Game On! Understanding Tabletop Board Game Lexicon

Figure 1: Jeremy & Josh, Tabletop Board Gamers, at RAGECon 2014

Today's post is dedicated to understanding the complex lexicon, or vocabulary, of tabletop board gamers.  Tabletop board gamers, for the purposes of this post, are board game enthusiasts who typically focus their interests in complex board games that involve a great deal of strategy, thinking, and complex fun (Figure 1).  Tabletop board gamers are differentiated from other board gamers in two primary ways: first, by the board games they opt to play, which are typically referred to by these individuals as European style board games (complex style of board games, such as Carcassonne, Smallworld, Arkham Horror, Alhambra, King of Tokyo, many more [Figure 2]), and second, by their focal vocabulary, a specific lexicon that is recognizable and important to specific groups and serves as a way of uniting the group members and differentiating nonmembers.

Figure 2: A small sample of the various types of European Style Board Games that Tabletop Board Gamers Play

A member of the Tabletop Board Game community is most often familiar with the focal vocabulary, which is often indiscernible to nonmembers.  A small sample of the words, terms, and phrases are as follows:

1. RPG (Roleplaying game): a game in which players take on specific roles and character types in order to complete the game)
2. Meeple: a small person shaped figure used in board games
3. XP: experience point(s).  Many games require players earn experience points, which are used to determine the winner(s) of the game.
4. Sleeves: thin plastic coverings for cards utilized in board games.
5. Dice tower: a device used to roll dice fairly.
6. D-6, D-12, D-20...: D refers to die or dice and the number refers to the number of sides on the die or dice.  Various types of multi-sided dice may be used in games, typically dependent on the style of game or the purpose the dice serve in the game.
7. Natural #: in reference to a die roll that led to a specific number to be face up.  Some games require natural rolls versus game modifiers that allow die rolls to be artificially changed.  
8. Mechanic: system of rules for playing games.  Various game mechanics exist, each of which are unique and preferentially desirable among specific gamers.
9. Worker Placement: game mechanic that mandates players to make individual actions from a set of actions 
10. Playtest: term for board game developers to test or try out board games on a group of volunteers who test the mechanics of the game and determine if the rules or other aspects of the game require clarification or revision. 

Tabletop Board Gamers at RAGECon 2014

Phrases such as RPG and meeple  can leave nonmembers confused, but they seek to demonstrate not only instruction or direction to Tabletop Board Gamers but also inclusion.  The act of recognizing the language spoken by other Board Gamers solidifies the bonds among members and creates and fosters a sense of community.  Nonmembers often are confused and feel isolated in the midst of Tabletop Board Gamers, and nonmembers may react negatively as a result.  Typically, however, most Tabletop Board Gamers are very friendly and open and willing to teach games to genuinely interested individuals, including other members of the community.

Individuals in the Reno-area who are interested in learning more about the local Tabletop Board Game community should check out Comic Kingdom, Merwin's Game Shoppe, the Reno Area Tabletop Meetup Group, and RAGECon 2015 for opportunities to participate in and learn about European style board games and more. 

Summers of Diversity: Examining Multicultural Festivals & Events

Multiculturalism is the view of cultural diversity in a country as something good and desirable.  America is considered a multicultural nation due to the diverse groups of people who exist within the country's borders.  In fact, many individuals, particularly students, are quick to point out that America is a "melting pot" nation, which they say means that the US is made up of and represented by various different cultural groups from around the world.  They go on to state that many American citizens are also derived from various cultural backgrounds.

It is therefore not uncommon, particularly during the summer months, for the United States to emphasize this cultural diversity through a variety of cultural activities, such as festivals or events.  These events are opportunities for others, particularly nonmembers, to experience, understand, and learn about cultures unlike their own.  These festivals and events are also opportunities to promote understanding and appreciation of the cultural diversity that exists within the United States.  I have and continue to attend and participate in multicultural events, and I encourage my students to do so as well as a means of expanding their understanding of cultures (and anthropology).

