Creation Stories

This is one that I'm fond of. I just enjoy the topic. I used it for the essay portion of the Intro Anthropology mid-term exam.

Essay portion of Midterm Exam, Spring 2012

Creation stories mirror the values and expectations of the cultures for which they were created. While most people “civilized” or not, are curious about their origins, creation stories serve to preserve core values. That is why these values are represented as having been of utmost importance from the very beginning of the world.

An examination of creation stories could begin with the one most familiar to many Americans, the Genesis account. There was absolutely nothing at the “beginning” except for God. He created everything. Man is presented as God’s most valuable creation; the one He entrusts to look after the Garden (and by extension, the world) He has created. Everything was great for the first humans until they disobeyed the one thing that God had forbidden. Then everything changed and life was miserable and hard. The message is crystal clear; do or don’t do what God says, whether it makes sense or not, or you’ll pay a big price.

  

The Genesis account reveals the mindset of superiority in the early Hebrew and (later) Christian cultures. A note of caution is in order here. The cultures may not necessarily follow the religious teachings and it’s important to discern the difference between the two. These two cultures were solidly Patriarchal at the family level. They developed into Authoritarian societies over ensuing centuries. The Patriarch figures gave way to Kings, Popes and other authority figures who must be obeyed at all costs.

There are consequences involved in the Japanese creation story as well, but even the Gods are secondary when the proper order of things is involved. 

It seems that the deities who were commanded to create Japan had their protocol backwards. When they met to procreate, the female would greet the male first. Their couplings resulted only in the births of malformed, even monstrous children.

“Disappointed by their failures in procreation, they returned to Heaven and consulted the deities there. The deities explained that the cause of their difficulties was that the female had spoken first when they met to procreate. Izanagi and Izanami returned to their island and again met behind the heavenly pillar. When they met, he said, "What a fine young woman," and she said "What a fine young man". They mated and gave birth to the eight main islands of Japan and six minor islands…” ¹

Japanese society in the past (and near past) was overwhelmingly androcentric and focused on a myriad of social factors. Social harmony and cultural expectations are still valued above all, accomplished by adherence to social conventions. Politeness and etiquette demand that everything be done in the proper order. ² The Japanese creation story illustrates the dire consequences of ignoring protocol.

Expectations of harmony figure largely in the Hopi, Native American creation account, with implications for cultures beyond theirs. The beginning of the story shares many elements with other cultures, including a featureless void holding only God and subsequent creation of the earth and its inhabitants.

The account varies from others then as it describes the destruction of the earth, first by fire, then ice and flood. This destruction was called for when people forgot the only instructions that God had given them—to remember and live in harmony with Him. They began to quarrel, mistrust and separate from other people in each instance, forgetting God in the process. At the end, the Hopi found their present home in the United States’ Southwest. “They chose that place so that the hardship of their life would always remind them of their dependence on, and link to, their Creator.” ³ 

Native American “spirituality” has become almost a fad in the United States and elsewhere over the past few years. Much has been written about it, much of it sensationalized misinformation. What is clear from the Hopi creation story is the core value of harmony with the Creator God, with nature and with all people everywhere. As our modern societies intermingle in global contact, ethnocentrism fights against real harmony. Financial gain conflicts with care of the Earth. We all stand at a point in history where we can choose harmony in the name of God or risk another annihilation. 

Creation stories exist in most cultures worldwide. Many contain similar elements and themes. Variations can be valuable clues to the Anthropologist seeking to understand the core values of each culture.

References
¹ Donald L. Philippi, trans., 1969, Kojiki: Princeton, Princeton University Press, 655 p., and Joseph M. Campbell, 1962, The Masks of God: Oriental Mythology: New York, Viking Press, 561 p. Cited at
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSJapan.html   by Bruce Railsback, Creation Stories from around the World Encapsulations of some traditional stories explaining the origin of the Earth, its life, and its peoples Fourth Edition July 2000

² http://www.hichumanities.org/AHproceedings/Elena%20Silvestri.pdf  Elena Maria Silvestri, PhD., Implications of Cultural Diversity in Teaching English as a Second Language (ESL): a case study, McMaster University (no date given)

3 The stories here were recorded in the 1950s by Oswald White Bear Fredericks and his wife Naomi from the storytelling of older Hopi at the village of Oraibi, which tree-ring dating indicates has been inhabited by the Hopi since at least 1150 AD. http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSFourCreations.html  Bruce Railsback, Creation Stories from around the World Encapsulations of some traditional stories explaining the origin of the Earth, its life, and its peoples Fourth Edition July 2000

Race-- What is It?

Here's another discussion post from my Anthro class. I hope to startle my (very) young classmates with it. My info came mainly from last semester's class "Perspectives in Diversity," taught by Dr. J.Q. Adams at Governors State University in University Park IL. It might startle you, too. I can't wait to see the responses, in class and out.

Race does not exist. The term is a “social construct,” a concept invented to serve a social purpose.
 

Biologically, all human beings, Homo sapiens, are the same. Variations in skin color and other superficial attributes are present, but the bone structure and all internal organs are the same. If you need a blood transfusion, your blood type has to match but the donor could be Caucasian, Asian, Native American or Black. If you need an organ transplant, tissue type must match but the heart or liver will work from a Swede, an Eskimo or a Masai tribesman. A surgeon can’t tell the “race” of a patient on the table by what the insides look like.

