"I am whatever you say I am"

Particularly in American culture, we perceive things in a certain light. Most of the older generations find gauging, expanding your ear piercing, to be disgusting; but in younger alternative generations and circles, it represents a certain social standing, and is a way of expression. In light of Richard Miner's assessment of the Nacireman body rituals, where they poke, prod and defecate for certain reasons, the thought is gag invoking. However, even though the 'Holy-Mouth-Men' are honored and respected, Miner points out how we assume cruelty involved in their rites; "One has but to watch the gleam in the eye of a holy-mouth-man, as he jabs an awl into an exposed nerve, to suspect that a certain amount of sadism is involved. If this can be established, a very interesting pattern emerges, for most of the population shows masochistic tendencies." (Miner, 3) In relation to American culture, where going to the dentist is torturous, the idea of making yearly visits with an incurable eagerness seems downright imbecilic. However, though the American norm is to pay notable attention to the mouth, most enjoy skipping the dentist, and picking up a four buck bottle of whitener, and maybe a packet of floss, which we'll ignore after about four days of excessive use.
In relation to Miner's piece, we can look at Australia's apology to its aborigines. "We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians." (A.A., 1) Even if we think the treatments involved in Nacireman rites are cruel and sincerely unusual, we cannot think to measure them by what our socially constructed ideals of personal care are; because what's important to them might not seem right to us, we can't make them change, or it'd be just like when we forced out the Native Americans, or when the Trek-Boers in Capetown tried to change the Xhosa into believing their religion was worthless (it ended up obliterating a whole culture). In the Australian Apology, the government apologized for treating the Indigenous peoples of Australia as if they were a plague, and their inclinations toward certain practices were not worthy of preserving.

" A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.

A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.

A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country," (A.A., 1) We can look at Australia's Apology as a way to interpret the Nacirema culture, and not judge so heavily on the things that differ between us but as we are all people, and we can learn from each other. Novel ideas, combining with some tradition can help move everybody forward, with respect to most cultures still intact.

However, there is another facet of Miner's piece that is barely touched upon. Most of what Miner discusses is the interaction between men, mouths, sacred vessels, and excrement; what he doesn't explain is the interaction of women and the holy-mouth-men. "Female clients, on the other hand, find their naked bodies are subjected to the scrutiny, manipulation and prodding of the medicine men." (Miner, 3) What exactly is he getting at? Women in the Nacirema culture seem to have double standards (Maybe men of every culture tend to want women two ways; "a lady on the streets, but a freak in the --") "When pregnant, women dress so as to hide their condition. Parturition takes place in secret...women do not nurse their infants." and "General dissatisfaction with breast shape is symbolized in the fact that the ideal form is virtually outside the range of human variation. A few women afflicted with almost inhuman hyper-mammary development are so idolized that they make a handsome living by simply going from village to village and permitting the natives to stare at them for a fee." (Miner, 4) This is reminiscent of Sarah Baartman's case in France. "But it’s clear what Dunlop had in mind – to display her as a “freak”, a “scientific curiosity”, and make money from these shows, some of which he promised to give to her." (Davie) I would like to see more about this idea of "freak" looks and understand the curiosity for why some people are considered to be freakish based on a look outside the normative ideology.

I also had some questions about the holy-mouth-men, from Miner's paper. Are the holy-mouth-men subjected to yearly visits from other holy-mouth-men? What does it take to be a holy-mouth-man? Can holy-mouth-men carry, or do they? Intercourse is taboo, but I'd be interested in seeing the take on gay or lesbian love in the Nacireman society.