Read more
Klappentext Taking Sides volumes present current controversial issues in a debate-style format designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. Each issue is thoughtfully framed with Learning Outcomes, an Issue Summary, an Introduction, and an Exploring the Issue section featuring Critical Thinking and Reflection, Is There Common Ground?, and Additional Resources . Taking Sides readers also offer a Topic Guide and an annotated listing of Internet References for further consideration of the issues. An online Instructor's Resource Guide with testing material is available for each volume. Using Taking Sides in the Classroom is also an excellent instructor resource. Visit www.mhhe.com/takingsides for more details. Inhaltsverzeichnis Unit: Biological Anthropology Is Race a Useful Concept for Anthropologists? YES: George W. Gill, from "Does Race Exist? A Proponent's Perspective," NOVA Online, 2000NO: C. Loring Brace, from "Does Race Exist? An Antagonist's Perspective," NOVA Online, 2000 Biological and forensic anthropologist George Gill argues that the concept of race is useful because races-conceived of populations originating in particular regions-can be distinguished by combinations of external and skeletal features. The concept of race is especially useful for the forensic task of identifying human skeletons. The notion of race also provides a vocabulary for discussing human biological variation and racism that can be understood by students. Biological anthropologist C. Loring Brace argues that distinct races cannot be defined because human physical features vary gradually (in clines) and independently from region to region, without sharp discontinuities between physical types. He says races exists in people's perceptions but not in biological reality. In his view the peculiar historical pattern in which Native Americans, Africans brought to the United States as slaves, and European immigrants largely from northern Europe artificially makes it seem that these three groups form distinct races. Are Humans Inherently Violent? YES: Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson, from Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 1996NO: Robert W. Sussman, from "Exploring Our Basic Human Nature: Are Humans Inherently Violent?" Anthro Notes, 1997 Biological anthropologist Richard Wrangham and science writer Dale Peterson maintain that male humans and chimpanzees, our closest nonhuman relatives, have an innate tendency to be aggressive and to defend their territory by violence. They state that sexual selection, a type of natural selection, has fostered an instinct for male aggression because males who are good fighters mate more frequently and sire more offspring than weaker and less aggressive ones. Biological anthropologist Robert W. Sussman rejects the theory that human aggression is an inherited propensity, arguing instead that violence is a product of culture and upbringing. He also rejects the contention that male chimpanzees routinely commit violent acts against other male chimps. Sussman regards the notion that human males are inherently violent as a Western cultural tradition, not a scientifically demonstrated fact. Are Female Primates Selected to Be Monogamous? YES: David M. Buss, from The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating, Basic Books, 1994NO: Carol Tavris, from The Mismeasure of Women, Simon and Schuster, 1992 Evolutionary psychologist David M. Buss draws on evolutionary theory to argue that humans like other primates have been shaped by evolution. For him, one key aspect of our evolutionary past is that male and female humans have evolved to have different evolutionary desires. Men desire multiple sexual partners, whereas females seek protection, security, and proven fertility in their mates. In this view, female...
