to 10,000 years ago, which is absurd. Equally absurd, he
> suggests that based on the Yanomamo, and presumably by extension all
> prehistoric peoples, he suggest the amount of poverty can be extrapolated
> by the fact that an average village has only 300 artifacts (he doesn't
> actually use the word artifact). This is grossly absurd. I've excavated in
> many preshistoric sites. Many prehistoric sites can reveal 300 artifacts
> an hour during excavation. One local prehistoric sites has over 60,000
> artifacts cataloged, and I'm not talkign lithic flakes or potsherds.
>
> For comparison (with his 300 artifacts representing a village of
> prehistoric people), he says someone living in Manhattan has 10 billion
> products available to them. An obvious indicator of how good we have it,
> in Shermer's mind.
>
> There is so much more, but I am running out of time before I head off to
> work in the forest, in the rain....
>
> He compares the average annual income of hunter/gathers with those in
> industrialized nations, as if the average annual income in USD is
> important to foragers. As further proof of how good humans have it today,
> he notes that we have to work less now that a few decades ago to
> purchase....get this: a cheesburger.
>
> He thinks we have it really good now compared to the past, because we can
> buy tv's, dvd's, brand name jewelry, and SUV's.  He thinks this is the
> best time ever because there is less pollution now in some American cities
> than there was 20 years ago. And he thinks we have it really good now
> because the crime rate has gone down in some American cities over the past
> few decades.
>
> I think a lot of his argument is really faulty. He is all over the place.
> I think a lot of the problem has to do with his ignorance of anthropology,
> both archaeology and cultural. He seems to have no appreciation of what
> was happening in prehistory; nor does he seem to appreciate other cultures
> may have other values that are important to them, rather than being able
> to shop forever or buy an inexpensive cheeseburger.
>
> I wonder what many ethnic minorities would think of Shermers' statement
> that we are better off now than at any other time. He talks about how it
> is easier to ride a bicycle in the LA smog now than 20 years ago, but
> doesn't mention that there actually used to be no smog at all. I wonder if
> he asked any Indigenous people if he though their people were better off
> now than 500 years ago. My list goes on and on.
>
> I'm not actually doubting that for some, this is a pretty good time for
> the species. Especially if you restrict the species to  wealthy,
> middle-aged American males of European descent, living in Southern
> California, who writes and lectures for a living.
>
> Rant over.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Find out more at our web page :http://webs.anokaramsey.edu/sacc/Yahoo!
> Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5166 (20100602) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5166 (20100602) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Wow - it sounds like this article would be a really good example of
ethnocentrism - I might use it in the classroom!



  Nicole Ives
Prince George's Community College
Largo, MD




________________________________
From: Bob Muckle <bmuckle@...>
To: SACC-L@...; SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, June 2, 2010 11:35:53 AM
Subject: [SACC-L] Rant


Something has been bothering me big-time. And it has been going on for almost
five weeks. I can't seem to get it out of my head. I'm hoping by writing this
bit of a rant, I can transfer the thinking about it to whoever is reading it.

On a very general level, I get bothered by all the misinformation, bias,
ignorance, and such in the mainstream media. I get even more bothered when it
comes from a well-known "academic personality" who people might think he or she
really knows what they are talking about.

More specifically I am bothered by an article written by Michael Shermer, who is
the founding publisher of "Skeptic Magazine", book author, columnist for
'Scientific American' and appears to have carved out a career on the public
lecture circuit.  He wrote an essay called "Life Has Never Been So Good for Our
Species" or something like that. As far as I can tell it was originally
published in the L.A. Times at the end of April and has since been reproduced in
many kind of media, including the traditional print papers and the digital (eg.
Huffington Post). I used to be fan of the kind of work Shermer did, including
promoting rational thinking. But....in my view the article is crap. It reminds
my of the deer poop that the student dropped in my hand yesterday; except worse
because Shermer is dishing out the crap to hundreds of thousands, perhaps
millions.

I haven't actually read the article for weeks, so my info might be a bit off,
but not much. Shermer's basic argument, as I recall, is that despite what some
from the envrionmental movement say, we should not be thinking all gloom and
doom about the present or the future. He basically says that we have it pretty
good, better than ever before. He might be right, but I still don't like the
article.

What bothers me is the way he presents his argument. He is all over the place
with odd comparisons, and uses data from where I don't know.  Right from the
get-go, he says that humans are far better off now than at any time prior to
10,000 years ago. To illustrate his point, he uses an example from the Yanomamo,
which he must think is representative of everybody prior to 10,000 years ago,
which is absurd. Equally absurd, he suggests that based on the Yanomamo, and
presumably by extension all prehistoric peoples, he suggest the amount of
poverty can be extrapolated by the fact that an average village has only 300
artifacts (he doesn't actually use the word artifact). This is grossly absurd.
I've excavated in many preshistoric sites. Many prehistoric sites can reveal 300
artifacts an hour during excavation. One local prehistoric sites has over 60,000
artifacts cataloged, and I'm not talkign lithic flakes or potsherds.

For comparison (with his 300 artifacts representing a village of prehistoric
people), he says someone living in Manhattan has 10 billion products available
to them. An obvious indicator of how good we have it, in Shermer's mind.

There is so much more, but I am running out of time before I head off to work in
the forest, in the rain....

He compares the average annual income of hunter/gathers with those in
industrialized nations, as if the average annual income in USD is important to
foragers. As further proof of how good humans have it today, he notes that we
have to work less now that a few decades ago to purchase....get this: a
cheesburger.

He thinks we have it really good now compared to the past, because we can buy
tv's, dvd's, brand name jewelry, and SUV's.  He thinks this is the best time
ever because there is less pollution now in some American cities than there was
20 years ago. And he thinks we have it really good now because the crime rate
has gone down in some American cities over the past few decades.

I think a lot of his argument is really faulty. He is all over the place. I
think a lot of the problem has to do with his ignorance of anthropology, both
archaeology and cultural. He seems to have no appreciation of what was happening
in prehistory; nor does he seem to appreciate other cultures may have other
values that are important to them, rather than being able to shop forever or buy
an inexpensive cheeseburger.

I wonder what many ethnic minorities would think of Shermers' statement that we
are better off now than at any other time. He talks about how it is easier to
ride a bicycle in the LA smog now than 20 years ago, but doesn't mention that
there actually used to be no smog at all. I wonder if he asked any Indigenous
people if he though their people were better off now than 500 years ago. My list
goes on and on.

I'm not actually doubting that for some, this is a pretty good time for the
species. Especially if you restrict the species to  wealthy, middle-aged
American males of European descent, living in Southern California, who writes
and lectures for a living.

Rant over.

Bob







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks for this, Dianne.

Someone should send this to Michael Wesch.  My IT guy is at the conference. 
Yesterday, he posted an update to his FB page stating that he was on his way to
a panel on how to induce reluctant faculty to use more tech in classroom.  I
wanted to whack him with a big stick--metaphorically, of course.




________________________________
From: "dianne.chidester@..." <dianne.chidester@...>
To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, June 2, 2010 10:11:41 AM
Subject: [SACC-L] FW: Technology versus Tradition

 
Some interesting ideas regarding technology in the classroom. - Dianne

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/02/nisod

This electronic mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message. To the best of our ability and knowledge, this
mail message has been scanned and is free of viruses and malware.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Never read Sahlin's article about the "Affluent" h/g's, huh?




