# data[].attributes.body
An anthropological account of the events should be purely objective in nature. In this sense, it would be important to document the events in a descriptive manner and perhaps also expand these factual and objective descriptions to explain the cultural significance of the event. By tying in cultural significance and exploring motives of several different groups (those involved, news, government, tourists) it would be possible to see a more holistic perspective and better understand the events and their effect. An idealized account assigns catch phrases to events with the main goal being attraction of clicks in news articles (CNN said "tribal warfare had broken out on the island", for example) and typically only explores one perspective or side in the situation. Using moderate vocabulary and approaching different perspectives would allow for a more holistic picture of Sumbanese culture.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson is using ethnography to explore the idea of a divide between those members of the middle class and the poorer residents of Harlem. His focus is to explore class varied relationships and their impact on those involved.

# data[].attributes.body
Hoskins takes a broader, almost more historical, approach. She doesn't explicitly mention people she has spoken to or include any interviews, relying solely on her narrative approach to explaining the culture. Jackson, on the other hand, essentially relies solely upon interview, which makes up the majority of the chapter we read. This approach feels much more personal and makes the reader feel more connected to the ethnography, the participants, and the cultural ideas themselves. Hoskins' approach reads more like a textbook in the sense that it is impersonal, making the reader feel somewhat detached from the material. There lacks a personal connection which I don't think detracts from the study's validity, but definitely detracts from its readability. Meanwhile, Jackson's work is very personable but also lacks the historical and more 'factual' base that Hoskins emphasizes.

# data[].attributes.body
Zobel describes early American anthropologists as "picking the moccasin flowers" because they held nonreciprocal relationships with the culture experts among indigenous people. These people who assisted anthropologists in their work were not credited and sometimes written about in poor light. I think the five cases presented provide great examples of the idea of "picking the moccasin flowers" as the anthropologists involved merely harvested information from the culture and people without giving back in any way. After the flower is picked, it can't be replanted, and it no longer benefits its environment. Savage Kin is an excellent play on words. It is a two way street, poking at past instances where natives were labeled as savages, and reminding that, in fact, the anthropologists here can also be seen in that light.

# data[].attributes.body
Anthropology is as close to a science of humanity as we can get. Scientific papers rarely use the kind of hyperbolic language used to describe the November 5 happenings; anthropology should be held to the same standard. The language used should be descriptive, but hyperbole should be avoided. Proper context must also be provided. By including the perspective of the people actually involved in the events, as well as setting the battle into perspective by describing both the events leading up to it and the aftermath, we can get closer to a holistic picture of this aspect of Sumbanese culture,

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson is using ethnography to get at the invisible barrier dividing the black middle class from the black lower class. His goal is to see how class divides affect class relations, and to get at the ways in which class cultures feed off each other.

# data[].attributes.body
To me, Hoskins' work seems to have benefitted from a broader, more objective lens. As a Classics major, I very much appreciate it when academics link past events to future realities, and Hoskins does this to great effect, particularly in the earlier parts of her paper. Jackson, by contrast, seems to rely largely on the experiences of one individual, rather than focusing on the greater historical narrative that's helped shape the cultures he's examining. It certainly makes his work more readable thank Hoskins', but it also reads to me less authoritatively as a result of the relative exclusion of the wider view. That's not to say it's not authoritative--it is--but methodologically, Hoskins' work is much more compelling.

# data[].attributes.body
"Picking the moccasin flowers" seems to refer to the one-sided relationship between the anthropologists and their native subjects. It is the anthropologists, not the people they're dealing with, who benefit from the studies conducted. If I were to pick a moccasin flower, I'd get to show it off to my friends, maybe even receive some form of acclaim for the cool flower I've plucked. The flower, however, has been pulled from the ground and will shortly wither away. There's no reciprocity in our relationship--it's all for my benefit, and the flower is simply a token. An excellent example of this concept applied to humans can be found on page ix. There, the book mentions non-native researchers who collected "sensitive materials" from native people by claiming to be "kin." In the resultant findings, natives generally went uncredited. The name 'Savage Kin" could therefore be understood as referring to the designating by non-natives of natives as "savages" and, at the same time, the rather savage behavior by early anthropologists of claiming wholesale credit for their research into foreign cultures whose willing participation in their studies was crucial to their findings.

# data[].attributes.body
"Picking the moccasin flower" could be seen as an individualistic act. There is no regard for the ecosystem surrounding the flower (the fungus and the bees) and there is no true regard towards the believes of the native peoples. Picking the moccasin flower could lead to no further reciprocity within the ecosystem (a non-sustainable practice), as well as no reciprocity from the Little People who wear the moccasins and grant wishes and lead to healing herbs.

