Changes in the Tribe
by Giulianna LamannaUp to this point, Anthropik has been focused largely on theory. Okay, maybe I shouldn’t say “largely.” We’ve been so single-mindedly obsessed with the intellectual stuff that some have suggested that maybe the tribe of Anthropik should form a tribe of our own.
Certain changes are taking place within the tribe. We’re beginning to research the practical side of tribalism (hunting, gathering, et cetera), we might be adding two new official members, and Jason plans to have The Thirty Theses completed within the next month or so. Best of all, Jason and I are now engaged. Our impending wedding is raising a lot of questions about how to create a tribal wedding when most - if not all - of one’s cultural traditions are sexist, hierarchical, and materialistic.
With all these changes going on, the focus is going to shift a bit. In the coming months and years, you’ll find Anthropik to be less of a series of primitivist philosophy lessons and more of a chronicle of a modern tribe’s creation and development. In the coming months in particular, Jason and I will pen a number of articles about marriage from an anarcho-primitivist perspective.
We hope that the readers we’ve gained since opening the site will stay with us as the blog becomes broader and more personal. And, of course, we hope that our story will inspire others to form their own tribes. Last but not least, we wish you a happy new year. A toast to 2006 and the horrific storms, rolling blackouts, and economic freak-outs that will bring us one step closer to freedom. Next year in weed-draped Jerusalem!
Congratulations to you both and best for the next step of your collective vision. I’ll look forward to watching it & hopefully sharing stories of my own.
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 2 January 2006 @ 4:23 AM
Congratulations on your coming marriage. Happy New Year to both of you and good hunting.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 2 January 2006 @ 9:42 AM
Congrats! (You guys can’t hear, but I’m applauding). May 2006 bring your family and mine closer to the tribal life, as we all messily root about for some sort of foundation in this crazy world.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 2 January 2006 @ 11:58 AM
I hate to inform you of this, but disasters don’t bring us any closer to freedom. Our masters continue to keep us under control. In fact, in New Orleans, after Katrina hit, the first thing that they restored was order. The only way that we break with their peace is through disobedience and defensive warfare.
Comment by anonymous — 2 January 2006 @ 12:10 PM
The first thing they try to restore is order. But the restoration of New Orleans is going to take a lot of time, and lot of money. Resources that would have otherwise been spent on expansion, are instead used on simple maintenance. That’s very much a part of collapse–when it costs more and more just to stay afloat. Complexity becomes more expensive even as we pay the price for complexity in increased disasters–until finally, they can no longer afford to restore order.
They’ll always restore order–until the last one. But each one before that brings us closer to that one.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 January 2006 @ 1:40 PM
You would had to have had order in New Orleans in the first place to restore it, anonymous.
Your world view is pessimistic, and probably leads you into the wall of inaction.
Acting out your life story, as Jason and tribe are, is a positive manifestation of removing the control of civilized life.
I’m really happy for Jason and Guili, I think they’ll be very sucessful. Too bad I couldn’t have congradulated in person, hope ya’ll had a happy new year, anyway!
Peace,
TZ
Comment by TonyZ — 2 January 2006 @ 1:56 PM
Thanks, Tony. We’d already been to New York and back, and the thought of any more travel, however pleasant the destination, was enough to make me sit down and cry. To say nothing of the fact that we’d only have had one full day there, anyway.
The summer’s a much more sensible festival season–traveling is so much easier then. And why not, that’s the criteria the !Kung use!
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 January 2006 @ 2:35 PM
“Best of all, Jason and I are now engaged.”
…Wait a minute, Guili, who is this Jason guy?
I thought you and I were getting married? What happened to US? What about those moonlit nights in Morrocco where we told each other our deepest secrets, ate goat cheese, and vowed to save the world together? Or all those times high atop a redwood tree in Oregon, waiting for the chainsaws, when we looked at each other and thought ‘this is it, we’ll die together, and they’ll find us with my tongue caught in your nose ring.’ How about that time I rescued you when you got drunk and wandered into a day spa and nearly ended up getting waxed all over? Or when we playfully spray-painted each other while making demo signs and banners? Don’t you remember? Sneaking up on elementary school children and planting circle-A stickers on their backs….
