Biological anthropology grad student here. Love it!

" Evolution is science. Proven fact. Go to a museum or library and educate yourself before calling a show like this

Newsflash there Hive13-Study a quick primer in Kinesics, throw in a dash of social anthropology, and understand-the folks on this little circle-jerk of a cable access show, are Grade-A assholes, the brand of which, should they not be beating the bushes trying to find some gullible Christian takers for their call-in masturbatory romp, would be just as suited to argue the differences between toy and standard poodles as it relates to cloud formation.
If I met them in person, it would probably take me about 10 minutes, before i was shoving it right up THEIR self-righteous asses as well......

He's an idealist, no doubt. I guess we didn't read the same history and anthropology books though. The noble savage was noble to his own tribe and savage to others. The history of civilization is a continuum of war, occasionally punctuated by peace. The campaigns; Romans, Gauls, Vikings, Normans, Spanish Conquistadors, the revolutions; American, French, Bolshevik, and Maoist, the civil wars; American and Spanish, they all point to the aggressive nature of man.

Without government and it's most noble function, rule of law, all would be anarchy and aggression.

Governments of States share the characteristics of the individual; pride, prejudice, suspicion, envy, nationalism, and aggression. The individual is restrained by threat of penalty of law. The State has only the restraint of defeat at the hands of their enemy. This is where Mr. Zinn hits the nail on the head. The Government of the State is a dangerous thing because it lacks that restraint. It's able to wage unpopular geo-political war and push citizens, under threat of penalty, into forced and unwilling aggression.

That was actually dated the month before the National Park Services response...so those are the points they are attempting to address. The most current response from PEER regarding the National Park Service response is as follows.

EVOLVING GRAND CANYON POSITION LEAVES UNANSWERED QUESTIONS — National Park Service Now Distancing Itself from Creationist Book It Approved

Washington, DC — The National Park Service insists that it does not teach creationism or endorse the view that the Grand Canyon is the product of Noah’s Flood, according to a new agency public statement posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Despite this statement, the agency will continue selling a book making those “Young Earth” claims about the origin of the canyon – a book that top agency officials approved over the objections of its own park superintendent

In a statement issued by the National Park Service (NPS) Chief of Public Affairs, David Barna, on January 4th, the agency contends that park rangers have been instructed to “use the following explanation for the age of the geologic features at Grand Canyon…The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old.”

The statement adds, “Since 2003 the park bookstore has been selling a book that gives a Creationist view of the formation of the Grand Canyon, claiming that the canyon is less than six thousand years old…We do not use the Creationist text in our teaching nor do we endorse its content.”

While this is the first time that the Park Service has gone on record distancing itself from the book, Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, on sale in park bookstores, the Barna statement does not explain:

* Why did the Park Service approve it for sale? Under agency rules, park officials are only to allow display materials of the highest accuracy and which support approved park interpretive themes in its bookstores;
* What happened to the “policy review” on the book promised in public statements and in letters to members of Congress by Barna and other NPS officials?
* Why has NPS refused for the past five years to issue the pamphlet entitled “Geologic Interpretive Programs: Distinguishing Science from Religion” providing guidance to park rangers and other interpretive staff on how to answer questions relating to creationism, evolution and related topics?

The Barna statement notes “This book is sold in the inspirational section of the bookstore” but omits the fact that this “inspirational” section was created after PEER exposed the fact that the book was being sold as a “natural history.” The inspirational section now includes anthropological works on Native American culture but no other work remotely resembling the Vail book.

The new Park Service statement implies it will keep selling the creationist book for the foreseeable future, despite protests from the agency’s own specialists that the book’s approval violated Park Service rules.

“Our only point is that the Park Service should stop selling the book with a government seal of approval,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Nonetheless, we are delighted that the Park Service has, after three years, finally chosen to publicly and unambiguously acknowledge that the Grand Canyon is the product of evolutionary geologic forces.”

Couple of points, just adding to whats already been said realy.

First, age of relevance. A quick search found this, from what looks a reasonable article:

"The average age for a girl to start puberty is at (age) 11 or 12," she said. "But we consider it normal for a girl as young as 8 years old to have her period. Only if it happens at a really young age like (age) 4 or 5 is there reason to worry. In those cases, there could be some serious problems, like a tumor in the brain or the ovaries."

