...on last night's discussion, here are some links that you might find interesting:

Jim Sidanius's Lab at Harvard
Franz de Waal: Are we in anthropodenial?

Also note that I've changed the readings for next week.

The video that we watched in class was built entirely on the premis that all human beings on earth are more alike than unlike eachother. I don't feel like any racial bias was intentional or malicious. I respect the views of those in class who were concerned about unbalanced racial content, but I'm not convinced that it is relevant enough to the topic at hand to devote significant class time to.

Let's talk about racism, injustice, where they come from and how we can change them; but let's do it from the standpoint of politcs and language. If we pick apart all of our material like this we will miss the information it is trying to convey. (Last night's video was about EP, not the paradigm of power in race)

I'd like to start my blog career by stating that I appreciate the potential of the type of studies evolutionary psychologists are undertaking.  A number of important, relevant and potentially useful points have been elucidated in the discourse's history, for example: in Cosmides and Tooby's article they mention that adaptation does not necessarilly imply a qualitative or qunatitative increase for the species involved.  This argument could be used to build a critique of racism (a hot topic tonight).  For instance, while racism was produced out of a response to a set of circumstances in which a part of 'coalition building' entailed the superficial classification of those that didn't resemble the agent as an 'other', one could argue that racism today represents a threat to the survival of the species (in regards to concepts of environmental racism, genocide, the threat of nucleur war, etc.). 

Tens of thousands Iraqis had a very clear message, "The United States is not wanted in Iraq." At first I doubted Saddam Hussein would have ever objected to such a protest, but then it occured to me that probably wasn't what the White House was getting at--it's more like, "Look, now your voice is being ignored by our government just like the American citizen's voice is."

I know this is a little late (class is tonight!), I've read all the material but I can't find any study guides to complete. Are there any? And if so, where are they?

It's time for another women's potluck. Please feel free to forward
this announcement to others to help get the word out.

Women Organizing Against Sexism Potluck
Monday, April 16
6pm
225 Milroy NW, Olympia

Let's share food, stories, support and resources for those who

Court Rules MySpace Postings Free Speech

INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that the free speech rights of a juvenile girl were violated when she was given probation for her foul-mouthed MySpace criticism of a school principal. The three-judge panel has ordered the Putnam Circuit Court to set aside its penalty against the girl, referred to only as A.B. in court records. The ruling said the judges do not condone what was said, but the message itself adds up to political speech.

I just wanted to make a little comment on the film that we watched last Wednesday entitled "Discovering the Human Language."

During the bit about the Walpiri people of Australia, I noticed some imperialist euphemisms. This is quite interesting to me especially because the film happens to be about language. Hmm.

The narrator mentioned that the Walpiri people "used to be nomadic" and that "now they cluster in one area." Cluster. Now I am not terribly familiar with the history of colonialism in Australia, but I think stating that "now they cluster" implies that the Walpiri people chose to change their way of life voluntarily. Also note the lack of explanation for this change. They simply used to be nomadic. Now, for unknown reasons, they are not. Furthermore, the word cluster seems quite inappropriate to describe a group of people instead of say, bushes.

There is a current controversy about racist comments made by Don Imus concerning the Rutgers women's basketball team. Does anyone have any ideas about why these types of comments are tolerated, and even encouraged, by the corporations that control traditional media?