________________________________
From: Bob Muckle <bmuckle@...>
To: SACC-L@...; SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, June 2, 2010 10:35:53 AM
Subject: [SACC-L] Rant

 
Something has been bothering me big-time. And it has been going on for almost
five weeks. I can't seem to get it out of my head. I'm hoping by writing this
bit of a rant, I can transfer the thinking about it to whoever is reading it.

On a very general level, I get bothered by all the misinformation, bias,
ignorance, and such in the mainstream media. I get even more bothered when it
comes from a well-known "academic personality" who people might think he or she
really knows what they are talking about.

More specifically I am bothered by an article written by Michael Shermer, who is
the founding publisher of "Skeptic Magazine", book author, columnist for
'Scientific American' and appears to have carved out a career on the public
lecture circuit. He wrote an essay called "Life Has Never Been So Good for Our
Species" or something like that. As far as I can tell it was originally
published in the L.A. Times at the end of April and has since been reproduced in
many kind of media, including the traditional print papers and the digital (eg.
Huffington Post). I used to be fan of the kind of work Shermer did, including
promoting rational thinking. But....in my view the article is crap. It reminds
my of the deer poop that the student dropped in my hand yesterday; except worse
because Shermer is dishing out the crap to hundreds of thousands, perhaps
millions.

I haven't actually read the article for weeks, so my info might be a bit off,
but not much. Shermer's basic argument, as I recall, is that despite what some
from the envrionmental movement say, we should not be thinking all gloom and
doom about the present or the future. He basically says that we have it pretty
good, better than ever before. He might be right, but I still don't like the
article.

What bothers me is the way he presents his argument. He is all over the place
with odd comparisons, and uses data from where I don't know. Right from the
get-go, he says that humans are far better off now than at any time prior to
10,000 years ago. To illustrate his point, he uses an example from the Yanomamo,
which he must think is representative of everybody prior to 10,000 years ago,
which is absurd. Equally absurd, he suggests that based on the Yanomamo, and
presumably by extension all prehistoric peoples, he suggest the amount of
poverty can be extrapolated by the fact that an average village has only 300
artifacts (he doesn't actually use the word artifact). This is grossly absurd.
I've excavated in many preshistoric sites. Many prehistoric sites can reveal 300
artifacts an hour during excavation. One local prehistoric sites has over 60,000
artifacts cataloged, and I'm not talkign lithic flakes or potsherds.

For comparison (with his 300 artifacts representing a village of prehistoric
people), he says someone living in Manhattan has 10 billion products available
to them. An obvious indicator of how good we have it, in Shermer's mind.

There is so much more, but I am running out of time before I head off to work in
the forest, in the rain....

He compares the average annual income of hunter/gathers with those in
industrialized nations, as if the average annual income in USD is important to
foragers. As further proof of how good humans have it today, he notes that we
have to work less now that a few decades ago to purchase....get this: a
cheesburger.

He thinks we have it really good now compared to the past, because we can buy
tv's, dvd's, brand name jewelry, and SUV's. He thinks this is the best time ever
because there is less pollution now in some American cities than there was 20
years ago. And he thinks we have it really good now because the crime rate has
gone down in some American cities over the past few decades.

I think a lot of his argument is really faulty. He is all over the place. I
think a lot of the problem has to do with his ignorance of anthropology, both
archaeology and cultural. He seems to have no appreciation of what was happening
in prehistory; nor does he seem to appreciate other cultures may have other
values that are important to them, rather than being able to shop forever or buy
an inexpensive cheeseburger.

I wonder what many ethnic minorities would think of Shermers' statement that we
are better off now than at any other time. He talks about how it is easier to
ride a bicycle in the LA smog now than 20 years ago, but doesn't mention that
there actually used to be no smog at all. I wonder if he asked any Indigenous
people if he though their people were better off now than 500 years ago. My list
goes on and on.

I'm not actually doubting that for some, this is a pretty good time for the
species. Especially if you restrict the species to wealthy, middle-aged American
males of European descent, living in Southern California, who writes and
lectures for a living.

Rant over.

Bob







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re:  Bob's rant.



Wow!  I've been such a fan of "Skeptical Inquirer" for years and am
really disappointed that Shermer would compare foragers today to people
of the past, etc.



Wonder why he doesn't look at all the "diseases of modernization" for a
comparison?



Cheers?

Dianne


This electronic mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.  To the best of our ability and knowledge, this
mail message has been scanned and is free of viruses and malware.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

One of the things I always wonder about is just how much money goes into
the technology which is nearly obsolete by the time it gets installed in
our classrooms.



We, too, now have some kind of a "Center" with a technology staff and
director.   We recently got an e-mail that all technology has to go
through this center for approval before adoption in the classroom.  I
haven't had the nerve to ask them if they want to check my books, pens,
and pencils since they too are technology.



--Dianne



From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SACC-L@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Kent Morris
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 11:44 AM
To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [SACC-L] FW: Technology versus Tradition





excellent article...SACC has had this discussion before, and at my
college
the faculty tech center seems to be a little too enthusiastic at times
in
pushing technology without considering the holistic ramifications...
----- Original Message -----
From: <dianne.chidester@...
<mailto:dianne.chidester%40gvltec.edu> >
To: <SACC-L@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SACC-L%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:11 AM
Subject: [SACC-L] FW: Technology versus Tradition

> Some interesting ideas regarding technology in the classroom. - Dianne
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/02/nisod
>
>
>
>
> This electronic mail message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any
> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If

> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply

> email and destroy all copies of the original message. To the best of
our
> ability and knowledge, this mail message has been scanned and is free
of
> viruses and malware.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Find out more at our web page :http://webs.anokaramsey.edu/sacc/Yahoo!

> Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5166 (20100602) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5166 (20100602) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com




This electronic mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.  To the best of our ability and knowledge, this
mail message has been scanned and is free of viruses and malware.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ha-ha! Great point.

Deborah Shepherd

________________________________
From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com [SACC-L@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nikki Ives
[ikkinh@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 10:56 AM
To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [SACC-L] Rant



Wow - it sounds like this article would be a really good example of
ethnocentrism - I might use it in the classroom!

Nicole Ives
Prince George's Community College
Largo, MD

________________________________
From: Bob Muckle <bmuckle@...<mailto:bmuckle%40capilanou.ca>>
To: SACC-L@...<mailto:SACC-L%40capilanou.ca>;
SACC-L@yahoogroups.com<mailto:SACC-L%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, June 2, 2010 11:35:53 AM
Subject: [SACC-L] Rant

Something has been bothering me big-time. And it has been going on for almost
five weeks. I can't seem to get it out of my head. I'm hoping by writing this
bit of a rant, I can transfer the thinking about it to whoever is reading it.

On a very general level, I get bothered by all the misinformation, bias,
ignorance, and such in the mainstream media. I get even more bothered when it
comes from a well-known "academic personality" who people might think he or she
really knows what they are talking about.

More specifically I am bothered by an article written by Michael Shermer, who is
the founding publisher of "Skeptic Magazine", book author, columnist for
'Scientific American' and appears to have carved out a career on the public
lecture circuit. He wrote an essay called "Life Has Never Been So Good for Our
Species" or something like that. As far as I can tell it was originally
published in the L.A. Times at the end of April and has since been reproduced in
many kind of media, including the traditional print papers and the digital (eg.
Huffington Post). I used to be fan of the kind of work Shermer did, including
promoting rational thinking. But....in my view the article is crap. It reminds
my of the deer poop that the student dropped in my hand yesterday; except worse
because Shermer is dishing out the crap to hundreds of thousands, perhaps
millions.