Do all these things mean nothing to you now? Just because we got lost in the Bolivian jungle looking for the Siriono tribe when I stubbornly refused to ask for directions, is no reason to throw everything we had away. Is it? We did, after all, eventually find them, and I proposed to you during the peyote ceremony, remember?
Now I log on to your blog and discover you’re getting hitched to some theses-writing, latte sipper named Jason. It just breaks my heart. Oh the shame of it.
Please come back to me Guili! [sobbing] Think of our time together– the goat cheese, the redwoods, the paint fumes– for godsakes, think of the children!
I can’t live without you!… (sniff)
Paleo Boy
Comment by Paleo Boy — 2 January 2006 @ 3:23 PM
“Latte-sipper”?
Shows what you know, Paleo Boy. I hate coffee! I drink chai tea! HA!!
Oh …. wait….
But yes, I will defend my honor! I challenge you to a duel, Paleo Boy! Atlatls at twenty paces at dawn! The gauntlet is thrown, sir!
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 January 2006 @ 4:03 PM
Don’t you get it, Paleo Boy? It’s over between us! I thought I made that clear in Seattle, but apparently the nightsticks have damaged your brain. I don’t even know what I saw in you. Jason’s a real man, not just a soy-based substitute!
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 2 January 2006 @ 4:05 PM
Order from outside New Orleans entered New Orleans and restored order, Tony. Your view of the world must be pacifist, but neither your pacifist nor my “pessimistic” paradigms lead to inaction. I didn’t make a comment about “Acting out your life story”, but since you brought it up, hunting and gathering isn’t “removing the control”. It’s running away from the control, but I don’t have a problem with rewilding, which is what Jason and tribe seem to be doing. My point was that catastrophes don’t take us closer to freedom, but on second thought, yeah, they liberate spaces; but if we don’t seize those spaces and defend them, then we’re passively cheering nature on to be the sole subject in our liberation. The state has already reclaimed New Orleans anyway and is planning on gentrifying a neighborhood that the Common Ground Collective is intending to protect, so there’ no use in looking forward to more disasters unless we’re going to foster an occupation.
Comment by anonymous — 2 January 2006 @ 4:48 PM
Siezing and defendng those spaces is impossible. They must be reabsorbed, and civilization must spare no effort to do so, or face its own destruction. The important part is that such efforts require money, time, manpower and resources that otherwise would have been spent expanding. Instead, they’re increasingly consumed by simple maintenance. That initiates a catabolic collapse.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 January 2006 @ 4:51 PM
Jason, they unfortunately are more than capable of restoring order, and they have already accomplished that feat. Now, the field is open for them to make a Disney Land version of New Orleans. Unfortunately, Katrina isn’t going to hurt capitalists that bad. It has already helped them get the poor blacks out of their way, and those poor people will probably not be able to afford returning. Also, the clean up crews, such as Haliburton, have gotten away with paying their immigrants even less than usual under even worse conditions than usual.
Money isn’t an obstacle to the people who manufacture the symbolic meaning of money by depriving and forcing us to work for money. They can’t go bankrupt. They were paying mercenaries seven hundred dollars a day to kill looters, but masters don’t need money. They have power in the form of military slaves, and they will have that even if civilization as most people know it collapses. As long as they can afford to shout orders, they can afford to restore order.
For example, take fascism, which most Americans don’t mind according to recent polls about spying and their obedience to post nine eleven laws. Fascist and Communist states had little to do with money and everything to do with policing and detaining. This civilization has come all the way from Mesopotamia, through Egypt, Rome, Asia and Europe before there was ever money, and it presently doesn’t show any signs of old age like the Anazazi who devoured all of their game. We aren’t witnessing any degenerative steps to its demise, but if we were, there’s no telling if that last catastrophe would be in our lifetime whereas a lot of people would rather start living free, today.