But as well meaning as many of these events are there are some dos & don'ts when it comes to multiculturalism and festivals & events that claim to be multicultural.  This list is by no means exhaustive but is meant to be a way to start critically analyzing the messages you are exposed to at these events to allow you to understand if you are getting a truly multicultural experience or one that either intentionally or unintentionally is perpetuating stereotypes about the group(s) or culture(s) being "represented":

•  Consider who is organizing or sponsoring the event:  A good way to figure out if you are going to get an authentic cultural experience is to look at who is organizing or sponsoring the event.  Events that are organized or sponsored by organizations of the culture and/or group(s) being represented in the event or festival are usually going to present a balanced and accurate depiction of the cultural and/or group(s) (see picture above).  Events that are not organized or sponsored by a representative organization may not be as authentic.  It does not necessarily mean that it will not be as authentic or fully authentic but that is typically a red flag, and you may be attending an event that is therefore perpetuating stereotypes. 

The Stewart Indian School Pow Wow

• Look at who is attending the event:  While at the event take a moment to look around and see who is actually in attendance at the event.  Typically if the event is an authentic cultural experience members of the culture will be there in order to experience and celebrate their own culture.  Be respectful of these people, though, as many of them may not want to be disturbed.  Some may be there because this may be one of the few opportunities where they can participate in their culture free from judgement, but some may be there in order to expose others, particularly nonmembers, to their culture.  If someone looks friendly enough to speak to and you want to engage them in conversation do so congenially and without expectation, and if they end up not wanting to be engaged respectfully leave them be. 

Attendees at India Fest in London, ON.

• Check out what goods are being sold at the event:  This is not meant to be a means of promoting the commercialization of the event.  This is, however, an indicator of the authenticity of the festival or event.  Are the items for sale representative of the group?  Or are they not at all representative of the group?  This one may be a bit more difficult and will require a little research ahead of time to see what is actually representative of the culture or group being served by the festival or event.

Gaming Vendors at RAGECon (Reno Area Gaming Extreme Convention).

• See what events are going on: Again, this will require a bit of forethought and research into the culture, but having an idea of what is considered appropriate events for a culture is typically a great way to gauge the authenticity of the event.  Many inauthentic events will polarize stereotypes about the group and/or culture being "represented" vs. authentic events that will provide you a genuine cultural experience.  Dances, food, attire, etc. will typically be provided by members of the actual culture if the event is authentic.  This does not mean that authentic events will not have nonmembers participating, but typically these individuals are doing so as they have been enculturated into the culture and identify as belonging to it in some way. 

Flamenco Dancers at a festival in Arica, Chile.

Spotlight on Students: Race Essay

The following is an example of exemplary work from one of my Anth 102 students, Carol Vinger.  In this essay Vinger explores the lack of biological evidence to support the concept of race.  This concept is a socio-cultural one but one that is often confused as a biological one.  I hope you enjoy learning more on the topic from Vinger.  

            The debate about separating the different ethnic races of humans into distinctly separate species or subspecies of Homo sapiens has brought about some very polarizing conversations amongst physical anthropologists, biologists, and psychologists for decades.  Proponents for the separation of races into distinct species argue that the difference in skin color, cranial capacity, body shape, and intelligence amongst the racial groups support their position.  Their opponents argue that these differences are merely variations of genotypes and phenotypes amongst all humans, much like hair and eye color, or are influenced by culture and environment.  Racial bias has played a role in findings made by proponents from each of these disciplines in the past, but we know that if proper scientific methods are utilized to prove or disprove their findings, science will ultimately draw out the facts.  This paper will focus on differences amongst racial groups with respect to genetic variation, body type and skin color, and cranial capacity and intelligence utilizing scientific thinking for the purpose of determining whether these races are separate species or variations of one species.

            The AAA’s position on race was published in 1998 and set forth its conclusions based on analysis of genetic variation amongst racial groups and historical classification of race based on cultural bias, the latter of which will be discussed later in this paper.  Careful study of physical variations of genes shows that a single racial group possesses 94% of the total physical variations possible, and geographically separated racial groups differ from one another in less than 6% of these variations (AAA 1998).  This analysis helps support the AAA’s conclusion that all modern humans fall within the single species of Homo sapiens due to their overwhelmingly similar genetic material and physical characteristics. 