I’m going to say it again. Race does not exist. The term is a “social construct.”

The National Geographic Society’s Genographic Project https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/index.htm  has determined, using “cutting-edge genetic and computational technologies to analyze historical patterns in DNA from participants around the world to better understand our human genetic roots”¹, that all humans living on Earth today originally came from Africa. Variations are all the result of adaptation to different habitats and reproductive habits.²

See what they’ve found here: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/atlas.html

One more time because this is so revolutionary:
Race does not exist. The term is a “social construct.”

If “Race” is a “social construct,” then why did man invent it? My speculation is that it arose from the need for ancient societies to survive. In order for a group to survive with a finite amount of resources, a distinction had to be made between “us”--entitled to the protection and nurturing of the group--and “them.”--not only not entitled to the protection and nurturing of the group, but possibly dangerous to “us.” This tendency to classify people between “us” and “them” continues to the present day for similar perceived reasons. Race is not the only way that “them” is defined. Socioeconomic status, culture, language and even age enter into the equation. Is this distinction still necessary today? I don’t think so.

I fervently hope and pray that I live long enough to see a world of “individuals” arise, where each person is evaluated according to themselves, not their color, culture or status.

¹ https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/index.htm

²Owen, Jana “Lecture Notes” Week 6, ANT-101-W02-1SP sorry, Blogger readers, I'm not going to quote the extensive material on how human variations arise from Professor Owen's lecture. :-)

The joke's on me...

This semester I'm taking a couple of 100 level classes because I took Psychology and Anthropology back in the 70s. It's interesting to have mostly 18-20 year olds in class. I posted this in the Anthro when it seemed that my classmates had no idea what constitutes "reliable" sources:

I hope that it’s not out of line to start a whole new thread, but this doesn’t quite fit with a response to any one thread in this discussion. It does fit in the discussion.

Other ideas and opinions that we’ve discussed here got me thinking about the use of the “Scientific Method” in Anthropology. I went in search of the source of one of my favorite quotes so that I could cite it properly. “The plural of anecdote is not data.” Bear in mind that I am transitioning from a “hard” science, Medical Laboratory Technology, where this statement is true.

I found more questions than answers. That pleased me, since I love questions. It also frustrated me, since I wanted an answer.

Google sent me to a “wiki” (collaborative) site first and I found conflicting information. Not only was the origin of the quote debatable, but the second wiki contributor (screen name Joram) actually said that the original statement was really the opposite. “The plural of anecdote is data.” (boldface mine)¹ So here I was, confronted by information that conflicted with what I thought was right. It even cited a source that I would consider credible and trustworthy, linguistlist.org. I had even used that source for last week’s paper exploring sociolinguistics.

So, “bazinga!” The joke is now on me. I kept looking.

The third entry (from screen name “Nubian Goddess”) in the wiki brought up some additional considerations about the Scientific Method. The most interesting to me was “The truth is that neither data nor anecdotes prove anything. Scientific theories are never, ever, ever proven. They can only be disproven.”¹  I followed the link she provided to an interesting article on that perspective.²

Though that article was posted on another wiki (wikis are not appropriate academic sources and I’m only using them here to illustrate the path as it developed), it presented some food for thought about the questions of “proof” and “certainty.” It also introduced me another academic field that I never knew existed, “Philosophy of Science.” Who knew that these fields could coexist? I went to that page in the wiki.³  I found more links to more sources and they were all fascinating. Some were from credible sources and some were not.

By then it was late. I was tired. I had forgotten what the original reason was that I wanted to post a response using my then-favorite-now-questionable quote.

I left the laptop off this morning. I had paid good money for Thinking Anthropologically and thought maybe it was time to do something besides skim through it. Sure, there haven’t been any “assignments” in it. It’s just the secondary text for the class. I had debated even buying it.

“Double-bazinga!” There was everything I had wondered about concerning scientific methods in Anthropology—and more.

What’s the moral of the story? I’ll put it in question form. How much time do you have to “chase rabbits” for classwork? If you had to guess, would you trust “Nubian Goddess” or Salzman & Rice for credible information? Is there a good reason for Thinking Anthropologically to be required for this course?

To extend the questions into “real” life, who do you trust for credible information? Your Aunt Gladys can advise you on all manner of knitting techniques. You love her dearly and would trust her with your life. Would you ask her how to set up your wi-fi network? Your preacher is a good man (or woman) who really loves God. Will you ask him how to crossmatch blood for a transfusion? There are a lot of very interesting shows on, for instance, the History Channel. Are these shows simple entertainment, food for thought or accepted fact for you? Do you do any deeper research on a show’s subject? (A few of us have, and that’s neat.) Where do you get credible information on any subject?

I fell into the trap of “chasing rabbits” last night. I can’t resist giving advice based on that experience. Read the book, folks. Avoid the “bazinga!”

¹ http://askville.amazon.com/original-source-quote-plural-anecdote-data/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=1415780

² “Scientific Proof (idea)” by (screen name) Pimephalis http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=scientific%20proof%20%28idea%29

³ “Philosophy of Science and Certainty” by (screen name) cabin fever   http://everything2.com/title/Philosophy+of+Science+and+Certainty