Big Penis vs. The Guy Who Marries A young Girl...

No, its just weirder, see i understand 'Big Penis' was totally wrong since he had little boys fondle him and they really didn't know it, but a man who willingly takes a young 16 or whatever year old girl is sorta weird. See, in america, the problem with this is that everyone thinks you are a slave sex trafficer, and sadly its true. We judge so much and it'd kinda look weird a man kissing a 17 year old girl and taking her home and well ya know....marrying her. I feel psychologically marrying the girl is worse.

The learning environment

FREMD?! HAH, nah its cool. Our school is very hidden see, we don't show our true emotions and mask ourselves as some strange uh masked thingy's. It troubles to me to think we deny ourselves and the world when asked "are you okay?". Fremd is also a rather separated 'city'. You got the whole of classes here by the way. But we do segregated racially and by looks, the white kids, the African Americans, Asians, its basically mean girls all over again.

NEVER TEACH IT MAN

Ever since we are born we question where we come from and how it is possible of our decent. We question the balance of life in its most complex form only to realize we still don’t know all that there is. As a result we are inspired to continue our search for logical and correct answers. Scientists take years on years of pure research to find out a fraction of our evolution, but they still need more evidence to fully understand the evolution of the modern human, or us. After a given amount of time the scientist will release their information to the world for us to read and to comprehend. One of the many ways that happens is through school where by state law we are permitted to learn about evolution and all of its enriching evidence. Many people have though an issue with the idea of teaching evolution since it may come in the way of an eight letter word that has caused wars and constant feuds. That word is religion. See evolution has no spiritual involvement since science does not believe in a god, so the idea of ‘Intelligent Design’ has come into play and is being pushed into the learning environment. Intelligent design should not be taught in schools because it is very confusing, it shows little evidence of its ‘deity’, and it makes it difficult for teachers to help their students.

In a modern high school science class you would spend some time on the theory of evolution and move on since it only takes say, two weeks to really get the idea down. The reason Catholicism or Buddhism is not taught during this period is because neither of two ideas follow the laws of science. Because science includes such things as; facts, proof, tests, studies, and the list goes on and on. Religion has no place in science because it can not fit in this jigsaw puzzle. What intelligent design is the idea that evolution happened for humans, but since we are too complex there was at that point a higher power to help influence why for instance we have thumbs. It’s just the idea that we were too hard to be created by just some cells, there had to be something up there that gave us a push forward. Surprisingly religion easily will move away from science classes and such, but intelligent design seems to really want to be part of that education. And it causes problems.

The first problem of intelligent design is that it is not a science, ‘Surprisingly, President {George W.} Bush’s own official science advisor states [in August 2005] that “intelligent design is not a scientific concept’. Scientists and science educators universally agree that if something is not science, it definitely should not be taught in a high school science class.’ (Nelson). Intelligent design involves a ‘higher power’, that is religion last checked by, well anyone. It’s rather hard to prove a high power when there is no physical evidence of its own existence, which tends to be a problems when trying to prove a point. As stated in the quote scientists UNIVERSALLY( notice the uppercase letters) not accepted in the scientific community. That is almost the equivalence of saying universally North Korea is bad. It’s a hard argument to fight.

The next issue comes about when a teacher will actually try to teach a student this information. ‘How is a science teacher supposed to help students deal with the claim that any unexplained design-like features of the cell might be result of an incompetent, inconsistent and evil alien or fallen angle? (Teachers’ Dilemma). The guarantee would be this question, “What does this god or this higher power look like?” and your answer every time maybe not in these exact words will be, “Whatever you want it to be.” Science or at least educational science usually has a point proven to it so that it cannot be easily disproved. The idea that a teacher cannot fight back would usually relate to more philosophical topic, like English or Philosophy. Like said, ‘…for teachers and students would be with the nature of any intelligent designer.’ ( Teachers’ Dilemma). Another problem with teaching intelligent design is that; as soon as say a parent will hear there is a higher power involved there may be, or probably will be a lawsuit arguing if a child should learn about a higher power. Then why is Catholicism or Buddhism not involved?

A TOOL :D

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18obfire.html, The idea is that a heat treated tool existed so many years ago. Strange isn't it? Fire really was not too well handled now, but think back then. A bunch of illiterate ape men running about burning stuff. IT doesn't in fact give us some rich history and such to look onto now, but I freely believe that our technology now is much better.

Sapiens man

HOMO SAPIEN IS SIGNIFCANT. Why? well because our fragile minds I believe now, are taking in so much information that it just kicks our ancestors in their butt. We everyday study at 7 hours of new materiel ads students, go back to Lucy times, they don't know what a rock is. We in our time learn so much, language, technology, anthropology it's breath taking. And Sure physically we wont change too much since were sorta set where we are as in living space and survival skills.