I haven't actually read the article for weeks, so my info might be a bit off,
but not much. Shermer's basic argument, as I recall, is that despite what some
from the envrionmental movement say, we should not be thinking all gloom and
doom about the present or the future. He basically says that we have it pretty
good, better than ever before. He might be right, but I still don't like the
article.

What bothers me is the way he presents his argument. He is all over the place
with odd comparisons, and uses data from where I don't know. Right from the
get-go, he says that humans are far better off now than at any time prior to
10,000 years ago. To illustrate his point, he uses an example from the Yanomamo,
which he must think is representative of everybody prior to 10,000 years ago,
which is absurd. Equally absurd, he suggests that based on the Yanomamo, and
presumably by extension all prehistoric peoples, he suggest the amount of
poverty can be extrapolated by the fact that an average village has only 300
artifacts (he doesn't actually use the word artifact). This is grossly absurd.
I've excavated in many preshistoric sites. Many prehistoric sites can reveal 300
artifacts an hour during excavation. One local prehistoric sites has over 60,000
artifacts cataloged, and I'm not talkign lithic flakes or potsherds.

For comparison (with his 300 artifacts representing a village of prehistoric
people), he says someone living in Manhattan has 10 billion products available
to them. An obvious indicator of how good we have it, in Shermer's mind.

There is so much more, but I am running out of time before I head off to work in
the forest, in the rain....

He compares the average annual income of hunter/gathers with those in
industrialized nations, as if the average annual income in USD is important to
foragers. As further proof of how good humans have it today, he notes that we
have to work less now that a few decades ago to purchase....get this: a
cheesburger.

He thinks we have it really good now compared to the past, because we can buy
tv's, dvd's, brand name jewelry, and SUV's. He thinks this is the best time ever
because there is less pollution now in some American cities than there was 20
years ago. And he thinks we have it really good now because the crime rate has
gone down in some American cities over the past few decades.

I think a lot of his argument is really faulty. He is all over the place. I
think a lot of the problem has to do with his ignorance of anthropology, both
archaeology and cultural. He seems to have no appreciation of what was happening
in prehistory; nor does he seem to appreciate other cultures may have other
values that are important to them, rather than being able to shop forever or buy
an inexpensive cheeseburger.

I wonder what many ethnic minorities would think of Shermers' statement that we
are better off now than at any other time. He talks about how it is easier to
ride a bicycle in the LA smog now than 20 years ago, but doesn't mention that
there actually used to be no smog at all. I wonder if he asked any Indigenous
people if he though their people were better off now than 500 years ago. My list
goes on and on.

I'm not actually doubting that for some, this is a pretty good time for the
species. Especially if you restrict the species to wealthy, middle-aged American
males of European descent, living in Southern California, who writes and
lectures for a living.

Rant over.

Bob

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Let me chime in here. If the technology either (a) helps students learn
better; of (b) helps us know better whether students are learning, then
it is good. If it does otherwise, it is not.

So,  do use an online chat in my class --- because the class is enormous
and there is no other way to handle questions during lecture; and
sometimes, it is way cool that students answer each others' questions
(and most often correctly).

I also use an online dropbox to collect assignments. Then I can download
them and compare them (if necesary) to a bank of previous assignments.

Some of this is a matter of economies of scale --- when universities
insist on stuffing hundreds of students into a single course, the
technology can actually increase the amount of time I get to spend on
real teaching, compared to course management and so on.

When there are as few as 80-100 students, then a lot of the technology
loses its appeal.

Anj

On 2010-06-02 10:11, dianne.chidester@... wrote:
>
> Some interesting ideas regarding technology in the classroom. - Dianne
>
> http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/02/nisod
>
> This electronic mail message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
> To the best of our ability and knowledge, this mail message has been
> scanned and is free of viruses and malware.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

--
Andrew J Petto, PhD
Senior Lecturer
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
PO Box 413
Milwaukee WI 53201-0413
CapTel: 877.243.2823 (then enter: 414.229.6784)
fax: 414.229.3926
ajpetto@...
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/ajpetto/www/index.htm
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/Biology/Docs/Faculty/ajpetto.html

*************
Now Available!!! Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism.
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/ajpetto/www/scc2.htm
*************


"There is no word in the language that I revere more than teacher. None. My
heart sings when a kid refers to me as his teacher and it always has."

-- Pat Conroy
The Prince of Tides




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes, thanks for the idea!



From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SACC-L@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nikki
Ives
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 11:57 AM
To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [SACC-L] Rant





Wow - it sounds like this article would be a really good example of
ethnocentrism - I might use it in the classroom!

Nicole Ives
Prince George's Community College
Largo, MD

________________________________
From: Bob Muckle <bmuckle@... <mailto:bmuckle%40capilanou.ca> >
To: SACC-L@... <mailto:SACC-L%40capilanou.ca> ; SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:SACC-L%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, June 2, 2010 11:35:53 AM
Subject: [SACC-L] Rant

Something has been bothering me big-time. And it has been going on for almost
five weeks. I can't seem to get it out of my head. I'm hoping by writing this
bit of a rant, I can transfer the thinking about it to whoever is reading it.

On a very general level, I get bothered by all the misinformation, bias,
ignorance, and such in the mainstream media. I get even more bothered when it
comes from a well-known "academic personality" who people might think he or she
really knows what they are talking about.

More specifically I am bothered by an article written by Michael Shermer, who is
the founding publisher of "Skeptic Magazine", book author, columnist for
'Scientific American' and appears to have carved out a career on the public
lecture circuit. He wrote an essay called "Life Has Never Been So Good for Our
Species" or something like that. As far as I can tell it was originally
published in the L.A. Times at the end of April and has since been reproduced in
many kind of media, including the traditional print papers and the digital (eg.
Huffington Post). I used to be fan of the kind of work Shermer did, including
promoting rational thinking. But....in my view the article is crap. It reminds
my of the deer poop that the student dropped in my hand yesterday; except worse
because Shermer is dishing out the crap to hundreds of thousands, perhaps
millions.

I haven't actually read the article for weeks, so my info might be a bit off,
but not much. Shermer's basic argument, as I recall, is that despite what some
from the envrionmental movement say, we should not be thinking all gloom and
doom about the present or the future. He basically says that we have it pretty
good, better than ever before. He might be right, but I still don't like the
article.

What bothers me is the way he presents his argument. He is all over the place
with odd comparisons, and uses data from where I don't know. Right from the
get-go, he says that humans are far better off now than at any time prior to
10,000 years ago. To illustrate his point, he uses an example from the Yanomamo,
which he must think is representative of everybody prior to 10,000 years ago,
which is absurd. Equally absurd, he suggests that based on the Yanomamo, and
presumably by extension all prehistoric peoples, he suggest the amount of
poverty can be extrapolated by the fact that an average village has only 300
artifacts (he doesn't actually use the word artifact). This is grossly absurd.
I've excavated in many preshistoric sites. Many prehistoric sites can reveal 300
artifacts an hour during excavation. One local prehistoric sites has over 60,000
artifacts cataloged, and I'm not talkign lithic flakes or potsherds.

For comparison (with his 300 artifacts representing a village of prehistoric
people), he says someone living in Manhattan has 10 billion products available
to them. An obvious indicator of how good we have it, in Shermer's mind.

There is so much more, but I am running out of time before I head off to work in
the forest, in the rain....

He compares the average annual income of hunter/gathers with those in
industrialized nations, as if the average annual income in USD is important to
foragers. As further proof of how good humans have it today, he notes that we
have to work less now that a few decades ago to purchase....get this: a
cheesburger.