Early American anthropologists were picking the moccasin flower because the type of relationships they held with subjects were non reciprocal. They were harvesting knowledge and mostly taking credit for work that wasn't solely their, it had been a team effort, but credit wasn't given were it was due. Many times it wasn't only knowledge, but also artifacts that were extracted. This abuse and misuse of trust between anthropologist and research subjects is the same as picking the moccasin flower.

The title of the book Savage Kin, refers to how disturbing, harmful and ruthless men can be. And yes I am referring to early American Anthropologists. Savage might have been a word used to describe the subjects they were studying, but taken from the natives point of view, it was the researchers who were acting in a savage manner.

# data[].attributes.body
An anthropological account of the events of Nov. 5th, 1998 should include accurate descriptions of the events that occurred that day. While in a prescriptive account, mentioning that the media regarded it as "tribal warfare" could be a starting point, it shouldn't be for a descriptive account. The idealized prescriptive account would feed the ideas that Sumbanese culture is filled with dangerous battled with bloodshed and fatalities  While it would be important to state that conflict did occur, it would be important to mention the reason and latter accurately describe it as a political conflict instead of tribal warfare. A descriptive account should have included the local's perspective, recounting the event and probably not even included the word "tribal" since it isn't used for the region.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson is trying to disprove the narrative that different African American classes do not mix socially and instead promote the idea that class stratification makes relationships more complex. Using ethnography, he is able to explore the question of how residents of Harlem interact with members of other classes and what factors make their relationship work versus which create a barrier between them.

# data[].attributes.body
An anthropological account would make use of emic concepts in order to accurately convey the lived experience of the people being described. This requires that the anthropologist describing the events of November 5 already have strong background knowledge of Sumbanese culture through long-term immersion. The account would also need to be shown to and approved by people who experienced these events both during the research and the writing process in order to establish reciprocity. An idealized, prescriptive account, by contrast, leaves out Sumbanese voices entirely and expresses their experience in a way that caters to a tourist’s own preconceived notions of their culture. For example, the depiction of that day as a display of “tribal warfare” over-simplifies the event and does not include any context from the perspective of someone involved. Instead, it feeds into preconceived notions of a cultural background of “tribal” violence.

# data[].attributes.body
Hoskin heavenly relies on both a indirect quotation style and a free indirect style. Her approach appears to be broader and feels more objective. While she does not tend to directly quote what someone said (or who said it), she does merge the historical and the narrative to create an informative ethnography. An example of this can be seen on page 807 when Hoskin describes a local tour guides experience leasing tourists around the southern coast. It was a mixture of paraphrasing the conversation as well as incorporating cultural knowledge (it isn't clear if this was a the tour guides or Hoskins).

Jackson's writing heavenly relies on direct quotations, excerpts of conversations and his participants experience. While his approach doesn't include as much historical context as Hoskin does, it is still descriptive and provides a qualitative insight into the culture being examined. While this style was a more pleasant read than Hoskin's, I'm wondering if maybe the narrowness without providing much more context would make this study less valid.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson is using ethnography to explore interclass dynamics within black communities, he is writing against the narrative that black America's classes are divided and isolated from one another. He argues that there is overlap between them.

# data[].attributes.body
A descriptive, anthropological account of the event would provide proper cultural context and meanings surrounding the ritual in addition to describing what happened. The anthropologist should disclose their relation to the subject and its culture to ensure a fair assessment of the event (and any shortcomings of their observations). Without examining the event in conversation with other cultural values, norms, and understandings, it is easily skewed by the audience's own biases. A prescriptive idealized account does just that, it presents the event in isolation as a full representation of the culture—painting the Sumbanese as violent and primitive for continuing to engage in "tribal warfare". It lacks the nuance surrounding the ultimate goal of the ritual, and its significance to its culture, catering to tourists' desires to witness/experience exoticism rather than opening up a discourse on cultural practice past the spectacles of it.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson is attempting to combat the narrative that there is a clean social barrier between upper class Black Americans and their lower class counterparts. His research question can be described as "How do middle class Black Harlemites negotiate their social interactions between class lines?"

# data[].attributes.body
Hoskins frames her work with a broader historical survey of the Sumbanese people and land. Throughout her piece, she sets up a narrative surrounding the metal boxes myth that she has encountered, and uses that to center an argument about how the community identifies and perceives foreigners. She strongly relies on summarizing sentiments of various groups/figures (such as 'mothers', 'tour guides', 'backpackers') that interact with each other without specifically naming them or attributing exact quotes. Additionally she includes external sources to frame outsider understandings of sumbanese, providing quotes from tourism websites/guides and media outlets. Overall, Hoskins examines the Sumbanese with a wide lens that is constructed through a comprehensive understanding of its history and cultural norms, rather than a personal relationship with particular individuals.

