Anthropology 152 -Lecture 11

10/19/22 Anthropology 152 Lecture 11 Chapter 7 of the text does a pretty good job of critiquing racism/white supremacy. Read from text

Carlos Linneaus of Chapter 2 wrote Systema Natura, first Tree of Life classification or taxonomic Tree of Life _without_ underlying Darwinian thesis that all life ( including humans) is related to all other life by “descending” from common ancestor species ; namer of Homo Sapiens.

Page 145 and 146 of text

Linneaus classified Homo Sapiens based on skin color, but did _ not_ seem to include the pernicious element of white supremacy; that white skin signaled superiority in white people over peoples of color – moral , inherent , biological superiority of some type. It was evidently Blumenbach ( text )who wrote a hierarchy of skin colors with the false idea of white supremacy .

However , this was in the context of European capitalism expanding in conquest of colonies and slave enterprises around the globe starting about 500 years ago. These “explorers” collected information on describing the bodies/phenotypes of different peoples they invaded ; and brought this back to Europe where these early biologists also collected it from them. Blumenbach’s white supremacy thesis “rationalized” the fact of the conquerors’ material and military superiority .

White supremacist colonialism and slavery were the “chief momenta” of the original (primitive) accumulation of capital:

“The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation. On their heels treads the commercial war of the European nations, with the globe for a theatre. It begins with the revolt of the Netherlands from Spain, assumes giant dimensions in England’s Anti-Jacobin War, and is still going on in the opium wars against China, &c.

The different momenta of primitive accumulation distribute themselves now, more or less in chronological order, particularly over Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, and England. In England at the end of the 17th century, they arrive at a systematical combination, embracing the colonies, the national debt, the modern mode of taxation, and the protectionist system. These methods depend in part on brute force, e.g., the colonial system. But, they all employ the power of the State, the concentrated and organised force of society, to hasten, hot-house fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode, and to shorten the transition. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power.

Of the Christian colonial system, W. Howitt, a man who makes a speciality of Christianity, says:

“The barbarities and desperate outrages of the so-called Christian race, throughout every region of the world, and upon every people they have been able to subdue, are not to be paralleled by those of any other race, however fierce, however untaught, and however reckless of mercy and of shame, in any age of the earth.” [4]

The history of the colonial administration of Holland — and Holland was the head capitalistic nation of the 17th century — “is one

of the most extraordinary relations of treachery, bribery, massacre, and meanness” [5]

Nothing is more characteristic than their system of stealing men, to get slaves for Java. The men stealers were trained for this purpose. The thief, the interpreter, and the seller, were the chief agents in this trade, native princes the chief sellers. The young people stolen, were thrown into the secret dungeons of Celebes, until they were ready for sending to the slave-ships. “

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm; _Capital_ by Karl Marx

See also _The World and Africa_ , by W.E.B. Dubois

https://files.libcom.org/files/w-e-b-du-bois-the-world-and-africa-and-color-and-democracy.pdf

And _Guns, Germs and Steel_ by Jared Diamond

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

Anthropologists Ashley Montagu and Franz Boas were leaders as debunking the concept of race as white supremacy ( page 147 of text). As was leading biologist , Richard Lewontin ( page 148 of the text )

Sahlins “ This thesis is extended to the Old Stone Age by the anthropological Comparative Method – inferring characteristics of the Old Stone Age from Modern Stone Age Societies

he "original affluent society" is the proposition that argues that the lives of hunter-gatherers can be seen as embedding a sufficient degree of material comfort and security to be considered affluent. The theory was first put forward in a paper presented by Marshall Sahlins at a famous symposium in 1966 entitled 'Man the Hunter'. Sahlins observes that affluence is the satisfaction of wants, "which may be 'easily satisfied' either by producing much or desiring little."[1] Given a culture characterized by limited wants, Sahlins argued that hunter-gatherers were able to live 'affluently' through the relatively easy satisfaction of their material needs.

