Is Eating Apple Seeds or Cherry Pits Safe

Eating apple seeds, peach seeds, or cherry pits is controversial. Some people believe the seeds and pits are toxic because they contain a cyanide-producing chemical, while others believe the seeds are therapeutic. Have you eaten apple seeds or cherry pits? Did you experience any effect from eating them? Here are some readers experiences: Have Had Apple seeds and Cherry Pits As a child I was told it was good for me to consume the whole apple, including the seeds. As a result, I often did so. Whenever I got my hands on a peach, nectarine, plum, or apricot, I would suck and chew on the pit until it finally split in two and I would relish the floral and nutty-tasting center. Delicious! Nobody ever warned me and I was never hurt because of it. The cherry pits I swallowed were accidental. Fast forward to adulthood and I was shooting the breeze with a toxicologist who told me the saying an apple a day keeps the doctor away actually only applied if the person consumed the entire apple, including the seeds. The small amount of cyanide in the seeds was supposed to create a hostile environment for pathogens, thus keeping the doctor away. Of course, you were only supposed to do this once a day. As a child I didnt limit myself to one a day when these fruits were in season. Just passing through Johnny Appleseed Ate Them ...and I will eat them, too. Just turned 69 yesterday, and apple seeds got me here. They taste good and I have never had a problem. I have never eaten them without the rest of the apple but I wouldnt be afraid to if I had cancer. Apple Lyn More Than an Apple Most are confused, but you would need to eat more than a cupful of apple seeds in a day to get poisoned, and you can slowly adapt to them and not get poisoned as easily. Cherry pits are only poisonous in the inside of the pits. Help Perspective I have eaten many cherry seeds for therapeutic reasons, as suggested in a book by the 12th century nun Hildegard of Bingen. I had a mild headache once or twice but usually nothing. In regard to them being poisonous, lets put this into perspective: There are hundreds of naturally occurring poisons in foods we eat every day. Caffeine is a poison, caffeic acid is a carcinogen. Broccoli, turkey, peanut butter, and many other plant and animal foods contain poisons and carcinogens. The dose makes the poison. Dave More Afraid of Mammograms I read in a book about a gentleman who was imprisoned for dispensing to people peach/apricot pits (the inside kernel). He had cancer himself and ate many, many apple seeds to treat himself. He had great success and so did the people he treated. I also am concerned about the amount of radiation in mammograms. and the repeat mammograms that are so often done because they are difficult to read. Radiation can cause cancer and here we have breasts pressed hard, but that is another subject. I have refused to have my third mammogram in seven months due to them saying they are unsure of the reading. Just something to consider. I have eaten apple seeds, a few here and there. They do have a slight almond taste. I am still alive, yes. but I thought it would be interesting to tell of the man (I wont release his name) who ate many of them, like 45 apples worth. His mom got the apples out of the garbage and made a pie, and he was still alive after. Jakki Apple Seeds I have eaten a few apple seeds in smoothies made using whole apples. In my opinion, they tasted pretty nasty, but I didnt suffer any ill effects. It takes somewhere between a half cup and a cup of seeds to poison you; your body can detoxify small doses. I dont think I would eat cherry pits or peach seeds, which contain much higher levels of the chemicals. Cooking the seeds inactivates the toxins, so they can be used in recipes without harm. gemdragon Cherry Pits I suddenly got a craving for cherry pits and apple seeds. I had breast and chemo cancer last year. Maybe there is something going on. I had no knowledge of them containing cyanide until I read info here. Chemo is the worst poison imaginable. Ill never do it again, but Ill listen to my body. DideeB Cherry Pits I once swallowed one, only one, cherry pit. But I did eat almost an entire bag of cherries, too, the same day, without the pits. The next day I was sick and vomiting. It was gross. However, once it was all out, I was fine and went back to eating cherries. Nylon Apricot Seed I ate an apricot seed just once and it gave me an instantaneous splitting headache. Never again will I eat apricot seeds. Angharad Dosage Is Key If you take small amounts of seeds over time, you build up a tolerance. If you have never eaten seeds of cherry or apple before and suddenly eat a whole bag of them, you could get quite Ill. So dont just think because people have done it for years its OK to jump right in. Like anything that can be healthy, overdosing suddenly is not good. The body learns to adjust and needs time and practice to do so. Eli Cherry Stones I am a teenager and I love cherries. I always eat all the stones—unless, of course, we are having a stone-spitting contest. I an doing well and I eat like a whole bag when we buy them. No side effects whatsoever. Shay The Pits I am 56 years old and have been eating the seeds of cherries, apples, pears , watermelon, etc. I have never experienced any side effects from doing this.So who are you going to believe, the people or the doctors who are on the side