This is wrong sir.

Harlow was strange, see believing that taking captive monkeys and scarring them half to death to prove that monkeys can be scared doesn't really, to me, seem like any form of anthropological studies of any sort. Sorry, but no they should not be repeated on the idea that cruelty is wrong and unjust, of course back then it was acceptable to hide under a desk to protect yourself from an atomic attack. But now a days, nope.

Mr. Liarish

Obama Obama, look Mrs. C you know very well of my political views and i fully not trust the speeches presented by Mr. Barack since frankly to me he's not delivered very well. Over the poast i feel that he speaks what seems right but never truly says what can actually be done to help the nation. Words don't speak louder than actions, especially when american tax dollars are at risk.

Yanomamo

Changnon's actions were worse than Good's. What Ken Good did was immoral but from what we know he wasn't too violent of a person. Changnon provided the people with tools such as machetes and basically got them to use them against each other. Not that they weren't already violent people, but this sure didn't help. Instead, it caused more lives to be lost. At least Good's original purpose in being there was for research.

Yanomano

I think that what Napoleon Changnon did to the Yanomamos was worse than what Ken Good did to them. Changnon brought machetes to the group and he knew that they had a violent nature. His purpose of visiting the Yanomamo group was to film their everyday lives knowing what effect the machetes would have on them. Many Yanomamos were hurt and killed by the machetes Changnon brought and it added more violence to their lives. Even though what Good did was pretty disgusting and was against American taboo, it only affected one woman from the Yanomamos when Changnon affected the whole group.

Yanomamo (Late, Sorry)

In my opinion, what Napoleon did with the Yanomamo is much worse than what Ken Good did. Napoleon introduced more modern weaponry to a culture who was doing fine on their own, almost encouraging them to kill each other. His motives are unclear to me. All Ken Good did was adapt to their culture like they wanted him to. When he was done, he packed up and left. With a couiple of children, whom he wanted raised in an American society. I think he should've left maybe one child with his Yanomamo wife, but I can't change that. Napoleon is by far the worse of the two.

Yanomamo

I believe Changnon's actions were far worse then Ken Good's. That is because it affected almost the entire population of the Yanomamo people. On the other hand, Good's actions were a bit more disturbing because it involved marrying a ten year old girl. Also he broke laws once he returned to the United States with her, but over all Changnon did something much worse.

Yanomamo

I believe that Chagnons actions were much worse than Goods because Ken wasnt giving weapons and wasnt terrorizing the people. What Chagnon did was horrible and led to many deaths, but not everything Good did was ok either. Ken knows what he was doing when he accepted to marry a 12 year old girl, it may be alright to them but not his culture. Chagnon was still much worse though.

yanomamo

I think that Napoleons actions were much worse than Ken Goods. Ken Good married a Yanomamo girl and took her to america. That is pretty bad. But Napoleon actually gave the Yanomamo people weapons to use. There are children in the Yanomamo culture and Napoleon gave them weapons. What Ken Good did was not as bad as what Napoleon did.

yanomoma

Napoleon's influence was far worse than kent's influence because napoleon introductions led to deaths. Napoleon had a direct influence and introduction of western cultures mechanical and technological innovations that sparked disputes within the yanomamo people which led to deaths. Napoleon then exploited this drama of disputes to the american people as an entertainment and stained the yanomamo reputation to be primal and brutal culture. while kent's influence was not professional or ethical to american standards, he still respects yanomamo culture.

Yanomamo

Napoleon's ideas were worse because weapons were given to the
Yanomamo by Napoleon. He treated the Yanomamo with no respect. Unlike Napoleon, Ken's actions didn't kill Yanomamo. Ken just messed with the Yanomamo's way of life.

yanomamo people

I think that Ken and Napoleon both affected the yanomamo people in bad ways. Ken changed them emotionally by starting a relationship with a yanomamo girl. i do not think he was prepared to fully accept their culture and ken ended up hurting a yanomamo girl and their children. however, what Napoleon did was a lot worse. he gave them weapons and told them to fight with them. Napoleon affected these people in a more drastic way and it was a lot more violent.

Napoleon vs ken

I think Napoleons actions were worse. He introduced new weapons to their culture and left them to fight them selves. This lead to the death of many yanamamo people. what ken did however was more accepted in their culture and just strange to us.

Yanomamo People

In my opinion Napoleon Chagnon's actions were much worse against the Yanomamo people. He made them out to be a war hungry savages, and didn't give them a chance to show who they really were. He gave them weapons and made them fight each other, and may have started a measles epidemic just to see what would happen. His actions seem a lot worse to me than Ken Good's. Yes, he married a 12 year old, but he was just accepting the Yanomamo culture and trying to be accepted.