Comment by anonymous — 2 January 2006 @ 5:26 PM
I’ve just explained how maintenance doesn’t really degenerate civilization. Squatters occupy abandoned spaces throughout the world and occasionally defend them from cops. In 1968, Paris workers revolted and students took over a university building. That spread throughout France and nearly toppled the government permanently. The students fucked up by watering down the workers’ plans and then expecting other workers to magically take over their factories just by the students cheering them on. The students should have shut down factory operations themselves and publicized the buildings as they did the university building, and they should have taken over a radio tower, too. Instead, they acted like they had won, and France restored order in time. Last winter, in Canada, students blocked off a warehouse in solidarity with the striking workers, invaded a grocery store and stole food since the government cut their grants and made food unaffordable, occupied a Wal-Mart in solidarity with unionizing workers and shut down a stock exchange for a day. These were very short-lived actions with very reformist goals, but these young adults showed the possibility of resistance in the face of grown, highly skilled riot cops.
Comment by anonymous — 2 January 2006 @ 5:47 PM
Hey y’all.
Good to hear about what is going on. Since we’re very close in proximity, it would be good to meet up. My partner and I have been focusing on primitive skills for years and, obviously AP is a big focus of mine. There are other folks in PA doing this too.
I’m currently setting up a new Black and Green regional group: PAGAN, the Pennsylvania Green Anarchist Network. Will have a smaller site up soon (till blackandgreen.org is up and running again), but a list serv is currently being processed. Could probably subscribe now: pagan@lists.riseup.net
Wanting to do a regional gathering in early summer and to meet up sooner rather than later.
Hit me up. Email is primalwar@hotmail.com and Steve should have my number.
BTW, the anti-marriage tendency of anarchy does have its merits, but is stuck in an eternal nihilistic position whereby it is defined as an opponent of something rather than a proponent of something else. I agree that marriage is tricky when the state is involved, but it is something that humans have always done, often without a lot of consequence.
From an AP perspective, I see nothing inherently flawed about it on the ideal level. Property is just a murky area. Best of luck though!
For wildness and anarchy, KT
Comment by Kevin Tucker — 2 January 2006 @ 6:10 PM
“Don’t you get it, Paleo Boy? It’s over between us! I thought I made that clear in Seattle, but apparently the nightsticks have damaged your brain. I don’t even know what I saw in you. Jason’s a real man, not just a soy-based substitute! ”
OUCH !!! My heart has been stabbed and splintered into pieces.
But I thought we had reconciled in Genoa? You said you’d be willing to try again, just before we both got tasered. That must explain why you never returned any of my smoke signals.
[sigh] I still remember the first time I saw you Giuli, through a cloud of tear gas wearing a hot pink pleather jacket and a hemp skirt. You were an ethereal vision of radicalism. I lent you my vinegar-soaked handkerchief, remember? We talked and toked all night. How I miss you so.
As for the atlatl duel at 20 paces. I still have my Clovis points, and would consider it, but, alas, I fear it would be futile given where Giuli’s heart truly lies. It would be merely a hollow victory for me. Frankly, I am dissapointed Giuli would take up with someone so ritualistic and somewhat civilized. She used to be so primordial, so in tune with the Dreamtime. There was never a hint of reification. Sometimes Giuli and I could go for days without language, just gazing into each other’s eyes knowingly. Now she has a blog!! Oh god how symbolic! What next, a Blackberry?
Giuli, please come back to me. I promise I’ll never make fun of your nose again, and I’ll learn to start a fire in the rain. You’ll see. I can change.
Please think about what you’re doing. Engagement leads to marriage, and marriage to patriarchy, and patriarchy to civilization, and civilization to space colonization.
Please tell me you don’t really want stay on this path of alienation.
Comment by Paleo Boy — 2 January 2006 @ 7:26 PM
Hey –
That’s Awesome, Congratulations Jason and Guili!
I have to say, when Ben announced this to us on Friday, I don’t think anyone in the room was surprised in the slightest, but everyone was pleased!
Next trip… southern states(TN? NC?), camping, perhaps March? We’ll be starting a thread:-)
Janene
Comment by Janene — 3 January 2006 @ 9:20 AM
March is usually much better for travel than the end of December.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 3 January 2006 @ 11:45 AM
I’d tend to agree that one sees better driving conditions driving south in spring than one does driving into a city known for freezing wind and blizzards in the middle of winter.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 3 January 2006 @ 12:01 PM
Thanks, Kevin*! Obviously, we have no problem with marriage itself. Tribal cultures have been getting married forever; it’s a basic element of human society. (Now, now, I didn’t say “cornerstone” or “one man and one woman,” or any fundie crap like that–I said something you can back up, anthropologically: all human societies, civilized or not, have some kind of marriage.)