of the pharmaceutical companies? I think I will take my chances and continue to do as I have always done. Rita Time Will Tell I started eating apple seeds earlier this year and Ive noticed that they give me a lot of gas but thats the only side effect for me. Mzansi Apple Seeds If you eat the apple seeds, you might prevent, or even cure, cancer, and that would put the pharmaceutical companies out of business. Do not believe everything you hear and read, especially from them or the government. They taste like sweet almonds. They are loaded with vitamin B17, which you cannot find anymore. Do you know why you cannot find vitamin B17? Because it cures most forms of cancer and other diseases. It would put the pharmaceuticals out of business. Jo Theres a Reason Those Pits Are Spit Out I knew that swallowing cherry pits could be fatal, but I figured that if that was the case, then how was it they were still being sold, if not for the pits not containing all that much poison? And in that respect, I was right. But, a few days ago I caught a cold, and I thought that juice would remedy it. The only juice I could get, though, was from cherries—whole cherries. Long story short, I mustve eaten 15 to 30 of the little pits, and, call it the cold or not, but I felt very feverish in the stomach for a while afterward. Paolo Exaggerated Warnings Cherry and apple seeds do have cyanide in them, but not enough to cause harm. A full-grown adult male would have to eat at least a cup or more of seeds in a single sitting to notice any problems. A cup of seeds eaten throughout the day, however, will show no effects at all. Lisa 5 Apple Seeds a Day Keep the Doctors Away I chew and swallow the seeds from one to two apples per day (four to 12 seeds total) with no negative symptoms, but Ive noticed that possible precancerous areas on my 54-year-old sunned arm have sloughed off dead skin and are appearing normal. Hmm. The cyanide is supposedly only released in the presence of a chemical that cancer cells contain. Nature is wiser than man. Dana-x Idiots You seed-eaters are weirdos. Those arent meant to be eaten; thats why theyre encased in a hard shell and/or a core. Brandi Apple Seeds and Cherry Pits Arent Poisonous Out of laziness throughout my life, rather than spitting out the cherry pit, I just swallowed it. I am 57 now and healthy as a horse. Gayla Apricot Seeds It cures cancer. Theres lots of vitamin B17 in the seeds of apricots. I ate apple seeds all my life and Im 60 years old. Linus Yes, I Eat Apples Sometimes I eat the seeds and spit out the apple. Red fuji Apple Seeds? No Problemo I grind through the whole apple like a garbage disposal. The only part I dont eat is the twig that sticks out the top. I am still alive; Ill keep you posted when i die. Red fuji Cherry Brandy, the Wrong Way Drinking homemade cherry brandy, in which whole cherries, including pips, were soaked in brandy and sugar for two years, was a mistake. After two weeks of approximately one-third of a glass at bedtime each night, I developed acute headaches and high blood pressure. A strong overtone of almond flavor in the liqueur finally rang my alarm bells. Next year Ill remove the pips before making the liqueur. Dissily Mordentroge Mr. Positive Yes, I eat apple seeds. No, I have never had negative reactions. Jan van de Linde Apple Seeds I love apples. I always have eaten some seeds since I was a child. I love chewing on them after the apple. They tasted delicious and gingery. Im over 30 and still alive and completely healthy. Ive never felt any of the mentioned side effects thereafter. If they were really poisonous, I would think you would probably have to eat more seeds than you could probably get a hold of to feel an effect or actually die from it. heathers_rose Very Sick As a Child From Cherry Pits When I was a young girl, around the age of a Brownie but not yet a Girl Scout, my family bought a big bag of cherries. That night my mom, dad, brother, and I sat around the television and ate them all. Middle of the night I vomited cherries until the early dawn and continued to vomit well after my stomach was clear, dry heaving with a very, very high fever. My mother took me to the emergency room or doctor, I dont remember exactly, and I could not walk the loooong walkway into the hospital. I kept falling down because I had no use of my legs. She did not believe me, so I suffered and dragged myself into the building. It was horrible. All I remember next was suffering very hard in my bed, unable to move or get up, and my mom coming in and checking my fingernails every once in a while. I was so sick I think I was literally dying and I asked her if I was going to die, and of course she said no, but I still wonder maybe. Anyway, I recovered. Make sure your kids never swallow those pits. R. Sargent Apple Seeds I bite the apple seed, remove the shell and eat the inside. I usually eat about an apple a day and have my whole life without any problem. I love the seeds and have been told mixed opinions about whether or not theyre harmful. Hannabel Peach Seed I just opened the inside of a peach pit, and there was an almond-like nut. I decided to try it and it tasted pretty good. I heard its poisonous, but i doubt it. John Doe Cherry Pit I ate a cherry pit and I was scared at first. I started reading things on here. and if it has to do with just vomiting then Im OK, but my stomach really hurt, so I never will eat one again, even if