            The emergence of Homo sapiens as a species occurred in East Africa nearly 200,000 years ago (Stein & Rowe 2014: 365).  If African migration accounts for the entire world’s human population, one might expect less difference in physical appearance between geographically separated racial groups than actually exists.  For example, Caucasians and Asians have much lighter skin than Africans.  The advantage of darker skin in Africa serves to protect the skin from the ultraviolet rays of the sun in a grassland environment and to prevent the loss of folic acid in the body that lead to infant mortality and lower sperm production (Stein & Rowe 2014: 398).  The advantage of lighter skin in Europe and Asia serves to aid the body in production of Vitamin D and absorption of calcium for stronger bones in an environment with lower sunlight conditions, as well as a decrease in incidents of frostbite in colder climates (Stein & Rowe 2014: 398-399).  Scientists from Penn State University who studied the mutation of lighter skin say they have found the answer.  They isolated the gene known as slc24a5 that mutated 20,000 to 50,000 years ago when Africans migrated to Europe and Asia.  This mutation proved to be a distinct genetic advantage in the North, which led to a decrease in dark-skinned humans and an increase in light-skinned humans in these areas.  They also explain that two separate mutations occurred, one in Europe and one in Asia, which may account for the slightly different color variations between light-skinned Caucasians and light-skinned Asians (Weiss 2005).   

            Likewise, people who live in the extreme northern climates have much shorter and stockier builds than Africans near the equator, who tend to have long and lean builds.  The advantage of longer and leaner builds in Africa provides for more rapid cooling of the skin in hot temperatures; the greater the surface area of the body in relation to mass, the greater the opportunity for the body to sweat and cool itself through evaporation (Stein & Rowe 2014: 399).  Those individuals who did not exhibit the longer, leaner body build had a much tougher time surviving and, therefore, were less likely to pass on their genetic material.  Conversely, the advantage of shorter, stockier builds in the far north is for less surface area for heat loss from the exposed skin in extremely cold climates.  The extra body mass further serves to insulate the body from colder temperatures.  People from the middle latitudes of Europe and Asia tend to exhibit a combination of these body shapes due in part to the mixed climate of cooler winters and warmer summers (Stein & Rowe 2014: 400).  These differences of body size and shape occurred most likely by natural selection since those individuals with the distinct genetic advantage in their particular environment had the greatest chance of survival and, therefore, the greatest chance of passing on their genetic material. 

            Statistics gathered at autopsy by psychologist J. P. Rushton demonstrate that among racial groups, Caucasians have a larger cranial capacity and brain weight than Africans (Rushton & Bogaert 1989).  Physical anthropologists have long associated larger cranial capacity with higher intelligence.  If true, modern females should have a lower average IQ than males due to their smaller cranial capacity, but in fact, the average IQ of females are equal to that of their male counterparts (Nisbett 2007).  An article published by the New York Times in 2007 detailed several psychology and education studies over the last several decades that concluded that Africans score on average 15 points less on IQ tests compared to Caucasians (Nisbett 2007).  The reasons for the lower scores from Africans have less to do with smaller brain weight and more to do with the lack of educational opportunity and environmental factors. 

IQ testing among Europeans and Americans between the 1950s and the 1980s demonstrate an increase in the average IQ from 82 to 100 during that time, a period characterized by great improvements in education and social factors, including improvements in environmental conditions, better nutrition, and a decrease in the average size of the family.  These are commonly referred to as the Flynn Effect (Racialreality 2011).  Africans largely live in much less desirable living conditions than do Caucasians and Asians presently, have little to no access to birth control, and have a different cultural emphasis on education than Caucasians and Asians.  Furthermore, Africans have a protein-poor diet, an essential nutrient for brain growth and intellectual development from gestation through the early stages of childhood (Boundless 2014).  If conditions improve in Africa similar to the educational, nutritional, and environmental gains made by Caucasians and Asians during the last half of the 20^th century, the average IQ scores of Africans, presently at 85, are likely to experience the Flynn Effect and show dramatic gains in the next several decades (Nisbett 2007).

            While this paper primarily focuses on physical variations among Caucasians, Asians, and Africans, there are no two races throughout the entire world that exhibit more than 6% differences in physical characteristics from one another, making modern humans extremely similar to one another (AAA 1998).  Natural selection has adapted only a few physical characteristics within racial groups to better suit their environments.  Proponents for the separation of races into distinctly separate species rely on cultural bias to support their position, which in turn perpetuates the social stigmas associated with skin color.  Sufficient evidence has been established that all modern humans should share the same genus and species, Homo sapiens, despite the very few physical variations among them.   

