First:
From the article Strings Attached:
I wanted to first talk about the first example given, though it is a bit vague. The article talks about “Indian Giving”, a term I heard as a child in the late 1970s. My stepbrother Donny used it while yelling at another boy. There was a disagreement and they both got angry, the other boy took back a gift he had given Donny and Donny called him an “Indian Giver” and told him that they were not friends anymore. I asked him and he said that it meant someone that takes a gift back, especially someone that “gets angry and takes back gifts (that they did this repeatedly was implied). It seemed wrong they and when I found literature on the subject, I discerned that it was more like the way Homer describes Greek culture, specifically the bit about a guest always bringing a gift for the host and never refuse any offerings while under the host's roof (if I offer you mead, you take it and enjoy it). I also noted the bit about the Nez Percé giving a parting gift (also a Greek practice) and how the Chief expected something in return so that both would know to treat and think of the other as a friend when they met again. The Indian way is not to take anything back but to share and /or exchange things to show trust and a desire for friendship; to show a desire for ongoing relations (mutually assured debt, continuous repayment from each to the other).
The second example I will use is the one I grew up watching, the way my father bought men’s loyalties by putting them into his debt, paying their rent or bail, giving someone a car, etc. Japan is being accused of “gifting” only to those countries that are beneficial to them. By giving to these countries, they ensure that the local government will continue to maintain good relations with Japan, and perhaps they will receive large returns such as reduced or zero tariffs for imported goods (or so they are accused according to the article).
No. I have never seen anyone give anything to another and not get something back, even if only the “right” to look down on others. I believe that all creation is not an expression of deity but IS deity. That we are all a tiny part of it. The cosmos, “creation”, Us; we are all a part of the same thing, helping you is helping me. Giving to those in need is necessary, as they are me, I am them. So far, my fellow (wo)man has not failed to catch me when I have fallen, never let me fall through the cracks, have always helped me find my way back to solid ground (physically and mentally). If I break this cycle, I will be removed from the cycle. I will lose my safety net.
Second:
From the handout "Consumption exchange social organization":
a. Distribution of goods, all share with nothing specifically expected in return, no account of what or who shared is kept. Help is given to those that need and it is assumed that this is returned if and when necessary (sometimes by “paying it forward”). This structure encourages people to help and share when and how they can as good standing is important.
b. There is a clear need for exchanges to be “fair” or balanced, to be of equivalent value. These exchanges are often without instant repayment and may take place over great distances especially among people with good and long-standing relationships. A failure to reciprocate the gift or a refusal to receive a gift can and is usually taken as a withdrawal from the relationship/ friendship. When a gift is excepted it shows the giver that you are interested in building and maintaining a social relationship.
c. Not intended to be social, usually for profit (always?) Not a balanced exchange but one where each is trying to get the better of the other (trying to overcharge, trying to haggle for a better price). Usually between strangers, No “friend” or “insider” pricing for the outsider/stranger. No long-term relationships are generally created
d. The “western” or capitalist economic strategy is purely for profit and personal gain. People generally do not “help out” or “lend a hand” where money is concerned. How much can you get for something as opposed to my way of thinking, does someone Need this? What is a fair exchange? Often the answer is to simply give and hope they can one day do the same for another. Help, and hope that I was able to do enough, not what I will get for doing it.
Third:
From the handout "Discussion points about gift-giving economies":
a. First, what is this question? “...which portrays more typically the way…”? I completely fail to understand what is being asked there. I think it is convoluted somehow; I assume some sort of typo.
To the first part, my initial response to the story is honestly, how nice to live with people that work to support and care for each other. Imagine, to exist someplace where the value of everything one can see is not defined by how many hours of my life I have to spend doing a thing for someone else to possess it. I have always preferred trade, barter, and simply giving to, the idea that “everything has a price” helped create the world we live in. The world where neighbors do not know anything about each other, the world where equal education for all means taking learning out of schools not investing more into them.