Oh my God! Something GOOD Happened!
by Giulianna LamannaWe are the champions, my friends.
Yesterday, I got a strange sensation. I read an article that said that the Bushmen of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve actually won their case against the government of Botswana and were going to be allowed back on their ancestral lands. After I read it, something strange happened to my face: the edges of my mouth began twitching, and then drew upwards. It was as if I was baring my teeth, but not at all in an unfriendly way. I was very confused as to what was happening. I had read an article about indigenous people, you see. But it was good news. How is this possible?
The Gana and Gwi Bushmen have done the unthinkable: after the longest and most expensive court case in Botswana’s history, they have officially KICKED ASS AND CHEWED BUBBLEGUM. And they did it without that little bitch, Leonardo DiCaprio. I guess that’s what you kind of have to come to expect from the people that lived for hundreds of thousands of years, surviving the Bantu expansion and European colonialism, in the freaking Kalahari Desert.
This has been a pretty sucky week for DeBeers, between the release of the new movie Blood Diamond (starring the aforementioned little bitch) and the loss of the land they hoped would become a new diamond mine. Poor babies. Kind of makes me want to send them an ice-cream cake with “Ha ha!” scrawled on it. Anyway, any bad week for DeBeers is an excellent week for… well, humanity, basically.
Seriously, when was the last time you heard about an almost-genocide? When was the last time you heard of ethnic cleansing being narrowly avoided? When was the last time the underdog actually won, outside of a movie? This is obviously cause for wild celebration. Readers of Anthropik, tonight I want to see every last one of you stumbling out of bars, drunkenly slurring your way through improvised, filthy-minded songs about Lady Tonge of Kew. You don’t even have to come up with anything new; earlier today, Jason and I walked down the street loudly singing “Kyle’s Mom is a Bitch,” but with “Lady Tonge” instead of “Kyle’s mom.” There were a number of “Jews for Jesus” evangelists in hearing range at the time, which of course made it even better.
Naturally, someone has to throw in a wrench: Kali Mercier, a New Zealand lawyer who worked on the case, said that Botswana was likely to appeal the verdict. Alls I can say is bring it, bitches.
Previous coverage:
I have to admit, I didn’t expect this. I’ve never been so happy to be so wrong!
Comment by Jason Godesky — 14 December 2006 @ 4:51 PM
YAY for the Bushmen!!
Piss on Debeers, Botswana, and their Lawyers!!
Drinks are on me!!!
Comment by Rory — 14 December 2006 @ 4:56 PM
Woo woo!
J
Comment by janene — 14 December 2006 @ 5:03 PM
WOOT!!!!!
Comment by jhereg — 14 December 2006 @ 5:11 PM
Five glasses of wine later:
“What n0w, fuckers?”
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 14 December 2006 @ 11:35 PM
Well, fuck.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 14 December 2006 @ 11:59 PM
this is cool.
but…
ahh.. hunting permits…. how utterly annoying they can be! and there’s only a limited amount they can give out…and you have to pay for them (at least in the US)… i doubt some people will wanna do that… they’d rather poach (and they should) and get it for free
not to burst any bubbles.
Comment by Scott — 15 December 2006 @ 12:16 AM
dirty rat bastards
Comment by jhereg — 15 December 2006 @ 8:55 AM
Uh, Scott… for the Bushmen, hunting permits are a little more than an “annoyance.” They can’t afford hunting permits, which means they can’t afford to eat. This is just another way to try to kill them.
So just to recap, the oldest living human culture on the planet is fighting for survival, meanwhile I turn on CNN this morning and the story is - and I shit you not - “Baby animals: Why are they so cute?”
Maybe if the Bushmen looked like panda bears, people would care. Or not - the panda bear is endangered too, after all.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 15 December 2006 @ 10:02 AM
[quote]Or not - the panda bear is endangered too, after all. [/quote]
Let’s not forget polar bears, who, quite frankly, are probably going to be extinct within the next 10 years.
Yet Coca-Cola makes a mint off of them….
Once in a very great while, I find myself wondering just how wrong Jensen is.
Comment by jhereg — 15 December 2006 @ 10:31 AM
Guli, that’s exactly my point. A lot of people in Africa already poach because of permit fees, at least this is what I’ve read (in The Myth of Wild Africa). And then they get caught and are forced to pay a fine. And they pay, do it again, because they need to survive. Or they go to jail. It’s screwed up.
Comment by Scott — 15 December 2006 @ 11:02 AM
Allthey would have to do is fart out a diamond or two a year for the hunting permits…
Comment by TonyZ — 15 December 2006 @ 11:54 AM
Guili, when I heard that the Bushmen had won their lawsuit, I thought ‘Well, that’s nice. Now let’s see how long it lasts.’ If you play by the rules that the civilized set up for you, you can never win. Even if you win, you still lose. You can win in court, but then you still need a special permission to return to your own land, and if you get the permission, you still need a hunting permit… And if you get all those, well, by the time you get them they’ll come up with something else. Isn’t that the way it’s always worked?
Jhereg, I personally was quite convinced by Derrick Jensen’s arguments against pacifism… Except, that is, to his answer to the “they’ve got really big guns” objection. What can I say, they’ve got really big guns. I mean really, really big guns. And lots of them. If it weren’t for that…
Civilization will of course crash, no matter what. It’s just that, by the time it crashes, it might just be too late for the Bushmen.
