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 - medicne & all other stuff that the developed areas have that makes life easy? To deny useful things to people is cruel. That includes knowledge. OK, nice blog, layter. Oh, and Happy New Year!
- Sujewa
http://www.wilddiner.com/
Comment by Sujewa — 1 January 2007 @ 3:20 AM
Define “backwards.” “Backwards” implies that all cultures are on a single track towards Victorian perfection, a ridiculous and racist notion properly overturned nearly a century ago. The Bushmen have a way of life that works. The Europeans and other Botswanans do not. If they take up our way of life, they’ll just end up dying like us.
Most importantly, they don’t want to live like us. They’re fighting it tooth and nail. It’s “Debswana” that’s trying to force that upon them, by using words like “backwards” to convince us that they’re improving the Bushmen’s lives. Making them live like us is causing them enormous problems, and the thing they want most is to be able to live the way they always have, without our interference.
Some cultures encourage human individuality; others crush it. The world today is dominated by an enormous culture that must, in order to survive, consume all other cultures around it, and in the history of the world, there has never been another culture more inimical to human individuality.
That’s precisely what’s happening to the Bushmen. They do want to preserve their culture; that’s what they’ve been fighting for.
Cultures will always be around as long as humans are around, but civilization is a very particular form of culture—a form that is primarily defined by an unsustainable approach to complexity. This is why every civilization crashes. Those who predict a civilization not crashing are deluded: you can’t grow forever.
Those are nonsense questions to them, the kinds of questions only an outsider could ask if he were arrogant enough to presume his culture so superior.
That’s even more nonsense, since our quality of life is far inferior to theirs. Their lives are easy; ours are, by comparison, nothing but endless toil, hardship and scarcity.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 January 2007 @ 11:44 AM
Re: ” That’s even more nonsense, since our quality of life is far inferior to theirs. Their lives are easy; ours are, by comparison, nothing but endless toil, hardship and scarcity.” & the whole post/comment really by
Jason Godesky:
Point 1: being a farmer or a hunter is not easy. If you think it is, then you do not know what you are talking about. But, onwards;
The differences in opinion is a matter of taste really, beyond being able to survive, do meaningful & pleasurable things in the world & procreating, most other expectations & requirements that come with living in a certain place or living within a certain culture - to be able to judge whether one’s existence is a good or a bad one - depends on what the judge or the outside observer holds as desirable things. It is possible to live a very satisfied life as a Buddhist monk in a forrest cave in Myanmar or a multi-millionaire in New York City. However, the second situation - & a nation/culture/civilization that allows or provides the tools for ammasing individual wealth will offer more choices to more individuals than a nation/culture/civilization that offers being a monk as one of a very few ways to lead a high quality life.
Yes, some cultures are suprior to others, based on a certain set of criteria. Personally - a culture or a nation that recognizes the individual as sacred, on par legally (for the most part) with the community and the government, and offers lots of choice in how the individual can live & make a living is superior to others that offer less positive choices & does not value the individual human being as much.
Many important things in human exsitence are not relative. There are absolute goods & bads. Two examples: life or death - most humans on the planet would consider living preferrable to dying, food or hunger - most would choose food. Thus, cultures/civilizations/nations that offer more of the good are better than ones that offer less of the good. But things are not static, and all human existence on the planet is or can be at times, interrelated, so it is best to think of us as The Human Community on Earth as opposed to radically different nations that have nothing in common & that must always exist on different tracks. As commerce & war has shown in the past, nations & cultures come together at many points in time.
Finally, sorry to hear that Mr. Godesky & his peer’s lives suck (” our quality of life is far inferior to theirs”), I & my peers & others who live here in the DC area have a pretty good quality of life. In fact, we have a several thousand times better quality of life than our ancestors or even relatives 2 generations ago - due to free market capitalism, democracy & a host of other well developed institutions & tools that became possible because people looked beyond a simple agrarian lifestyle.