In Jackson's chapter, he clearly has close relationships with each of his subjects, pulling direct quotes from them that reflect their personal opinions on their own social lives. Many of them speak to him casually, allowing him to attend their birthday parties, basketball games, walks around the neighborhood, etc. Their speech reflects a certain comfort with speaking to him, they use slang and reference other friends and life events in their conversations. Even if Jackson's side of the interview isn't provided, the reader can assess that he understands how to talk to his subjects and how much they trust him. At one point, Dexter even says that he views Jackson as an inspiration to him. These intimate interactions that Jackson provides insight into provides strength to his study. Jackson appears to be conducting his research as a member of the community and a friend, rather than an outsider source. As his writing unfolds, it becomes clear that am outsider would not be able to do the same research justice, as it requires a deep understanding of the structures that frame the social interactions in the community.

# data[].attributes.body
The moccasin flower is a symbol of reciprocity within Mohegan tradition. This is because it requires the contributions of bees, fungus, and the moccasin flower plant in order to grow. This life cycle is reflective of indigenous attitudes towards building mutualistic, respectful relationships with others and nature. Picking the moccasin flower demonstrates a disrespect towards the collaboration put into creating it, and the Little People that are said to live within it.

Early American anthropologists often gained access to natives that provided a plethora of knowledge to them for their research, hoping to establish a relationship of kinship between them. Instead the American anthropologists exploited these sources of indigenous knowing by selling their artifacts for capital, denying them credit for academic contributions, and/or speaking on behalf of indigenous communities. Through denying indigenous communities reciprocity in their relationships, they are destroying the moccasin flower, by failing to acknowledge the significance of true and respectful collaboration.

The title Savage Kin uses the term 'Savage', which is historically used to dehumanize people of color as animalistic or uncivilized, and redirect its meaning towards the American anthropologists and the poor treatment of their subjects. It forces the reader to de-center their understanding of the word savage, and analyze the racialized connotations it holds.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson uses ethnography to write against the narrative that the Black middle class and lower class do not interact. His research question focuses on how and in what circumstances interclass relationships form and how these relationships affect Harlemites.

# data[].attributes.body
A descriptive, anthropological account of the events of November 5, 1998 would define the events using an emic an approach.  The account would portray the events using the terminology of the peoples from the Lauli region and the Weyewa region.  In addition, this description would be mindful of revealing both the participants and the researcher’s role in the writing process.  A descriptive approach would not obscure the true motivations behind the events by using language like “tribal warfare” or “traditional groups” that can primitivize local cultures.   Hoskins reveals how a prescriptive account, such as that used by the Sumbanese government, reduces the political clout of these local peoples by suggesting their actions were emotionally driven, veiling the political reason behind their protest. A descriptive account would seek to give these peoples a platform to express their own intentions.

# data[].attributes.body
There's a barrier between lower class and middle class African American.

What's the causation, impact, and implication of a middle-lower class barrier within the Black Community?

# data[].attributes.body
Hoskins mostly use this kind of scholarly, objective, and explanatory voice throughout his piece, where he summarizes all his findings (including observations, interviews, and researches) into a genre with a taste of "research report". His vivid discription and in-depth  finding makes this more engaging thought. For Jackson, he uses a completely different approach. He tells several stories, weaving back-and-forth with each other. He employs storytellling and a more personal, subjective voice to compose his work. We can easily spot his emotions, thoughts, and wonders. This is similar to Narayan's work.

However, when personal thoughts and emotions come into play within an ethnography, biases are unavoidable. In this scope, Hoskins's, more objective work, seems to be more scientifically convincing and valuable. But, this "emotionless anthropologist" figure also greatly limits the breadth and the depth of the study. Hoskins is more like a observer, carefully observing everything happening (though he have many interactions) on the island, staying a distance with the locals while Jackson and Narayan are actually JOINING the community they're researching, gaining a unprecedented vision of certain unique culture.

# data[].attributes.body
Hoskins mostly makes use of indirect quotations and free indirect style to provide a broader overview of Sumbanese culture in which she brings in the viewpoints of other ethnographers, tour guides, travel writers, historians, and Sumbanese people themselves. Though she frequently includes passages from books and articles, she seldom uses direct quotes from people, and when she does, they’re not usually attributed to a specific person. For example, when she quotes Sumbanese mothers jokingly offering her their children on page 801, she blends multiple quotes she’s heard from different people together. Meanwhile, Jackson’s piece makes frequent use of specific conversations he’s had with individual people. Direct quotes show the real connections he makes with those he interviews; for example, Paul confides to him “They don’t understand me. They don’t know what I like” on page 109. Jackson also uses free indirect style to make conclusions from his interviews. You could argue that both studies are valid, but that while Hoskins’s objective style of writing provides more of a matter-of-fact and holistic survey of Sumbanese culture, Jackson’s shows a deeper level of integration with his subjects of study and perhaps therefore provides a clearer picture of the trends he observes.