Yanomamos

There’s no doubt that both Napoleon and Ken’s actions against the Yanomamos were wrong. They both did not treat the Yanomamos the way they should be treated. But I think that what Napoleon did was much worse. His crimes had a more damaging effect on a greater scale. He treated the Yanomamos as guinea pigs in his twisted experiment, and almost wiped out the whole Yanomamo population. Ken, although what he did was not right (betrothing a ten year old girl even though that is normal in the culture), he didn’t destroy a whole group of humans. Napoleon deserves to get the blame for the death of the Yanomamos.

Crimes Against the Yanomamo

I think Napolean affected the civilization more as a whole. He gave them weapons and it changed their worlds more dramatically than Ken's actions did. Ken was way creepier than Napolean though. He is a child molester and married a girl that was born when he was in college. That's just straight messed up.

Nepolean vs. Ken

I think that both of them were totally wrong things to do, but in the long run what Nepolean did was probably worse. Ken damaged the yanamomo people emotionally while Nepolean damaged them physically.  Ken never killed anyone like Nepolean did. You can heal from emotional damage but once you're dead, you're dead.

Napoleon v. Good

I think what Napoleon did was worse than what Good did. Napoleon was basically using the Yanomami people are guinea pigs in an experiment. That shows he didn't have much respect for them and he stopped seeing them as people, which is so wrong. He also showed his lack of respect when he portrayed them as violent in the video. I mean if he knew that they were abusive to woman (like it said in the video) then to go ahead and give them weapons is not only wrong but so stupid, because who's to say they didn't use the weapons against their wives? What Good did was weird, but obviously it wasn't abnormal in the Yanomami culture because her brother set it up. He was basically giving them a blessing which was a big thing in their culture. It seems weird to us, and it definitely is but that doesn't make Good a bad person. He still loved and treated her respectfully, unlike Napoleon did to the Yanomami. He is still being a father to his children, even though like his wife did he could easily just come up with an excuse and leave. He's taking responsibility on his own and that says a lot about his strength and character.

Napoleon and Ken

I think what Chagnon did wasn't as severe as what Ken Good did. Napoleon Chagnon distributed trade goods among the Yanomami and they proceeded to battle each other for said items. It is uncertain to us exactly what these goods were, so we can't immediately say they were weapons or warlike items for Chagnon to film. However, that's what he did: when they did battle, he was filming. It makes sense because this is their standard lifestyle but he only portrayed them fighting, leading to the conclusion that they were violent people. Ken Good, on the other hand, accepted a betrothed Yanomami woman. Betrothing girls is standard and therefore, he was simply supporting the culture and their ways. As for not returning the children, I believe it was more a conflict of cultures (American and Yanomami) than a conflict of morals because we don't typically give our children up for marriage at an early age while the Yanomami do.

Ken vs. Napoleon

I would think Napoleon's actions are worse than Ken's actions. I think this because Napoleon made them forced in a film. Ken only saw the culture, and he married a girl from the Yanomamo. Also, Napoleon was part of the team who made some Yanomamo injected with the substance. Then, Ken is using his instinct about the children. Napoleon puts more pressure on the Yanomamo by his force on the Yanomamo.

Napoleon vs. Ken

I personally think that Napoleon did more damage to yanomamos because he personally gave them weapons so that they could fight against eachother; creating a fight between them. What he did is totally out of question, he made them fight and thenproceeded to film them so he can show the whole world that they were violent. NOW people view the yanomamo culture as being very violent. Ken on the other hand probably shouldn't of married that little girl and brought her out of the rainforest to live in the U.S.A! If he really wanted to protect her and be with her he should've stayed with her and her family. Overall, Napoleon did the worst damage to this culture because he affected the whole culture not just one person.

Napoleon>Ken

Napoleon, without a doubt, did more damage to the Yanamamo. By giving them weapons and telling them to use it against their own people, he added this whole new element to their lives that can never be forgotten. Ken only affected one group of Yanamamos, not all. I think that Ken shouldn't have married Yarima if he wasn't willing to fully divulge into their culture. But overall, I think the emotional and physical damage was done more by Napoleon than Ken.

Napolean and Ken

I think that what Napolean did was worse. He gave the Yanomamos machettes and filmed what happened. This permanetly affected their society. He also gave a false view of the Yanomamos to the world. What Ken did was also bad. He married a 12 year old Yanamomo girl. He then brought her out of her culture and to the US. This was bad but it only affected one person and not a whole society.

Napoleon and Ken

While both Ken Good and Napoleon Chagnon each did a part in damaging the culture of the Yanomamo, I believe what Napoleon did was worse. He influenced the culture of the Yanomamo and introduced them to weapons they never had. He basically handed them machetes and video taped them hurting each other. He gave the world a distorted view of their culture. While what Ken Good did was terrible, he did not forever change the way in which the Yanomamos lived. Napoleon forced change on a society that was doing just fine before he arrived.