So, for me (and billions of other humans on this planet, as evident by their desire/work to develop first world level economies or participate in such as immigrants)
Farming is dull, but being able to a farmer or a film critic, or an indie rock star or a chef is good
a culture/nation/civilization that encourages and supports economic diversity & individual rights is far better than ones that do not.
Interesting stuff to think about. Even if I don’t agree with a lot of ideas expressed on this post’s comments, it is nice to discover how some people feel about epic stuff such as cultures & civilizations/ what their vantage point is.
- Sujewa
http://www.diyfilmmaker.blogspot.com/
Comment by Sujewa Ekanayake — 2 January 2007 @ 6:10 PM
Correction: “Farming is dull, but being able to a farmer or a film critic, or an indie rock…” should read “Farming is dull, but being able to BE a farmer or a film critic, or an indie rock …”.
Thanks!
- Sujewa
Comment by Sujewa Ekanayake — 2 January 2007 @ 6:15 PM
Being a farmer is incredibly difficult. It is back-breaking, endless toil. But a hunter, on the other hand, is a life so easy that in times past it was reserved only for royalty, and today is enjoyed as a vacation. As Richard Manning states several times in Against the Grain, hunting is fun. Farming is anything but. Of course, the very sentence you’re quoting from me included a link to “Thesis #25: Civilization reduces quality of life,” which includes significant statistical analyses on several measures of quality of life, especially how much labor is involved and longevity. It is, of course, a popular myth that hunter-gatherer life is “solitary, nasty, brutish and short,” but those words much more clearly describe farmers. The evidence is overwhelming that Hobbes knew not whereof he spoke. If you think hunting and gathering isn’t an easy way of life, then you do not know what you are talking about.
But still far fewer than a culture that does away with the notion of wealth entirely, and instead prides itself on the promotion of community and self expression. See Paul Radin’s Primitive Man as Philosopher.
Yes, but food for who? Death for who? You’re an animal; in order for you to live, something else has to die. By the same token, your death provides food to others.
Absolutely not. Judging solely by human good is how a civilization arises. Because they always maximize for human life and human food at the expense of all others, they are unsustainable. They destroy their own foundations, and along the way, wipe out all human freedom and dignity as complexity increases.
By American standards, our quality of life is incredibly good. But I work far more than my foraging ancestors, and will see far less for my labor than they did. Of course, my life is also far better than my more recent agrarian ancestors, because I live in the First World, and am afforded a life of ease and prosperity because the costs of that lifestyle are externalized to agrarian societies in the Third World who suffer for my sake. Of course, we take that into account when we talk about civilization’s quality of life, and we try to extricate ourselves from such an abominable system. My wife and I have 5.6 slaves; how many slaves do you have? I’d guess a good number more than that—the average American has that many just for one.
We’re still in recovery from the Neolithic Mortality Crisis; the adoption of farming caused enormous die-off. We’ve been recovering ever since, but we still have not regained the level of quality of life we enjoyed as foragers. So it presents a situation where both of us have plenty of rhetoric: compare our level to an agrarian society, and it is far better, but compare it to foragers, and it is still far worse. But if you’d read the article linked to in that comment, you’d see that you have been afforded little in the way of extended life for all of your slaves and long centuries of recovery, but it comes at a monumental cost in labor and stress. So, was it worth it?
That’s hardly a logical argument. In all of history, while we know of a flood of civilized folk who have abandoned civilization to “go native,” run off with the Indians, or even just run away to join the circus, we can’t find any foraging culture that ever willingly and peacefully gave up that life to take up farming. We know of innumerable cultures that fought to the bitter end, and considered violent death a better end than civilization, but none that did so willingly, because they thought civilization was a better way.
Of course, it’s hardly revealing that Third Worlders would rather live in the First World, any more than a slave would rather be a master. The better question is, does anybody remember what freedom was like, or have we all been dehumanized by this system of exploitation—exploited and exploiters alike—to even remember what such a world is like?
