View Single Post
  #6  
Old 11-11-2004, 10:47 PM
KirkVining's Avatar
KirkVining KirkVining is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerry edwards
I think it is true that contact with other tribes and the opportunity to trade increase the tendency to divide labor, but those facts don't necessarily lead to division of labor. Look at Native American tribes. The could have traded with each other, and certainly had opportunity to trade with the Europeans when they arrived and given up hunter gathering. Many (Most? All?) refused. The Utes here in Colorado are a good example. The whites tried to force them to become agricultural but the preferred to fight and die rather than become farmers. Would they have become farmers if the evolution had been 'natural' as opposed to imposed from outside (shades of Iraq!) I don't know. But they had existed for a long time with other tribes in close proximity to European labor-divided trading societies and did not seem overwhelmingly inclined to change their economic system.

There's a book by the anthropologist, Pierre Clastres called Society against the State. In there he closely examines the lives of South American hunter gatherer tribes and argues that their lives were more pleasing than the alternatives.
This leads me to wonder if Smith is overstating his case. Is he blinded by his own society and only sees the advantages of dividing labor and does not have a hunter/gatherer society in the immediate vicinity with which he could make a realistic comparison.
To put it another way, is it in fact that case that the transition from hunter/gatherer to the division of labor is not a very attractive change and that only some form of pressure will cause the transformation?
I don't know if American Indians are a good example. The dynamic I am purposing assumes a longer elapse of time. The American Indians were faced with a situation that was extremely compressed while other primitive societies had a thousand years to convert from HGS to farming. Lets take the Goths for example. The Goths raped, pillaged and burned across the Roman Empire, becoming exposed to indoor plumbing, comfortable dwellings, tasty farm goods, along the way, and over the centuries they went from maurders of the Caucus into gentile manor landlords in France. If we look at American Indian societies that had longer and more gradual exposure to white society such as those who lived on the periphery of the Spanish empire, we find societies that were going thru revolutionary change, like the Commanche, whose society changed from top to bottom because of the horse, and caring for large herds of horses for the purposes of trading them is the beginning of agricultrual. Perhaps if the Utes had had the same kind of gradual exposure, they too may have found some innovation of another societiy that forced them to develop means of production in order to obtain it or produce it themselves. In fact, I did read an interesting study that compared the societal evolution of the Apache, who were much more isolated from both the Spanish and the English-speaking Empires, and how one society, the Comanche became more advanced and more what we would call civilized, while the other were virtual cave men right up to the 20th Century. The Apache had strong societal taboos against strangers and dealt with trespassers only one way - death. They were a society that discouraged any interaction with foreigners. I'll try to see if I can find it, it might offer you some insight.

Last edited by KirkVining; 11-11-2004 at 10:57 PM.
Reply With Quote