He thinks we have it really good now compared to the past, because we can buy
tv's, dvd's, brand name jewelry, and SUV's. He thinks this is the best time ever
because there is less pollution now in some American cities than there was 20
years ago. And he thinks we have it really good now because the crime rate has
gone down in some American cities over the past few decades.

I think a lot of his argument is really faulty. He is all over the place. I
think a lot of the problem has to do with his ignorance of anthropology, both
archaeology and cultural. He seems to have no appreciation of what was happening
in prehistory; nor does he seem to appreciate other cultures may have other
values that are important to them, rather than being able to shop forever or buy
an inexpensive cheeseburger.

I wonder what many ethnic minorities would think of Shermers' statement that we
are better off now than at any other time. He talks about how it is easier to
ride a bicycle in the LA smog now than 20 years ago, but doesn't mention that
there actually used to be no smog at all. I wonder if he asked any Indigenous
people if he though their people were better off now than 500 years ago. My list
goes on and on.

I'm not actually doubting that for some, this is a pretty good time for the
species. Especially if you restrict the species to wealthy, middle-aged American
males of European descent, living in Southern California, who writes and
lectures for a living.

Rant over.

Bob

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I don't mean to offer this flippantly.  I too have read The Skeptical Inquirer,
and have appreciated the work that it reflects on so many issues.  Could it be,
however, that "skepticism" in that context extends primarily to questions of
'magic, science, and religion," excluding social/political/economic 'science'? 
The perspective that Bob conveys to us from the article he refers to, sounds (as
people have already suggested) to be relatively devoid of the
critical/scientific insights of anthropology, including those of
historical/material analysis that emerged from anthropologists efforts to apply
political/economic science to the study of peoples and cultures.

Meanwhile, I wonder what the peoples have to say about it all, who are the ones
being ground up under the bulldozers of the "better off than before" minority of
the world?

Thanks, Bob, for raising this.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com on behalf of dianne.chidester@...
Sent: Wed 6/2/2010 12:03 PM
To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [SACC-L] Rant



Re:  Bob's rant.



Wow!  I've been such a fan of "Skeptical Inquirer" for years and am
really disappointed that Shermer would compare foragers today to people
of the past, etc.



Wonder why he doesn't look at all the "diseases of modernization" for a
comparison?



Cheers?

Dianne


This electronic mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.  To the best of our ability and knowledge, this
mail message has been scanned and is free of viruses and malware.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bob, Interesting parallel, by the way, with the experience of having to tell a
budding archaeologist that he just put 'poop' in your hand rather than a
valuable artifact.




-----Original Message-----
From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Bob Muckle
Sent: Wed 6/2/2010 11:35 AM
To: SACC-L@...; SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [SACC-L] Rant

Something has been bothering me big-time. And it has been going on for almost
five weeks. I can't seem to get it out of my head. I'm hoping by writing this
bit of a rant, I can transfer the thinking about it to whoever is reading it.

On a very general level, I get bothered by all the misinformation, bias,
ignorance, and such in the mainstream media. I get even more bothered when it
comes from a well-known "academic personality" who people might think he or she
really knows what they are talking about.

More specifically I am bothered by an article written by Michael Shermer, who is
the founding publisher of "Skeptic Magazine", book author, columnist for
'Scientific American' and appears to have carved out a career on the public
lecture circuit.  He wrote an essay called "Life Has Never Been So Good for Our
Species" or something like that. As far as I can tell it was originally
published in the L.A. Times at the end of April and has since been reproduced in
many kind of media, including the traditional print papers and the digital (eg.
Huffington Post). I used to be fan of the kind of work Shermer did, including
promoting rational thinking. But....in my view the article is crap. It reminds
my of the deer poop that the student dropped in my hand yesterday; except worse
because Shermer is dishing out the crap to hundreds of thousands, perhaps
millions.

I haven't actually read the article for weeks, so my info might be a bit off,
but not much. Shermer's basic argument, as I recall, is that despite what some
from the envrionmental movement say, we should not be thinking all gloom and
doom about the present or the future. He basically says that we have it pretty
good, better than ever before. He might be right, but I still don't like the
article.

What bothers me is the way he presents his argument. He is all over the place
with odd comparisons, and uses data from where I don't know.  Right from the
get-go, he says that humans are far better off now than at any time prior to
10,000 years ago. To illustrate his point, he uses an example from the Yanomamo,
which he must think is representative of everybody prior to 10,000 years ago,
which is absurd. Equally absurd, he suggests that based on the Yanomamo, and
presumably by extension all prehistoric peoples, he suggest the amount of
poverty can be extrapolated by the fact that an average village has only 300
artifacts (he doesn't actually use the word artifact). This is grossly absurd.
I've excavated in many preshistoric sites. Many prehistoric sites can reveal 300
artifacts an hour during excavation. One local prehistoric sites has over 60,000
artifacts cataloged, and I'm not talkign lithic flakes or potsherds.

For comparison (with his 300 artifacts representing a village of prehistoric
people), he says someone living in Manhattan has 10 billion products available
to them. An obvious indicator of how good we have it, in Shermer's mind.

There is so much more, but I am running out of time before I head off to work in
the forest, in the rain....

He compares the average annual income of hunter/gathers with those in
industrialized nations, as if the average annual income in USD is important to
foragers. As further proof of how good humans have it today, he notes that we
have to work less now that a few decades ago to purchase....get this: a
cheesburger.

He thinks we have it really good now compared to the past, because we can buy
tv's, dvd's, brand name jewelry, and SUV's.  He thinks this is the best time
ever because there is less pollution now in some American cities than there was
20 years ago. And he thinks we have it really good now because the crime rate
has gone down in some American cities over the past few decades.

I think a lot of his argument is really faulty. He is all over the place. I
think a lot of the problem has to do with his ignorance of anthropology, both
archaeology and cultural. He seems to have no appreciation of what was happening
in prehistory; nor does he seem to appreciate other cultures may have other
values that are important to them, rather than being able to shop forever or buy
an inexpensive cheeseburger.

I wonder what many ethnic minorities would think of Shermers' statement that we
are better off now than at any other time. He talks about how it is easier to
ride a bicycle in the LA smog now than 20 years ago, but doesn't mention that
there actually used to be no smog at all. I wonder if he asked any Indigenous
people if he though their people were better off now than 500 years ago. My list
goes on and on.

I'm not actually doubting that for some, this is a pretty good time for the
species. Especially if you restrict the species to  wealthy, middle-aged
American males of European descent, living in Southern California, who writes
and lectures for a living.

Rant over.

Bob





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I once heard an old Irish labor song that had a refrain something like: "When
you go in to the factory, are you the worker or the tool?"
"Liberal" education is suppose to be, well, "liberating." In the best of our
traditions in higher education, what we teach--in most of our disciplines--is
aimed at helping people become active subjects in their worlds (Liberation
theologians in the 70's and 80's talked about people becoming "artisans of a new
humanity.") In that spirit I would ask whether our classrooms and our
institutions are aiming to engage students with the tools that will be shaping
their/our world outside of academia? And are we engaging them (and ourselves) as
artisans, or as extensions of the tools?