# data[].attributes.body
A descriptive account of the events on this date, and any other date for that matter, would best be served by long-term immersion that really dives into the culture and emic concepts of the people and place. The account of the events on this date really just glosses over everything that happened. There is no context given, simply that it is just "tribal warfare." To stop at this conclusion without any sense of real understanding is never going to bring you to a holistic picture of events and tends to brutalize actual events with headlines.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson is using this ethnography to dive into the seeming divide between lower class and middle class black communities. His point is that this is not so much a divide as it is just two sides of the same card.

He is looking at people's lives in Harlem to see how they balance their connections to both sides and the impacts that has on them and their community.

# data[].attributes.body
Hoskins uses an almost unattached point of view for her writing. She likes to write from a narrators perspective where she can give a more broad overview for something that would otherwise be a massive piece of work. I find this a little ironic because she is writing about how others summarize and headline sumbanese culture too much painting it in a bad light.

On the other hand, Jackson writes his ethnography from his own shoes. He writes about the interactions and feelings that he personally has with the people he is writing about and studying. It almost feels like he isn't studying them and just simply living with them. A strong contrast to Hoskins.

# data[].attributes.body
Early Indigenous American anthropologists were... to put it matter of factly, kind of the worst. They did whatever they felt was necessary to extract the information or artifacts that they wanted. All without considering the people and taking their perspective into account at all. This is similar to the moccasin flower because as it is picked for its beauty, it must die. Simple as that. The life and wishes of the flower aren't being considered just as the Indigenous people.

The book title is summed up by Zobel in this passage. "our Indigenous ancestors were too quick to trust. During the era of salvage anthropology, when natives embraced non-natives as collaborators or kin, they lost much of their cultural wholeness."

# data[].attributes.body
A descriptive anthropological account would have a tone that's objective between the parties, in this instance the two neighboring tribes, and deliver a detailed and informative account of the events. On the contrary, an idealized, prescriptive would possess more personalized and subjective information about that same event. To join the two methods would result in a more holistic picture of the Sumbanese culture because knowing the personal accounts (primary sources) along with the build-up of events from either party will help researchers and readers empathize with the two parties more and to fully understand how both parties are and will be effected.

# data[].attributes.body
Much like picking the moccasin flowers shows disregard for the kinship between plants, animals and humans, early American anthropologists plucked aspects of Native American culture such as their artifacts and research for themselves without recognizing natives’ contributions. For example, Arthur Parker, in selling sensitive objects from the Abenaki storyteller he married without giving her credit for her contributions to his work, did not reciprocate her effort in any way; rather, he simply took what she had to give like a person would pick a flower from the earth. Other anthropologists misrepresented tribal histories because they failed to ask for verification on their claims, showing a clear lack of reciprocity. The title “Savage Kin” implies that by trusting these anthropologists so quickly, Native Americans submitted themselves to unequal collaborations in which their “kin” displayed savage behavior in unabashedly taking their materials and work while labeling them themselves as savages.

# data[].attributes.body
An anthropological account would be more interested in the reason behind the event and sympathetic to cultural nuance, while an idealized, prescriptive account would attempt to portray the account in whichever way suits the author. The idealized, prescriptive account must be subjective in its narration of the facts as well as unbiased when trying to draw conclusions from the event.