Comment by Hasha — 16 December 2006 @ 12:22 AM
From the link that Giulianna posted in the comments:
Well, this is depressing, so here’s some comic relief on YouTube courtesy of the Asylum Street Spankers.
Comment by venuspluto67 — 16 December 2006 @ 12:52 AM
[quote]Except, that is, to his answer to the “they’ve got really big guns” objection. What can I say, they’ve got really big guns. I mean really, really big guns. And lots of them. If it weren’t for that… [/quote]
Well…. Yeah.
I’m not a pacifist, but normally I don’t think that activities (such as Earth Liberation Front) are really all that helpful, and generally only give all those big guns a target to aim for.
It’s only on the rare occasion that I wonder if it isn’t worth it all the same.
Comment by jhereg — 16 December 2006 @ 10:56 AM
That violence is unfeasible does not address its morality, of course; if it’s the right thing to do, it’s the right thing to do whether it’s doomed to failure or not. And of course, we’re trained to eschew violence because that would cut into the state’s monopoly. These aren’t the reasons why violence should be eschewed; it should be condemned and set aside because it is ineffective. When you only have one shot, as we do, you have to make it count. Blowing it on a feel-good but utterly useless display of machismo is downright criminal—and very, very civilized. See “On Violence.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 16 December 2006 @ 6:22 PM
Jason and Jhereg, I think that one factor to be considered in any debate about the use of violence with the purpose of ‘bringing down civilization’ is the time frame of civilization’s collapse. How much longer until (industrial…?) civilization mostly disintegrates on its own? If you think it’s going to take a few more years or even something like a decade or two, then it just doesn’t seems worth it to me to engage in acts of violence. Better to make yourself as invisible to the civilized and their government (especially their government!) as you can and try to leave through the back door while no-one’s watching. If, however, you think that civilization will drag on, in a weakened form perhaps, for a few more centuries or worse… Well then, it seems like you’d have to start thinking about bringing it down yourself. “First they came for the Jews…â€? I mean, given enough time, the civilized will destroy everything on this planet. The question is, will they run out of time before they get to whatever it is that you are willing to defend with your life. If you think they’ll run out of time before they get to it, then just keep a low profile until they do (run out of time, I mean). If you think the game will be on longer than you can hide… In that case, you need to rethink your strategy.
Comment by Hasha — 16 December 2006 @ 10:02 PM
So what does everyone think of making the Bushmen protected members of the Game preserve like say, lions?
This is sort of what has been going on with the Sentinelese.
As soon as the Bushmen all want to learn how to read and write, vote have acess to modern medicine, etc. it won’t work.
But I think protecting wild humand like endagered wild animals might be a strategy that could work for various indigenous groups provided they really do want to stick with their traditions.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 18 December 2006 @ 10:01 PM
Outside of this I don’t see much hope for hunter gatherers. The hunting regs arern’t a bad idea if they are using guns and market hunting for example. I mean if they want to modernize and seek development etc. Why should they be treated differently than anyone else?
Comment by Ted Heistman — 18 December 2006 @ 10:04 PM
http://freerangeorganichuman.blogspot.com/2006/12/human-conservation.html
Comment by Ted Heistman — 18 December 2006 @ 10:04 PM
Hey –
But I think protecting wild humand like endagered wild animals might be a strategy that could work for various indigenous groups provided they really do want to stick with their traditions.
Aside from the fact that I find this morally repugnant… sure, yeah…
Janene
Comment by janene — 19 December 2006 @ 9:09 AM
[quote]it should be condemned and set aside because it is ineffective. When you only have one shot, as we do, you have to make it count. Blowing it on a feel-good but utterly useless display of machismo is downright criminal—and very, very civilized.[/quote]
Sure. Sorry, I didn’t mean to start a debate on this. Again, this is just one of those rare impulses, I know better than to act on it, and I get over it quickly enough. And, of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with violence in general or pacifism, it’s just about what good it would actually do, which is precious little, if any.
[quote]If, however, you think that civilization will drag on, in a weakened form perhaps, for a few more centuries or worse… [/quote]
I can see where some areas might well manage to keep a civilization going for a century, but in so much of a weakened form that I don’t really think it will be that difficult to just leave.
Comment by jhereg — 19 December 2006 @ 9:29 AM
Like Ota Benga?
Oh, think nothing of it. This is a stream in primitivism that has to be addressed.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 December 2006 @ 10:07 AM
Yeah,
When you don’t understand a point of view its always safe to assume the worst of intentions and bad faith on the other side.
Putting people in a zoo must be what I am talking about.
Of course you guys have everything all fiqured out so why hear differing opinions anyway.
I doubt anyone here is interested in solutions. Romantic idealism and hand wringing is much more constructive.
So carry on.
The bushman can can integrate with society AND maintian their ancient way of life, just like the Native Americans.
They can all go to school, have healthcare, vote and still be hunter gatherers.
You guys can form little tribes, live in the present and solve the problems of people living across the globe.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 19 December 2006 @ 7:12 PM
My example was Sentinel Island.