Brian


-----Original Message-----
From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Kent Morris
Sent: Wed 6/2/2010 11:43 AM
To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [SACC-L] FW: Technology versus Tradition

excellent article...SACC has had this discussion before, and at my college
the faculty tech center seems to be a little too enthusiastic at times in
pushing technology without considering the holistic ramifications...
----- Original Message -----
From: <dianne.chidester@...>
To: <SACC-L@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:11 AM
Subject: [SACC-L] FW: Technology versus Tradition


> Some interesting ideas regarding technology in the classroom.  - Dianne
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/02/nisod
>
>
>
>
> This electronic mail message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.  Any
> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If
> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
> email and destroy all copies of the original message.  To the best of our
> ability and knowledge, this mail message has been scanned and is free of
> viruses and malware.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Find out more at our web page :http://webs.anokaramsey.edu/sacc/Yahoo!
> Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5166 (20100602) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5166 (20100602) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello All,
I received a call for chapter proposals from the Society for Economic
Anthropology's email-list. I think this might be something many of us in
the SACC might be interested in.
Cheers,Jayant-----------------Assistant Professor of Anthropology &
SociologyUniversity of Wisconsin - Barron County-----------------Call
for Chapter Proposals On Teaching Anthropology: Philosophy, Purpose, and
Pedagogy. Anthropology lags behind other social science fields in
developing a significant body of research on the pedagogy of our
discipline. There is no anthropological equivalent of the journals
Teaching Sociology, Teaching Geography, or Teaching of Psychology, all
of which offer research-based discussions of the philosophy, methods,
and content of teaching and learning in their respective disciplines.
The journal Anthropology and Education Quarterly does include such
discussions occasionally; however, its central focus is the anthropology
of education as a distinct sub-field. Rice and McCurdy's
highly-successful book series on Strategies in Teaching Anthropology
demonstrates the demand for practical advice on teaching. The
collections offer a compendium of exercises and tips on how to tackle
particular issues, drawn from contributors' personal experience in
the classroom, and is widely used and appreciated. However, we believe
that now is the time to develop a mature body of research that
critically examines:  1) how anthropology is and should be taught at the
college level, and 2) explores what the distinct perspective of
anthropology brings to the teaching of particular concepts and topics.
Thus we are planning an edited volume that, for the first time, will
bring together systematic research studies of anthropological pedagogy.
Our goal is to define the teaching of anthropology as a legitimate
research endeavor in its own right, as well as to offer evidence-based,
practical assistance to anthropology faculty members. An academic
publisher has expressed interest in such a volume, and we have been
invited to submit a full proposal. Now we would like to hear from anyone
interested in participating.  At this point, we are inviting potential
contributors to submit either:
     * A title and 500-word abstract, describing your proposed chapter,
and the research questions and methodology you will be using
Or:
     * A complete paper. Although we plan that most chapters will be
original, we are also willing to consider previously-published pieces
(possibly revised) if there is an especially good fit.
   We are interested in work addressing all sub-fields of anthropology,
and that address teaching in any post-secondary context, whether
undergraduate or graduate.  The research questions that might be
explored are many, and we are open to any and all suggestions. Some that
seem pertinent include:
     * Anthropology's place in general education curricula. In
countless colleges and universities, anthropology courses are central,
especially in fulfilling such criteria as "cultural diversity"
or "multi-cultural perspectives, and most recently, "global
competence" or "global literacy."  What do we know about the
intentions of anthropologists in developing courses for general
education? What do students take from such courses?
     * In many institutions, there is increasing pressure to offer classes
online. How does online teaching and learning in anthropology differ
from traditional classroom-based experiences? Who teaches online and
why?
     * How has the new digital media environment impacted anthropological
teaching?
     * How do such experiences as study abroad programs, field schools,
internships, or other non-classroom-based programs contribute to
effective anthropological learning?
     * What are some of the key concepts that undergird the teaching of
anthropology (e.g. cultural relativism, understandings of race, gender
roles, evolutionary theory etc.), and how do we theorize and apply them
in teaching?
     * What do we know about the training of graduate students in
teaching? What approaches are effective, and how systematic is such
training?
     * What do we know about the anthropological professoriate? How is
teaching evaluated in tenure and promotion?
     * What attracts students to anthropology? As a choice of major, what
does anthropology offer over other subjects, from the student point of
view? Do popular depictions of anthropologically-related topics (e.g.
Indiana Jones, CSI etc.) play into student interest?
     * What do we know about the effectiveness of anthropological
pedagogy? How do we assess student learning in anthropology? What
efforts have been made to assess learning in anthropology at course,
program, and/or discipline/national levels?
     * What innovations or lack thereof have there been in undergraduate
anthropology programs? What trends are there at the program level? Do
applied programs differ from more "traditional" programs? If so,
in what ways?
     * What are the current trends/innovations in graduate anthropology
programs?
     * What are the distinct contributions of community colleges?
     * What is the rationale for the content of textbooks? Who decides the
content, and how/why?
   We see this volume becoming a key resource that will establish
anthropological pedagogy as a field of scholarly research, and will
offer those teaching anthropology a source book of sound scholarship
across all sub-fields of our discipline. Please send abstracts/papers as
soon as possible, and no later than Sept. 30, 2010 to either Elizabeth
Bird (ebird@...) or Karla Davis-Salazar karladavis@...
Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Anj- let me expand here on your last thought - most of my classes are fire
marshall limited at 35.  I have a lot of students who need attention - whohave
had all too much "distance" learning- with or without the technology.
   Actual contact really does mean a lot, especially in small classes.
Mike Pavlik





-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Petto <ajpetto@...>
To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 2, 2010 11:33 am
Subject: Re: [SACC-L] FW: Technology versus Tradition




Let me chime in here. If the technology either (a) helps students learn
better; of (b) helps us know better whether students are learning, then
it is good. If it does otherwise, it is not.

So, do use an online chat in my class --- because the class is enormous
and there is no other way to handle questions during lecture; and
sometimes, it is way cool that students answer each others' questions
(and most often correctly).

I also use an online dropbox to collect assignments. Then I can download
them and compare them (if necesary) to a bank of previous assignments.

Some of this is a matter of economies of scale --- when universities
insist on stuffing hundreds of students into a single course, the
technology can actually increase the amount of time I get to spend on
real teaching, compared to course management and so on.

When there are as few as 80-100 students, then a lot of the technology
loses its appeal.

Anj

On 2010-06-02 10:11, dianne.chidester@... wrote:
>
> Some interesting ideas regarding technology in the classroom. - Dianne
>
> http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/02/nisod
>
> This electronic mail message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
> To the best of our ability and knowledge, this mail message has been
> scanned and is free of viruses and malware.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

--
Andrew J Petto, PhD
Senior Lecturer
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
PO Box 413
Milwaukee WI 53201-0413
CapTel: 877.243.2823 (then enter: 414.229.6784)
fax: 414.229.3926
ajpetto@...
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/ajpetto/www/index.htm
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/Biology/Docs/Faculty/ajpetto.html

*************
Now Available!!! Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism.
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/ajpetto/www/scc2.htm
*************

"There is no word in the language that I revere more than teacher. None. My
heart sings when a kid refers to me as his teacher and it always has."

-- Pat Conroy
The Prince of Tides

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It means a lot in big classes, too. I can tell the difference in the
students who came for help and those who didn't --- or waited until too
late.

