Exercise B. checks important details about groups of people in different types of economies. First, Hartmann asks us what the people of the North Pacific Coast of the Americas gave away or sold in their traditional potlatch, a ceremony that Hartmann describes as "a famous cultural and economic event" (2007, p. 37, line 14). It is clear that Hartmann thinks the potlatch was part of an economy. And it is also clear from the description that it was a way in which goods were distributed: they went from the hosts, who had a lot, to their guests, who had little. But other types of goods, intangible goods as Cee pointed out and Hartmann expects us to answer, moved in the other direction: in exchange for giving away their material goods, such as "blankets, food, boats and ... copper" (lines 21 - 22), the hosts "received high status" (line 24). And these are the answers we fairly quickly agreed on for the traditional economy of the tribal peoples of the North Pacific.
We then came to check important details about how distribution worked and works in the changing economy of the Sami tribes of Northern Scandinavia. Prompted first by Grace's concerns, we improved on Hartmann's simple question by making a distinction between the Sami's traditional practices and what they do today. The modern situation, which is probably what Hartmann had in mind, is the easier, and after getting clear what time we were discussing, we agreed that in the lifestyle they practise today, the Sami sell reindeer meat and receive money, which they then use to buy modern goods like snowmobiles. That is, the reading told us that today's Sami sold reindeer meat and received money. There was a problem with the tenses, which Pun brought to our attention. Hartmann could have made her meaning clearer than simply writing in her instruction "On pages 37 - 39, you read [past tense] about three examples of ... ." Rather than assuming that we are all familiar with the peculiar tense changes possible in indirect speech in English, Hartmann could have written "Sell/Sold or Give/Gave Away". I suggest you not spend any more time worrying about the tenses, but if it is worrying you, see the explanations in Practical English Usage (Swan, 2005, §275, esp. §275.4). The next question that Grace and Pun focussed our attention on is much more interesting and worth spending time on, which is why I let the discussion run on in class.
Did the Sami sell or give things away in their traditional economic system? After a bit of increasingly confused, and confusing, discussion, Bas drew our attention to lines 48 - 49, which say that the Sami "didn't have to exchange goods with the outside world" in their traditional way of life (p. 38). It was clear that there was another important distinction to be made, this time between: 1) the Sami and other groups, and 2) within the Sami social group. Hartmann did not expect us to have this discussion, but it raises deeper and more interesting questions, gives us a much deeper understanding of the Sami people and how their social organization has changed over the centuries, and pushes us to exercise our reading and critical thinking skills more strenuously: you did very well. When this distinction was made clear, we could agree that the Sami did not traditionally exchange goods with other societies. But what about within their own society? This is where Pun reminded us that we needed to remember our previously agreed on definition of the noun economy, which contains the verb distribute, and compare that verb with the definition of the verb exchange, which Hartmann uses in line 48. At the end of class, the list of words or phrases whose meaning we needed to clarify also included: sell, give, give gifts, share, social system and communism. Although Chieko contributed a very useful example to support her answer, I don't think the remaining question was settled to everyone's satisfaction at the end of class, which was already running overtime. So you can continue the argument in comments below.
We want to agree on an answer to the question:
- Did the traditional Sami sell or give things away within their own social group?
As well as giving your own answer and its support, you also need to reply to the opposing answers and reasons of your classmates who disagree with you.
When I started writing this blog post, I was also going to include some points that arose from Bas's citing and quoting from the Longman's dictionary (Which one?), and a related point Frank raised, but it's already long enough. I'll post a new blog tomorrow or Saturday. Comments here count towards your daily response writing quota, although it is a bit more explicitly academic than blogging the news.
__________
References
Swan, M. (2005). Practical English Usage (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
I think we can probably agree that the Sami did not traditionally sell their reindeer meat, skin, or bones. So the question can be narrowed a bit more: Did they traditionally give away reindeer products within the group in exchange for other goods?
