Hi All- Here's my completed Section E Homework Assignment
Signed, Shaunasi
Section E Homework Assignment - Culture


After reading the Section Introduction and Marvin Harris' "cultural materialist" account of why cows are treated as sacred by Hindus in India, do the following:

1. Identify some aspect of U.S. culture (narrowly defined) and give both idealist and a materialist explanations for it. Be as realistic as possible.

Ideally, we give to charities to help other Americans and
peoples of the World too. We give our monetary donations to big charities like: The United Way, and The Red Cross, to get our money to people who need it. In our US culture, I think we American's think that when we give to these big organizations, that these organizations have a good way of managing our money and distributing it well and efficiently to a larger number of people in a shorter amount of time, better than we'd be able to ourselves individually do, so we give to these big charities.
Materialistically though, our monetary contributions to help those in need are sometimes less efficiently distributed by large charities and our monetary contributions decrease, on the whole, when we give to large charities. This is because many big charities use our monies for themselves, for their own interests, and for the interests of the government/the rich elite/big business/corporations, who are all seemingly synonymous to eachother today. Large charities aren't using our money well and efficiently today. These big charities like the Red Cross funnel much money into their administrations, and use the money designated for one particular program, to fund other unrelated programs, or just for their general fund. Recently, many of us have donated money to the Red Cross to help the families that lost their love one's in the World Trade Center attacks, sometimes losing their families main or only active monetary provider for their family. We gave much money, to the tune of $1 billion dollars to the Red Cross for these people. The Red Cross hasn't distributed these funds to the people who need them yet! The money is being held in a bank gaining interest!, held up by red tape, administrative interests etc., or for whatever other unjust or just self serving reasons that can be come up with, and still not having reached the people who need it yet. So, in reality, how effective are these large charities we donate to? I'm really beginning to think that we'd be better off giving to smaller, more honest, better run charity organizations. Then maybe my donations will get where they need to be in good time in full. I don't agree with the way these big charities are run. I don't believe the figures that these organizations come up with for how and where our donations are spent. I've heard many accounts off how there is money laundering, fraud, and other corrupt and dishonest goings on within these charities, being perpetrated. The perpetrators can even appear to be following the law but are either bending the law to their interests, or are collaborating with the government to create laws that will make corrupt goings on in these big organizations legal. I am appalled by these organizations. I think the bureaucracy and politics have gotten way out of control with these organizations. Charities ought to be sacred institutions, freed up or protected righteously from the stealing and corruption, by the government, the people, and business.
I'd rather take the train to New York and hand my monetary donations and other donations right to those who need it rather than supporting the Red Cross. Well, at least I just heard of another organization taking donations for the victims of The Trade Center attacks, called The RobinHood organization. I don't know how legitimate they are, but from the sound of their name, maybe they are! They say they are. I can't judge a book by its cover or an organization by it's name though. Our family has given to the victims or The World Trade Center attacks through a company run charity of the company my husband works for as well as through the Red Cross, of all charities!

2. Which approach (idealist or materialist) do you think offers the best explanation? Why?

The materialistic approach offers the best phenomenon to why our monetary donations etc. don't get where they need to go in good time in full when large organizations are in charge of collecting and distributing our donations. These large charities can come up with any idealistic pitch or explanation why I ought to support them or give to them but I know I am suspicious of these large organizations more and more and I think our US society is getting fed up with these large charities dishonesty and inefficiently. Charities are being greedy and in and of themselves or with or because of the government. This shows a materialistic approach to large charities by their administrations and or the government/big business/corporations which allows them and/or even supports them to keep misfunctioning to serve their greedy interests!
**************************************************************
Here are some articles below made available through Barbra Streisand's Official Website, which talk about: Our current government's ideology on helping stimulate our economy and the actual material actions being taken by our government, to stimulate our economy. The ideologies and the material actions being taken are much different and a good example of what's being said about ideally stimulating our economy, by our government, and what's actually materialistically happening to stimulate our economy, by our current government.
A bit written by Barbra Streisand about this topic, and an article she refers us to, on her website, written by Robert Borosage, explaining this topic in idealist terms and materialist actualities I've shown below.

A bit by Barbra Streisand:

United in the War Effort, Yes ... But Concerned Dissent on Other Issues is Patriotic
Since the atrocities of September 11, whatever our politics, we have all supported the efforts to protect our country and to bring about justice.