Napoleon and Ken

Napoleon was worse in my opinion, he gave them weapons which created violence he forced them to ingest radioactive chemicals. And by doing that he affected more people then Ken did. On the other hand Ken is just a weirdo and only affected one girl. Now what he did to that one girl was horrible. But in the end she got to return to her home land. So with that said I believe Napoleon was worse.

Ken vs Napoleon

I think what both Ken and Napoleon did are equally horrible. While Napoleon used them as his test subjects and introduced weapons to then, Ken got very tangled up in their culture and family life. Napoleon portrayed the Yanomamo as violent people and made that the stereotype for their group. But Ken got caught in a "relationship" with an eleven year old girl. Because she has now chosen to stay with her people, there is a battle over where their children should live. Ken has also brought more media attention to them due to his "relationship" and trying to blend the two cultures together.

Ken and Napoleon

In my opinion, Napoleon was worse than Ken although both of them did awful things. Napoleon harmed the Yanomami as a whole, putting everyone is danger by handing them weapons. Not only did it encourage them to use violence but it also killed innocent Yanomami. Ken, even though it is still not right, only harmed one person and ultimately, she got to return to the rainforest. Ken was very creepy and what he did was still very uncalled for but what Napoleon did was worse.

Ken V Napolean

I think that both of them were wrong in what they did, however, I do think that Ken didn't harm them as much a Napoleon did. Sure Ken married an 11 year old girl and took her away from her people which is wrong but he didn't force the Yanomami to ingest radioactive chemicals or make then seem like very violent people by giving them weapons like Napoleon did. Either way both were wrong but I think there is a line between killing people and being a creep.

Ken v. Napoleon

I think both Ken's and Napoleon's actions were very wrong. Iwould say Napoleon's were a little worse because he used the Yanamamo as subjects in his experiment and not a group of people. He gave them weapons that made them dependent on western products fro survival instead of their own. Napoleon tried to change the Yanamamo's ways and enforce a western influence upon them instead of doing what an anthropologist should do and just study their culture. Although what Ken did was disgusting and wrong, he did not try to force any changes upon all the Yanamamo people.

Ken and Napoleon

In my opinion both Napoleon and Ken were both equally bad. Napoleon gave the Yanomami weapons which really wasn't a smart idea in the first place. Ken ruined a young women's life by marrying her and pulling her away from her culture into America. Ken and Napoleon really didn't have a positive change on the Yanomami. They disrupted there culture and also their way of life. poor Yanomami :(

Napoleon

I think Napoleon's actions again the Yanomamo were much worse than Ken Good's. Napoleon actually killed people of the tribe while experimenting on them. Good just was a creep and married a girl that was much older than him. I think killing people and feeding them radioactive chemicals is much worse than taking a young girl away from her home to come live with you in your culture that is way different than hers. Yarima survived, the ones being fed chemicals did not. She was way better off.

Ken V Napolean

I believe that both Ken and Napolean did awful things to the Yanomami, but Ken's actions were worse, in my opinion. I think he is disgusting for impregnating an eleven year old girl when he is a grown man. I also think that he is a major hypocrite because he said that he wanted his kids to know both cultures and that if they wanted to live with the Yanomami he would be totally fine with that. But at the end of the movie when his wife decided to stay, he denied he any contact with her kids, so now the children are not going to have a motherly figure in their lives which is unfortunate. He needs to stop thinking about himself and do whats best for his family.

Ehhhh

I believe ken was a little better than Napoleon. That doesnt say much because in general they were both bad people and just care about their own intentions. Ken pretty much took the girl from her people becasue he was a rapist. Napoleon in general is an aweful man because he killed so many of the people . They both are just in the same category of bad. Both i eblieve should face some punishment actions. Finally i think its fair to say both are crazy.

ken not good

i think that both ken and nappolian were both wrong in so many ways. I am going to start with Ken because he is the one haveing sex with 14 year old girls. What are you thinking. You come from a completly different worl then these people and contaminating those people like he did to his x wife is completly the wrong thing to do. Plus hes not practing anthropolgy, he practicing petifilia. I think that we should make sure that the people doing these jobs are not complete phsyco path. And napolian should be giving these people weapons because that is dangerous for everybody in the village.

Ken vs. Napoleon

I think that Napoleon was worse for the Yanomami. Napoleon gave them weapons to fight, which really didn't bring them much further than they were before. On the other hand, Ken tried his best to adjust to the Yanomami culture. He didn't want to stand out as someone not originally part of their culture, and his actions and behaviors proved that he first and foremost wanted to fit in with their tribe.