Treat the Kalihari like Sentinal Island. Let the people go about their bussiness like that have for thousands of years, keep people from interfering.
I think it might work, but as soon as primitive people start wanting what civilized people have it won’t work.
They say they want “the best of both worlds” but instead end up with the worst of both.
No one mentioned the law against bringing in domesticated animals. That they would want to bring them in says a lot right there.
Maybe there is no value in preserving stone age culture. Maybe once the process of assimilation begins thee is no turning back.
There is a lots of issues involved here like the concept of autonomy and development and human rights.
Maybe the Bushmen would be better off simply being protected.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 19 December 2006 @ 8:14 PM
I was feeling a bit on the uninformed side about some of the more recent lifestyle changes the Bushmen have made, so I went out and checked Wikipedia’s article for them. There, I found the following:
[quote]Many Bushmen groups suffered when formerly open land became game preserves or cattle ranches, restricting their access to wild foods, while governments continued to assume that they gathered most of their diet. In 1965, a fence along the Namibia-Botswana border divided the formerly continuous Kalahari foraging lands. During the 1970s, most of the Ju/’hoansi group abandoned their wandering lifestyle to raise loaned cattle in semipermanent villages. Foraging currently supplies around 30% of the Ju/’hoansi diet near the village of Dobe compared to 85% in 1964, reflecting the increasing untenability of hunting and gathering in the face of population expansion into hunter-gatherer territories, overgrazing of wild food plants by cattle, and the availability of alternative lifestyles such as gardening with additional governmental provision such as bored wells.[/quote]
Just thought I’d provide this to help frame any discussions on the thread. If it’s inaccurrate, please let me know.
Comment by jhereg — 20 December 2006 @ 10:11 AM
Jesus. Just… Jesus. I have no idea which to address first. I think I’ll start by pointing out that Botswana gives exactly jack AND shit about the environment. The ultimate goal is to sell huge pieces of the reserve to DeBeers to mine for diamonds. They’re trying to convince people that the Bushmen are ruining the environment that the government so desperately wants to protect so no one will get in the way of the bulldozers. And I can’t believe you’re actually falling for it.
Wow. Wow. Wow. Yeah, please go tell your average Native American about how much she must hunt and gather, and also about her excellent health care. Are you shitting me? Most reservations are basically rural ghettos. The natives of this country have been allowed neither to integrate into society, nor to maintain their way of life. The same thing will happen to the Bushmen.
Yeah, it says how hard civilization has made it for them to live the way they used to.
From what I’ve read of Sentinel Island, the people themselves are the reason nobody comes to visit, because they’re so hostile to outsiders.
That is so fucking cold. We’re talking about GENOCIDE here. So just because the Bushmen don’t fit your romanticized ideal of the perfect hunter-gatherer that never touches horticulture or pastoralism, they don’t deserve to LIVE? They’re not just a bunch of rituals, they’re PEOPLE.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 December 2006 @ 10:30 AM
Also: Yeah, protecting endangered species has proven so effective when it comes to non-human animals.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 December 2006 @ 10:32 AM
Ted, your defensiveness is kicking in again. You seem to have that on a hair trigger, and I can’t figure out why. How is it that anyone who questions any idea you come up with is personally attacking you? Don’t you end up with a whole lot of enemies that way?
You really don’t see how setting up a preserve for a human culture is anything like putting a pygmy in the zoo? Obviously they’re not the same, but they’re certainly related, I’d think. Sentinel Island isn’t a governmentally-protected sanctuary; it’s an island defended by its inhabitants. Islands are much easier to defend; I don’t think you could do the same thing for the Kalahari.
Civilization is a bad place to be, but even worse is caught on its edge—not civilized, but still unable to be free of it, either. The !Kung are trapped on that edge, and they do what they have to to survive.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 December 2006 @ 11:04 AM
I’m sorry for being all bitchy up there in my last comment. I wasn’t so much responding to what Ted was actually saying so much as I was responding to a tone in this thread that eerily echoes the Debswana party line: the Bushmen aren’t 100% foragers anymore, therefore they don’t deserve to live.
Regardless of the environmental effect pastoralism and horticulture have compared to foraging, no one can argue that either is worse than a diamond mine, or that horticulturalists and pastoralists deserve genocide.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 December 2006 @ 11:28 AM
Ok,
I won’t be defensive.
Maybe you are confused. I have a novel idea, I think so people will naturally be unfamiliar with it.
I feel like I provided a link that explained my position beyond saying Bushmen are simply animals that should be displayed in zoos.
But just for the record I think Bushmen are human beings not zoo animals. So now we can move past that.
It appears to be a lot easier to lament what is going on and to divide the the parties involved as villian and victim, than it is to come up with a solution.
I see a lot of factors clouding the issue. One is the issue of rights. By some schools of thought, the best thing to do with the Bushmen would be to integrate them to modern society, get them all vaccinated, provide modern medicine, educate them, build schools for them, get them to participate politically, start businesses, develop economically.
Probably some Busmen no doubt see things that way.
In all the examples I have read about when primitive indigenous cultures come in conflict with more civilized cultures, the indigenous people lose out. When they survivors finally integrate, they integrate at the bottom, or become welfare cases.
I really think the only way for a group to maintain their primitive way of life is to be seperate.