We’d best remember, because that world is coming, whether we like it or not.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 January 2007 @ 6:37 PM
Geez. All this talk about how we today have so much choice, blah, blah, blah. I’m sure that people who work all day long in sweat shops for a wage that only barely allows them to survive simply decided that’s what they really wanted to do with their lives. Look, modern civilization does indeed offer a wide range of opportunities for some people, but that choice is based on the misery of countless others. And the idea that the third world nations will eventually catch up with the first world is just unfounded cornucopianism of the worst kind. Far more likely is that, with peak oil, climate change etc. hitting at the more or less same time, the first world nations will catch up with (if not outrun) the third world.
Comment by Hasha — 2 January 2007 @ 6:43 PM
They did; terrible as it is, it beats farming. Which is how bad farming is….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 January 2007 @ 6:50 PM
LOL! Yeah, I suppose, Jason, for some of them at least. Although it is my understanding that a lot of those people basically lost their land to multinationals etc. and so couldn’t continue farming whether they wanted to or not.
Comment by Hasha — 2 January 2007 @ 6:56 PM
Hey Jason G,
I think human life is far more important than other animal life, due to: 1 - I am human (& some of the coolest animals I know & luv are humans), and 2: humans are capable of doing incredibly awesome, exciting & interesting things (inventing Valentines Day & cards to go with it, creating Beastie Boys records & videos, inventing grand & useful concepts such as “the Kingdom of Heaven is within”, also “There are no Gods”, to name a few items). However, the ideal situation would be preservation of all types of animals, which is possible through an economy/ a people that does not depend on hunting for survival, or very well regulated hunting (something that a nation with a good infrastructure & development can do). Many species of animals have gone extinct due to hunting, I am sure you know about that.
There are no masters & slaves in a modern free market/capitalist/properly regulated (appropriate & enforced laws) economy. Individuals are free to work as little or as much as they want (provided employment is available or the support for starting businesses are available, both of which btw are more likely in well developed economies as opposed to hunting & farming societies). More than anything, modern economies are service economies - where the main economic relationship is between the producer/seller of goods or services and the customer/consumer. Often times people fall into both producer & customer roles. A much more nuanced & civil relationship than one of master & slave.
Producers need customers, and customers often need or want many products & services. Both sides have economic power (Montgomery bus boycott during the civil rights era = consumer power), and can influence the other, often cases are the other in some ways, and the two sides need each other, a pretty decent arrangement.
Your romanticization of the hunting lifestyle is interesting, but remember this: optional hunting is possible within a modern/market economy, but the reverse is not true. Deseases that affect game/hunted animals or the sudden loss of game due to a host of other reasons can wipe out communities based on hunting.
People can have a high quality of life in Third World countries provided that they have wealth (this I know from direct observations, some of my immigrant relatives save $s & buy property, start businesses & go back to the Old Country after living in the US for a while - but retain the ability to come back to the US since the US is much more stable & just/fair). The trick is that the economic infrastructure, laws & a host of other things that facilitate building of wealth are not yet available to many in Third World countries. But with new technological innovations (cell phones, internet - capitalist products basically), those dark days are slowly coming to an end.
Situations have improved over the last 60 years (which is the 1st 60 years post-colonial, for many countries in the world, with the European colonial era officially coming to an end around 1946-48).
Japan, India, China are some of the biggest examples of countries that are adapting well to modern economies. Look around & you’ll see hundreds of more examples. This increase of global wealth & quality of life is due to trade/capitalism/laws that respect private ownership of property & wealth - classical positve economic aspects of First World/Western countries.
Overall, save for a dozen or so of very tragic places or war zones, most counties in the world are doing better now than they were doing 60 years ago. The fact that the world population is at its known historical highest is proof that humans are doing a good job keeping themselves alive (now we need to look at colonizing space, another topic for another day :). This new level of success is due to countless inventions & adaptations, many of which were pioneered in capitalist/free market/modern economies/countries.