Addressing issues like this must be done in ways appropriate to real life, and real individuals. Not every girl will have puberty onset at an early age (8), but it can be normal/natural for those who do. One size/age for addressing these issues does not fit all.

Culture: Our society expects people to "get together" at quite a late age, historically speaking. Marriage at what we would feel was a very young age were much more common just yesterday, in anthropological (ex anthropomorphic) terms. Our culture is new, and young. And not normal, statistically speaking. (this is not an aesthetic judgment).

Society. (my perspective is from the UK fyi) Our society is far from perfect and reflects the huge differences in quality of the social/emotional/intellectual/support networks etc that exist not just for the kids, but the parents too. I'm saying that what we cant have artificially rosey/high expectations for either parenting, or the children. Thats not to say that its all bad for all of them, just that its not 1 size fits all, and we have to acknowledge this, not hide from it by wishing everything was great for everyone, and criticizing/penalizing kids who are victims of poor parenting/support networks (possibly having parents who also suffered from it).

Parenting:
I might have been viewed as lucky by most of my friends, in terms of my family life, but families are complex things. I'm certain mine was perceived as loving, and a stable middle class home. But my dad was a secret alcoholic, and whilst not violent, i had a terrible relationship, parent/child wise, in that i zero respect for him, or his irrational and unreasonable responses. I would never have come to him about some serious problem, nor my mother (who has never related to me, as lovely a person as she is). We cant isolate further, children who cannot relate/interact with their parents, according to some "Ideal standard" that we make policy by. If councilors/doctors cannot have a confidential relationship to kids, then they cannot offer support that they may not be getting from any other place. Put it this way, for those WITH good parenting, they may not need this support. For those without, it may have a vital impact on their lives, and the lives of their potential kids.


I know not having an ideal childhood != early sex (i didn't get around to it till almost 30) but ignorance/no support is never a good recipe.

MG, if encountering the news of what this school is doing was a shock, that dosen't mean its not an appropriate course for them, and rather the fact it IS appropriate is what is shocking.

Its good for the sift to be educational. Exactly what this is illuminating, I haven't decided. I'm inclined towards Anthropology over Biology...

He didn't JUST come-out with it... he's been stating this in many media forums, it's just that the media in America doesn't want to hear it... and apparently neither do you or anyone here. It was Omitted from the official report, mainstream media cuts the parts they don't want us to hear when they have interviewed him.

Also, you don't see why it's news? Apparently CSPAN did.. they played it several times on Sept. 9th, 2007. You all really do want your information spoon-fed to you by mainstream media.. just pick your flavor - don't you? This is very interesting in regards to cultural anthropology.

Then you are missing out. He does a show called Good Eats on the Food Network, which is the perfect blend of cooking, culinary science, and anthropology lessons all in one entertaining half hour. It's cooking for geeks and it's brilliant.

He also moderates the American version of Iron Chef, which he does a good job at but in my opinion pales in comparison to the original Japanese version. And he also has another show called Feasting on Asphalt, where he takes a road trip and stops along culinary hot spots along the trail, but off the beaten bypass.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think female shaving is interesting.

... from an anthropological POV. I put it up there with lip plates in Afrfica, neck lengtheners and Japanese women blackening their teeth in the 19th century to make themselves more beautiful.

It's an artificial attempt to make females more "feminine" which in Western culture equates to being more child-like and pre-pubescent looking.

Or am I bat-shit insane?

anthropology? bu that's way to broad in my mind.

I've been waiting for this proposal for a long time. anything from anthropology to theology and all the classical area's would be very nice. Video's like that tend not to get out of the queue.

"As for the historically and factually accurate comment about Africa, take it however you like. "

It is not historically OR factually accurate. It IS extremely ignorant of African cultures (yes, there is more than one) and lacking of a basic understanding of anthropology.

It would be really interesting to compare this to anthropological films of folk rituals and healing cermonies. The phenomenon of "religious intoxication" crosses cultures, and is an important part of many rituals.

This, though, seems more like mass hysteria or mass conformity, or some of both. Scary. They lose their minds, and preacherman gives the orders.