Often, what inspires me to write is some song or the other playing in the background while I’m doing something else. Last night, for example, I was cooking our Pancake Tuesday dinner and this track from 80’s greats Camper van Beethoven came on the old iPod.
…And if I weren’t a civil servant, I’d have a place in the colonies
We’d play croquet behind white-washed walls and drink our tea at four
Within intervention’s distance of the embassy
The midday air grows thicker with the heat
And drifts towards the line of trees…
This verse got my mind wandering around the word ‘colony’, which led to thinking about the British Empire. At its height, it was easily the largest empire the world has ever seen. And no matter how you feel about imperialism, that’s pretty damn impressive. And that got me thinking about a question that Arizaphale’s daughter raised over a year ago. One that’s been plaguing my mind for well over a year. I don’t remember the exact wording of the question, but the gist of it was that when the English arrived in the 1780’s to colonise Australia, the indigenous Australians were basically a Stone Age hunter-gatherer civilization. Why this disparity? Why was one civilization the most powerful and enlightened empire that the planet had yet seen and the other a motley collection of tribes scrabbling for survival?
I’ve been thinking about it off and on for over a year and I still don’t have a good answer. I’ve read books. I’ve consulted people smarter than myself. I’ve (unfortunately literally) laid awake in the middle of the night thinking about it.
Most people trace the rise of ‘Western’ civilization to the development of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent around 12 – 14,000 years ago. With the birth of farming, people were able to stop wandering around constantly looking for food and to start forming semi-permanent settlements. As we became more sedentary, vacancies opened up for professional thinkers – inventors, scientists, philosophers – who started to develop the technologies that led to the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, the Industrial Age and the glorious current Twitter Age. Those civilizations that independently developed farming - ones in the Middle East (and by extension, Europe), China and Central America – advanced much more quickly than those who didn’t – ones in North America, Sub-Saharan Africa and Australia.
That’s fine. But why did humans develop agriculture in the Middle East (and China and Central America) but not Australia? There are loads of theories, from racial superiority to extraterrestrial intervention, but I have yet to see one that I can really buy into 100%. Jared Diamond, in his excellent “Germs, Guns and Steel”
Of course, all of this faff assumes that our Western culture is what all should aspire to – that Western civilization represents the height of human evolution. Whenever I turn on the TV, I become convinced that this is not the case. The mother of the daughter of Arizaphale proposed that these more ‘primitive’ cultures were just happy as they were and spurned technology. There’s evidence, for example, that the indigenous Australians were presented, by neighbors across the Torres Strait, with bows and arrows, but rejected the technology. “No thanks, but we’re happy with what we’ve got.” In other words, as hard as it is to believe, maybe everyone doesn’t want an iPhone.
The smell of burning batter pulled me out of my reverie. As I flipped the last pancake, I also wondered how the prim English ended up with the tasty but dull Pancake Tuesday rather than the “ancient celebration of boobs, beads and booze” that is Mardi Gras or Carnivale. Ah well. Who knows. But my pancakes were done cooking, the song was over and I had hungry humans to feed.
And we are rotting like a fruit underneath a rusting roof
We dream our dreams and sing our songs of the fecundity
Of life and love
Of life and love
Of life and love
——————————–
*Not his genetics. I’m not casting aspersions on his parentage. His use of genetics to make certain points.
——————————–
One of the few great albums of the ’80’s, Camper Van Beethoven’s “Key Lime Pie” is available from 
.
Image credits:
Popularity: 8% [?]
Stumble Upon
Del.icio.us
Buzz
by Danielle
17 Feb 2010 at 17:14
I read excerpts of his book and saw his documentary during a 3rd year global perspectives class. Can’t say I remember any of it though, was too interested in Fast Food Nation which we also read and Modern Slavery by Kevin Bales.
I’m interested in the question you (and A’s daughter) are asking though. I’d really like to know more about indigenous history in general, surely, they have a richer history than we hear day to day, somewhat comparable to the native Americans? … Given that that they only began an indigenous festival in SA two years ago, and I was going to Native American festivals/fairs/trade shows all through my youth in Texas, that kind of awareness seems a while off though.
I was thinking about this too when I watched the opening ceremony and the inclusion of the indigenous in Canada.
“No thanks, but we’re happy with what we’ve got.”
… same attitude as today!