# data[].attributes.body
Hoskins relies primarily on free indirect quotation in her approach to writing up her participants’ remarks.  While Hoskins does present us with some direct quotations prefaced by an identification of the speaker or source, such as he “reported that…” or “the brochure explains this as…”, she inserts a screen of objectivity between herself and her research participants (Hoskins, pp. 809 and 816).  By avoiding inserting her own voice or portray herself in the research process, Hoskins ethnographic research comes off as more general and lacking in distinct voices.  Likewise, her ethnography reveals a tendency to rely on paraphrasing and summarizing the arguments and sentiments of groups.  This is especially present in Hoskins’ description of the role of photography for both tourists and the Sumbanese (see Hoskins, p.813).
Jackson’s ethnographer, however, lies in the opposite category, as he relies on direct quotation.  I found Jackson’s approach more compelling than that of Hoskins.  First, Jackson recognizes the moments when his subjectivity or personal bias arises.  For instance, he recognizes that he saw or noticed certain details, but cannot be sure whether this was the perspective of his research participant (see Jackson, p.99).  Examples like these reveal that Jackson does not feign objectivity but recognizes his role in the research process.  In addition, when Jackson provides direct quotations, he contextualizes them by providing details such as the question posed, location and body language.  Furthermore, he describes some of the details that lay unsaid.  For instance, he recognizes that his research participants did have class-stratified relationships but may “not have been willing to call them friendships” given the context of “formal, tape-recorded interviews” (Jackson, p.94).  In general, Jackson’s approach felt more compelling and representative of his participant lived reality as he contextualized and qualified their arguments.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson uses ethnography to write against the over-simplistic narrative that relationships among African American middle class and lower class are divided by class.  In writing this narrative, Jackson seeks to answer how class differences influence interclass relations and how these relationships function in Harlem.

# data[].attributes.body
It symbolically represents the taking of the Native's culture (the mocassin flowers) for the anthropologist's to misconstrue and disrupt the nature of the histories being told (represented with the fungus and fauna as the stories/storytelling and history of the culture that is disturbed, ruining their "ecology"). I believe the book is entitled Savage Kin because it represents how the kinship built with these past anthropologists are savage in that they write their own interpretations of the Native's culture and writing these people as barbaric and unintelligible people when in fact that's all relative to their white-supremacist, imperialistic anthropological approaches.

# data[].attributes.body
The events of November 5th, 1998 would follow a more anthropological account if the perspective of the Sumbanese people was taken into account. This would require a long-term immersion into the Sumbanese culture and a deep understanding of the biases of news outlets like CNN. Most importantly, an anthropological account would need to center the voices of the Sumbanese people. In order to make sense of Sumbanese culture and the events of November 5th, there must a descriptive account of not only on Sumbanese people but also those are trying to understand it.

# data[].attributes.body
For an account of an event to be truly anthropological, the writer needs to be committed to providing an accurate and holistic description, which requires them to not push a certain angle on the event and rather explore the context and purpose using cultural relativism. The passage describing the events of November 5th caters to tourists by promoting the “tribal fantasy” through glorification of violence and leaving out the cultural history and meaning behind the event. The intent of the passage seems to be more for entertainment rather than informational. To make it a more holistic picture of the culture, the account must read as factual rather than dramatic and provide more background to the event.

# data[].attributes.body
In the indigenous worldview, plants, animals and people share a collaborative kinship.  Likewise, biologically, the moccasin flower relies on a reciprocal collaboration between the flower, a fungus and bees to develop. Indigenous people used this example of reciprocity to teach the role of collaboration and the role of multiple kin communities.  Similarly, Mohegan tradition, specifically teaches children not to pick or transplant these flowers. picked.  With this in mind, Zobel relates the ethics of early American anthropologists, in their dealings with the Native American peoples whom they were researching, to "picking the moccasin flowers."  Not only does the "picking the moccasin flowers” convey to the lack of cultural relativism among early American anthropologists, but it expresses the extractive and one-sided research ethics of these anthropologists.  Zobel presents striking and cruel example of this non-reciprocal relationship between anthropologist and informant on page x, as she details how Franz Boas used the tradition of marriage and his personal wealth as a position of power from which to obtain information on the Tlingit culture.  He subsequently used this information to disparage his informant’s culture.   The title Savage Kin plays on the inequitable history of nineteenth anthropologists who preyed on vulnerable Native gatekeepers whom they falsely claimed as kin for the purposes of extracting elements of their culture.  The word savage in this context inverts nineteenth century depictions of Native Americans as savage; when the “many silences…are set a right” through Bruchac’s research, these anthropologists appear as the “savages”.

# data[].attributes.body
A descriptive, truly anthropological account of the events of Nov. 5th would be holistic and consider the perspectives of the Sumbanese people, rather than just presenting a side of the story appealing to tourists. An idealized, prescriptive account lacks objectivity, which is why Hoskin could have gone beyond describing this “tribal warfare” as a violent act and done more to provide cultural context disproving this event as “tribal warfare”. This would have ensured that her account accurately represented the intentions of the Sumbanese people, who were ultimately the people she was observing.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson uses ethnography to disprove the idea that Harlemites don’t interact across socioeconomic lines by posing the question, how do Black Americans form and maintain class-varied relationships?