K Versus N

I think that Ken Goods actions were way worse than Napoleons. He single handedly ruined the life of not only his wife Yarima, but those kids as well. And then denying the wife access to the kids even though he said the kids could be in the tribe if they want, but he went back on his word. I dot think he's okay in the head.

Ken V Napoleon

In my oppinion Napoleon did way more damage to the people than Ken. Ken should not have married a eleven year onld girl but at least he wasnt going around and telling the people to kill each other with the promis of supplies. Napoleon is a very sick man. i have no idea how other people ollowed him to do what he did. People knew about it and still let it go on. Ken did a very stupid thing my marriing that little girl but that comes no where close to what Napaleon did.

Intelligent Design.

Yes, I think it is fair to say it is not a science because their is no solid proof to say it is. It should not be taught along side evolution in science classes because it would be teaching students something that has no factual evidence. This would cause students to feel like learning it is pointless. There are better places for this idea to be taught if parents want their students to be introduced to it, like a church or sunday school.

Fremd Culture

You would definitely think that all americans were focused on materialistic things. An anthropologist would think that everyone was really closed off and not very friendly, students would rather spend time on their cell phones than talking to actual people. You would not think that its a very fun or interesting place to be.

Which is worse

I think Ken and Napoleon were both bad influences on the Yanomami's culture. They both gave the people things that changed their way of living, and made them lose the skills of being able to live with out these things. Ken and Napoleon disrupted the peoples way of life and brought the western world in but didn't bring enough to make a positive change. They should have studied the culture without disrupting it.

Ken V Napolean

I believe Ken wasn't as bad as napolean. Napolean only said to fight till death with his weapons. Ken, on the other hand, did what was ethical in the yanomamis culture. Although we may think differently, he adapted not to American but to their culture. Ken brought pots, pans, machetes, and many other tools for them to use. Even though I do not agree with either of their actions, I am on kens side. He, in fact, did not hurt their culture by any means.

Ken V. Napoleon

I think that Ken Good's crime against theYanomamo people was not as severe as Napoleon Chagnon. While Ken Good did something that may seem unethical to an American to the Yanomamo he was only doing what is acceptable in their culture. He at the same time helped the Yanomamo people by giving them supplies that they wanted, in order for them benefit in their enviorment. Napoleon did nothing to benefit the Yanomamo people. He gave them weapons, not so that he could help their culture, but so that he could advertise the Yanomamo as 'savage' people to the anthropological community. While I do not agree with either of their actions at least Ken Good did not harm their culture.

Yanomamo ken vs. napoleon

I think that Ken treated the Yanomamo better than Napoleon did. Ken helped with their needs and survial while Napoleon gave them weapons and told them to fight to the death. So in my opinion, Ken is helping the Yanomamo a lot better than Napoleon did.

Ken v. Napolean

I don't believe that Ken's actions were worse than Napolean's by any means. Napolean give them weapons and then said fight to the death. Ken by all means helped the tribe by giving them pots, pans, and machetes to help them survive. When Ken lived with them the first time he became one of them and learned their language, their ways. And one of their "ways", or traditions, is to have an arranged marriage. For Ken to have declined this proposal, in the Yanomamo's eyes, would have been a rude gesture towards the people and he could have been shunned from their village. To me, and all of us, accepting the marriage was a gross, strange, and bizarre thing to do, but by doing so he honored their traditions and in the Yanomamo's eyes he did nothing unethical, and became an even closer member of the tribe.

American Culture

If you spent an entire year at Fremd and knew nothing culturally outside of that you would probably get a rough interpretation of America. First you'd notice the many cliques within the school and how that effects the students behavior negatively, although you can't do much about them. You'd also be able to see a mainly white school with a few minority here and there but in reality America has a quite large minority population. Someone might also start to question why so many girls have those Vera Bradly bags and wonder what's so special about them.

Fremd Culture

I think an anthropologist that was completely foreign to American high schools would be very entertained studying us. There is a lot going on at Fremd. There are the obvious people traveling in packs and being loud, sometimes dominating the halls. Then there are the people that travel alone keeping to themselves or just with one other person. There would sadly be some study of the mating habits of teens, people get raunchy in the hallways of Fremd. Much like in Mean Girls I think they would see a lot of links to animals in the students and their habits. If you take out the technology we all busy are selves with, you would see the obvious hierarchy that goes on a lot of the time.

Quarter 3, Week 7: Crimes Against the Yanomamo

Were Ken Good's actions amongst the Yanomamo "worse" than Napoleon Changnon's?  Explain your answer.

I think that the cultural anthropologist would think Fremd is super cliquey. They would probably think that a lot of people are stuck up and only care about themselves. But the thing is the person is probably just as self conscious as the next and does care about others but is either too wimpy to show it or scared of judgement from others. They'de probably think that everyone cares too much about what others think of them and that holds them back from doing a lot of things.. and well they're be right.