Danielle´s last blog ..Australia, explained for Americans
by Chris
17 Feb 2010 at 17:39
Hi there
The indigenous Australian peoples weren’t ’stone age’ – they were actually in a wood and bone age – and had a highly developed technology appropriate to their circumstances and needs. Neither were they ‘a motley collection of tribes scrabbling for survival’. According to some, they were better fed, healthier and worked for less hours than the convicts, soldiers and civil servants unloaded from the First Fleet. The aboriginal peoples of Australia traded commodities up and down the east coast and well into central Australia. They had linguists and diplomats. They were developed and successful occupants of a vast and environmentally well managed continent. Please don’t fall into the eurocentric trap of considering that any who do not conform or comply with our directives are somehow less or primitive or failures.
Otherwise, an interesting read
Thank you
by jams O'Donnell
17 Feb 2010 at 18:14
All Her Favorite Fruit is one of those songs that brings back bittersweet memories for me
jams O’Donnell´s last blog ..Meanwhile in Burma…
by admin
17 Feb 2010 at 19:16
Danielle – Fast Food Nation was brilliant, wasn’t it? Changed the way I thought about fast food.
Chris – I’m not casting aspersions on the indigenous Australians. By Stone Age I mean that they hadn’t worked out how to smelt metal. By that standard, they were stone age hunter-gatherers. Absolutely they knew their environment and had adapted to a very harsh environment. But so would any stone age hunter-gatherer civilisation. You kind of have to. The ‘motley tribes…’ comment was flip but so was the description of the 18th century British as enlightened. Both descriptions were tongue in cheek.
Jams – Why bittersweet?
by arizaphale
17 Feb 2010 at 21:19
Yeah, I’m with Chris. We find it hard to look at things in any way other than from our own perspective (inevitable I guess?). Douglas Adams put it beautifully in ‘The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy’, when he suggested that the very things which we feel mark us as ‘civilised’ are things born of our innate dissatisfaction with …well….everything; in fact, to alternate viewpoints, they actually make us look foolish! We may be a technologically advanced society but we are emotionally stunted, forever striving, forever unhappy with our lot….and this may be our eventual undoing.
Oh and I don’t want an iphone. I want my old, ‘no longer charging’ phone back please…..
arizaphale´s last blog ..DNF: The Next Sailing Installment
by Agnes
17 Feb 2010 at 22:24
“In other words, as hard as it is to believe, maybe everyone doesn’t want an iPhone.”
Liked this – a nice summary. Enjoyed the whole post actually.
I’m in this category – I have no intention of getting an iPhone, I’m more than happy with my slightly battered yet utterly reliable Nokia 6120. It’ll have to writhe on the ground in the last throes of death before I chuck it in.
I have an iPod Classic too, even though they’re trying to phase them out. They’re fabulous machines, hold loads of data and I can’t imagine wanting to upgrade for a very long time. Bucking the trend, that’s me!
Last comment: Did you ever see ‘Kath and Kim’? (First 2 seasons are fab, the rest not so much). Every time I hear someone talking about ‘casting aspersions’ I always think of Kath complaining about how someone was ‘casting nasturtiums’. It’s become a common phrase in my family now!
Agnes´s last blog ..Groovin’ The Moo 2010
by admin
17 Feb 2010 at 22:25
Ariza – Do you not think there’s some liberal self-loathing involved in the whole ‘the West isn’t really civilized, but ‘emotionally stunted, forever striving, forever unhappy with our lot’ meme? I mean, as a way to assuage guilt?
by The Unbearable Banishment
17 Feb 2010 at 22:41
As you mentioned, I believe this argument is a hornets nest for the racial superiority crowd. They could fashion a seemingly logical argument for the weak-minded. Interesting comment from Chris.
Did you see film clips of Mardi Gras? They were wearing parkas!
Re: the musician I alluded to in my recent post. I was a big guitar geek when I was a kid and Jeff Beck is coming to town. He doesn’t tour that frequently but all of a sudden he’s everywhere. He’s playing two nights at Madison Square Garden with Eric Clapton this week and in April he’s coming to New Jersey with his own band. It’s crazy expensive (esp. the MSG show) and I cannot afford either. Weep, weep, weep.