they taste good. idk Cherry Pits As a child I grew up on a farm eating a lot of cherries with pits instead of dessert or a meal, one or even two pounds. I love cherries as well as apples and never had any issues or got sick from it. I grew up that way and even now Im eating the pits. Azra Watermelon and Apple I have eaten watermelon and apple seeds all my life. Theyre delicious and are actually healthy. I asked my doctor when I started reading about it being unhealthy. As a nail biter I was trying to quit and I just chewed on seeds instead of on nails. Alice Power Food With Selective Toxicity Therapeutic toxins? Pit contents may create an intolerant environment for life-destroying, malevolent attackers such as cancer and its pathogens (viruses, bacteria, prions, fungi, or protozoa) naturally to protect the seed while it grows to its fruition. But for a very sick person, eating the seed might hurt or kill him or her trying to kill the disease. But for a healthy person, non-radiated seeds may help protect health. I have always eaten pits long before I knew it was considered poison, as we had little food growing up and waste was out of the question. I always trust myself enough to not eat something that will kill me. Actually, what isnt poison if you eat too much of it? Just dont overdo it, or do it if you are really sick, as anything that can bust a tree out of a tiny hardwood shell must be powerful. I have high respect and am intrigued to no end at the power of a seed or pit. Denise Just the Inside of the Pit When I was 5 I was hungry and I used a stone to crack open the cherry pits I found on the ground after the birds ate them. I was hungry often. I ate lots of them, so many I went into a coma and my kidneys were bleeding. It almost killed me. Liz More About Eating Apple Seeds or Cherry Pits While I didnt have space to post all the responses to this question here, I have published other replies on my blog. Youre welcome to read those responses and to post your own experience.

Hotel Rwanda By Terry George - 975 Words

Possibly the saddest and most tragic event that occurred in the last few decades was the genocide of the Tutsi population in Rwanda by the Hutu led government and Hutu people of the same country. Hotel Rwanda by Terry George is a film adaption of the experiences of a Tutsi hotel manager Paul Rusesabagina who sheltered and kept safe several thousand Hutu refugees during the genocide. This film clearly portrays its major themes such as ethnic conflict, the lack of human rights, and many other social and political issues. At the core of all the issues presented the underlying driver of the conflict has to be the blatant ethnic prejudice and the fight for political power. The Tutsi and the Hutu ethnic groups have always been at odds with each other ever since Belgium took over Rwanda and placed the Tutsi minority in charge citing physical features that were thought to make them appear better looking and desirable. Tension had long existed between the groups in Rwanda partially because â€Å"the Tutsi aristocracy ruled by force, and the army was its main instrument of power. Only Tutsi males were specially trained to be warriors† (Magnarella 803). Both of the groups were raised believing they were far superior to their opposite and this truly created a caste system which breaded hostility and hatred toward others. Throughout history when you view the most devastating man made conflicts there is always one key primer and that is animosity, this animosity is often triggered andShow MoreRelatedAnalysis Of Hotel Rwanda By Terry George880 Words   |  4 Pages Hotel Rwanda is the cinematic telling of the systematic genocide that occurred in the spri ng of 1994 in modern Africa. It depicts the boiling point of tense relations between two ethnic factions the Tutsi and the Hutu. The movie directed by Terry George, and starring Don Cheadle as Paul Ruseasabagina portrays the struggle of survival Paul endured as he sheltered over one-thousand refugees in a hotel to avoid the slaughter. The film employs the use of elements to convey the violent genocide thatRead MoreAnalysis of Hotel Rwanda directed by George Terry1178 Words   |  5 Pages This paper is an overview for the movie Hotel Rwanda. The movie is set in 1994 which reflects the situation in Kigali, Rwanda where the genocide occurred between people with different tribes. The film by George Terry also shows whether the role played by the international organization which is United Nations (UN) is effective in order to control the conflict that has killed a lot of people and the concern of the world about the incident. The history and relationship between Hutu and TutsiRead Morehotel rwanda966 Words   |  4 Pagesgenocide rampage that swept through Rwanda, Africa in 1994. Hotel Rwanda, a film directed by Terry George in 2004, is a story based on the tragedy that occurred ten years prior. The massacre is a result of the Hutu tribe’s prejudice and discrimination of the Tutsi tribe and the world’s lack of intervention. George’s depiction of the event is less about the massacre itself though because of his choice to portray it from the view of Paul Rusesabagina, a Hutu hotel manager married to a Tutsi woman. Read MoreHotel Rwanda Cultural Analysis1114 Words   |  5 Pagesshare and connect to each other. This paper evaluates the culture families and their developmental competency in the movie, Hotel Rwanda. Description of