On 2010-06-02 22:36, anthropmor@... wrote:
>
>
>
> Anj- let me expand here on your last thought - most of my classes are
> fire marshall limited at 35. I have a lot of students who need
> attention - whohave had all too much "distance" learning- with or
> without the technology.
> Actual contact really does mean a lot, especially in small classes.
> Mike Pavlik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Petto <ajpetto@... <mailto:ajpetto%40uwm.edu>>
> To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SACC-L%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, Jun 2, 2010 11:33 am
> Subject: Re: [SACC-L] FW: Technology versus Tradition
>
> Let me chime in here. If the technology either (a) helps students learn
> better; of (b) helps us know better whether students are learning, then
> it is good. If it does otherwise, it is not.
>
> So, do use an online chat in my class --- because the class is enormous
> and there is no other way to handle questions during lecture; and
> sometimes, it is way cool that students answer each others' questions
> (and most often correctly).
>
> I also use an online dropbox to collect assignments. Then I can download
> them and compare them (if necesary) to a bank of previous assignments.
>
> Some of this is a matter of economies of scale --- when universities
> insist on stuffing hundreds of students into a single course, the
> technology can actually increase the amount of time I get to spend on
> real teaching, compared to course management and so on.
>
> When there are as few as 80-100 students, then a lot of the technology
> loses its appeal.
>
> Anj
>
> On 2010-06-02 10:11, dianne.chidester@...
> <mailto:dianne.chidester%40gvltec.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Some interesting ideas regarding technology in the classroom. - Dianne
> >
> > http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/02/nisod
> >
> > This electronic mail message is for the sole use of the intended
> > recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
> > Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
> > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> > sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
> > To the best of our ability and knowledge, this mail message has been
> > scanned and is free of viruses and malware.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> --
> Andrew J Petto, PhD
> Senior Lecturer
> Department of Biological Sciences
> University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
> PO Box 413
> Milwaukee WI 53201-0413
> CapTel: 877.243.2823 (then enter: 414.229.6784)
> fax: 414.229.3926
> ajpetto@... <mailto:ajpetto%40uwm.edu>
> https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/ajpetto/www/index.htm
> http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/Biology/Docs/Faculty/ajpetto.html
>
> *************
> Now Available!!! Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism.
> https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/ajpetto/www/scc2.htm
> *************
>
> "There is no word in the language that I revere more than teacher.
> None. My heart sings when a kid refers to me as his teacher and it
> always has."
>
> -- Pat Conroy
> The Prince of Tides
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

--
Andrew J Petto, PhD
Senior Lecturer
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
PO Box 413
Milwaukee WI 53201-0413
CapTel: 877.243.2823 (then enter: 414.229.6784)
fax: 414.229.3926
ajpetto@...
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/ajpetto/www/index.htm
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/Biology/Docs/Faculty/ajpetto.html

*************
Now Available!!! Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism.
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/ajpetto/www/scc2.htm
*************


"There is no word in the language that I revere more than teacher. None. My
heart sings when a kid refers to me as his teacher and it always has."

-- Pat Conroy
The Prince of Tides




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Marshall Sahlins's affluent forager, AND Marvin Harris's section in his
1970s-80s text re our illusions about having more free time than foragers.
Harris provided stats for intro students.
Continuing with previous poop under discussion, I was recently unexpectedly
edumuckated while on a survey involving "shovel tests." Among the small,
non-artifactual rocks on one screen load was something that looked like a
tightly-wrapped snail-like or gastropod fossil, but not quite.  I put it in a
safe place until I could look it up in my Adubon fossil fleld guide.  Winging it
and going by morphology alone, I found the thing illustrated.  It was a shark
coprolite.  I actually must admit, in fairness, that I was momentarily tempted
to treat the thing like an artifact, some kind of sculpture.
We rant on an on about "exceptionalism" and, securely lacking in information, we
assume we are better off than anyone in the past because we have more "stuff,"
and that we have a handle on complexity.
But it seems the shark has the edge on poop complexity. (Who was the poop
"designer," and what were they thinking?)
 
George
 
Posted by: "Lynch, Brian M" blynch@... bdlqvcc
    Date: Wed Jun 2, 2010 9:57 am ((PDT))

Bob, Interesting parallel, by the way, with the experience of having to tell a
budding archaeologist that he just put 'poop' in your hand rather than a
valuable artifact.

    Posted by: "Lewine, Mark" mark.lewine@...
    Date: Wed Jun 2, 2010 9:34 am ((PDT))

Yes, thanks for the idea!



From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SACC-L@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nikki
Ives
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 11:57 AM
To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [SACC-L] Rant

Wow - it sounds like this article would be a really good example of
ethnocentrism - I might use it in the classroom!

Nicole Ives
Prince George's Community College
Largo, MD

________________________________
From: Bob Muckle <bmuckle@... <mailto:bmuckle%40capilanou.ca> >
To: SACC-L@... <mailto:SACC-L%40capilanou.ca> ; SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:SACC-L%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, June 2, 2010 11:35:53 AM
Subject: [SACC-L] Rant

Something has been bothering me big-time. And it has been going on for almost
five weeks. I can't seem to get it out of my head. I'm hoping by writing this
bit of a rant, I can transfer the thinking about it to whoever is reading it.

On a very general level, I get bothered by all the misinformation, bias,
ignorance, and such in the mainstream media. I get even more bothered when it
comes from a well-known "academic personality" who people might think he or she
really knows what they are talking about.

More specifically I am bothered by an article written by Michael Shermer, who is
the founding publisher of "Skeptic Magazine", book author, columnist for
'Scientific American' and appears to have carved out a career on the public
lecture circuit. He wrote an essay called "Life Has Never Been So Good for Our
Species" or something like that. As far as I can tell it was originally
published in the L.A. Times at the end of April and has since been reproduced in
many kind of media, including the traditional print papers and the digital (eg.
Huffington Post). I used to be fan of the kind of work Shermer did, including
promoting rational thinking. But....in my view the article is crap. It reminds
my of the deer poop that the student dropped in my hand yesterday; except worse
because Shermer is dishing out the crap to hundreds of thousands, perhaps
millions.

I haven't actually read the article for weeks, so my info might be a bit off,
but not much. Shermer's basic argument, as I recall, is that despite what some
from the envrionmental movement say, we should not be thinking all gloom and
doom about the present or the future. He basically says that we have it pretty
good, better than ever before. He might be right, but I still don't like the
article.

What bothers me is the way he presents his argument. He is all over the place
with odd comparisons, and uses data from where I don't know. Right from the
get-go, he says that humans are far better off now than at any time prior to
10,000 years ago. To illustrate his point, he uses an example from the Yanomamo,
which he must think is representative of everybody prior to 10,000 years ago,
which is absurd. Equally absurd, he suggests that based on the Yanomamo, and
presumably by extension all prehistoric peoples, he suggest the amount of
poverty can be extrapolated by the fact that an average village has only 300
artifacts (he doesn't actually use the word artifact). This is grossly absurd.
I've excavated in many preshistoric sites. Many prehistoric sites can reveal 300
artifacts an hour during excavation. One local prehistoric sites has over 60,000
artifacts cataloged, and I'm not talkign lithic flakes or potsherds.

For comparison (with his 300 artifacts representing a village of prehistoric
people), he says someone living in Manhattan has 10 billion products available
to them. An obvious indicator of how good we have it, in Shermer's mind.

There is so much more, but I am running out of time before I head off to work in
the forest, in the rain....

He compares the average annual income of hunter/gathers with those in
industrialized nations, as if the average annual income in USD is important to
foragers. As further proof of how good humans have it today, he notes that we
have to work less now that a few decades ago to purchase....get this: a
cheesburger.

He thinks we have it really good now compared to the past, because we can buy
tv's, dvd's, brand name jewelry, and SUV's. He thinks this is the best time ever
because there is less pollution now in some American cities than there was 20
years ago. And he thinks we have it really good now because the crime rate has
gone down in some American cities over the past few decades.

I think a lot of his argument is really faulty. He is all over the place. I
think a lot of the problem has to do with his ignorance of anthropology, both
archaeology and cultural. He seems to have no appreciation of what was happening
in prehistory; nor does he seem to appreciate other cultures may have other
values that are important to them, rather than being able to shop forever or buy
an inexpensive cheeseburger.

