elanya

So, tonight, I am going to be watching a video of my BiL, wererogue play through the first part of Assassins Creed IV: Black Flag, while three of us (I, my sister, and he) talk about it. We're making a Let's Play! And I'm super excited!

Video Game Let's Play's are a big part of online videogame culture, which is a very heavily male-weighted (but certainly not exclusive) thing. I've never been comfortable with the idea that men don't do fanworks, or not transformative ones, or that if they do they're a minority. My general observation tends to be, as we discussed in the last ficthropology episode, that this production is still gendered, in that men and women who do fanworks on the whole are approaching them very differently. Of course you get crossover, and I would definitely not go as far to say that men have a monopoly on more technological expressions, because vidding is a largely female section of fandom and it involves a lot of technological skills, and of course podficcing is a largely female enterprise as well. I don't think the pattern translates to a huge divide, but I do think it is there and it is something I am curious about, in the general way I am curious about fandom from an anthropological perspective. Fandom is so just broad, and fascinating!

So, I'm really curious to see... a number of things as regards this project. Both me and my sister will be commenting, but as neither of us have played the game - how will our comments be received? I'm mostly on board because of the pirates. I've never been much of a video game *player*, but I have a long history of watching people play them that goes back to the days of my youth when my dad and sister would fight over the Nintendo (Dragon Warrior 1!). I'm curious to see how we get on with this project overall, really - what will we have to say, do any of us really have the time required to pull this together technically? My podcasting experience, such as it is, has shown me how tricky it can be to get a good audio track, let along tossing video in the mix there. I'm certainly very hopeful that we do, and as state, I'm super excited to give it a shot :D

My department is seriously considering a name change from the Department of Anthropology o the Department of Anthropology and Archaeology.

I am not especially fond of the idea, (not that I have any real input into the matter), and I am trying to decide if I am just being resistant to change or if I just disagree with their reasons. Unfortunately, this is only semi-coherent, as I don't have the time to put together something more organized. I have actual work to do, strangely enough! But this is important enough to be to take a half-assed stab at, at least.

The main arguments *for* it are, as far as I can determine...

1. We have a disproportionately high number of archaeologists on staff (mostly because of the Nautical program), and the new name would therefore reflect that difference.

We actually just got sent a chart one of the faculty prepared, that shows that compared to 91 other institutions (I don't know all which, though), we have one of the highest ratios of archaeologists to other anthropologists (see what I did there) in the country, at 54%. We also have one of the higher ratios of combined archaeologists and biological anthropologists to other anthropologists in the country, at 69%. I have no idea how exactly this is supposed to be relevant, as bioarch is *not* archaeology, but considered one of the four fields all on its own. Also - we don't have any linguistic anthropologists that I'm aware of, so what his is really saying is that we still have 31% of the faculty who are cultural, and only 15% are bioarch. Really, my problem with this argument boils down to the question of why having a large number of archaeologists magically separates the sub-discipline from its parent. Get enough of them together, and archaeologists are somehow not anthropologists anymore?

2. Because the new name would better reflect the reality of the department, we would attract more undergrads. We need to attract more undergrads because of the financial crunch and related budget crunch.

First of all, this only works if you assume that kids applying for college know what archaeology *is*, and don't know how to find the relevant department otherwise. Which seems a little silly to me, as the rest of us archaeology types throughout the years seem to have figured it out. The real cynic in me expects that we're going to get a lot more 'so when do we get to the dinosaurs' type questions if we take *this* attitude :p Anyone interested in anthropology has to take one of the many many intro courses anyway, all of which at least briefly discuss the four fields... So anyone considering the department as a major will have already encountered us in that sense. Anyone who googles 'tamu archaeology' is also going to find us - it really is not that hard. Do we have any evidence that kids who are interested in archaeology have trouble finding us? Maybe I'm just not understanding the argument here. maybe they are tying to argue that kids have a better idea of what archaeology is than anthropology, and might be more willing to check out the department.... and, you know, the intro to *anthropology* courses.... because of it? You don't think they're going to go 'where are the into to archaeology courses'? It just seems tricksy. Luring them in is going to create expectations that we're not exactly prepped to handle, because some of our archaeology faculty DON'T TEACH UNDERGRADS! EVER! My program specifically has very slim undergrad course-to-faculty ratio :p and not all the courses taught are even really directly relevant to archaeology, in name or content, and sometimes both. If you are just looking at the undergrad offerings, then our department's distribution is a lot less clearly weighted towards archaeology. In fact.... looking at the catalog of courses offered since 2008, archaeological focused ones only make up around 10% of the undergraduate offerings. Bah.

Obviously the name change is not relevant to attracting students at the graduate level in the same way. At that point, it becomes a completely different and much more internally (to the discipline) political issue, which I haven't seen considered at all.

3. Other reasons
There are some other reasons given, but those are the main onces I've seen pushed. One of the others was that Nautical arch is really not explicitly anthropological, so the general department name is not reflective of what we do. Which really just makes me cringe, because, of course, we *OUGHT* to be *more* anthropological, in my mind. Another is that no one really knows what the department does. And this is just going to send the message that what we do is 'archaeology', which is not anthropology. So, yeah...'hi, did you dig up any dinosaurs lately? Did you find any gold?' The name change is not going to promote any understanding of the department or what we do - it is just going to create more separation in the mind of the public between archaeology and anthropology :p Again, I don't see how this is going to potentially protect us from budget or program cuts. Another is that other universities have split their departments or deal with archaeology separately. As I referenced in regards to attracting graduate students, this is a disciplinary/political issue that no one is *apparently* talking about. Bah. Hello elephant, how are you and how did you get into the room?