References

AAAnet.org (1998).  American Anthropological Association Statement on “Race”.  Retrieved from:
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

Boundless.com (2014).  Genetic and Environmental Impacts on Intelligence.  Retrieved from:
https://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psychology-textbook/intelligence-11/measuring-intelligence-62/genetic-and-environmental-impacts-on-intelligence-243-12778/

Nisbett, R. E. (2007).  NYTimes.com: All Brains Are the Same Color.  Retrieved from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/opinion/09nisbett.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

Racialreality.com (2011).  African IQ and the Flynn Effect.  Retrieved from:
http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2011/11/african-iq-and-the-flynn-effect.html

Rushton, J. & Bogaert, A. (1989).  1989 Population Differences in Susceptibility to Aids: An Evolutionary Analysis.  Class handout.

Stein, P.L. & Rowe, B.M. (2014). Introduction to Human Evolution and Prehistory.  United

States of America: McGraw Hill Education.

            In-Text Reference: (Chapter 15: The Evolution of Homo sapiens, pgs. 362-386)

Weiss, R. (2005). Washington Post.com: Scientists Find a DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin.  Retrieved from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html

 

Spotlight on Students: Gender Comparisons

The following post features work produced by students of my Anth 101: Introduction to Cultural Anthropology course.  These students were tasked with comparing the gender identities, norms, roles, beliefs, values, etc. between two cultures: their own and one from a list of provided.  These are the exemplary pieces composed by my students.

Cami Crazier

Although many societies have three or four gender identities, Sharyn Davies argues that there is fifth gender among the Bugis people of Indonesia. With the most known gender identities: male and female, the Bugis people also have the calabai, calalai, and bissu. The  calabai are biologically male people whom take on the role of a women. In contrast, the calalai are biologically women whom take on the roles of men, although rarely seen publically. The bissu take on the roles of both males and females (Bailey 2013). Because many gender identities exist in the Bugis culture, gender norms, values, identities, and roles are expressed differently from the aspects of the American culture.

In the Bugis culture, gender is not based on one’s biological matter. Instead, gender is based on one’s own choosing in appearance and how they want to be perceived by others. No matter which gender the individual chooses, each will have a specific role in the community. For example, the calabai are responsible for the weddings. Sharon Davies (2010) explains "[t]he calabai will be responsible for many things: setting up and decorating the tent, arranging the bridal chairs, bridal gown, costume for the groom, and the entire wedding party." A bissu's role is to give blessings of protection and safety to the people. They attend and can take charge of events such as birth or death. Occasionally, they must show the people that they have a connection to the spiritual world (Bailey 2013). Also, the bissu's attire must be symbolic to both male and female necessities. The calalai are less accepted in their community and tend to usually hide their identity because of their lack of economic and social power. Despite this exclusion of the calalai in acceptance, the Bugis culture believes all of the five genders must exist in order to have harmony and balance in the world (Nanda and Warms 2013).

In America, gender identity is mostly viewed and based on an individual’s biological status. Anyone who dresses oppositely from their sex is usually excluded in society. The two main genders are men and women. Men tend to be the ones who can live on their own and use logic to solve problems. They are constantly into sports, unorganized, and unattached to the world. On the other hand, women are viewed as weak, emotional, and crazy. They are expected to look their best at all times and are assumed to be good at arts. A woman is expected to find a man and live as a "domestic goddess" while the husband protects and provides for the family.

While these two cultures have their differences in response to gender, both cultures have similarities, as well. For example, America has become more open to the concept of same-sex marriage and has legalized it in over 30 states. Similarly, the Bugis have many genders; therefore, same-sex relationships are encouraged.

In my opinion, gender is so widely different between these two cultures because of the way history has shaped each of them over time. America's aspects of gender could have been influenced by the early colonists while the Bugis were influenced by their ancestors. I have learned that gender does not have a clear definition. It is something that is perceived. I was unaware that there were more than three gender types prior to this research. I wonder that my lack of these other genders was due to American culture. Also, I have realized that America should become more open to the concepts of gender like the Bugis people are. Rather than excluding the ones that go against the American cultures stereotypes of gender, America should be more accepting because we are all human.