The hood of fremd

From the outside fremd looks like a normal high school full of rich kids doing nothing wrong but studying and playing sports. This is super un true though, fremd is far from that. Everyone is is their own group and every group has one or two people that can move around to find news about stuff. Everyone is full of each other and treat everyone like poop . The only people that make it are the ones that dont care and just phase through their day with an ipod in and full blasting it. The school is just like a prison where the rules are strict and everyones on their own.

Fremd's culture

If I was a cultural anthropologist at Fremd I would think that people are very selfish and obscene. Most people are very selfish and only care about themselves. Students will lie and con their ways into what they want. They also constantly scream profanity in the hallways. They don't seem to care if teachers hear them talking about the illegal activities they did over the weekend. Students have almost no respect for anyone but themselves.

fremd culture

i think that if an outsider was to come into fremd and see the way the high school kids act then they would get an incorrect view on the american culture. What they dont understand id that life in high school and life in the real world is two completly ways of living. A lot of the kids in high school dont have a lot of things to worry about except for whats being said on facebook. We value a lot of things that we dont need to survive. In the real world people have everyday struggle and working their butts off to provide food. I think if someone wanted a full view on american culture they would have to follow around an adult

Fremd Culture

If I were an anthropologist that studied Fremd my view on American culture would be very offering than what the truth is. I would think that everybody was gossipy and always had something to say about others, but thought they were perfect. I would see the incredible want for materialistic items and how everybody had to have the newest best technology and if you didn't you were a loser. I would also think that everybody was very cliquey and that there were only groups of people and no individual. I would also see how stuck up people were and how they everybody had a sense of entitlement even though they have yet to do anything to warrant that sense. Basically if Fremd were my only impression on American culture it would not be included. (I'm guilty of everything I stated above too)

Freedm cutler yeeeee

Wat I think bout fremd. Fremd is very interestin school. You gotta be open up to try somethabg new. People just chill with tethered frends. But like me I don't. I chille with evhrybody cause I'm dat cool. Fremd has ALOT of fake wannta bees. For those people out ther just be you. You mite be judge on how u look how much Swagg u have and who u chill with but who gives a damn. Don't let da haterzs get to u. Wat I'm tryin too say her this school is very judgemebtal. I guess this is what I culture is at fermd. I mite be wrong. But it my opinion.

Fremds Culture

To start of, Fremd is a very diversed highschool. Eveyone sticks to one ther own groups "clique" and they don't really conversate or hang out with the "outsiders". I hear people saying that fremd is a place where people are two-faced or my favorite word "FAKE". Well that's aggreable to a certain extent, because it all depends who you hang out with and who you trust, which is definitely something we teenagers can control. People need to stop judging others, and thats what I see everyday at Fremd. &&& I STRONGLY DISLIKE IT ! fremd is a nice place to be at but I definitely think it needs changes.

American culture

If Fremd was the only exposure i had as a cultural anthropologist it would full of strange, two-faced. Fremd is a hard place to fit into and you need to find a group that best fits you. People have been adapting to advanced technology like the iPads and the iPhones. People are always on there phones in class and up on Facebook and Twitter, checking status and updates. Plus driving has a lot to do with power to the school and that people have expensive cars show how flashy we are with our money.

American Culture

I think fremd is full of both good and bad. I think that fremd definitely has the typical high school problems. The cliques, material possessions, and technology are all things i think every high school has problems with. I also think that there are some people who are very into their cliques but for the most part, the people i have met are really open minded and up for meeting new people. So i think that fremd can show good and bad parts of american culture.

fremd culture

I think Fremd has some things that stand out, but it is not as bad as it could be. Yes, we are very materialistic. With the bags, shoes and technology you see throughout the school, you would think that everyone is doing pretty well. However, not everyone is like that and i think that's what matters. We are also not as diverse as other schools. Because of all of this, good thing fremd high school is not a model for all of america.

Fremd Culture

I think there'd be a lot of both good and bad things. I've always been treated pretty well by those that aren't students so I'd assume that there are a lot of good elders and authoritative figures in the world. On the same note, I'd probably be confused why so many students dislike many of the adults. I mean, they've treated me fine, so they can't be terrible people. I'd also find that a lot of people like to text message instead of learn. How astronomically absurd! I would assume that there is a lot of focus on visual appearance and not on people themselves.

Fremd Culture

If American culture was similar to what I have seen at Fremd high school, I would say that many people group up and with a specific group of people. Be it skateboarders, athletes, musicians, or AP students, people seem to hang out with others who share the same interests. People of different groups tend to stay separate from each other. Another thing I noticed at Fremd was that people tend to judge each other based on their material possessions, especially clothes. What you wear is very important to how you are judged by others. those who are in the same social circle tend to wear the same type of clothes. Overall, the culture at Fremd is split up into various social groups and is judgmental to what you wear.