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to make a final agreement that Sami exchange inside their group or not because in our Quest do not has inadequate details about their living. If Sami lived in a big group and controlled by one leader, it was possible that there would have had economy activity as distribution. It means after Reindeer hunting, they would provide equally meat to other members. However, if Sami people lived in a village, it was possible that they would have hunt in small group and then separated meat to their families. Unluckily, in some days or in some groups, they would have hunt successfully; therefore, some families would have not had enough food for their families. It was possible that the successful hunters would have give away meat to others. Of course, the receivers would not give anything back except admiration. The receivers would have changed the donors status from just neighbors to friends or the respectful elders. If this activity had happened, can we call "exchange"? As we read from the Quest, it does not mention about Sami life; as a result, we could not our conclusion.
ReplyDeleteHowever, according from Quest, as Cee mentioned, Hartman wrote "The Samis had everything they needed and did not have to exchange good with the outside world." It is wondering that if we change some words in this sentence to "The Samis had everything they needed and did not need to change good with the outside world", Are this meaning as same as Hartment,s words? If they are same meaning, it will be inferred that the Samis had everything they needed and did not need to change good with the outside world, but there would have some exchanges inside Samis people. Can it is inferred like that?
Before I state my opnion, I'd like to define some words. "Sell" means exchange for money. "exchange" means to barter something for other thing which people think better or more necessary for them.
ReplyDeleteAccording to these difinitions, I think Samis didn't sell their products, because they didn't have currency system. They didn't exchange because reindeers provided them every thing to live, and these things were as same as others had ( because the things came only from one kind of animal;reindeer),so there weren't better or more necessary things for them. This is because I think that Samis didn't exchange within the group.
I don't think that reindeer provide everything for the Samis. Something like compositions of their houses that didn't made from reindeer was demanded for exchange.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is the fact that Hartmann doesn't put the clear detail about this.
I think they definitely had an economy. Hartmann makes this clear when she tells us that goods were produced from labour, such as clothes, jewellery and food. Since they were living in groups with social structures, it seems unlikely that everyone, or even every family unit, did all of their own hunting and killing of reindeer, and after the 16th century, the herding appears to have been done by the group, with the group being owners, so there must have been distribution within the group. Our definition of an economy is "a system, of any group, whereby by decisions about the production and distribution of goods and services are made", and the traditional Sami clearly meet this definition: goods were produced and they were distributed.
ReplyDeleteAs Chieko explains, they did not have or use money, so there was no selling or buying. As Aor points out, Hartmann's very brief description does not give us a lot of information. However, Chieko's example of the traditional Ainu tribal group in Japan, which reminded me of traditional Australian tribal groups, also helps us roughly to imagine both Sami society and their economy. And I think this allows us to answer Cee's point that they needed more than came from reindeer; for example, they also needed to build homes of some sort, but these were most likely made from locally collected wood and other materials, perhaps with some bits of reindeer added. This did not require any exchange with outside groups.
In such a traditional society, the economic decisions for distributing the goods of the group were probably mostly made by sharing according to tradition rather than by exchange.
A neat example of new money in the BBC News recently is Bitcoin, a digital currency gaining popularity with zero government involvement (Melik, 2012).
ReplyDeleteReference
Melik, J. (2012, October 2). Digital currency: Brave new world or criminal haven? BBC News Business. Retrieved October 8, 2012 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19785935
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn spite of global connection, there are some communities that would like to exclude themselves from the world by establishing their own currency. Bristol Pound is a case in point. (Bristol Pound launched to keep trade in the city: see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-19627592) Indeed,about 10 years ago a Thai district, Kut Chum in Yasothon Province, used to do in the same way as British Bristol, but Thai legal system doesn't allow to do that.
ReplyDeleteThis may be an example to point out that people may be not necessary to trade with other outside their community, but they still exchange or barter within the group. There are materials for exchange which in some case the medium of exchange might not exist.