 

Works Cited 

Bailey, G. James Peoples Essentials of Cultural Anthropology, 3^rd. Ed. Cengage Learning, 2013.  

Davies, Sharyn Graham. Gender Diversity in Indonesia: Sexuality, Islam and Queer Selves                        (ASAA Women in Asia Series), Routledge, 2010.

Nanda, S. Warms, R. Cultural Anthropology, Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.

 

Knowing Right From Wrong: A Review of Key Anthropological Ethics

Ethics.  It’s a big term, but what exactly does it mean?  Ethics are standards that regulate right and wrong conduct (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).  Ethics are different from morals & laws.  Ethics are formal rules of conduct, typically objectively (meaning without bias, without a personal motivation/personal gain) reached, and meant to apply generally to a variety of different situations. 

Morals, on the other hand, are often personal, based on subjective (often biased), culturally specific rules or guidelines.  For example, there are different cultural ideals out there in regards to what is considered animal abuse.  In American culture we believe it is morally wrong to eat dogs as it is considered a form of animal abuse.  In some cultures it is perfectly acceptable and normal to eat dogs and not viewed as animal abuse.  There are other cultures, however, that believe that dogs are vermin and can be treated as such, and therefore any treatment of dogs is considered neither abuse nor kindness.

Laws are also formal rules of conduct, but they are political in nature, meaning that a small group/party came up with the rules that may or may not be agreed upon by others, and maintained by a judiciary force (police, judges, lawyers, etc.).  Laws also vary by culture and within culture, as well.  For example, in United States, there are different traffic laws depending on which state you are in.  In Missouri it is illegal to wait in the middle of an intersection to turn left, whereas in Illinois it is legal as long as you have a solid green or yellow light while your car is stopped in that intersection.

To demonstrate the differences among, morals, laws, and ethics, let’s do a quick exercise.  Based on the image below (Figure 1), what would be the moral, lawful, and ethical responses to this image?

Figure 1: Topless woman in NYC (Image Source: RYOT.org)

There are several different moral, lawful, and ethical responses to this image, but I am going to pick one for each.  A moral response to this image may be that nudity is bad based on religious grounds.  A lawful response may be that it is illegal for a woman to go topless in public.  But an ethical response, again being the objective & formal rules, to a woman going topless may be that it should be up to each individual to decide how they wish to present his or herself and his or her body in public-be it clothed or unclothed.

Anthropological ethics are a necessary and integral part of anthropology and anthropological research for a variety of reasons.  Today’s blog post is dedicated to the discussion of anthropological ethics as they affect and relate to all four subfields of anthropology.  This post will explore the origins & purpose of anthropological ethics, the top three ethical responsibilities that apply to all anthropologists-regardless of subdiscipline, and the sources of anthropological ethics for each subdiscipline.

The origins of anthropological ethics can be attributed to what anthropology is: the holistic study of human beings from both a cultural and biological perspective.  Because anthropology is the study of people it can and unfortunately has been utilized for inexcusable purposes.  Early anthropologists, like many scholars in a variety of social and hard science disciplines, utilized anthropology for either their own personal or national gains.  During World War II European archaeologists were tasked with legitimizing the goals of the Nazi regime.  Over a century ago American cultural anthropologists were tasked with learning about American Indian cultures and languages in order to learn how best the US government could manipulate these groups.  And physical anthropologists throughout the 1700-1800s utilized biometric analyses (measurements of the body) to identify and characterize body parts & proportions that could be used “to predict” deviance, but they only recognized features that they believed were consistent with minorities as being evidence of deviance.  These anthropologists were not necessarily bad people, but they were influenced by the dominant perceptions and their own cultural values, which drove them to conduct and produce prejudicial research.  Therefore, anthropology, like many disciplines, has ethical standards in part to avoid making the same mistakes and continue poorly developed research methods that were commonplace in the past. 

Anthropological ethics, however, are more than a fail-safe to make up for past transgressions.  They are also present as they aid in guiding and enhancing research agendas.  The ethics that exist for all anthropological pursuits actually build in guidelines and responsibilities of anthropologists that if used properly provide for more robust research and results.  So while many anthropology students and some anthropologists will bemoan the ethical requirements of their subdiscipline these ethics are very useful and beneficial.