Movie Family Hotel Rwanda is historical drama movie that was released in the year 2004 based on the Rwandan genocide. The film was directed by Terry George, with the script written by both Keir Pearson and Terry George. The movie starred Don Cheadle as the hotelier Paul Rusesabagina, and Sophie Okonedo as his wife Tatiana (Anthere, 2005). TheRead MoreJustice By Michael J. Sandel898 Words   |  4 Pagesthat people have a choice in who they’re obligated to with humanity having top one priority. While my sense of loyalty is a mixture of critics and modern liberals, in the situation in Rwanda, I mainly applied the modern liberals views when accessing the situations. The United Nations Assistance Mission For Rwanda was a United Nations attempt to implement the Arusha Accords, which was meant to end the conflict between the RPF and Hutu dominant government. However, once Habyarimana was assassinatedRead MoreMovie Analysis : Hotel Rwanda1519 Words   |  7 PagesThe based on a true story trademark of the film Hotel Rwanda has implications for genocidal memory, post genocidal peace and reconciliation, and the promotion of heroism amid the udder chaos that engulfed the country. The film ultimately illustrates an oversimplified, ideologically driven version of the 1994 massacre. It emphasizes the role of a Hollywood hero, rather than the deeply rooted and complex factors at the center of the violence, leading to popular opinion of the Hutu population as barbaricRead MoreHow Is the Theme of Genocide Presented in Hotel Rwanda and the Boy in Striped Pyjamas?2309 Words   |  10 PagesHow is the theme of genocide presented in Hotel Rwanda and The Boy in Striped Pyjamas? The Official Oxford English dictionary defines genocide as the `deliberate killing of a very large number of people from a particular ethnic group or nation. It also is said as a holocaust. Holocaust is the great or complete devastation or destruction or any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life and it is normally referred to the genocide of the Jews that happened during the period of 1939 to 1945.Read MoreHotel Rwanda vs. Erin Brockovich1660 Words   |  7 PagesWays to Murder Thousands of People Hotel Rwanda and Erin Brockovich are two provocative films that take a look at separate deviant acts but still present similar dangerous social problems. The conflicts that are portrayed are different in the means of operation but both share a similar end with the endangerment of thousands of people. We will examine how these deviant decisions affect both their societies and the reasons behind these atrocious acts. Hotel Rwanda is a very graphic film filled withRead MoreEuropean Colonists and Africans1018 Words   |  4 PagesFearing the weakening of their power, the Belgians began to support the Hutus, the underprivileged ethnic majority of Rwanda rather than the Tutsis, the privileged ethnic minority that were slightly â€Å"more Caucasian† than the Hutu. Envious and enraged by the dominance of the Tutsi in the past, the Hutu blamed the Tutsi for the increasing social, economic, and political dissent in Rwanda following the departure of the Belgians. In addition, the Hutus believed that the Tutsi thought they were raciallyRead MoreTaking a Look at Hotel Rwanda600 Words   |  2 Pagesreceived from the Tutsis, they did not even initiate themselves to come help the Tutsis. This is viewed as such a bad thing that they did due to them obviously not being all together and apart of the same group because they did not even go to help Rwanda when they claimed that they would be the ones to h elp keep peace between everyone. It took a long time for the UN to actually step in, this is inferred through the movie and the 100 days that the genocide lasted, just think if the UN would of stepped

Repatriation and Reburial Issues with Native American Ancestral Remains free essay sample

Repatriation and Reburial Issues with Native American Ancestral Remains Desiree Berrios Professor Brian Bates Archaeology April 2, 2012 Repatriation and Reburial Issues with Native American Ancestral Remains Repatriation is the return of human remains or sacred objects or objects of cultural significance to the individuals, groups, or nations that the archaeological finds belonged to. Part of Repatriation is the reburial of the human remains that originally were archaeologically excavated. There is a movement on repatriation involving the native people’s right to the archaeological finds. Also laws have been enacted worldwide to deport artifacts and human remains back to the original owners, for example the NAGPRA in the United States. Repatriation and the reburial of human remains modern day issue mostly focusing around Native Americans in the United States. The main worry of repatriation is that it has changed modern archaeological excavations with Native American human remains and many policies supported the rights of Native Americans. For years, American archaeologists excavated precious Native American Indian burial grounds and other holy archaeological sites removing artifacts and human remains. These remains were either placed in storage facilities or simply archived and not even studied further. This removal of artifacts to American Indians is morally unjust and discourteous to the history of Native Americans. While American Indians attempted to prevent excavations on their ancestors’ land, western archaeologists argued that the expansion of