Sorry to hear that you have 5.6 slaves (i hope they escape), I have no slaves (nor do I want any, and it is illegal to have slaves where I live), but I do (and am happy to) support thousands of businesses through often very small, daily transactions (purchase of necessary or desired goods & services, brought to my neighborbood thanks to capitalism), their owners & employees, and the localities that they trade out of (from all over US & world) through participating in the market economy/modern economy/capitalism.
Further, without the awesome productive capabilities of modernized, capitalist nations, it would be very difficult for humans on Earth to deal properly with insane dictators (the Hitlers of the world) and gigantic natural disasters (can’t recover fast or even moderately slowly from a flood or a tsunami if there is no one to borrow lots of money & helicoptors & medicine from). Another words, if the US of the early 1940’s (a First World, capitalist country) did not exist as such & thus were not able to quickly arm & meet the challenge posed by the Nazi’s, many of us would not be alive today, or would be alive in an actual slave type situation, or would at least be speaking German & deffering to The Master Race on all matters. Ditto for Stalin & his brand of communism. Same goes for natural disasters such as the Asian Tsunami of ‘04. Without quick western aid the situation/the aftermath would have been far worse. Capitalist nations have saved the world/many nations several times (WW I, WW II, from several deseases & natural disasters, etc.). Hunting societies have not and cannot due to their inherent productivity limitations.
Post-hunting civilizations have given rise to the modern world, with all the very useful concepts, philosophies & tools that hunters were not able to develop because they either were too busy hunting or didn’t accidentally come across the new tools & ideas in the process of attempting to create other tools (’cause they had the blade & the stone ax, etc. required for their strictly hunting based lifestyle - probably). With commerce comes leisure time & developmental resources/money, with leisure & money comes (among other things) time to innovate new cool gadgets like the internet.
Dropping out & becoming a hunter or a small farmer maybe fun & fulfilling for some, but for many on this planet that is not an option, nor is it something desirable.
However, if civilization does “crash” as you believe it must, I’ll swing by your hunting lands for some wild chicken meat or banana berries or something
Hopefully you’ll be in a sharing mood. Luckily the “crash” will not be permanent (that’s if it ever gets here, which it won’t, people have been talking about the crash for over 2,000 years now, at least), as evident from historical records, humans rebuild & reaquire tools & knowledge & we’ll be back on the net in no time. They found remains of a huge city, now underwater, off the coast of India recently and it dates back more than 9,000 years. And hey, check it out, civilization (post-hunter/small farmer civilization) is alive & well all these years later, and is more fantabulous then ever!
Now I got some actual work do to. Some clients who purchase my services & thus make my high quality lifestyle possible are expecting some completed projects. They won’t accept hunted meat as trade (which is very cool, ’cause having to kill poor, relatively defenseless animals for survival would suck). Take care. Final transmission (at least for a while).
- Sujewa
http://www.diyfilmmaker.blogspot.com/
Comment by Sujewa Ekanayake — 3 January 2007 @ 2:11 AM
OMG. This is just getting better and better…
[quote] However, the ideal situation would be preservation of all types of animals, which is possible through an economy/ a people that does not depend on hunting for survival, or very well regulated hunting (something that a nation with a good infrastructure & development can do). Many species of animals have gone extinct due to hunting, I am sure you know about that. [/quote]
Hello! I’ll say that again: Hello! This is the culture that has caused the greatest mass extinction since the disappearance of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. And you’re trying to tell me that this system is better suited for preserving biodiversity than hunting and gathering? I’m speechless.
As for the rest of the post, I’ll let Jason respond, if he considers it worthwhile. But I just couldn’t let that one go by.
Comment by Hasha — 3 January 2007 @ 2:40 AM
Hey –
Errr.. I can’t help myself
Be as flippant as you like, but it is factual to say that Americans are wealthy as a direct result of the exploitation of actual, real people in the third world. You DO have some number of slaves and the more ‘wealth’ you accumulate for yourself, the greater the number of slaves enabling that wealth.