I wonder what many ethnic minorities would think of Shermers' statement that we
are better off now than at any other time. He talks about how it is easier to
ride a bicycle in the LA smog now than 20 years ago, but doesn't mention that
there actually used to be no smog at all. I wonder if he asked any Indigenous
people if he though their people were better off now than 500 years ago. My list
goes on and on.

I'm not actually doubting that for some, this is a pretty good time for the
species. Especially if you restrict the species to wealthy, middle-aged American
males of European descent, living in Southern California, who writes and
lectures for a living.

Rant over.

Bob






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I will now wait with curiosity to see how coprolite morphology and complexity
might work their way into the ID scenario!


Brian


-----Original Message-----
From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com on behalf of George Thomas
Sent: Thu 6/3/2010 8:24 AM
To: sacc-l@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [SACC-L] Re: Rant

Marshall Sahlins's affluent forager, AND Marvin Harris's section in his
1970s-80s text re our illusions about having more free time than foragers.
Harris provided stats for intro students.
Continuing with previous poop under discussion, I was recently unexpectedly
edumuckated while on a survey involving "shovel tests." Among the small,
non-artifactual rocks on one screen load was something that looked like a
tightly-wrapped snail-like or gastropod fossil, but not quite.  I put it in a
safe place until I could look it up in my Adubon fossil fleld guide.  Winging it
and going by morphology alone, I found the thing illustrated.  It was a shark
coprolite.  I actually must admit, in fairness, that I was momentarily tempted
to treat the thing like an artifact, some kind of sculpture.
We rant on an on about "exceptionalism" and, securely lacking in information, we
assume we are better off than anyone in the past because we have more "stuff,"
and that we have a handle on complexity.
But it seems the shark has the edge on poop complexity. (Who was the poop
"designer," and what were they thinking?)
 
George
 
Posted by: "Lynch, Brian M" blynch@... bdlqvcc
    Date: Wed Jun 2, 2010 9:57 am ((PDT))

Bob, Interesting parallel, by the way, with the experience of having to tell a
budding archaeologist that he just put 'poop' in your hand rather than a
valuable artifact.

    Posted by: "Lewine, Mark" mark.lewine@...
    Date: Wed Jun 2, 2010 9:34 am ((PDT))

Yes, thanks for the idea!



From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SACC-L@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nikki
Ives
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 11:57 AM
To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [SACC-L] Rant

Wow - it sounds like this article would be a really good example of
ethnocentrism - I might use it in the classroom!

Nicole Ives
Prince George's Community College
Largo, MD

________________________________
From: Bob Muckle <bmuckle@... <mailto:bmuckle%40capilanou.ca> >
To: SACC-L@... <mailto:SACC-L%40capilanou.ca> ; SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:SACC-L%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, June 2, 2010 11:35:53 AM
Subject: [SACC-L] Rant

Something has been bothering me big-time. And it has been going on for almost
five weeks. I can't seem to get it out of my head. I'm hoping by writing this
bit of a rant, I can transfer the thinking about it to whoever is reading it.

On a very general level, I get bothered by all the misinformation, bias,
ignorance, and such in the mainstream media. I get even more bothered when it
comes from a well-known "academic personality" who people might think he or she
really knows what they are talking about.

More specifically I am bothered by an article written by Michael Shermer, who is
the founding publisher of "Skeptic Magazine", book author, columnist for
'Scientific American' and appears to have carved out a career on the public
lecture circuit. He wrote an essay called "Life Has Never Been So Good for Our
Species" or something like that. As far as I can tell it was originally
published in the L.A. Times at the end of April and has since been reproduced in
many kind of media, including the traditional print papers and the digital (eg.
Huffington Post). I used to be fan of the kind of work Shermer did, including
promoting rational thinking. But....in my view the article is crap. It reminds
my of the deer poop that the student dropped in my hand yesterday; except worse
because Shermer is dishing out the crap to hundreds of thousands, perhaps
millions.

I haven't actually read the article for weeks, so my info might be a bit off,
but not much. Shermer's basic argument, as I recall, is that despite what some
from the envrionmental movement say, we should not be thinking all gloom and
doom about the present or the future. He basically says that we have it pretty
good, better than ever before. He might be right, but I still don't like the
article.

What bothers me is the way he presents his argument. He is all over the place
with odd comparisons, and uses data from where I don't know. Right from the
get-go, he says that humans are far better off now than at any time prior to
10,000 years ago. To illustrate his point, he uses an example from the Yanomamo,
which he must think is representative of everybody prior to 10,000 years ago,
which is absurd. Equally absurd, he suggests that based on the Yanomamo, and
presumably by extension all prehistoric peoples, he suggest the amount of
poverty can be extrapolated by the fact that an average village has only 300
artifacts (he doesn't actually use the word artifact). This is grossly absurd.
I've excavated in many preshistoric sites. Many prehistoric sites can reveal 300
artifacts an hour during excavation. One local prehistoric sites has over 60,000
artifacts cataloged, and I'm not talkign lithic flakes or potsherds.

For comparison (with his 300 artifacts representing a village of prehistoric
people), he says someone living in Manhattan has 10 billion products available
to them. An obvious indicator of how good we have it, in Shermer's mind.

There is so much more, but I am running out of time before I head off to work in
the forest, in the rain....

He compares the average annual income of hunter/gathers with those in
industrialized nations, as if the average annual income in USD is important to
foragers. As further proof of how good humans have it today, he notes that we
have to work less now that a few decades ago to purchase....get this: a
cheesburger.

He thinks we have it really good now compared to the past, because we can buy
tv's, dvd's, brand name jewelry, and SUV's. He thinks this is the best time ever
because there is less pollution now in some American cities than there was 20
years ago. And he thinks we have it really good now because the crime rate has
gone down in some American cities over the past few decades.

I think a lot of his argument is really faulty. He is all over the place. I
think a lot of the problem has to do with his ignorance of anthropology, both
archaeology and cultural. He seems to have no appreciation of what was happening
in prehistory; nor does he seem to appreciate other cultures may have other
values that are important to them, rather than being able to shop forever or buy
an inexpensive cheeseburger.

I wonder what many ethnic minorities would think of Shermers' statement that we
are better off now than at any other time. He talks about how it is easier to
ride a bicycle in the LA smog now than 20 years ago, but doesn't mention that
there actually used to be no smog at all. I wonder if he asked any Indigenous
people if he though their people were better off now than 500 years ago. My list
goes on and on.

I'm not actually doubting that for some, this is a pretty good time for the
species. Especially if you restrict the species to wealthy, middle-aged American
males of European descent, living in Southern California, who writes and
lectures for a living.

Rant over.

Bob






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

After every disaster, there is usually a lag time of a week or so before we
start seeing the impact on archaeological resources. I understand the lag time,
and was beginning to wonder why it was taking so long regarding the Gulf oil
spill. I am glad to see that the National Park Service has now reported on it.
Or at least recognized the potential impact to archaeological sites.

I like the way the NPS mentions that they have a good idea what to do now, based
on their experience with the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska. I remember working on
a project in Alaska several years after the spill. One of the silver linings in
things like this, is that there will probably be a lot of archaeological sites
that were not previously recorded, recorded.

The NPS response isl at http://bit.ly/doioil    It has a link to the report on
the Exxon spill, which I haven't yet, but am looking forward to reading.