The Indian government does not fear the Sentinelese. They have a hands off policy. They are protecting the island. They could go in and do things to force integration. It wouldn’t be of any benefit to anyone though.
I think its a unique case.
I see pictures of the Bushmen wearing western clothes, it looks like many of them can read and write, from the website you posted before. It looks like they are integrating. Do they hunt with guns?
If they want to become pastoralists, no doubt that will have an environmental impact.
Are we romanticizing these people? Do we want them all to stay acting like they did in “The Gods must be crazy”? Is that what they want?
If they want to simply keep their land and integrate into modern life than my idea won’t work.
But there is a group on Pentecost Island in Vanuatu that wants to remain totally primitive and live as they always have, they eat their traditional diet and don traditional dress.
I think it would be good for groups in that situation to just live in a preserve and be protected by the modern people in the outlying government.
Primitive people are part of the eco-system in ways modern people perhaps people aren’t. They have a balance.
I really don’t see why this is morally repugnant.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 20 December 2006 @ 9:46 PM
No one here has a solution, though.
All you can say is my idea is morally repugnant, you can’t say you have a better idea of how to protect a stone age culture.
Seems to me that its just romanticism. It definately is when the indigenous people themselves don’t want to preserve it.
Maybe they just want personal autonomy and control of their ancestral lands. Lots of people want that. Israelis, Kurds, Native Americans.
Lots of groups have some area they think they have a claim to, that some other political group controls.
Its hard for me to choose sides. Its not clear cut to me who should control what beyond “might makes right. ”
I don’t always identify with the weaker side as a matter of course.
But I think human biodiversity is valuable and worth preserving.
Getting all upset over things in the world changing doesn’t seem to get me anywhere. It just makes me feel bad. I try to be realistic. If there is nothing to be done I would rather not concern myself with it.
I think what is unique about the Bushmen is their culture and way of life. But I can’t stop the world from changing.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 20 December 2006 @ 10:04 PM
Here is an NPR article that says the Bushmen may hunt with guns and dogs and trucks now.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3931160
I don’t autimatically dismiss things like this. I try not to look at eveything as black and white.
Native Americans tend to over hunt. I know lots of people would be aghast that I would even say that, but I’ve lived near three indian reservations and they overhunt and overfish.
For example most of the Walleye in Red lake in Minnesota is fished out.
I am sorry if that offends anyone.
But people can have religious beliefs about hunting and what not but that doesn’t mean they always follow them. Christians don’t all follow Jesus all the time.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 20 December 2006 @ 10:13 PM
Just going to reiterate this with some emphasis added:
[quote]Many Bushmen groups suffered [b]when formerly open land became game preserves or cattle ranches, restricting their access to wild foods[/b], while governments continued to assume that they gathered most of their diet. In 1965, [b]a fence along the Namibia-Botswana border divided the formerly continuous Kalahari foraging lands[/b]. During the 1970s, most of the Ju/’hoansi group abandoned their wandering lifestyle to raise loaned cattle in semipermanent villages. Foraging currently supplies around 30% of the Ju/’hoansi diet near the village of Dobe compared to 85% in 1964, reflecting [b]the increasing untenability of hunting and gathering in the face of population expansion into hunter-gatherer territories, overgrazing of wild food plants by cattle[/b], and the availability of alternative lifestyles such as gardening with additional governmental provision such as bored wells.[/quote]
Looks to me as if they’ve moved away from their traditions in order to survive the encroachment of civilization.
In terms of the Bushmen incurring environmental damage and hunting w/ rifles, I found this:
[quote]A government witness in the Bushman court case admitted yesterday that there was no evidence that Bushmen living in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve had been hunting using guns and vehicles, or hunting too many animals.
The government has repeatedly justified the evictions by claiming that the Bushmen had ‘radically changed their traditional lifestyles’ and regularly hunted animals with high-powered rifles from four wheel drive vehicles.
The witness - Joseph Matlhare, former Director of Wildlife - also failed to support his claim that Bushmen had a serious negative impact on the ecology of the reserve before they were evicted in 2002. [/quote]
from:
[url]http://www.survival-international.org/news.php?id=699[/url]
As for solutions, is leaving them the hell alone not a solution? Why does one need to set them aside in a preserve?
Comment by jhereg — 21 December 2006 @ 7:01 AM
Leaving them the hell alone is my solution. Protecting them while leaving them alone. I think they should be protected if they agree to live and hunt traditionally.
I mean yeah, I am assuming Botswana will act in good faith, which might be the wrong assumption. But in principle, my idea is for them to live in the reserve in a trditional way.
Another example is the Bunlap tribe in Vanuatu on Pentecost island. They are aware of modern life yet chose to live completely traditionally. Besides earning some tourist dollars, they fish and practive horticulture and have the same traditions they always have.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 21 December 2006 @ 10:40 AM
I mean the point is no one leaves anyone alone. Things need to be protected to be preserved. I leave oil reserves off the gulf of mexico alone that is not to say everyone will.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 21 December 2006 @ 10:42 AM
It’s not just Botswana and it’s not just the reserve. It sounds like you would actually have to remove some cattle ranches and probably some farms and quite possibly redraw some national borders in order to give them the full range they need to live as they did 40-50 years ago. And, hey, I’m all for that. But, one step at a time, get them back onto the reserve at least [b]closer[/b] to how they traditionally lived, then start working from there to correct the rest.
