4 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. Everyone knew that the only thing you can legitimately give in exchange for a woman is another woman. In this case, everyone has to abide by the pretext that a woman will someday be forthcoming. In the meantime, as one ethnographer succinctly puts it, “the debt can never be fully paid.”

      I find it commendable that the life of a woman is valued higher than a quantitative amount of rods here. The value of the person and by extension the value the couple has to bring about new lives is something that can’t be ignored.

    2. In most human economies, money is used first and foremost to arrange marriages. The simplest and probably most common way of doing this was by being presented as what used to be called “brideprice”: a suitor’s family would deliver a certain number of dog teeth, or cowries, or brass rings, or whatever is the local social currency, to a woman’s family, and they would present their daughter as his bride. It’s easy to see why this might be interpreted as buying a woman, and many colonial officials in Africa and Oceania in the early part of the twentieth century did indeed come to that conclusion

      This given example serves as support to the idea held by modern anthropologists that we should attempt to understand cultures form within their would-view as opposed to condemning them from afar. I recently in my ethics class learned of the idea of cultural relativism (the notion that there is a objective morality regardless of culture). Though there is merit in this idea (the difference between specific culture’s practices isn’t as large as one would think once looking at the motivation/intention as to why they do it) you must avoid thinking one culture is better than another. In this case Westerners/ non “human economies” might see the practice of brideprice as akin to slavery. But as Graeber points out there are nuances. A human life cannot be bought for brass in the eyes of the TIv of central Nigeria and is only commensurable with another life. The key point is that before casting judgement, we must first attempt to understand.

  2. Sep 2026
    1. Way back in the 1890s, in an article I found in the archives of the National Baseball Hall of Fame, one observer predicted that the current influx of better educated players into the game and the “gradual weeding out of bummers and thugs” would raise the intellectual standard of the game and reduce baseball’s rampant superstitions. It didn’t. I first examined baseball magic in the late 1960s for a term paper; when I returned as an anthropologist decades later to study the culture of baseball, I expected to find less superstition. Unlike in my playing days, most of today’s players have spent a few years in college and therefore, I reasoned, with more education were less apt to be superstitious. It wasn’t true. They are less willing to admit to having “superstitions,” but when asked about their routines and what they do to give themselves luck, they often describe rituals, taboos, and fetishes little different from my teammates in the

      I find it fascinating that regardless of an individual’s education level, that the need to try and midigate the fear of uncertainty and the uncontrollable remains present across peoples and time. It’s similar to the example given of pigeons replicating behaviour for food pellets as a result of classical conditioning. Humans are no different in that regard as they are participating in a non burdensome action in order to (even if irrationally rooted) guarantee a given outcome.

    2. Fetishes are charms—usually small objects believed to embody luck that can aid or protect the owner.

      I was unfamiliar with this term outside of the context of pop culture. Without being inappropriate I now see the connection to this definition and the one I was familiar with with an object serving as a conduit of luck or enjoyment.