knowledge was a valid reason to continue their scientific research. Although protective procedures exist like the NAGPRA, there is still an issue with the respect of burial rituals for Native American tribes and the need for expansion of academic knowledge through studying the Native American remains. In the early 1990s, Western society had a problem with grave looting to gain archaeological evidence of historic sites because of this, authorized practices of assembling, analyzing, and displaying Native relics and cultural artifacts in museums by harsh excavation methods, like the decapitations of slain Native warriors these methods that were practiced had no consideration of for Native Americans. Although these thieves had been taking valuable tangible history, they did not take into account traditions that are well known with the indigenous peoples of the United States of America. The artifacts in the museums were often labeled wrong or incorrectly told of Native American tribes practices in their history. These ridiculous excavation practices did not provide correct or justified scientific analysis or long-term curation of skeletal remains (Bray 59). So basically the scientific knowledge gained from these excavations was useless and not accurate in gaining any new knowledge of Native American culture. The deep culture and history being stolen from Native American tribes had been persistent until repatriation instilled a federal â€Å"zone of contact† between Native people, archaeologists, and museums, to allow descendants to emphasize and establish the relations to artifacts unearthed (Bray 64). The United States recognized the repatriation movement, and addressed historical injustices done to Native Americans pertaining to their ancestral history. Also the United States restored the cultural and legal legislation of human rights that had been taken away from Native American Indians (Riding In 358). Despite the laws passed to prevent these issues of human rights; American Indian nations differ not only among themselves over matters of being related by cultural association with a particular set of remains uncovered, but also with museums and members of the scientific community over the respectable treatment of the deceased related to their kind. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), was created to address this problem of unethical excavations of holy Native American sites. Passed in 1990, it aspired to achieve a negotiation by restricting the privilege of research organizations to retain human remains. NAGPRA demands that federal organizations and institutions that receive federal funding to return Native people’s cultural items to their respective peoples (Mihesuah 9). Also, this includes the National Museum of the American Indian Act (NMAIA) passed in 1989 which gave the Smithsonian Museum the rights to obtain inventory on Native American burial artifacts in its compendium and contemplate the repatriation of certain artifacts to federally recognized tribes (Legal, 1990). Such cultural items include, but are not limited to: sanctified objects, funerary items, human remains, and articles of cultural heritage. NAGPRA also institutes a program of national grants that aids in the repatriation practice and sanction the Secretary of the Interior to evaluate civil punishment on museums that disobey. Currently, it is the most secure federal regulation concerning to indigenous remains and artifacts (Mihesuah 10). A few archaeologists openly recruit the assistance of aboriginal peoples which are possibly descended from those under study. Numerous native peoples believe natural features such as terrestrial and aquatic characteristics as well as individual trees to have cultural significance; which help archaeologist understand their excavation sites more clearly. This way archaeologist are required to re-examine what comprises an archaeological site of what native peoples may consider to be constituted as sacred areas. This collaboration is effective to archaeologist but presents a number of obstacles to fieldwork with new excavation challenges, but it is ultimately beneficial to all groups involved. Tribal elders coordinate with archaeologists to prohibit the careless unearthing of areas considered sacred and in return the archaeologists attain the elders assistance in interpreting his finds (Dumont 113). Since these laws were previously not around, reasons for the creation of NAGPRA and other laws regarding safety of excavation of human remains became necessary to discover true information about Native American tribes in America. The State Statutory Law states that only regulated and protected graves that have been marked are protected however most of the time, Native American graves are unmarked and therefore these laws could provide no protection. Common Law failed to recognize distinctive Native American customs having to do with burial rituals for Native American marked grades. So the First Amendment protects religious beliefs and practices, but racism unbelievably prevented the rights of Native Americans; their burial practices connect deeply to the religious values and traditions. When the tribal dead are violated, disturbed or retained from burial it becomes evident that religious beliefs and practices are being disregarded. As a sovereign body, Native Americans possess exclusive rights, foremost to their affairs to be controlled by their own