I know what you’re saying is to leave them alone, but you should be aware that there are two sides to a word: connotation & denotation. You used a word with a negative connotation regardless of the denotation. Sorry, but I think you should have expected people to say it was morally repugnant.
[quote]Things need to be protected to be preserved. [/quote]
I thought that’s what started this article in the first place? What’s the problem? Oh, yeah, you used a word with a negative connotation, then were surprised at the reaction.
Again, language isn’t one-dimensional, another reason to avoid being overly defensive on blogs (that actually [b]isn’t[/b] specifically directed at Ted) (alone).
Comment by jhereg — 21 December 2006 @ 11:02 AM
Its still a complicated issue. Alaskan Natives hunt with guns and four wheelers. They are organized into corporations and some of these corporations have chosen to do quite a bit of clear cutting.
There are laws in Alaska surrounding “substinence” hunting and fishing etc.
There is a village that had a court case about being exempted from hunting regs because they relied on hunting for food.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 21 December 2006 @ 11:47 AM
Its still a complicated issue. Alaskan Natives hunt with guns and four wheelers. They are organized into corporations and some of these corporations have chosen to do quite a bit of clear cutting.
There are laws in Alaska surrounding “substinence” hunting and fishing etc.
There is a village that had a court case about being exempted from hunting regs because they relied on hunting for food.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 21 December 2006 @ 11:47 AM
I guess to me the main issue is on the one hand you can’t really prevent people from wanting to modernize, but once people do they are no longer living in balance with the environment, so then there needs to be regulations.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 21 December 2006 @ 11:52 AM
[quote]I guess to me the main issue is on the one hand you can’t really prevent people from wanting to modernize, but once people do they are no longer living in balance with the environment, so then there needs to be regulations. [/quote]
Fair enough, but keep in mind that this doesn’t appear to be the situation in Botswana.
Comment by jhereg — 21 December 2006 @ 12:08 PM
It seems as if the best of intentions unravel quite quickly.
Theo, you’re suggesting it is better to try to gain the protection and interest from the “top” down, knowing full well that the process isn’t perfect.
Man, I wish I could get protections to be a permaculturalist ya know! I mean if the Bushmen obtain even some protection it is a lot more than what any of us have now.
Jason Said:
“You really don’t see how setting up a preserve for a human culture is anything like putting a pygmy in the zoo? Obviously they’re not the same, but they’re certainly related, I’d think. Sentinel Island isn’t a governmentally-protected sanctuary; it’s an island defended by its inhabitants. Islands are much easier to defend; I don’t think you could do the same thing for the Kalahari.
Civilization is a bad place to be, but even worse is caught on its edge—not civilized, but still unable to be free of it, either. The !Kung are trapped on that edge, and they do what they have to to survive. ”
Jason, I wonder if you really think that giving Native Americans reservations was morally wrong? If being on the edge of civilization is worse…then is it more humane (I assume it is humanity you appeal too here with your pygmy in a zoo analogy.) to “allow” or stand idly by while the last rements of the people are sucked into the lowest positions of industrial society, or killed off?
Besides, your original article was joy about special legislation that specifically assist the primitivists. In other words the legislation was, by other words, “human conservation” legislation.
Comment by Anonymous — 21 December 2006 @ 2:36 PM
Oh man, what did they call it when the U.S. government moved all the Native Americans onto reservations? There was some kind of name for it, some kind of snappy, catchy phrase… oh yeah. The Trail of Tears. Yeah, that sounds a-ok to me.
So it’s a choice between letting the government kill off all the indigenous foragers, or move them all onto the nature reserve of the government’s choice? How about leaving them the fuck alone and letting them do what they want? How about taking the government out of the picture entirely?
First of all, that was my article, not Jason’s. Second of all, that’s like saying that making slavery illegal is the same thing as putting African-Americans on reserves for their protection. One is forcing the government to take their damn hands off and give people the freedom to live the lifestyles they choose with dignity. The other is treating them like they’re infants who need to be constantly protected from the big, bad world by the government, of all things.
This is just completely ridiculous. Ted’s position is basically, “You’re all romanticizing the Bushmen, trying to fit them into some kind of Noble Savage stereotype! And that’s why I think we should move them all onto a nature preserve granted, of course, that they keep living their pristine, perfect, utopian hunter-gatherer existence. And if they don’t, well, you know, fuck ‘em.”
Of all the dangers that the Central Kalahari Game Reserve faces - poaching, diamond mining, American tourism - the Bushmen are not one of them. Can we please not forget that when Botswana government officials talk about “environmental restrictions” on how much the Bushmen can hunt on their own land, they’re talking about starving the Bushmen out so they can DIG UP THE WHOLE DAMN THING FOR DIAMONDS?!?!?!
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 21 December 2006 @ 3:09 PM
I’m not saying Fuck’em.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 21 December 2006 @ 4:09 PM
I recognize that there are paradoxes. Like for example the Sentinelese. The sentinelese don’t enjoy any rights from being citizens of India. But they are better off. They have personal autonomy. The Onge are a very simmilar culture and they are all welfare cases. They are sickly their culture is destroyed.