Now, marriage can become a vehicle of patriarchy, hierarchy and domination, just like anything else. Food can be used that way, too, but nobody thinks food is inherently bad.
As a mutual expression, marriage is very important. As a means of declaring one’s situation to the community, it’s essential. As a rite of passage, it’s one of those things we lack in our society. Giuli picked up Sheryl Paul’s The Conscious Bride, which is deliciously Jungian, and talks about how to turn the shallow, consumerist weddings of our culture into a meaningful rite of passage.
As an example, right now I’m thinking my “bachelor party” will be going into the woods to hunt a deer. Its meat will be the main course at the reception, its hide will be used in the ceremony, etc.
See, that’s the kind of stuff we’ll be writing about more as time goes on–current events from a primitivist worldview, sure, but also how to start moving in that direction in any way you can, and how we’re progressing along that same path. I think that’s far more important than this theoretical foundation. It’s necessary, but I think that’s the really important work that lies ahead of us–to do it ourselves, and to offer what help and inspiration we can from our example.
* (P.S., for those not in the know, yes, it’s that Kevin Tucker.)
Comment by Jason Godesky — 3 January 2006 @ 12:21 PM
Congratulations & Happy New Year!
Comment by Jeff Vail — 3 January 2006 @ 12:46 PM
Lindsay Lohan does. (rimshot)
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 3 January 2006 @ 1:15 PM
American Wilderness Safe Haven?
Congratulations. I look forward to reading about your wild experiences living primitively. I do have a concern that I thought about recently how you said that you will just be able to hang out while the collapse happens and not even know what is happening. I’m not sure about that. There are a lot of outdoorsmen. I think you might have already mentioned or maybe not that deer, bears, and large fauna will be wiped out soon after collapse. That necessitates that these outdoorsmen be out in the wilderness where you are. And you have stated that cities will likely become desperate and cannabalistic, so why wouldn’t the outdoorsmen become that way and shoot ANYTHING that moves. I am not saying anything about Appalachians. I never knew any. I have heard of the movie “Deliverence” about story about Appalachia backwoods and crazy cannabals there. I’m not saying they are any crazier than anyone else. It just reminded me of that. I think that just because you are in the wilderness and know what you are doing which I also am in the process of learning for some of the same reasons that doesn’t mean you will be sheltered from the chaos. All that enlightenment would hopefully have a good reward. Sometimes, it doesn’t. I don’t really want to be in America when collapse happens. Unfortunately, I just might still be. You give these examples to prove most everyone will just dieoff even when there is wilderness food because of the cultural fixation on agricultural food, but there will still be some mass media probably while the collapse is happening. Rumors of what some are subsisting on will spread like wildfire. The stories you tell of the Donner Party, Greenland, etc. are of individual cultures that were in one relatively small area. This affects the entire world. The dynamics involved in dieoff are probably quite different. I’m not saying dieoff will never happen. I’m saying that the chaos will probably come into the wilderness as well, especially in America.
Comment by planetwarming — 3 January 2006 @ 6:48 PM
Yeah, well, at least my name isn’t anonymous
Comment by TonyZ — 3 January 2006 @ 7:09 PM
Hey, come on Tony, don’t hate on the big A. He wrote a lot of really good poetry.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 3 January 2006 @ 8:11 PM
Rockin’. Kath and I were scanning her map of the US for a good meeting place. ‘Course, I am a bit biased, ahem, er…
And congrats!
-Mike
Comment by WackyMorningDJ — 3 January 2006 @ 8:14 PM
I have seen the Travel Channel shows about primitive tribes. There was this one girl who was promised to this dude before she was born. She gets a bunch of cattle I guess. Or her family gave the cattle as a dowry. I forget. There was this other tribe with the women in it put clay plates into their bottom lips. They made a hole in their lips and then made larger and larger clay plates to put in their bottom lip. And the size of the clay plate that could fit in the determined how many cattle the couple got I think. Pretty patriarchic. But I guess pastoralism is a step away from primitivism. I wonder what analysis anyone in the tribe might have of pastoralism which is herding livestock and migrating with them.