# data[].attributes.body
Hoskins relies heavily on indirect quotations and free indirect quotations, which allowed her to develop a broad, historical account. She pulls quotes from many different sources, but rarely cites someone specific. For instance, when describing the reactions that locals had upon her arrival in Sumba, she doesn’t provide anyone’s direct words , which makes the read seem impersonal. Hoskins’ observations, though, are all grounded by what seems to be a more objective, and thus very valid.
Jackson, on the other hand, relies almost entirely on direct quotes from interviews and embraces a more personal approach. The entire chapter was very descriptive, which I appreciated because it was an interesting read, but it may have also kept Jackson from creating a more holistic study. The personal connections between Jackson and the participants was very evident, which added qualitative value to the study.

# data[].attributes.body
Moccasin flowers represent a relationship of respect and reciprocity in nature. Flora, fauna, and fungi all contribute to the existence of the delicate flower, so the act of “picking a moccasin flower” is a violation of this relationship.

Early American anthropologists similarly violated the relationship they had with the indigenous people they researched. They took advantage of the knowledge they gained for their own professional and economic gain and denied credit to those who contributed to their research. An overall lack of respect characterized their relationship with Native Americans.

The immorality of early American anthropologists can be defined as savage, a term often used to dehumanize indigenous people. “Savage Kin”, the title of Bruchac’s book suggests that the application of the word savage is better fit to describe the extractive behavior of early anthropologists.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe Jackson is writing against the notion that people do not have serious relationships across class lines. I feel he develops this question: do people have serious relationships across class lines, and if so, how do they perceive these relationships and how do these relationships affect them?

# data[].attributes.body
Hoskins seems to rely most on her own interpretation of events and relays them secondhand, whereas Jackson often shows his exact dialogues with the people he is researching. For example, when Hoskins describes the cause for the event in 1998, she says, " The event certainly did involve tensions between regions, but the precipitating incident was hardly traditional: The people from Lauli argued that the Regent of West Sumba, who came from Weyewa, had listed several Weyewa people as having successfully passed the examinations necessary to enter the civil service, when in fact these people had not actually taken the tests. So these were charges of governmental favoritism, the political nature of which was somewhat obscured by official language referring to "tribal conflicts," apparently stemming from deeply atavistic tendencies rather than legitimate reasons to challenge improper procedures."
An example of Jackson providing his dialogue is when he is mentioning Paul's opinion on who his friends are and why. He writes:
"John: Tell me more about your friends. Who are they, and what do they do?
Paul: I hang out with people at work. People at the gym where I work out. People who do what I do or go places where I go, and they are mostly pretty well-off, I guess. We can relate to each other.
John: Why do you think that is? That you hang out with people from work?
Paul: We relate. You share things with people that have experienced some of the same things. You know what I'm talking about? That is important. You won't agree on everything, but you have things in common.
John: Things like what?
Paul: The job for one. Things you like to do. They'll be people you went to school with. You have those things in common. Or you just happen to do the same work."
I feel that Jackson's approach of letting us examine the evidence first-hand gives him more credibility.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson is examining the conceptions about class divisions within Black American communities, and challenging the previous assertion that the Black middle class is socially isolated from the "underclass" by asking his participants about their social and familial relationships and determining how they formed and what their significance is to the participants.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson is using ethnography to challenge the narrative that there is a clear cut between the social networks of wealthy and poor Black people.
His research question aims to examine the implications that the intersectionality of race and class have on the social networks of Black people in America.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson is directly challenging past research on Black people and inter-class relationships amongst low- and middle-class black people. Specifically he mentions he wants to investigate "class-varied relationships to see how people describe them. Where and when were they formed? Do they create particular problems for social navigation? What do they mean to and for the people involved" (Jackson, 94).

# data[].attributes.body
Hoskins takes the approach of using mainly indirect quotations and free indirect references to her participants' words, while Jackson relies strongly on direct quotations from his participants. For example, on p. 808, Hoskins uses many phrases in quotations to indicate that she is borrowing words and descriptions from the Sumbanese, but does not directly attribute any of them. Jackson, meanwhile, inserts transcriptions of excerpts from his conversations, such as on p. 97. These choices, in my view, grant greater validity to Jackson, because I feel less that I am "taking his word for it," so to speak, and more that he is presenting the evidence as directly as possible for his audience to examine as well.

# data[].attributes.body
Hoskins relies more on the objective, yet holistic approach to her writing style and methodology by capturing the facts that are documented and the oral accounts of the history (indirect and free-indirect quotations), as well as capturing the suffering of her people as byproducts of colonialism and slave trading by specifically detailing the distinction between the islanders identity between each other (dawa bali and dawa jawa) (Hoskins, 801). Jackson is using direct quotation and is directly quoting the conversations he's having with his subjects for example with Paul's "peops" and the low-key vibe and conversational tone making it more compelling to continue to read the rest (Jackson, 92). To the question of validity, I don't think there's an issue with either because invalidating the oral accounts and indirect quotations, that are believed in that society, deems harmful to the importance of studying the Sumbanese culture. Additionally, if the argument of validity is based off of the oral accounts and bits and pieces of stories Hoskins picked up, a lot of other past anthropological discoveries would be deemed insufficient such as ruins or the oral historians of pre-1800 Africa.