I think the Bunlap are a better model because they live traditionally and are more or less in contact with civilization.
Its a weird Idea I admit but my idea is that indigenous people live in wildlife preserves like the capstone predators they they are being part of the ecosystem and being protected along with it as long as they stay primitive.
What does it hurt to at least think about this?
Comment by Ted Heistman — 21 December 2006 @ 4:16 PM
[quote]And that’s why I think we should move them all onto a nature preserve granted, of course, that they keep living their pristine, perfect, utopian hunter-gatherer existence.[/quote]
Again, I’m going to trot out this beautiful little passage from Pirsig’s “Lila”:
[quote]Dusenberry smiled with a kind of arch smile. He said, `One time they [the native americans] were supposed to have food, you know, from before the white man came. Blueberries and venison and all that and so what did they do? They broke out three cans of DelMonte corn and started opening all the cans with a can opener. I stood it as long as I could. Finally I told them “NO! NO! NO! Not canned corn,” and they laughed at me. They said, “Just like a white man. Has to have everything just right.” [/quote]
Idealism is fine, but under no circumstances should we forget that H/G, “primitive” folk are nothing whatsoever if not pragmatic. And let’s face it, that’s a big part of [b]why[/b] it’s such a sustainable lifestyle.
Comment by jhereg — 21 December 2006 @ 4:20 PM
Nice to know that I can go on vacation and count on jhereg to hold down the fort while I’m gone.
w3rd, friend … w3rd.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 December 2006 @ 4:28 PM
[quote]indigenous people live in wildlife preserves like the capstone predators they they are being part of the ecosystem and being protected along with it as long as they stay primitive. [/quote]
Remove the ‘protection’ part (or modify it so that it’s limited to ‘protecting’ from encroaching farmers, ranchers, armies, tourists, et al.), and leave them in their traditional lands (all of them) and let them decide how to adapt to whatever needs they have and I don’t see much of a problem. Well, at least morally.
Comment by jhereg — 21 December 2006 @ 4:39 PM
[quote]Nice to know that I can go on vacation and count on jhereg to hold down the fort while I’m gone.
w3rd, friend … w3rd.
[/quote]
meh.
Kind of in a cranky mood this week, been a bit more talkative than normal.
Comment by jhereg — 21 December 2006 @ 4:41 PM
Jehereg,
“Remove the ‘protection’ part (or modify it so that it’s limited to ‘protecting’ from encroaching farmers, ranchers, armies, tourists, et al.), and leave them in their traditional lands (all of them) and let them decide how to adapt to whatever needs they have and I don’t see much of a problem. Well, at least morally. ”
Well I see a problem with your caveats.
1. They do need outside help whther its patronizing or not.
2. If threy adopt modern life they won’t live in balance with the ecosystem without regulations.
3. Its not realistic that they have all their original territory, first of all they lost most of their former range to the Bantu speaking peoples before the arrival of Europeans.
Personally I don’t buy the idea that they will always take good care of the earth by virtue of genetic heritage. I don’t think its true of Native Americans.
Aren’t most of us here interested in their fate because of the images we have seen of them living primitively?
Isn’t that why we care? Or is it just the fact that its a group pf people being disposessed from their land?
Like how the situation with Israel and the Palestinians is often framed?
Comment by Ted Heistman — 21 December 2006 @ 5:56 PM
The only reason they need help from outsiders is because they’re getting killed by outsiders. Remove the genocide and - voila! - they don’t need anyone’s help anymore.
THE REASON they’re “adopting modern life” is BECAUSE of regulations. Look at the natives in Minnesota: hunting regulations don’t allow them to hunt deer in the old way, the reasoning being that it harms the ecosystem. However, white hunters are allowed to shoot deer.
Wait a minute, so this reservation idea of yours wouldn’t give them all the territory they need to live as hunter-gatherers. But they don’t get to live on the reservation unless they’re exclusively hunter-gatherers. So they end up getting nothing. Wow, do you work for the Botswana g0vernment or something?
Who said that?
It’s both. You may not think that their culture is worth preserving because it’s changed - but culture is always changing. The Bushmen were never timeless; everyone is always adapting. Recent pressures have forced them to adapt by adopting some horticulture and pastoralism. But the core of their culture is still there, and will always be there as long as the Bushmen themselves are alive.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 21 December 2006 @ 6:18 PM
Yeah, what she said.
Comment by jhereg — 21 December 2006 @ 6:52 PM
Giulianna,
Seems like you are being really nasty, maybe its just me.
I don’t see much point in continuing this discussion. I was too defensive at first. So I apologize.
Its like you are “for the !Kung so anything I say in disagreement makes me for the opressors.
When in reality we are just two people having a conversation and neither of us is directly connected to the situation.
But no, just like I don’t think Kung should be put in zoos, I don’t think they should be prevented from having enough land to live.
What I was talking about is that the Bushmen used to control a really large territory, so its hard to say exactly what is their land.
It may be that these scenario I came up with won’t work for the bushmen.
Maybe it would work for Amazonian tribes, maybe it won’t work anywhere.
Its just an idea.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 21 December 2006 @ 8:22 PM
Giulianna, et. al.