Comment by planetwarming — 4 January 2006 @ 12:14 AM
Planetwarming — we’ve never written about deer, bears or other large mammals being wiped out, because frankly, I think that it would be much more likely for collapse to come about because the government reveals the crashed UFO from Roswell, initiating the attack of the space aliens, during which time Tom Cruise will emerge as our great earth-hero to save us all with the sheer power of his heterosexuality.
Which is to say, I think that’s a ridiculous idea.
Rather than derail this thread with why, I’ll simply beg your patience, as these are precisely the kind of questions I’ll be turning to in the last five theses.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 4 January 2006 @ 1:06 AM
Jason and Giuli:
I’m smiling with you two rascals
Comment by JCamasto — 4 January 2006 @ 2:26 AM
Pastoralism cannot exist without agriculture, and only exists alongside agricultural societies. Hunting and gathering is an entirely different subsistence method - that’s the one we’re aiming for.
Hell, we don’t even trust horticulture.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 4 January 2006 @ 4:27 PM
How each of you define “marriage” might be an interesting introduction.
Comment by Somebody — 4 January 2006 @ 5:49 PM
I’m working on that…
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 4 January 2006 @ 6:03 PM
Geez, it’s not that ridiculous to at least come to that conclusion. I guess I read about it elsewhere I guess. I wasn’t saying that this is the reason that collapse would happen. I said it would be a result of it. I’m not sure if you got that based on your comparison. I look forward to your analysis showing that this won’t happen since I hope it doesn’t. I am no doubt forgetting something. I just don’t buy that no one, because of cultural definitions of food, won’t go into the wilderness at all since food in it is very much a part of our culture.
You also said you would address why civilizations are so wasteful and inefficient to the point that it hurts the civilization in a later thesis and never did. Why isn’t there mandatory recycling at least? I’m not trying to give you a hard time. I’m just mentioning it. I don’t care. You are a great writer.
================
One in 10 Americans has a fishing license. The number of anglers in America peaked in the mid-1980s at 31.5 million when they comprised about 19 percent of the U.S. population.
The number of resident licenses, tags, permits and stamps issued in 2004 increased 4.1 percent in 2004 to 33,111,202. More than 3 million non-resident licenses and tags were sold, an increase of 5.6 percent.
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/sports/story.asp?ID=106301
Comment by planetwarming — 4 January 2006 @ 7:31 PM
That last quoted paragraph is about hunting.
Comment by planetwarming — 4 January 2006 @ 7:34 PM
I understood the assertion, and I’ve heard claims like it before–usually that humans would be the large mammal thus driven extinct–but such claims seem to really rely on a total lack of understanding about how resilient life is.
It can be difficult to accept that people would starve to death, rather than try something new, but that’s exactly what happened, time and again, in many cultures that had more fishing and hunting, and a far richer tradition of relying on those for food, than Americans, and they just curled up and starved to death.
On the part about being wasteful, I touched on that in thesis #19. I don’t believe civlization is wasteful at all. On the contrary, it’s ruthlessly efficient. Take your example of recycling. Why isn’t it mandatory? Because it takes less energy to create new glass, than it does to recycle old glass (actually, the net effect of glass recycling on the environment is pretty negative, too–sand isn’t exactly hard to come by). It takes less energy to chop down a tree, than it does to recycle paper. It’s not a matter of wastefulness, so much as it’s a matter of different priorities. You and I are placing a priority on environmental sustainability; civilization is placing a priority on energy efficiency. It’s many things, but not wasteful. It’s ruthlessly efficient–so much so, that it ultimately ends up killing itself.
Sorry for the sarcasm, though. I’m going paleo, so I’m having bread DT’s, and I haven’t had much sleep the past few days, so I’m really cranky, and you provided a nice hook for me to amuse myself with some sarcasm. Didn’t intend to be mean about it.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 4 January 2006 @ 9:17 PM
That was already covered in slogan form.
See
for more details.