laws and customs. The relationship among people and their dead is an internal affiliation; therefore one that is best empathized under the autonomous rule of that tribe. From the emergence of the United States government and tribe relations, the tribe maintained a right unless deprived of to the US government in a mutual agreement. Therefore, the United States government has no right to disorder Native American graves or their dead since it has not been permissible through a treaty (Dumont 116). However, even today not every state has legislation regarding reburial or repatriation laws, although state reports are common in procedural archaeology. Most reports note â€Å"reburial and â€Å"repatriation† have different meanings. In such reports, â€Å"repatriation† pertains to the legal process of turning possession and accountability for human remains and grave goods over to another individual. While â€Å"reburial† involves the legal necessity or the manual act of placing or entombing human remains in a designated area, such as a cemetery. â€Å"Graves protection† is the legal regulation established to prevent the desecration, devastation, or disturbance of sites where late human bodies have been placed (The Law, 2003). Still, ancestors of Native Americans and American citizens must not get deceived into a misleading understanding of justice when thinking that NAGPRA has balanced the relationship between Native peoples and the United States government. In the end, reburial and repatriation have been a burden on archaeology for many years, putting Native Americans against archaeologists and archaeologists against one another. The conflict revolves around one central issue; which is whether archaeology’s privilege on human rights and articles of cultural inheritance as scientific expansion of data overshadows Native American ethics and beliefs based on ancestry and cultural attachment of the tribe. For example, a major case study in American archaeology dealing with the troubles of repatriation revolves around the discovery of the Kennewick Man. The skeletal remains of a prehistoric man were found in 1996 on a bank of the Columbia River in Kennewick, Washington. Since it was one of the most complete ancient skeletons ever found, the discovery of this man was substantial. There was a nine year legal battle between the federal government and Native American tribes who argued the Kennewick Man was their ancestor. However it has been ruled that the Kennewick Man could not be genetically justified in allowing scientific studies of the remains to continue because there is no cultural link between any of the Native American tribes to his DNA taken from his bones. As stated by NAGPRA, if human remains are found on federal lands and a connection of a cultural link to a Native American tribe can be established the associated tribe can claim them; unfortunately this was not the case for the Umatilla tribe. The Umatilla tribe was diligent in their cultural rights so they appealed for guardianship of the remains, to bury them according to tribal tradition. The Umatilla tried to make their case by arguing that their oral history goes back 10,000 years and affirmed that their people have been present on their historical territory since the beginning of time (Thomas 95), so an administration claiming that the Kennewick Man is not Native American is basically the government’s rejection of the tribe’s religious beliefs. Additionally, researchers aspiring to examine the remains challenged the Umatilla’s claim. Eight anthropologists then took legal action against the United States of America for permission to perform trials on the skeleton. Soon the court jury declined the appeal brought by U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Umatilla, Colville, Yakama, Nez Perce, and other tribes on the foundation that they were unable to show any verification of kinship. The remains are still legally property of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, since they were discovered on the organization’s land (Bonnichsen, 2004). Another example of the moral issues with repatriation was the legal battle that was over Ishi, the last member of the Yahi tribe. He is alleged to have been the last Native American in Northern California; after spending much of his life educating archaeologists and anthropologists about his tribe’s traditions, Ishi died of tuberculosis in 1916. The archaeologists he had been working with to expand knowledge about his tribe’s native customs arranged a burial ceremony in what they knew of the Yahi way: they cremated his body with burial goods, including one of his bows, five arrows, a basket of acorn meal, a boxful of shell bead money a purse full of tobacco, three rings, and some obsidian flakes (Kenny et al. 25). The problem arose when two researchers later announced that they had found a evidence claiming that Ishi’s brain had been removed during the autopsy and dispatched to the Smithsonian Museum. Ishi’s brain is still greatly fought over; because the NAGPRA clearly states Indian remains possessed by federally funded organizations must be returned to their tribe or tribal descendants. Many Native Americans believe that the soul of the dead cannot journey to the afterlife awaiting their remains to be buried in their entirety. Since Ishi was the last of his people there are no direct descendants to bury his remains, or his brain which is disrespectful to