From what I am understanding, the reason that Theo’s position is unacceptable is because the tools of government have been used to remove the Bushmen (using the term generically) and will not restore them to their “original” state. In other words it is an imperfect solution.
But I really fail to see an alternative presented. I mean, “Remove the genocide and - voila! ” Who is going to do that?
How do you “remove the genocide”? This is not a video game with cheat codes…wouldn’t that be nice!
Theo is saying, if government isn’t wooed into preserving some primitivist interests, then NO ONE but us blog-hacks will help them…and we are a damn bit short of saving a single bushman!
Comment by Jack Trace — 21 December 2006 @ 8:26 PM
I regret getting in too heated of a debate a few weeks ago with your husband on here. So I just want to extend an olive branch to both of you.
Plus I think I need to work on cultivating more civility in my discourse in general. I get too excitable and emotional.
I am working on an article about novel ways to help indigenous people. It will take a few days. You might be interested. I feel like I have their good in mind.
Sincerely
Ted
Comment by Ted Heistman — 21 December 2006 @ 8:52 PM
Part of the idea needs to involve a choice on the part of the indigeous people to forsake certian technology.
Its not unprecedented for groups to do that. One example of a group of people doing that are Amish. They aren’t indigenous though.
I think the Bunlap of Pentecost island are a closer example.
Papuans that choose to continue wearing their traditional dress are maybe another.
Personally, I support Amish people having a right to live the way thay choose. Even though thet are an insular society.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 21 December 2006 @ 9:01 PM
[quote]Part of the idea needs to involve a choice on the part of the indigeous people to forsake certian technology. [/quote]
I guess where I’m confused is what technology do you think they’re using that they would need to forsake?
Comment by jhereg — 21 December 2006 @ 9:32 PM
[quote]What I was talking about is that the Bushmen used to control a really large territory, so its hard to say exactly what is their land. [/quote]
Indeed. But just moving them back on the reserve (with domestic animals, they don’t appear to be causing particularly significant environmental damage). Is a good first step. And truthfully, when one of the many world crises finally snaps civilization, they’ll be fine from then on [b]as long as they can hold on to their cultural core that long[/b]. That’s the real risk.
Comment by jhereg — 21 December 2006 @ 9:36 PM
Hey –
I seem to have started a lot of this ‘bad feeling’ so I suppose I should not conitnue to read without commenting.
First off, Ted, I want to make very clear that I took great care in phrasing my response to your suggestion as ‘morally repugnant’ to me: as opposed to some abstract, universal… thing.
I have a general disgust for gevenrments in general and ‘protecting-people-from-themselves’ legislation in particular. IMO, most of the greatest harm in the world has resulted from the law of unintended consequences… and that is the core of my problem with treating the San as a ‘protected people’ rather than a living, viable, human culture.
Now, as far as real-world, practical ways of dealing with the situation… that IS a much harder question. I think that the first, and most important step is for governments to back off… recognize them (as they have many native american groups) as the living, viable, human culture that they are — which means recognizing thier sovereignty.
Once that is accomplished (and no, I don’t expect this to happen, but I feel it would be the ‘right’ thing to happen), then it is entirely up to them to determine what technology, what strategies and what ‘rules’ they are going to follow. If they wish to take on modern technology — knowing the price of doing so — that is their ‘right’ as much as yours or mine.
At the same time, I doubt there are many modern technologies that they would embrace, for the simple fact that they CAN see the cost much more clearly than you or I. And that cost may well include thier survival, and, more immediately, thier happiness and viability.
Janene
Comment by janene — 21 December 2006 @ 11:05 PM
[quote]From what I am understanding, the reason that Theo’s position is unacceptable is because the tools of government have been used to remove the Bushmen (using the term generically) and will not restore them to their “original” state. In other words it is an imperfect solution.[/quote]
No, that’s actually [b]not[/b] why it’s unacceptable. We’re not really interested in returning them to their “original” state. I think Ted is, but I’m not sure. I often find it very difficult to figure out where Ted is going with something.
What I’m interested in is that the !Kung keep their core culture; the parts of their culture that make them distinctive. I don’t see any way to do that without returning them to the land that their culture is based on. I do see ways in which adapting to include horticulture and/or pastoralism (in order to not require their full traditional range) wouldn’t obliterate it. It’s called a compromise. Moreover, as I understand it (which admittedly, could be very wrong), the !Kung themselves would find this more or less acceptable.
What Ted appears to be suggesting is that they are moved to an insufficient area for their “original” state, then forced to live (or die) without being able to change their culture.
This, we find unacceptable. Moreover, I find it both naive and a prime example of romanticism.
Comment by jhereg — 22 December 2006 @ 11:04 AM
Lets get past the Bushmen for a second. I know this is about the Bushmen in particular.
But I didn’t come up with this idea in relation to the Bushmen specifically. It was a general solution on how to preserve indigenous groups and their culture.
Its already established that its valuable to create nature preserves. There is a precendent with this. But why remove the people? Especially if they are people that have lived in blance with the area for centuries. The local people are part of the eco-system too.
There are several reasons why this idea wouldn’t work, one is inadequate land to maintain a population. If the area is too small it won’t work.
Even though you keep insisting that it is my desire to keep the Bushmen from having adequate land in order to survive, I never said that. But the whole world can’t be turned into one big preserve, not any time soon, anyway.