So what are some of the ethical responsibilities that are applicable to all four subdisciplines of anthropology?  I have identified three ethical responsibilities that apply to all the subfields.  Please note that these three may be different from those identified by other organizations or individuals.  These three were collected from the American Association of Anthropology website and actually combine several of the top ten anthropological ethics that the organization identifies.

Anthropological Ethical Responsibility #1: DO NO HARM!

Every anthropologist must consider the impacts of one’s research, both positive and negative, and how each can affect the group(s) under study.  The positive impacts are not necessarily a primary concern, but it is the negative, particularly the harmful consequences to an individual’s and/or culture’s dignity, body, and property, that must not only be considered but avoided at all costs.  Anthropologists have to take care considering not just the obvious and immediately negative outcomes but any latent, unexpected effects that may occur due to or through the course of the study.      

Sometimes, anthropologists will take an advocacy approach to their research and/or research goals.  Generally the advocacy approach is a newer and vogue direction that appeals to many anthropologist & anthropological studies.  Advocacy is a noble goal, but it still falls within the do no harm responsibility because anthropologists must remember that the advocacy must be on the group’s/groups’ terms.  Although the anthropologist(s) may believe that he/she/they know best it is ultimately the decision of the group/groups in regards to what they feel they want and/or need when it comes to advocacy decisions.   

Anthropological Ethical Responsibility #2: ACQUIRE INFORMED CONSENT & PROPER PERMISSIONS!

Prior to conducting research anthropologists must ensure they have received both informed consent and proper permissions.  To get both of these trust is key, and the anthropologist must be open and honest with all parties in order to receive both informed consent and proper permissions.  Informed consent is the agreement sought by scholars from community members to take part in research (Gezon & Kottak).  This is typically acquired by the individual(s) being studied or worked with through the anthropological research.  Proper permissions are applied beyond the individuals and include receiving permission to conduct the research from governments/governmental organizations and local scholars.  Anthropologists may be required to receive permission from the national and/or local governments prior to beginning research for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to guaranteeing the safety of anthropologist(s) and community members, allowing foreigners (e.g. the anthropologist[s]) to legally enter the country (typically through appropriate visas), etc.  And local scholars need to be informed of the research in order to not replicate studies that were already completed and/or facilitate collaborations between local and nonlocal scholars, which often times leads to enriched research. 

Anthropological Ethical Responsibility #3: ACCESSIBILITY & RECIPROCITY!

All anthropologists are expected and required to make their research results accessible, not just to peers but to the public and especially the group(s) involved in research (be it the groups that were directly studied or worked with in the course of the research or those who are closely related to the groups studied or worked with).  Anthropologists meet this goal by completing a variety of tasks, including presenting at conferences, publishing in peer-reviewed journals (in order to ensure value-free and objective research), speaking at public lectures, and more.  Anthropologists must also make sure that the research results are made available to the groups most likely to be affected by the results, which is completed by publishing and/or presenting in the host country and in their preferred language. 

Reciprocity is related to the point made under the second ethical responsibility, and this simply means that whenever and wherever possible that anthropologists must include local colleagues and individuals in the research and work being completed.  This establishes collaborative relationships with local scholars and local groups, which takes the shape as sharing in authorship in publications and disseminating research in appropriate ways. 

It is important to note that ethical responsibilities noted herein are by no means exhaustive.  There are several more ethical responsibilities that are applicable to all anthropologists, regardless of subdiscipline, but there are several that pertain only to specific subdisciplines.  Each subdiscipline has a standard international, as well as several national and regional, organizations that preside over and maintain the standards of the subdiscipline.  The American Anthropological Association is the overarching organization that focuses on all four subfields, but other organizations, such as the Society for American Archaeology, Archaeological Institute of America, American Association of Physical Anthropology, Canadian Association of Physical Anthropologists, and the Society for Linguistic Anthropology (to name just a few), focus on the standards and guidelines for specific subdisciplines.  These organizations are also responsible for revising and updating ethical standards are necessary and as the political and social climate of the world changes.  As such, anthropological ethics are continually changing in order to meet the needs of all groups around the globe, and all anthropologists working within the discipline.

Works Cited

American Anthropological Association Ethics Blog

Gezon & Kottak.  2012.  Cultural Anthropology.  McGraw-Hill

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy