Re: Love Hurts

[ermadog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Louis Proyect:
> Joan, I appreciate the hard work that you put into this essay but it >
appears utterly unfamiliar

"Utterly unfamiliar" - let's see, where have I heard that before? Oh, yes,
you were absolutely certain that Levins would set me straight about the
"science" of native herbal medicine. I rebutted that nicely and haven't
heard a peep out of you on that topic since then.

> The very best explanation of the ethos of such societies is given by
Marshall Sahlins in the first chapter of "Stone Age Economics,"  <

1972. Did you check the dates on any of my citations? Most of the nuggets
of aboriginal wisdom are from people who are still alive and can be
contacted. Additionally, the native educators on the Aboriginal People's
Network whose series I've been following are also still alive. You may
have noticed, I also cite Jim Craven; and I will also draw on a few
remarks from Hunter Gray.

> Sahlins: 'lack of interest' in developing his technological equipment.

If you are ever in Prince Rupert, you will want to stop in at the museum.
They have a well respected collection featuring the not unconsiderable
technological achievements of pre-European coastal communities, from
lumbering, to woodwork, to copper working. It's quite impressive.

> "In this relation of hunters to worldly goods there is a neat and
important point. From the internal perspective of the economy, it seems
wrong to say that wants are 'restricted,' desires 'restrained,' or even
that the notion of wealth is 'limited.' Such phrasings imply in advance an
Economic Man and

>From the internal perspective of the hungry belly, it is obvious that
wants and desires are restrained by the external forces of nature; now
providing abundance, now dearth. It is this uncertainty that is
propitiated by the great mass of religious ritual that governs tribal
life. To say that such people are free of care is absurd.

> 'Moreover if it is a great blessing to be free from a great evil, our
[Montagnais] Savages are happy; for the two tyrants who provide hell and
torture for many of our Europeans, do not reign in their great forests,--I
mean ambition and avarice . . . as they are contented with a mere living,
not one of them gives himself to the Devil to acquire wealth.' <

Ah, the old Noble Savage image! I know it well! Much beloved by
conservatives and reactionaries who love to hold up these simple folks as
epigones of moral purity! My father goes on like this from time to time. I
have also seen sentiment such as this employed in the herbals that like to
draw on Indian lore, and in the older style food faddists (think Kellogg
and the Road to Wellness). Also, check out the literature of the British
Israel sects who believe that the tribal life of the ancient Hebrews
provided the influence for the development of modern ideas of democracy.

> "We are inclined to think of hunters and gatherers as poor because they
don't have anything; perhaps better to think of them for that reason as
free. 'Their extremely limited material possessions relieve them of all
cares with regard to daily necessities and permit them to enjoy life.'"<

Ah! the simple life! How quaint! Here's a more realistic view:

"This bridewealth was seen not as "payment" for the bride but, rather, as
a transfer of wealth that guaranteed the rights of the husband's patriline
to the future children of this woman. Thus the bridewealth at once
legalized the marriage, legitimized the children, and guaranteed the
allocation of the children to the husband's patrilineal units."

"The practice of bridewealth marriage had an important consequence. In
order to bring in a bride, a Nuer group needed to amass a lot of cattle fo
bridewealth. Normally the only way this could be done was to first acquire
cattele from marrying off a daughter. Thus, among the Nuer, daughters as
well as sons were necessary and valued. Unlike some other patrilineal
groups, the Nuer did not regard the birth of a daughter as unfortunate or
sorrowful, for a daughter was a bringer of cattle, a provider of
bridewealth for her brothers."

"However many cattle a man may possess, he is helpless without a wife or
mother or sister to milk the cows. It is only through marriage that a man
can have a home of his own, and one of the most serious consequences of
divorce is that it compels a man to attach himself to the home of a
kinsman whose womenfolk can milk and cook for him. (Evans-Pritchard
1990:130).  Indeed, Evans-Pritchard underlined the Nuer cultural view of
women as central, as a node drawing men together, when he remarked that,
"Nuer group themselves around a herd, and the rule prohibiting men from
milking means that in grouping themselves around a herd, they also group
themselves around the milkmaid who serves the herd (1990:131)."

"In Nuer family life there is always a pull on the children in both
directions: a pull of legal and religious norms and of the whole pattern
of the politico-social structure towards the father's kin and lineage, and
a pull of personal affection toward the mother's people. Rights in the
herd, duties of blood revenge, and status in the community hold a man to
his father's kin, but with these go jealousy about cattle, resentment
against authority, and personal rivalries .... The paternal ties are
stronger, if there is a touch of hardness in them. The maternal ties are
weaker and for this reason are weaker and tenderer. (1990: 139-140)."

No acquisitiveness there, hm? No jockeying for status? Sahlins' whole case
seems to rest on the assumption that, if it's not institutionalized, it's
not power. Nothing could be more absurd, particularly in light of the
studies of bigmen societies of Melanesia. All my citations of this are
later than Sahlins' opus.

The functioning of pre-class societies can be more properly understood by
comparison with the functioning of cults, which form around an individual
who rules, at least in the early stages, purely through the excercise
(conscious or not) of personal charismatic power. Your own 11 year
experience with the Barnes cult should have given you some insights into
how this functions. (Readers wanting more information on cult dynamics
should *not* rely on the Cult Awareness Network, as they have been bought
out by the Church of Scientology.)

Some insight can be gained by studying the research into the dynamics of
birth-order status jockeying within families, although with a caveat: all
the tension within nuclear families is exacerbated by the pressure-cooker
atmosphere generated by its economic isolation and by pressures of
alienation (among other things) in modern life. I can certainly agree that
tribal societies were much more relaxed and psychologically were healther
places to live in than Euro-American society is. But that's not saying
much, is it?

> You talk about "organic intellectuals" a lot, but you have a long way to
go before you achieve this status. <

Oh, Louis! Now I have to go out and slash my wrists, and jump off a
bridge, and shoot myself in the head! I hate that before breakfast! Oh,
well. I've run out of beer, anyway.

> You write boneheaded posts about the wonders of chemical fertilizers
without exhibiting even the slightest awareness of the environmental
side-effects.

You've been working too hard lately. I have never said anythng of the kind
in the over 30 years since I read _Silent Spring_. My most recent post on
this topic compared chemical fertilizer *adversely* to seaweed and green
manure, and detailed the soil loss which results from such use. My
knowledge of this comes from my own experience as an organic gardener, to
which I have alluded in previous posts. I can cite my text.

Fifteen years ago, I participated in the Save Our Shores committee in
Prince Rupert which successfully imposed a moratorium on drilling in the
Hecate Straits. It is from this period that I draw upon when I discuss the
underlying commonalities between anarchism and fascism.

> You blithely cite bourgeois anthropology as if this field wasn't set up
in the 19th century to control "savage" peoples and turn them into eager
consumers of cotton goods made in Birmingham and avid church-goers. <

You blithely cite Thorsten Veblen from this same period. It's in the
archives. Didn't Engels also rely on bourgeois anthropology? You seem
oblivious to the fact that much has changed in this field since the 19th
C.  Fads come and go, in this field as in any other. You also seem to
believe that I am incapable of thinking critically about my sources.

> You make it seem that tribal people were practically liberated by the
colonists. <

Right, Lou. When I cited the small pox epidemic that eliminated 90% of the
Haida nation, I really made it sound as though this was a super-duper act
of liberation, didn't I? What else have I said about the effects of the
European invaders on the lives of indigenous people? Please cite my text.

> I am afraid that despite yourself, you are a social Darwinist.

Louis, you really have been working too hard. I have been arguing against
this very position in numerous threads. I have strenuously objected to the
very notion that biologic determinants exist which shape human nature. I
can cite reams and reams of my text on this.

Perhaps you're thinking I favour some modified theory of social Darwinism
postulating the supremacy of advanced cultures over others. Exactly which
advanced culture have I postulated as having liberated indigenous peoples
and exactly what liberation have I suggested was brought? Have I not, on
the contrary, reminded list members of the terrible human cost taken by
capitalism in its formative years? I referrenced Jim Drysdale's extensive
citations in this matter when I posted my discussion of capitalism and the
family. Do you imagine I admire this kind of society? What would I be
doing
hanging out on a Marxist list if I were an admirer of capitalism?

As I understand it, Marx saw capitalism as a necessary precondition to the
develpment of socialism. This is not because capitalism is morally
superior to feudalism, but because he saw it as the only economic form
capable of developing the productive forces and material wealth required
to bring about that ancient dream of "From each according to ability, to
each according to need". It is only in this sense that capitalism is an
advanced society.

Louis, I suggest it is you who has a blind spot. You are simply incapable
of accepting any critique at all of ancient society. Hunter Grey himself
acknowledges that tribal society was not the bucolic pastoral Eden
postualted by many. Why can't you?

Btw, could either you or Sahlin explain to me how a potlach can be given
without a previous acquisition of wealth? Of course this would not be
capitalist acccumulation, because it's not a capitalist society. But it
should be obvious that in order to give things away, you must first
acquire.

> My suggestion to you is to read a little bit. You don't need money to go
to a local library and find out what radical anthropologists or
environmentalists think. <

The price of bus fare just went up to $2. If I stay beyond the 90 minute
transfer time limit, that's another $2 to get home. By contrast, I can
walk down Whyte Avenue (on my good days) and pick up second-hand books
much more cheaply. I still managed to find something more recent than
Sahlins.

Joan Cameron



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.