Some of these nicknames, like “Hoosiers” and “Arkies” (which denote residents of Indiana and Arkansas, respectively) may have slightly offensive connotations, while others—including "Buckeyes," "Jayhawks," "Butternuts," and "Tar Heels"—evoke the military histories of Ohio, Kansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. And a few, like “Muskrats” and “Sourdoughs,” are even inspired by early foods eaten in Delaware and Alaska. ("Goober-grabber" sounds goofier, but it at least refers to peanuts, which are a common crop in Georgia, as well as North Carolina and Arkansas.)
H. habilis is one of the oldest species in the genus Homo . Nevertheless, evidence suggests that in some ways, it was quite similar to species in the genus Australopithecus , especially in aspects of the postcranial skeleton and the small size of its brain. Taking into account body size and shape, locomotion, the masticatory system, and brain size, some scientists suggest that H. habilis had an adaptive strategy more similar to australopiths than to modern humans and should be placed within the genus Australopithecus. Whether or not this is a valid suggestion depends upon how a genus is defined. Scientists disagree as to whether phylogeny (evolutionary relationships) should be given priority over adaptive strategies when defining a genus, or vice versa, a distinction that is not easy to make, especially when dealing with fossil specimens. Currently, H. habilis is placed within the genus Homo because it shares derived traits with other members of the genus to the exclusion of the australopiths.
For the most part, colonial and Soviet satellite societies were repressive and undemocratic in nature. Domestic governmental systems and structures were controlled and operated either from abroad or by a select domestic, privileged group. Consequently, when liberation came, these states lacked the internal structures, institutions, and 1egalitarian way of thinking needed to create good governance systems. The result is that many postcolonial and post-Soviet states, although independent, are still ruled by repressive and restrictive regimes. For example, Melber (2002) states, "(t)he social transformation processes in Zimbabwe, Namibia, and South Africa can at best be characterized as a transition from controlled change to changed control."