1) Without the ‘awesome productive capabilities’ of our civilization we never would have had to worry about Hitler or anyone like him — because without that ‘awesome productive capability’ there is no coercian.
2) Did you read any of the articles about the Sengalese (??)(traditional H-G community)? Like the wildlife, they avoided the worst effects of the tsunami. So again, it is only the produce of our civilization that *needs* these productive capabilities to survive.
3) Natural Disasters and epidemic disease and war are the *result* of civilizational structures, so claiming that alternative social structures cannot deal with these things as well may be vaguely accurate — but is quite obviously irrelevant and misleading.
Janene
Comment by janene — 3 January 2007 @ 9:16 AM
Sujewa,
I would take it as a personal favor if you would review Anthropik’s ‘Essential Writings’, particularly ‘The Thirty Theses’.
I suspect you’ll find Anthropiks’ answers to the majority of the points you make within those writings.
Thanks in advance,
jhereg
Comment by jhereg — 3 January 2007 @ 9:38 AM
Thanks, all–I think you covered all the bases already.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 3 January 2007 @ 10:56 AM
Couple of quick points:
Re: “This is the culture that has caused the greatest mass extinction since the disappearance of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.”
No proof of that. It is a grand & misguided claim only. Mass extinctions were not well tracked/studied or even seriously thought about until recently (last 50 or so years). Experts disagree on how/why the dinosaurs disappeared. Cultures don’t cause mass extinctions btw, individuals/groups w/ in a cultre/a nation do. Just as individuals from certain nations, which have certain cultures, have worked to stop things like “mass extinctions”.
Re: 1) Without the ‘awesome productive capabilities’ of our civilization we never would have had to worry about Hitler or anyone like him — because without that ‘awesome productive capability’ there is no coercian.
Wrong. In all (or most) human societies there have been violent aggressors. The world you imagine is not real, as in, you ignore the inherent warlike & distructive nature of humans - something we need ed in order to survive, btw, in an often hostile natural world. Of course our violent tendencies needs to be kept in check. Ancient civilizations (Mayans, Greeks, Indians) killed thousands of people using very simple weapons. Many of those civilizations were farming & hunting civilizations.
Re: “…but it is factual to say that Americans are wealthy as a direct result of the exploitation of actual, real people in the third world. You DO have some number of slaves and the more ‘wealth’ you accumulate for yourself, the greater the number of slaves enabling that wealth.”
This is a big lie. Americans are not wealthy because of Third World exploitation. If there is so much wealth to be made from the Third World, why isn’t the Third World itself incredibly wealthy? American wealth is not based on direct material possession or the gold standard - we base the value of our currency on several factors such as overall productivity, earnings, trade, etc. The value of the dollar is, to a certain degree, artificial & regulated, not based on how many so called resources we control in any part of the world at any given time (specially since we believe in & practice private ownership of businesses, not exclusive state ownership, thus it would be very difficult for the US gov. to base our economy on what it “owned” or controlled in the world) . There are, however, certain sectors in the economy that deals with goods from other parts of the world (oil, coffee, etc.), but even if all those get taken away, US will still be very wealthy. American wealth is based on the fact that we are a merchant civilization, we trade, buy & sell, & we also produce & sell our own products & services & invest $s world wide. Also we have a couple of hundred million citizens & residents working in an organized society, paying taxes, bying goods & services - generating a lot of income for private businesses & the state. If anything, US trade gives $s to other countries & if people in those countries wish it, they can use the money to develop their countries (and many are doing just that). Instead of having a world full of poor countries, it is much more preferrable to have some wealthy countries, some moderately wealthy countries & others in transition from poor to better off.
Eventually it will be in all of our best interest to have every country be productive & wealthy - more trade, more customers, for everyone. And one of the benefits of living in a productive country is that those who do not wish to participate in the economy to a big degree can stay out of it - they will be afforded that freedom due to the wealth that sustains their nation; gets them cheap internet access, pays soldiers to guard their borders, homes from enemies, etc.