the Yahi tribe. Also to add to this highly debatable situation researchers claim that Ishi probably wasn’t even part of the Yahi tribe but mixed (Kenny et al. 6). This controversy still remains an issue today which makes the NAGPRA an unreliable source of help for Native Americans. Archaeologists justify their actions by appealing the public with the expansion of scientific knowledge. The discovery of human remains and grave-related objects to archaeologist is a way of learning about the past and sometimes the boundaries of Native Americans are overstepped. The application of this knowledge today, gives researchers hope that there will be advances in the future which will generate new ways of looking at these archaeological finds. Additionally, the drive for the expansion of knowledge sustains continued recovery of human remains and grave-associated artifacts, study of those remains, publication of the outcomes of those studies, and the curation of the objects. (Powell et al. 15) Other controversies surrounding repatriation come from conflicting views between western archaeologists and Native American people’s beliefs. Western archaeologists observe time, as being linear, while to countless Natives time is cyclic. An additional Western viewpoint sees the past as long-gone, but from a Native perspective, disturbing the past can have terrible penalties on the current (Powell et al. 38). It is because of these views conflict will always exist in the field of archaeology, and archaeologists must work with Native Americans to uncover the most information about a site without disrespecting sacred burial grounds or otherwise. Although controversies on ethics and practices arise between archaeologists and Native American tribes, justification of such techniques and findings are important factors in displaying artifacts. A way of avoiding controversies would be working with Native American tribes people to find out more information about the sites by inviting them on their descendant’s land excavations. Native American burials and human remains must be treated with respect and care to not disturb any descendants of those Indians. While guidelines for archaeology ethics with holy land such as NAGPRA and other state and federal laws exist to protect Native American rights, there is hardly any government support. However, the United States has come a long way with methods of excavation since the 1900s. These practices of repatriation and the reburial of human remains continue and will continue to be a modern day issue focusing on the Native American indigenous peoples of the United States.

Symbolism in All Quiet on the Western Front free essay sample

In the book All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque, there are many symbols. However the main symbol that ties everything together is the boots. The boots are a symbol for loss of identity, dehumanization, and cheapness of human life. During World War I, men were put in boot camp straight from high school. They never have a chance to grow up and develop lives of their own. Although they have lost their innocence due to hardships of the war, they are still young boys at heart. This shows how their boots are a symbol for dehumanization.As soon as they put on their boots, they become tough, experienced, soldiers that know nothing but methods of survival and how to follow orders. The army breeds men to be like machines and putting on their boots is like their instinctive queue to follow orders. This also shows how their boots are a symbol for loss of identity. We will write a custom essay sample on Symbolism in All Quiet on the Western Front or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Putting on the boots means they all have the same uniform and follow the same orders. They are trained to be like robots and their boots is what allows them to adapt to these expectations.Without them, they are nothing but young, innocent boys. Lastly, the boots are also a symbol for cheapness of human life. The army kept bringing in more and more soldiers as more and more soldiers kept dying. There seemed to be no end to the cycle. When one soldier died, his boots are given to another soldier, as if the first soldier never existed in the first place. There was more concern as to who was going to receive the boots than to the actual death of a friend. This shows how human life was taken for granted.The boots in All Quite on the Western Front symbolized loss of identity, cheapness of humanity and dehumanization. â€Å"I glance at my boots. They are big and clumsy, the breeches are tucked into them, and standing up one looks well-built and powerful in these great drainpipes. But when we go bathing and strip, suddenly we have slender legs again and slight shoulders. We are no longer soldiers but little more than boys. † (p. 29) This is just one quote that proves the boots are the central symbol of All Quiet on the Western Front.This quote shows how the soldiers were swept away by war, and putting on their boots changed them into totally different people. They went from nineteen year old innocent boys, to tough looking soldiers. Their boots allows them to fit into what was expected of them in the army. However when they were naked, it revealed their still slim shoulders and legs that made them still boys deep down. The army dehumanized them and wearing their boots was just another way they were turned into mindless drones.