American Culture

If I had to see Fremd as a cultural antropologist, I would think Fremd has many diverse people. I would notice some people at Fremd wear pants and a nice shirt. American culture at Fremd is about looking formal to others. Values I see at Fremd are intellgence and kindness. These would be essential to American culture by how they show the opening that the United States has to others. In this, American culture has caring value and a logical thought that can help Americans do well before, now, and then.

Fremds culture

If your only exposure to american culture was at fremd, you would notice some very distinct traits. First, youd notice who materialistic people are. You would also notice how people try to hide who they are in order to be popular or follow trends.

Fremd Culture

Friendship and education would top the list of values. I would notice that the kids are very materialistic. Also that kids tend to run in small groups that are very similar to themselves. The individual is a huge part of the culture at Fremd, and we are always working for the future, not the present. Fremd would be an interesting place to have to spend a year at and hopefully no one will, because it doesn't represent the culture of America as a whole.

Fremd Culture

Waking into fremd a cultural anthrapologist would see that we fit alot of steriotypes for americans. To start off we are highly materialistic. This would become obviouse mostly because almost half the kids at fremd have i phones. along with this they would realize we fit the click stereotype. As they look around fremd they would surely notice breaks in popularity and seperatio by activities and intrests. on this note the seperation of these groups isnt near as severe as stereo types.

American Culture

If a cultural anthropologist were to walk through the halls of Fremd High School, I think they would see many of the typical stereotypes. The stereotype of Americans being materialistic would be proven by the number of uggs and nike shoes worn by students. By simply driving into the Fremd parking lot they'd notice that we drive big cars, and by walking through the hallway, they'd see our reliance on technology. Technology is everywhere and students are constantly texting or listening to music.

Fremd's Culture

Your experience at Fremd is all that you make of it. If Fremd was my only exposure to American's I would think it's diverse but in it's diversity there is still that sense of boundaries. Certain people will always remain with those they resemble, and a lot of things are done as a group and people just think it's okay. If one person does it, then it's okay if everyone else does. I would also think that word spreads like wildfire, even if it's the farthest thing from the truth. Reguardless of who you may be on the social ladder, someone in your "clique" will know about someone else's business. But all of this, once again, just depends on who you chose to be friends with, and what you decide to take away from the experience.

Fremd Culture

If I were a cultural anthropologist at Fremd I would think that many of the people in America love technology. The girl love uggs and vera breadley. I'd think everyone was stuck up and only looking out for themselves. I'd also think many people were fake and put on acts for others just to fit into social cliques.

Fremd Culture

If I were a cultural anthropologist visiting Fremd, I would leave the school with the impression that Americans were materialistic, and also with a sense of conformity. When I walk the halls of Fremd, I would see Uggs on every girl’s feet, and a Vera Bradley bag on their back. I would see kids listening to their iPods, texting on their smart phones, or showing off a new technological product. I would also see that there are cliques among the students, although not as exaggerated as they are in movies. I would say that the values of American culture, based on Fremd students, would be better, faster technology, and the latest fashion trends.

anthropology at fremd

If I were a cultural anthropologist at fremd I would think that it was a very self oriented society. I would see everyone with their material things, focusing on their grades, and on themselves. The Vera Bradleys would make me puke because they were everywhere, major dejavu. I would also think that the nation was quite well off because most everyone at fremd appears to be well off and put together. There are no starving kids in the corner sick because they couldn't eat. I would also wonder about how we act together. When I look at different groups from one another, they act entirely different, almost like a different species.

American Culture

If a cultural anthropologist were to come to Fremd I think they would be able to see a somewhat realistic representation of American culture. Many kids at Fremd High School are materialistic and put a lot of value behind the clothes they wear or purses they have. Also, it shows how much we as a society depend on technology. Everywhere you go people are on their phones or listening to their ipods. Technology dictates the way we live in both good and bad ways. Also, you would be able to see that there are cliques and social classes among the students which ,although not as exagerrated, still exists in America.

American Culture

If I were a cultural anthropologist studying for a year at Fremd High School, I would think it was essential for everyone to have an apple product. You walk down the halls and see people listening to music on their iPod or texting on their iphone. Students at Fremd Can't go one day without technology. They need to have access to their phone 24/7. I would also think Fremd was very materialistic. It seems like every girl has uggs and a Vera Bradley. I would think that Fremd doesn't have the best values because we rely on high priced possessions. But I think they would see that Fremd has great educational values.