# data[].attributes.body
Zobel's use of the moccasin flower metaphor illustrates the ways in which ignoring or dismissing cultural knowledge in the name of research can actually lead to the destruction or degradation of the very thing being studied. An example of this is Zobel's account of anthropologist Franz Boas, who, upon learning the locations of sacred sites, excavated them for personal gain rather than leaving them intact.
I would guess that the title "Savage Kin" is a reference to indigenous belief systems which place plants, animals, and other beings within the same kinship structure as humans. But the use of the word "savage" also indicates the Western skew of anthropologists, who may have viewed Native communities as similar to their own, but more "savage."

# data[].attributes.body
Zobel first brings up the example of the flower as a nice metaphor for humans having to coexist with other humans and "non-human-beings", entailing the need for reciprocal relationships. She then compares the Anthropologists' non-reciprocal relationships with natives to the picking of these flowers because traditionally, the Mohegan people would not pick the flowers because that would be disrespectful to and harm the "Little People."

# data[].attributes.body
Hoskins takes an almost "divine" point of view where her accounts of ethnography seem very objective. By removing herself from the picture, she aims at creating a study that is valid upon historical context and big-picture accounts. In this way, Hoskins makes use of indirect quotation and free indirect style of writing, as seen on page 807 where she vaguely describes the difficulties the local tour guide had with explaining to local people why Western visitors wanted to visit tabooed places.
On the other hand, Jackson takes advantage of the rapport built with many of the people he interviews. The use of direct quotations hones in on the idea of reciprocity. Not only does he immerse himself in the field, but he clearly shows what what going on. This aspect of direct quotation validates the experience of those studied because we hear their voices, which, thus, validates the study itself.

# data[].attributes.body
An anthropological account should adequately describe the intentions behind the rituals, as well as the actions of the game itself. In the latter account, the writer fails to note that while the games are dangerous, there is no real intent to kill. It also does not debate how likely a story such as this one is to be true, but presents it as solid fact.

# data[].attributes.body
Hoskins frequently uses free indirect style when sharing her participants' views. This is evident in her introductory paragraph when she says, “the most common fear was of white headhunters, who would come in the dry season and raid villages to steal children.” (979) Throughout her writing, her voice continues to merge with those of the villagers, which is a stark contrast to Jackson’s approach of regular direct quotation. Often he will introduce his participants' ideas and then use a direct quote, clearly labeled who it is coming from and what the context. This is evident on page 90 when he smoothly transitions from his voice to another’s: “Peers and peops stand in as proxies for different members of his multiclassed world: Paul: I mean, I don't know how different they are. Just makes me feel more comfortable.” Jackson’s approach gives more credibility to the participants point by giving an authentic voice with first hand experience, therefore making the idea more tangible to readers.

# data[].attributes.body
The "picking of the moccasin flowers" is emblematic of the ignorant practices of American anthropologists. The process, and its cultural meaning, of creating a moccasin flower shows the value of collaboration amongst Indigenous people. When these moccasin flowers are picked, they represent the ways in which American anthropologists disregard the essence of reciprocity and respect.
Bruchac's book is entitled Savage Kin because it shows the exploitation that American anthropologists perform on Indigenous people. A kin is defined as someone's family or relations, and when that kin is savage, it demonstrates the extent to which a reciprocal relationship is really a one-way street for anthropologists.

# data[].attributes.body
Native Americans choose not to pick moccasin flowers due to their respect for nature as well as other people. Zobel sees picking moccasin flowers as comparable to early American anthropologists behavior, as their actions often disregard cultural significance for personal gain. In many cases, they also take away from the Native Americans, whether it be a physical object or taking away intellectual property. An example could be the Native American researchers who were overshadowed by their white partners or the displacement of Native American Artifacts.

The title Savage Kin highlights the irony in how Native Americans are often portrayed as savages, yet the early Anthropologists were the cruel, unsympathetic ones. Similar to Hoskins stories of Vampires and Dawa Mbellas, the title highlights how the white people in the situations often do not see themselves as bad or evil when others do.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson is examining the socioeconomic rift between middle class and lower class African Americans living in Harlem. His aim is to see the similarities between the two communities.