Re: the slaves issue: not calling things by their proper name is intellectual dishonesty.
a slave is a person who has no choice but to do whatever their owners tell them to do - otherwise severe punishment or death, do not get adequate compensation for their work & is not a person with legal rights equal to the master/owner. If you are confused about slaves & slavery, do some research on slavery in the new world (US, pre-civil war) & the old (Romans - of the old republic/empire periods). Working for a living, anywhere in the world, is not slavery. Voluntarily taking a job is not enslavement.
There are abusive workplace practices that people need to guard against, but that does not mean employment is slavery. You are diluting the power of your argument & clouding any useful points you would have to make by insisting on calling things by the wrong , gigantically wrong, names.
Re: 2) Did you read any of the articles about the Sengalese (??)(traditional H-G community)? Like the wildlife, they avoided the worst effects of the tsunami. So again, it is only the produce of our civilization that *needs* these productive capabilities to survive.
I don’t want to live like wildlife. Thanks. I like cable TV, my Mac & checking out new bands.
Re: 3) Natural Disasters and epidemic disease and war are the *result* of civilizational structures, so claiming that alternative social structures cannot deal with these things as well may be vaguely accurate — but is quite obviously irrelevant and misleading.
Natural disasters are often not the result of civilization (that’s why they are clled NATURAL disasters). Volcanos errupt, floods happen (although man made structures can often save humans & animals from destruction caused by natural disasters). Global warming & air pollution & similar things, howerver, can be curbed by human behavior changes - I think.
Re: I would take it as a personal favor if you would review Anthropik’s ‘Essential Writings’, particularly ‘The Thirty Theses’.
Will do. But I think my chosen way of life is far different than that most who have commented here would prefer, so I guess we go our separate ways.
Thanks! This has been kind of fun, if nothing else.
- Sujewa
http://www.diyfilmmaker.blogspot.com/
Comment by Sujewa Ekanayake — 3 January 2007 @ 2:18 PM
[quote]Will do. But I think my chosen way of life is far different than that most who have commented here would prefer, so I guess we go our separate ways.[/quote]
Fair enough. I do hope you at least give the ‘The Thirty These’ a fair chance. There’s quite a bit there and it might take a while to absorb it, so I ask you not to rush to judge it; let it sit for a while.
Having said that, take care!
Comment by jhereg — 3 January 2007 @ 2:37 PM
There’s room at the top they are telling you still
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the hill
-John Lennon
Comment by Hasha — 3 January 2007 @ 2:38 PM
Hey –
Ok, I’d definately call this a failure to communicate…
First a note: I am NOT suggesting that humans are not violent, however, without the concetration of coercive forces (ie hierarchy), violence is limited to the scale of interpersonal conflict. I hit you with a stick — you hit me back. Sucks for you and me, but not at all the same as war, and totally incapable of creating the force necessary to create something like the holocaust.
Americans are wealthy because third world resources (especially labor resources) can be leveraged for our benefit. Tell me how ‘wealthy’ you would be if you had to purchase all of your goods from people making twenty or thirty USD an hour. Instead, you buy stuff produced at labor rates of 5USd a day — or worse (sometimes better) — but always at rates far lower than American workers would be willing or able to do.
Likewise, IF American workers DID, in fact, work for those sorts of wages, well, then we would not be so wealthy, as a society, overall.
Really? I’d love to see an American that can ‘to a big degree stay out of [the economy]’. Food, water, clothing, shelter… what exactly can we americans provide for ourselves without participating in the economy? Never mind ‘luxury’ goods.
I dunno, ‘wage slave’, IMO has been a well established term for a while… and then, of course, there is true slavery in the world (see Northen Marianas Scandel) and there is Indentured Servitude in much of the third world, and there are all of the issues with ‘blood diamonds’ and the way they are mined. I don;t think that slavery is too far off the mark, when an individual has only the choice ‘do THIS, or starve to death.’