At the time of the symposium new research by anthropologists, such as Richard B. Lee's work on the !Kung of southern Africa, was challenging popular notions that hunter-gatherer societies were always near the brink of starvation and continuously engaged in a struggle for survival.[2] Sahlins gathered the data from these studies and used it to support a comprehensive argument that states that hunter-gatherers did not suffer from deprivation, but instead lived in a society in which "all the people's wants are easily satisfied."[3]

Overview The basis of Sahlins’ argument is that hunter-gatherer societies are able to achieve affluence by desiring little and meeting those needs/desires with what is available to them. This he calls the "Zen road to affluence, which states that human material wants are finite and few, and technical means unchanging but on the whole adequate" (Sahlins, Original). This he compares to the western way towards affluence, which he terms as the "Galbraithean way" where "man's wants are great, not to say infinite, whereas his means are limited..." and "the gap between means and ends can eventually be narrowed by industrial productivity".[3] Thus Sahlins argues that hunter-gatherer and western societies take separate roads to affluence, the former by desiring little, the latter by producing much. Through this comparison Sahlins also stresses that hunter-gatherer societies cannot be examined through an ethnocentric framework when measuring their affluence. For example, one cannot apply the general principles of economics (principles which reflect western values and emphasize surplus) to hunter-gatherers nor should one believe that the Neolithic Revolution brought unquestioned progress.

By stepping away from western notions of affluence, the theory of the original affluent society thus dispels notions about hunter-gatherer societies that were popular at the time of the symposium. Sahlins states that hunter-gatherers have a "marvelously varied diet"[4] based on the abundance of the local flora and fauna. This demonstrates that hunter-gatherers do not exist on a mere subsistence economy but rather live among plenty. Through knowledge of their environment hunter-gatherers are able to change what foreigners may deem as meager and unreliable natural resources into rich subsistence resources. Through this they are able to effectively and efficiently provide for themselves and minimize the amount of time spent procuring food. "[T]he food quest is so successful that half the time the people do not know what to do with themselves".[4] Hunter-gatherers also experience "affluence without abundance"[4] as they simply meet their required ends and do not require surplus nor material possessions (as these would be a hindrance to their nomadic lifestyle). The lack of surplus also demonstrates that they trust their environment will continuously provide for them. By foraging only for their immediate needs among plentiful resources, hunter-gatherers are able to increase the amount of leisure time available to them. Thus, despite living in what western society deems to be material poverty, hunter-gatherer societies work less than people practicing other modes of subsistence while still providing for all their needs, and therefore increase their amount of leisure time. These are the reasons the original affluent society is that of the hunter-gatherer.[4]

Through his thesis on the affluent society, Sahlins deconstructed the then popular notions that hunter-gatherers are primitive and constantly working hard to ward off starvation. However, one must take into consideration that there has been much progress in this field since 1966 and that ideas on the category of hunter-gatherer are always shifting, with new paradigms continuously emerging.[2] One must also acknowledge that one cannot generalize about hunter-gatherer societies. Although they have been pushed to the margins of society, there are still many such societies in the world and they differ greatly from each other.

"Work time" and "leisure time" Sahlins' argument partly relies on studies undertaken by McCarthy and McArthur in Arnhem Land, and by Richard Borshay Lee among the !Kung.[5][6] These studies show that hunter-gatherers need only work about fifteen to twenty hours a week in order to survive and may devote the rest of their time to leisure.[4] Lee did not include food preparation time in his study, arguing that "work" should be defined as the time spent gathering enough food for sustenance. When total time spent on food acquisition, processing, and cooking was added together, the estimate per week was 44.5 hours for men and 40.1 hours for women, but Lee added that this is still less than the total hours spent on work and housework in many modern Western households.

The three to five hour work day

Sahlins concludes that the hunter-gatherer only works three to five hours per adult worker each day in food production.[7][8] Using data gathered from various foraging societies and quantitative surveys done among the Arnhem Landers of Australia and quantitative materials cataloged by Richard Lee on the Dobe Bushmen of the Kalahari, Sahlins argues that hunter-gatherer tribes are able to meet their needs through working roughly 15-20 hours per week or less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society#:~:text=The%20%22original%20affluent%20society%22%20is,security%20to%20be%20considered%20affluent.