As for how much is enough, I can’t say, specifically. But as far as their entire historic range that is impossible. Other people occupy those areas. Maybe a more recently ceded area could be restored.
Another way it won’t work is if the people don’t want to continue to live primitively and instead want to seek development and have everything modern people have.
I am not advocating forcing anyone to do anything. It has to be by consent. Some indigenous groups actually do choose to maintain their traditional lifeways.
Various villages on Pentecost island in Vanuatu are like this.
They are called “Kustom villages”.
That is pidgin for Traditional villages or Custom villages. People maintain their customs. They have confidence in them. They go naked but not because they aren’t aware other people wwear clothes and live in modern ways. they just like their lifeway better.
The thing about the indians with the canned corn: See to me its a lot more than canned corn. I think its niave to say Native Americans maintain their nature based culture, but tat they just aren’t purist about it.
That is not what I see. I see the young people adopting urban gang culture. That was my experience from living in the middle of three indian reservations and seeing Indians evryday. I came in niave thinking they would:
first of all not initially hate my guts for being white
and second of all be all into ecology just because they are native Americans.
I was disabused of that pretty quickly.
I think Native American culture is pretty much destroyed. I think probably that is what will happen to the Bushmen.
But maybe there can be hope for other indigenous hunter gatherer groups.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 22 December 2006 @ 1:04 PM
But I mean the peace corps approach is the opposite of what I am saying. Its all about development, literacy, education, modern medicine, economic development.
I look at groups like the Onge and see how bad things are compared to life on Sentinel island and I see the value of isolation.
But with the Pentecostal islanders, I see how people can have contact with modern people and still mainatian their traditional way of life.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 22 December 2006 @ 1:08 PM
[quote]Lets get past the Bushmen for a second. I know this is about the Bushmen in particular.
But I didn’t come up with this idea in relation to the Bushmen specifically. It was a general solution on how to preserve indigenous groups and their culture. [/quote]
Okay, fair enough, but trying to make that clearer “up front” so to speak could have gone a long way to preventing a lot of this.
[quote]Its already established that its valuable to create nature preserves. There is a precendent with this. But why remove the people? Especially if they are people that have lived in blance with the area for centuries. The local people are part of the eco-system too. [/quote]
Generally speaking, nature preserves are [b]usually[/b] created after the fact, by which I mean after the indigenous people have been forced into an alternate lifestyle. More on this later.
[quote]There are several reasons why this idea wouldn’t work, one is inadequate land to maintain a population. If the area is too small it won’t work. [/quote]
Quite right on both counts. In order to truly not impact the culture in question, the area would have to be whatever they had to begin with. Also, if the entirety of that area is left to them, then there’s not really any reason to declare the area preserve. So it’s really more a question of recognizing that said people “own” said area.
[quote]As for how much is enough, I can’t say, specifically. But as far as their entire historic range that is impossible.[/quote]
Yeah, I’m not really expecting that either, but since that isn’t feasible at the moment, then, again, a reasonable compromise would be to let them stay on part and continue to let them alter their culture in the necessary ways to sustain themselves in the smaller area.
[quote]The thing about the indians with the canned corn: See to me its a lot more than canned corn. I think its niave to say Native Americans maintain their nature based culture, but tat they just aren’t purist about it.[/quote]
[quote]I think Native American culture is pretty much destroyed. I think probably that is what will happen to the Bushmen.[/quote]
I still have hope for the Bushmen. They have a different deal. From a Game Theory perspective, they don’t have to “win”, they just have to “not lose”. Again, I think getting them back onto lands where they can practice the majority of their cultural beliefs would virtually assure them of making it through.
Comment by jhereg — 22 December 2006 @ 1:32 PM
Well, I’m glad we are understanding each other at least.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 22 December 2006 @ 1:51 PM
Culture is not a sacred thing that must be protected at all costs - culture is a by-product of living, no doubt many cultures have come & gone during the time humans have been on earth so far. Now, protecting individuals, keeping them alive, making sure they have rights & liberties (or making sure they are able to secure rights & excercise those) is very important. The western colonialesque projects of protecting whole cultures - specially ones that get rewarded for staying backwards - seems ridiculous (sp?) to me. It seems like a more benign form of imperialism (as in, we in America thing you over there living like stone age people is cool, so we want you to keep doing that so that we can feel like there is “resistance” to “civilization” (or how we live) - or is it that the more organized & technologically advanced people secretly fear new competitors from under developed nations & thus they want them to stay the way they are now or have been hundreds of years ago?). Making a fetish out of preserving cultures hurts human individuality, development of groups & nations, etc. Cultres will get preserved if people who make up that culture wants it preserved (this is aside from genocide of course, or any type of forced violent destruction of a group of people - that’s bad, should be stopped quickly with greater force). But, all that said, the Bushmen winning their lawsuit sounds like a very good thing. No one culture is going to live forever nor should it - that would be very freaky, since pretty much every thing comes to an end. But civilization of some sort will always be around, as long as humans are around. We need civilization. People who predict civilization “crashing” are deluded.
That protected island/people in India sounds weird, can people there leave it if they want? How much free will is being denied to those “tribes people” by not offering them choices available to millions of other Indians? What about quality of life - m