The only question is, who are the three other women?a
Comment by Justin Case — 5 January 2006 @ 5:03 PM
Once again you seem to neglect the scale of our culture. There has never been a civilized culture with millions of hunters all willing to starve to death. Maybe a large percentage of Americans will do what you think, but the remaining percentage is still millions of people.
Comment by _Gi — 5 January 2006 @ 5:30 PM
There were millions of Mayans, and millions of Irish, and millions in LOTS of cultures where that happened. And very often, yes, those with the ability to survive chose not to, because skill is not as important to survival as imagination.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 5 January 2006 @ 5:52 PM
We’ll see. Kay sara sara. I don’t know where you get your recycling information though. I know too much about recycling, and I have always read it saves energy. I forget the context in which I brought up the issue of efficiency. But I think it was about growth. I think a lot of what you say is mandatory for civilization really only happens because of control of a few large corporations, the energy industry being the most powerful probably, which might also be mandatory to happen because of hierarchal forces. But this causes the inefficiency because the oil companies want a lot of demand for their oil. Hmm, I didn’t know that thing about paper I see below. I guess you were right about that. Not about glass though.
================
A paper mill uses 20 percent less energy to make paper from recycled paper than it does to make paper from fresh lumber. However, a recycling mill may consume more fossil fuels than a paper mill. Paper mills generate much of their energy from waste wood, but recycling mills purchase most of their energy from local power companies or use on-site cogeneration facilities.
Recycling glass is a relatively good energy saver. Using recycled glass to make new glass products requires 30 percent less energy than making it from all new materials. It saves energy because crushed glass, called cullet, melts at a lower temperature than the raw materials used to make glass. New glass is made from sand, soda ash, and limestone.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/saving/recycling/solidwaste/paperandglass.html
Comment by planetwarming — 5 January 2006 @ 6:38 PM
I had a long discussion about the glass recycling with a bunch of Ph.D’s specializing in recycling and energy efficiency, and I was very convnced … can’t find any citations right now though–not that I looked all THAT hard.
The need of civilization to grow was there long before corporations were around. Then, it was kingdoms. Before that, it was cities. We covered this in thesis #13; it’s not a matter of greed, it’s a matter of competititon. It doesn’t matter what we call the imaginary entities that are competing–whether they’re “corporations” or “nation-states” or “kingdoms,” whichever of them consumes the least will be eliminated by those that consume the most.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 5 January 2006 @ 6:42 PM
Congratulations. It reads like you have found a perfect match and believe this will result in much happiness.
I am an avid hunter and fisher, and will colloborate a scarcity of game should a major collapse happen. Fish and game laws (basicaly placing limits on possesion) keeps the balance between predator and prey.
However, most critters today have become used to being hunted by man and has been genetically conditioned to flee at the slightest change in it’s surrounding (the scared ones breed while the curious become feed).
So, not being the guy who can write 30 thesis about so many different subjects, I’ll finish my thought; if one can be lucky enough to survive a major collapse, there will be plenty of game once the game become re-established from lack of predators.
Comment by sevenmmm — 5 January 2006 @ 8:19 PM
Having lived for five years in Appalachia (Summers County WV}, I have another opinion on what will happen there after a collapse. Many of the people living there are locals whose grandparents lived off the land. Although the younger generations mostly have jobs in the system or are on welfare, they still retain the older skills. They keep gardens with “old timey seeds�. Many raise a pig or two each year. They also keep chickens and even an occasional cow for milk or beef. Many would prefer to just live off the land, but can’t because they don’t own it. Everyone hunts and eats deer, squirrels, groundhogs, possum, turkey and grouse(which they call pheasants). They know the local wild plants. Ramps and ginseng are the favorites.
After a collapse when jobs are gone, the Kroger closes, and there is no state to enforce property laws, these people will suddenly have access to all of the public and private land. They will not be HG’s.
They will homestead. About a hundred acres of that forest can support a family. They would clear any flat land. They know that corn and hay grow well on “new ground�. Pigs can be fed a little corn or sour milk once a day. They will fatten themselves on mast in the woods. They will also graze on grass. They would clear any flat land. for field corn and hay to winter their animals. They would keep WV work ponies for farm work. These country boys now how to hunt, they know the woods, they don’t take to “outsiders�. These are the people you will have to deal with after a collapse in the woods of Appalachia.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 5 January 2006 @ 9:39 PM
Well … I have no doubt they’ll try.