I am more or less okay with the four fields approach, though really I think there should be more integration within the discipline (or more recognition of existing overlap, in some cases), not less (and I am going to reference a great blog article for a bigger discussion of the issue, though it focuses on linguistic anthropology, over at Glossographia). The separation is acceptable *within* anthropology, but the idea of defining archaeology as separate from anthropology bothers me. I really am not convinced by any of the arguments presented, as you can see. So... there is the 2cents I currently have time for :p

Now I need to do some real work.

I am going to be talking about the Hmong in my class next week, so I have been reading a lot about them - about their history, the Silent War in Laos, how they were used by the CIA to fight local communists, and then abandoned after the Americans withdrew from the area and the Pathet Lao took over the country.

Many made a difficult, peril-filled journey to refugee camps in Thailand, the larges of which was Ban Vinai. The camp was closed in 1992, and many of the remaining Hmong were sent back to Laos, or forced to emigrate to other countries.

Those who returned to Laos still face problems with the local government because of their involvement in the war. Some never left Laos, and are, along with their families, still actively targeted by Laotian troops.

One of the things I came across during my image hunts was this slide show hosted by the New York times, and the related story talking about the experiences of Hmong groups who are essentially still on the run, almost 35 years after the 'end' of the war...

Claude Levi-Strauss is dead! :o

It's always so surprising when hundred-year-old men die :V

That was pretty cool, I think. I will use it for an extra credit film, maybe. Although hey - it has love, betrayal, action, kidnapping, a guy getting thrown of a cliff, fantastic costuming and dance numbers! What more could you want ;)

In less exciting news, my TV is dead so i had to watch ot on my laptop. It won't turn on - there is a whining sound as it tries to power up, but nothing happens, whether I use the button or the remote. Good thing I just bought that VCR eh? :p Ahh well, free tv, you served me well.

Anyway, I tried to find clips form ITLOTWC, but there isn't anything. So instead have this clip of Kwakiutl ceremonial dancing from the 70's. This part is at least in colour, although it is a 2 min clip form a 2 hour dance :p It also mentions the fact that these dances were all proprietary - private property. Ahhh, pacific northwest peoples are so neat!

I am looking for films to show in my class later this term, or as extra credit. but I haven't seen a lot of these films, so it is hard for me to judge!

I am thinking of getting them out from the library on Saturday and sitting down to have a mini anthropology film festival. Anyone interested?

I don't know what all I'll be screening yet, but I definitely want to check out In The Land of the War Canoes, which is a 1911 silent film about the Kwakiutl. Probably that and one or two other things, possibly short ones.

Ummm... for the moment this is dependent on either picking movies they have on DVD or borrowing or acquiring a VCR -_-

A friend of mine is collecting some preliminary reseach on numbers looking at how people say ohone numbers.

So if you are curious/inclined/bored, you should go fill it out.

I, myself, am going to continue marking. Whee!

In other news - I was going to crock pot a lamb shank for dinner but it won't fit -_-

I was reading something yesterday discussing how salt was important for humans (and other living things), and how this was partly reflected in the saltiness of bodily fluids. For examples it gave blood, tears, and urine.

Now, I would think that if you are going to discuss saltiness in human body fluids, you might list ones that people would have some actual experience with, in terms of noting the saltiness. I mean seriously. Most people have probably tasted tears and blood. But urine? You really think urine is next on the list of bodily fluids people have had in their mouths?

This was written by a man, but I'm not sure if this was a case of it just not occurring to him (I don' want to make any assumptions here ;), or whether he thought it would be inappropriate to mention semen? Anyway, it popped out at me, and made me think, so I thought I should share with the world :V

In other news, I hope to get to the dmv today and replace my lost temporary license, finally...

When did problematic become a noun? Who do I need to spank? Was it someone French? I bet it was someone French. >:|

Example: "Cultural Studies, as a distinct problematic, emerges from one such moment, in the mid-1950's."

or, if you prefer:

"Changes in a problematic do significantly transform the nature of the questions asked..."

Both from Stuart Hall, "Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms"

Ugh :p

This isn't the first time I've encountered it.

The other day I posted an incomplete version of my Cultural Anth paper in a f-locked post. I finished the beast on Sunday evening. We workshopped them in class today, but I haven't actually incorporated any changes in to the text. I'm going to post the whole beast here, because I'm curious what people think - I'm looking for more external input, basically. So if you're curious as to what it is that has been eating my time, if nothing else, you can have a look. First off, though, I'm going to post the general guidelines we were given. At the end of it, I'm going to abstract the comments I got from my workshop partner and people can tell me if they agree, or note of they can think of anything else I might want to change or that I could do to strengthen the paper generally. If anyone wants to read it in its entirety (I'm not posting figures or bibliography, for reasons of space and laziness), let me know and I can e-mail it to you instead :)

( Guidelines )

( Grounding Identity: Historical Ecology, Habitus, and Imagined Communities )

( Workshop comments )

Thanks to anyone who perseveres through all of that ;)