# data[].attributes.body
An objective account would involve an interpreter to relay both sides' account of the conflict. It would also involve a detailed record of events and would avoid attaching labels such as "tribal" warfare, "conflict over resources," or "primitive people." This account would document both sides in a conflict equally and would attempt to understand the way of life of those involved. Understanding their living situations, life styles, and traditions can help us understand important contexts behind current events.

# data[].attributes.body
Hoskins relies on a narrative approach to telling the story of Indigenous Nations. She broadly narrates the events that unfold and retells the conversations almost like a story. While this approach seems more objective it indeed hides the voices of the very people she is attempting to portray.Perhaps utilizing quotations and conveying things in the Natives' own voice would have better allowed them to relay their own stories. Jackson, on the other hand, portrays information in its raw form. It almost makes the reader feel as if she is present in the interview. This allows the reader to also take in the information from its primary source, and interpret it uniquely with a little bit of guidance from Jackson. However, we all have biases, and seeing the way someone speaks (using expletives, informal phrases, etc.) might lead us to make subconscious judgements about them. Recognizing that fact and understanding our own biases might help us read and understand others with less subjectivity.

# data[].attributes.body
A descriptive, anthropological account of the events on Nov 5th, 1998 would give as objective as possible and holistic, allowing space for the Sumbanese residents involved in the fight to present their side of the story. It would include the politics behind the fight, why it happened, and the consequences of their actions.

What's being excluded from the idealized account is the nuance of the situation. The Sumbanese culture is advertised in travel brochures as primitive and tribal, so the idealized account about "tribal "warfare" removes any sort of nuance from the situation and describes the fight as nonsensical and without reason. The only side given by the news is what the tourists and Western world saw, which is 2 groups of "primitive" people fighting each other. Instead, voices need to be given to those within the conflict for a holistic picture of the culture.

# data[].attributes.body
Zobel likens early anthropologists' dealings with NAtive Americans to "picking the moccasin flowers" because it is an excellent metaphor of how the anthropologists siphoned off important information from Native Americans without offering anything beneficial in return. Without these Native peoples, anthropologists would not have enjoyed the success they had in their field, and yet, they didn't even credit the Natives for the information they obtained. The moccasin flower takes up to a decade to grow from a seedling into a plant, and picking the flower kills it immediately as it cannot be replanted. In this way, the beauty of the flower is exploited while disregarding the age and history of the plant. In a similar fashion, anthropologists reaped information from Natives and took away the beauty of learning about different cultures and in turn disposed of the very people they were studying and disregarded their history. Savage Kin is a way to illustrate the prejudice view of Natives as primitive tribes without realizing the essence of kin within their traditions and way of life.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson is using ethnography to write against the over-simplified notion that middle class Black Americans are socially isolated from their working class counterparts.

I believe his research question to be "How do Black Americans in Harlem navigate the complex social interactions between different socioeconomic class relationships?

# data[].attributes.body
Hoskins relies mostly on paraphrasing her participant's remarks and attributing the remark anonmyously or in group-speak language. For example, on page 798, Hoskins says, "They told me that foreigners with metal boxes were associated with the (supposedly white) drivers of the ABC delivery trucks that traveled along the roads of Sumba." Referring to the participants as a whole as rather than giving direct quotations is Hoskin's general writing approach. This approach has an effect of distancing her from her participant's culture and describing them from a small outsider position. It helps with objectivity to a certain extent, making Hoskins feel more scientific, examining a culture through a lens, but makes the study feel less personal overall.

On the other hand Jackson largely relies on direct quotation of his participants, describing the situation that these quotes are received in and providing nuance to the quote. For example, on page 89, Jacksons says, "Paul sits up purposefully as he speaks, checking his watch periodically for Laura's imminent return from the store. Paul: So, it can be easier to let my two parts stay apart...." This approach helps the studies' validity by providing direct quotation from participants, and then interpreting them afterwards, allowing for the reader to interpret the statement themselves. This approach also helps validity by presenting a personable approach to ethnography, demonstrating his understanding of the world and culture through the various interactions he has with Black Harlemites.

# data[].attributes.body
Zobel likens early American anthropologists to "picking the moccasin flowers" by their blatant disrespect for the Native American people's culture and beliefs. Like the moccasin flower, Native American culture is beautiful and delicate, working with the environment and other people (fauna/fungi) to create its beauty. However, American anthropologists completely disregard this delicate beauty and rip it from the ground for their own uses, rather than respecting the Mohegan traditions. I believe Bruchac's book is titled Savage Kin because of the way that Indigenous people believe that nature and humans are their kin, no matter where they come from. American anthropologists took advantage of this, stealing their culture, traditions, and beliefs that were freely given to them with respect, and using it for their own devices savagely.