I'm now heading off to do some fieldwork. I am very fortunate that my field
location, which can seem likee a million miles away, is only 20 minutes from my
campus. Mind you, I do need a 4-wheel drive for part of the journey. Remember,
for those interested in west coast historic archaeology, field schools, and
such, a student is writing a pretty good blog about the field school.
http://archaeologyfieldschool.blogspot.com

Bob

Perfect!  We may be on our way to preempting the next evolutionary step within
the ID genepool.  But really, the divine complexity of shark coprolites is a
holy wonder.....One finds one and hears choirs..... organs..... um.....
I'll see what happens if I ever find another one and the lab folks find it
bagged & tagged.
:-)
 
    Posted by: "Lynch, Brian M" blynch@... bdlqvcc
    Date: Thu Jun 3, 2010 5:48 am ((PDT))


I will now wait with curiosity to see how coprolite morphology and complexity
might work their way into the ID scenario!


Brian


-----Original Message-----
From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com on behalf of George Thomas
Sent: Thu 6/3/2010 8:24 AM
To: sacc-l@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [SACC-L] Re: Rant

Marshall Sahlins's affluent forager, AND Marvin Harris's section in his
1970s-80s text re our illusions about having more free time than foragers.
Harris provided stats for intro students.
Continuing with previous poop under discussion, I was recently unexpectedly
edumuckated while on a survey involving "shovel tests." Among the small,
non-artifactual rocks on one screen load was something that looked like a
tightly-wrapped snail-like or gastropod fossil, but not quite.  I put it in a
safe place until I could look it up in my Adubon fossil fleld guide.  Winging it
and going by morphology alone, I found the thing illustrated.  It was a shark
coprolite.  I actually must admit, in fairness, that I was momentarily tempted
to treat the thing like an artifact, some kind of sculpture.
We rant on an on about "exceptionalism" and, securely lacking in information, we
assume we are better off than anyone in the past because we have more "stuff,"
and that we have a handle on complexity.
But it seems the shark has the edge on poop complexity. (Who was the poop
"designer," and what were they thinking?)
 
George
 
Posted by: "Lynch, Brian M" blynch@... bdlqvcc
    Date: Wed Jun 2, 2010 9:57 am ((PDT))

Bob, Interesting parallel, by the way, with the experience of having to tell a
budding archaeologist that he just put 'poop' in your hand rather than a
valuable artifact.

    Posted by: "Lewine, Mark" mark.lewine@...
    Date: Wed Jun 2, 2010 9:34 am ((PDT))

Yes, thanks for the idea!



From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SACC-L@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nikki
Ives
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 11:57 AM
To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [SACC-L] Rant

Wow - it sounds like this article would be a really good example of
ethnocentrism - I might use it in the classroom!

Nicole Ives
Prince George's Community College
Largo, MD

________________________________
From: Bob Muckle <bmuckle@... <mailto:bmuckle%40capilanou.ca> >
To: SACC-L@... <mailto:SACC-L%40capilanou.ca> ; SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:SACC-L%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, June 2, 2010 11:35:53 AM
Subject: [SACC-L] Rant

Something has been bothering me big-time. And it has been going on for almost
five weeks. I can't seem to get it out of my head. I'm hoping by writing this
bit of a rant, I can transfer the thinking about it to whoever is reading it.

On a very general level, I get bothered by all the misinformation, bias,
ignorance, and such in the mainstream media. I get even more bothered when it
comes from a well-known "academic personality" who people might think he or she
really knows what they are talking about.

More specifically I am bothered by an article written by Michael Shermer, who is
the founding publisher of "Skeptic Magazine", book author, columnist for
'Scientific American' and appears to have carved out a career on the public
lecture circuit. He wrote an essay called "Life Has Never Been So Good for Our
Species" or something like that. As far as I can tell it was originally
published in the L.A. Times at the end of April and has since been reproduced in
many kind of media, including the traditional print papers and the digital (eg.
Huffington Post). I used to be fan of the kind of work Shermer did, including
promoting rational thinking. But....in my view the article is crap. It reminds
my of the deer poop that the student dropped in my hand yesterday; except worse
because Shermer is dishing out the crap to hundreds of thousands, perhaps
millions.

I haven't actually read the article for weeks, so my info might be a bit off,
but not much. Shermer's basic argument, as I recall, is that despite what some
from the envrionmental movement say, we should not be thinking all gloom and
doom about the present or the future. He basically says that we have it pretty
good, better than ever before. He might be right, but I still don't like the
article.

What bothers me is the way he presents his argument. He is all over the place
with odd comparisons, and uses data from where I don't know. Right from the
get-go, he says that humans are far better off now than at any time prior to
10,000 years ago. To illustrate his point, he uses an example from the Yanomamo,
which he must think is representative of everybody prior to 10,000 years ago,
which is absurd. Equally absurd, he suggests that based on the Yanomamo, and
presumably by extension all prehistoric peoples, he suggest the amount of
poverty can be extrapolated by the fact that an average village has only 300
artifacts (he doesn't actually use the word artifact). This is grossly absurd.
I've excavated in many preshistoric sites. Many prehistoric sites can reveal 300
artifacts an hour during excavation. One local prehistoric sites has over 60,000
artifacts cataloged, and I'm not talkign lithic flakes or potsherds.

For comparison (with his 300 artifacts representing a village of prehistoric
people), he says someone living in Manhattan has 10 billion products available
to them. An obvious indicator of how good we have it, in Shermer's mind.

There is so much more, but I am running out of time before I head off to work in
the forest, in the rain....

He compares the average annual income of hunter/gathers with those in
industrialized nations, as if the average annual income in USD is important to
foragers. As further proof of how good humans have it today, he notes that we
have to work less now that a few decades ago to purchase....get this: a
cheesburger.

He thinks we have it really good now compared to the past, because we can buy
tv's, dvd's, brand name jewelry, and SUV's. He thinks this is the best time ever
because there is less pollution now in some American cities than there was 20
years ago. And he thinks we have it really good now because the crime rate has
gone down in some American cities over the past few decades.

I think a lot of his argument is really faulty. He is all over the place. I
think a lot of the problem has to do with his ignorance of anthropology, both
archaeology and cultural. He seems to have no appreciation of what was happening
in prehistory; nor does he seem to appreciate other cultures may have other
values that are important to them, rather than being able to shop forever or buy
an inexpensive cheeseburger.

I wonder what many ethnic minorities would think of Shermers' statement that we
are better off now than at any other time. He talks about how it is easier to
ride a bicycle in the LA smog now than 20 years ago, but doesn't mention that
there actually used to be no smog at all. I wonder if he asked any Indigenous
people if he though their people were better off now than 500 years ago. My list
goes on and on.

I'm not actually doubting that for some, this is a pretty good time for the
species. Especially if you restrict the species to wealthy, middle-aged American
males of European descent, living in Southern California, who writes and
lectures for a living.

Rant over.

Bob






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer255/davis.html
This article reflects issues discussed at AAA.
fyi
ann
Rochelle Davis is assistant professor of anthropology in the Center
for Contemporary Arab Studies

in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

this is really nothing new--cultural knowledge has been used to fight the
enemy since WW2 when the government started hiring anthropologists to
accomplish such an end and has become particularly manifested in the
present- day Human Terrain System that has alientated many
anthropologists...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ann Bragdon" <ANNBRAG@...>
To: <SACC-L@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 3:09 AM
Subject: [SACC-L] Culture - "a weapon"???


> http://www.merip.org/mer/mer255/davis.html
> This article reflects issues discussed at AAA.
> fyi
> ann
> Rochelle Davis is assistant professor of anthropology in the Center
> for Contemporary Arab Studies
>
> in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Find out more at our web page :http://webs.anokaramsey.edu/sacc/Yahoo!
> Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5175 (20100605) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5175 (20100605) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com