I like those things, too. I (personally) don’t really plan on becoming a H-G living in a brush shelter… but I DO recognize that they may have a whole lote to teach me (us) about living in harmony with our very own life support system.
The Sengalese did not survive because they are primitive — they survived because they understand the world around them. Seems like a useful trait to me.
Oh, sure. But just like New Orleans and Katrina, the damage caused was HUGELY exacerbated by our unwillingness to be aware of natural systems. How might things have been different if we lived with the world rather than trying to remake it in ways that simply don’t work. (I’m refering, of course, to the decimation of the wetlands south of New Orleans.) Not saying that there would not have been a hurricane, but rather that the hurricane might have been no big deal if we weren’t so damned arrogant as to think that we can do anything we want without consequence.
Perhaps… however, I think the one thing everyone here has in common is that we all wish to have a ‘better’, interpersonal, relationship based life, rather than an impersonal, work and economics based life.
Janene
Comment by janene — 3 January 2007 @ 3:03 PM
[quote]
[quote]I don’t want to live like wildlife. Thanks. I like cable TV, my Mac & checking out new bands.
[/quote]
I like those things, too. I (personally) don’t really plan on becoming a H-G living in a brush shelter…
[/quote]
Now, see, I really don’t care much for cable TV. If I could just get the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, and Animal Planet (and pay an appropriate price for it) I prolly would, but as cable TV is now, we just don’t bother with it.
Comment by jhereg — 3 January 2007 @ 3:21 PM
Hey –
I’m bad… I like my Sci Fi — although, truth be told, I watch a grand total of maybe two or three hours of tv a week… less if you take into account the tivo’ed-out commercials
Janene
Comment by janene — 3 January 2007 @ 3:34 PM
We mostly watch movies or tv shows released to dvd on our tv. We’re Joss Whedon addicts ;-).
Comment by jhereg — 3 January 2007 @ 3:44 PM
Werd!
Comment by janene — 3 January 2007 @ 4:51 PM
This “talking with anti-civilization people” experience gave me an idea for a movie, so all is not lost/this wasn’t a complete waste of time. When I am not getting entangled in long web arguments (& not working my day job at a book store), I make & self-distribute ultra low budget indie movies (latest, “Date Number One” (2006), website: http://www.wilddiner.com/). So, down the road, it is entirely possible that people may see some of the ideas explored above reflected in one of my movies. It is interesting how two individuals can live in the most successful/pleasant (but not without errors of course) civilization of all recorded time on the planet (that would be the USA), pretty much by all positive standards/civilization building goals aspired to by much of humanity for centuries, but have two drastically different takes on their environment/situation/place & time.
A situation with great comic potential
On the TV front my latest addiction is HBO’s Rome. Well done stuff (for the most part). Just saw the whole thing on DVD, season 1. Looking forward to season 2, which starts this month. Rome tells the familiar story of the end of the republic & the rise of the empire (Julius Ceasar period, Season 1 ends with Ceasar’s assasination in the Senate), but two of the main characters are ordinary legionaires/soldiers (one very nobel - the centurion Veronus who becomes a senator at the end of Season 1 - & one fun but mercinary like - legionaire Pullo) - with ordinary problems & aspirations - it’s like Roman historical tales for the common man or something , but intertwined with the decadence & glamor & troubles (violence, dangerous relationships, etc.) of the ruling class - very interesting approach. Also, the show pays greater attention to social & religious nuances of ancient Romans, unlike all other flicks about Romans that I’ve seen.
On the movies front, I like Amelie, & pretty much anything by Jim Jarmusch. Most of you guys will probably like Jarmusch’s flick Dead Man, it is anti-western civilization also (well, maybe just the westward expansion part of US history only). My favorite Jarmusch flick is Mystery Train, about 3 groups of people (a young Japanese couple, an Italian widow, and 3 factoy workers) in Memphis on one night. The ghost of Elvis in that flick.
- Sujewa
Comment by sujewa — 3 January 2007 @ 8:34 PM