We are a nation of great diversities...race, color, religion and, most importantly, the diversity of thought. The freedom to dissent is the basis of all our freedoms. So it is patriotic to speak up when we see unfair legislation being jammed through.

Even in this time of crisis, the Republicans are back to politics-as-usual, as we can see from the "economic stimulus bill" they are trying to pass and which gives huge tax-breaks to corporations. It shows us that Republican legislators are still the representatives of big business, leaving the Democrats to defend working people. The airlines got bailed out, but the workers they fired got nothing.

I respectfully recommend to you this article by Robert Borosage who reveals the "economic stimulus bill" for the partisan, divisive and destructive piece of legislation it is.

Please read this and see what you think. And if you wish to dissent, hey, that's one of the most important rights we're fighting to defend.

read the article by Robert Borosage
Here is the article by Robert Borosage:
by Bob Borosage

Faced with a common threat, the nation has come together, inspired by the heroism of the working people who risked their lives to save others in New York, and the soldiers now putting their lives on the line abroad. We want our leaders to put aside partisan bickering, and act boldly in the nation's interest. But this week, the Congress will vote on an "economic stimulus bill" - rammed through committee on a party line vote - that is a shameless affront to the common good.
Government must act to get the economy moving. The president met with leaders of both parties and agreed on principles for a bill: temporary so it doesn't bankrupt us, balanced between tax cuts and spending, and focused on those who need it the most.

The House bill flagrantly violates all those principles. 90% of it is in tax cuts, mostly for big corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Only token assistance is offered for the workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own - leaving millions of displaced workers unable to afford health care for their families. The tax cuts for corporations and the rich are permanent; while hard pressed working families get a one time rebate.

The bill permanently repeals the minimum tax on corporations - designed to insure that profitable corporations can't use loopholes to avoid all taxes - and does so retroactive to 1986. That means that any company can claim an immediate refund for any time the minimum tax applied in the last 15 years. If it passes, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, IBM would get a check for $1.4 billion dollars; General Motors one for $833 million; General Electric one for $671. The estimated total in $25 billion in instant rebates to a handful of big corporations is twice as big as the one-time rebate the committee decided to give to 37 million low income families.

Even worse, the bill makes permanent a bad tax break for multinationals that enables them to avoid taxes on profits made abroad - so long as they don't invest the money back in the US. This outrage will cost $21 billion over ten years. A bill sold as a stimulus for our economy gives big companies a tax break to invest abroad.

Worse, the bill won't do much to get the economy going. It cuts taxes on the wealthy who are likely to save the money and on corporations that need customers, not capital. Instead the Congress should be increasing unemployment insurance and health care aid to displaced workers, supporting low income working families who will spend their rebates, helping states and cities that are cutting vital services to keep their budgets balanced, and investing in rebuilding schools, public health, transportation security - investments that will make America safer and put people to work.

If the president is serious about national unity, he should rebuke the House ideologues that passed this bill, and call on his party to go another way. And in the Senate, members of conscience of both parties should come together to reject this bill that disgraces an America pulling together in a time of war and recession.

by Bob Borosage

Copyright & Terms of Use
© 2000 BJS, LLC All Rights Reserved
Designed by Faucett New Media

Barbra Streisand's Words Again Below:

On a similar note, here are links to two articles from the Sunday, October 28, 2001 edition of the New York Times:

Can Democrats Still Play the Game? by Jeffrey Toobin

Taking Care of Business by Paul Krugman



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These were two important articles written by Arianna Huffington for the Los Angeles Times. While other newspapers that regularly publish Arianna's column did print these articles, in each case the Los Angeles Times refused to.

LAND OF THE FREE?

IS NORMAL THE BEST WE CAN DO?

Another article I think we should all pay attention to was written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. It appeared in the New York Times Op-Ed Section on Wednesday, October 3rd and is entitled "Democracy in Wartime"

DEMOCRACY IN WARTIME



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In light of recent events, I strongly believe we must support our government despite our disagreements on certain policies, such as those relating to environmental, educational, social and other specific issues. My past concerns about such matters still pertain, but at this point in time, I have removed several articles from my website in an effort to encourage national unity instead of partisan divisions. Thank you."