But if they’re any kind of farmer at all, they’ll note that the scant farmland they already have is still better than the flat forest land, and that there was a reason no one tried clearing it before. Well, they did do it before; long before. The forests there now are new growth. They drained the land until it died, and then the catastrophic floods came, so they planted trees, instead. It still won’t grow wheat or corn, though.
If they know less about farming than even I do (and I’m no farmer, believe me), then they might try anyway. They’ll waste their effort cutting down all those trees, and since the soil’s so poor, it won’t grow any food to replenish them with. They’ll be dead of starvation inside of a few months.
They know how to hunt, and they don’t take kindly to “outsiders” … that’s their strength. They’re almost there already. They probably will survive at a greater rate than the general population, but they’ll do so because they’re willing to farm less and hunt more. Tight-knit, backroads country towns will devole into horticultural villages, and the Southern Baptist church will be preaching a syncretic gospel of an animist Jesus in a few generations. Why? Because anyone who doesn’t will be dead.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 5 January 2006 @ 10:08 PM
I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on the ability to join already primitive tribes like in Africa or somewhere. I saw this guy in Taxicab Confessions on HBO who lived with the Tanzanian Bushmen for like 6 months and hunted and gathered with them too. They were completely accepting of him it seems. Do you think that those people would accept me like that?
Comment by planetwarming — 9 January 2006 @ 12:32 AM
Learn their language, befriend them … maybe. Depends on the tribe. Some are open and friendly; others are xenophobic head-hunters who’ll skewer you on sight. But almost all are pretty closed and jealously ethnic. In general, though there are a few exceptions, the only way in is to be born in.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 9 January 2006 @ 12:58 AM
Okay, I’ve lurked on this site long enough. I was off surfing the net for web sites with names like pokgrand.com and innatthefalls.com and innisfreegarden.org and I learn that my future son-in-law thinks he’s going to serve a deer that he shot at his “bachelor party” for a wedding dinner? Who, dear boy, do you think is going to cook this deer? I’m a vegetarian, remember? Okay, I’ll roast a free range turkey for Thanksgiving, but Bambi, when I have to pick out the buckshot? No way! Or are we going to eat it raw? And I hope you’re planning a November wedding, because that’s when hunting season is! Can you just see Grandma’s face when she’s served venison — that is, if she survives the ceremony? (I was thinking of Giuli’s grandma, since I’ve never met Jason’s, but I bet her face would be equally priceless.)
Unless the dieoff occurs between now and the wedding day, I will not serve venison to the the wedding guests — unless it is accompanied by baby green beans almandine, scalloped potatoes and arugula salad, of course. Followed by a cake with a little plastic bride and groom on top.
And Giuli, who is this Paleo Boy? Is he studying to be a doctor?
Love to both of you and your wacky friends,
Mom
Comment by Giuli's mom — 13 January 2006 @ 10:15 PM
Hey now, I can cook up my own kill, thank you very much.
And vegetarian options will be available, they just won’t be the center of the ceremony. Just seems wrong to have everything revolving around a cake the groom can’t eat because he’s on paleo….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 13 January 2006 @ 10:55 PM
You know, if the deer is alive and Jason pulls the still-beating heart out of it and drinks the blood, this will undoubtly be at the center of everyone’s attention. While still allowing for everyone else to enjoy the wedding cake.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 15 January 2006 @ 12:41 AM
I was thinking of something a little less … graphic.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 15 January 2006 @ 1:36 AM
Wuss.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 15 January 2006 @ 1:52 AM
Hey –
If I figure it out by then, I’ll make you all a paleo wedding cake… depends on whether I can come up with a good recipe
Janene
Comment by Janene — 15 January 2006 @ 10:28 AM
Janene, anything you could come up with would probably be better than any other wedding cake out there. Seriously, cotton candy has greater subtlety of flavor.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 15 January 2006 @ 11:37 AM
Comment by Janene — 15 January 2006 @ 11:49 AM