American Culture

If I were a cultural anthropologist studying culture at Fremd, I would think that American's only value material possessions. I'd notice everyone's Vera Bradley and other designer bags. Fremd is full of financially well off kids and I'd think everyone in America was privileged the same way Fremd students are. I'd also think that the rest of America is in some sort of competition with grades and such. You always hear conversations kids are having comparing their grades with each other.

American Culture

If I were a cultural anthropologist for one year at Fremd High School, after taking a loook at what things Fremd high school offers you, classes, courses, activities andmore. I will say that most of the Fremd students do their tasks. We got to say that eletrical devices are a big deal in Fremd. By this time almost all of the students own a cell phone an ipod or an mp3 player. i will also will have to say that most students at fremd don have the need to share a computer, because Fremd have enough computers for students to work on their projects. Overall I admit that Fremd High School is a pretty modern school to be studying in.

Cultural Anthropologist

So lets say I was a cultural Anthropologist. I'd observe us at Fremd hanging out with nice clothes and nice things, probably someone being bullied, some people sitting alone, some people laughing and having fun, everyone with food and lots of nice cars. I'd think we were a very gifted nation, who had very little when it came to problems. I'd think that we were pretty reckless and immature in our behaviors and respect as well, with a lack of a work ethic. The values we hold would be money, power, and alpha-dominance.

American Culture

If I were a cultural anthropologist studying for a year at Fremd High School, I would be exposed to pretty high expectations. First of all, students are generally expected to do well in school and always try their best. They have a high potential and are expected to fulfill this. Therefore, hard work and self-push to reach the next step would be a common trend among the culture. Also, material posessions would be a clear desire in the culture. Students at Fremd are always getting the next new thing, such as the iPad, iPhone, etc.

American Culture

If I were a cultural anthropologist and I came to Fremd, the values would be clearly displayed. I would say that we profoundly value electronics, especially phones, ipods, and computers. These specific devices, mostly cell phones, have become something that most teenagers can't go a day without. We also value clothes, fashion, and keeping up with the latest trends. Also, social interaction, friendships, and relationships are very important. Overall, Fremd is a good place to examine culture.

American Culture

I think Fremd would be a good place to observe our culture. It shows how people are obsessed over looks and having the best stuff. It may be shown a bit more here than in society but it is close enough. Theres a lot of different groups and cliques that people are in. It also seems that people are more interested in social lives than focusing on school.

American Culture at Fremd

If I were a cultural anthropologist studying the American culture at Fremd, I would think that it is essential to have the latest phone, ipod, ipad, or computer to survive. Most teens in Fremd can't go one school day without checking their phone or listening to their ipods. I would think that Americans are cliquy and sometimes not accepting of other people. I would think America had pretty bad values because we rely too much on technology and don't accept all teenagers.

American Culture

I think Fremd is a good demonstration of our culture. It would show outsiders how much we care about technology and how much we rely on it. Also, an outsider would see how our cliques and social groups work. It may be a little over dramaticized because it is high school students but it is the general idea of how we function socially. overall, i think fremd is a good representation of our society and how we function within it.

American Culture

If I were to go through Fremd to discover what we value most in American culture, it would be easy. First I would say, without a doubt, that we are about electronics and fads. These may include anything from uggs to iPhones to even yoga pants. To add, we also seem we are more interested in our social lives than school at times. Fremd, in my mind, ilustrates our culture very well. No matter how we look at it, our culture is surrounded by trends.

Quarter 3, Week 6: American Culture

Imagine that you were a cultural anthropologist, and you have decided to study American culture by visiting Fremd High School every day for an entire school year.  If the only exposure you had to American culture was what you had at Fremd, what would you think?  What values would you think were central to American life?

intelligent design

Its kind of difficult to place intelligent design in a catagory with just science or religion. Its the middle of evolution and creationism. But its not entirely religious because it includes some belief of things evolving and changing overtime when creationism is solely based on God creating everything right then and there. I think it can be considered as science because it still has some form of evolution tied into it, and people do lots of research on it.

intelligent design

I don't think intelligent design should be considered a science because it is an idea. There is no evidence proving that we evolved from one single "intelligent" being. Evolution is backed up scientifically with fossils dating back to millions of years so it has proof that it is a science. I do believe though that everyone is entilted to their own beliefs and intelligent design may be what people choose to believe in and this shouldn't be prevented by any school. Intelligent design is simply an idea, while other theories are based on substantial facts. even though there is no right answer, all theories should be presented in schools.

Intelligent DESIGN

I don't think intelligent design is a science at all. It is based around a convoluted mutation of 3 parts Christianity (religion) and 2 parts theory taken from evolution. People try to pass it as science to force their religious beliefs on other people. But it is NOT science, and anyone who takes it as scientific fact is ignorant and a fool.