The Unbearable Banishment´s last blog ..Hot Disney princess sexy-time
by Jacob
18 Feb 2010 at 00:54
Actually, there were three locations that were likely independent creators of agriculture in the Americas. Central America is the most famous, largely because they provided the most crops that became well known like corn and beans. However, the groups in the Andean region of South America (potatoes, quinoa) likely came up with agriculture independently and even the eastern groups in North America in what is now the US probably came up with agriculture independently as well, although the crops they domesticated were total crap compared to the Mezoamerican stuff, and by the time the Europeans arrived, most of what had been unique to those groups had been replaced by Mezoamerican beans and corn. Sorry, I have to give props to that line of my ancestors.
I did love Guns, Germs, and Steel. It seemed to be a much more complete and logical explanation than anything else. I also agree that culture does come into play (and I think Diamond even brought this up in his work like he did the North American foods). When the Europeans first arrived in the Americas, they were significantly shorter than the locals. Who knows, if China had been in contact with North or Central America as well as Europe and easy iron deposits had been available in the civilization centers in the Americas, history may have followed a very different course. After all, the only real advantage the Europeans had was firearms, and the actual conquering cultures didn’t get any of that technology on their own. The Spanish, Portuguese, French, and English would have all gotten their steel from the Norse (if I’m remembering it right, the only two independent creations of steel were the Norse and Japanese) and the gunpowder came from the Chinese. Population wise, they’re finding out that the groups in the Eastern part of what’s now the US were both more plentiful and more “advanced” than we originally thought. The Southeast was riddled with cities that were turned into ghost towns by disease before the Europeans got inland enough to discover them.
But basically, if your life isn’t any better than the other guys, why would you adopt their stuff? Weapons are obvious. If you’re fighting the other guy and their stuff is better, you’re going to copy them. If what you have works for your conditions, why change? I’m sure the Australians who were offered bows and arrows weren’t having to compete against groups who were armed with bows and arrows or they would have switched.
Jacob´s last blog ..Never Take Yourself Seriously
by Jacob
18 Feb 2010 at 01:03
And personally, I think it’s safe to say that a culture where more people are adequately fed, suffer from less disease, able to either out-compete or at least keep from having to compete with other groups, and able to have free time is a more advanced culture. The particulars are irrelevant. The Europeans were only barely more advanced. They were less well fed, suffered only slightly less disease (and that entirely from genetic and immune resistance instead of civilization). The only advantage they had was being able to out-compete because of military tech. Take away the military tech and they weren’t more civilized. Current life if flawed, but would qualify on most of those. Modern day people may not be as well fed as they were back in the first half of the 1900s because of processed foods, but we still are taller and better nourished than any other time before that. Our risk of dying of disease (other than diseases of prosperity that we deal with because of our old age and excess) is almost non-existent compared to any other time in history, and we live one of the least violent times in human history, if not the least violent ever. Sure we can improve areas like wealth disparity (within cultures and among cultures), but overall, this is a better time to live. Any criticisms are really more about specific elements and not about an overall status.
Then again, I’m going scientific with my definition of civilized. Only observable characteristics that aren’t up to judgment calls. The other definition (more proper, or right, or whatever) is bullshit.
Jacob´s last blog ..Never Take Yourself Seriously
by Dk
18 Feb 2010 at 01:09
I’d like to reiterate Chris’ take – you really get into a Eurocentric view with this post when you’re talking about ‘a motley collection of tribes scrabbling for survival’. Very understandable that you have that view, most of Western ‘civilization’ has it. And, me, in my self-righteous note here, god knows how many traps I fall into. We all do it.
It’s important to realize that the people who were here before the Europeans showed up almost certainly saw the interlopers as motley and scrabbling. But they, through no intelligence of their own, could deal with their germs better than the people already here.
by courtney
18 Feb 2010 at 01:42
I was all ready to recommend “Guns, Germs & Steel” while reading your first four paragraphs, but it appears you’ve already read it. I suppose I should not be surprised.
The main thing I picked up from that book is that civilizations don’t advance unless they have to. If it’s possible to live as Stone Age-era hunter/gatherers, people will. Britain itself isn’t exactly a center of booming agriculture, so its people had to look elsewhere, and in order to do that, they had to build some boats and start sailing around conquering people who didn’t have those same inadequacies.
It’s a pretty fundamental notion, the idea that people innately will only advance if the need is there. In a place like Kenya, people can survive with little in the way of shelter, and many people there do. In colder climates, not so much, so those people had to create more advanced shelter for themselves. Therefore, all third-world countries are located in warmer climates, because they don’t fundamentally have to advance. It’s all a matter of necessity.
I hope that made sense. It does in my head, but that doesn’t mean it came out right.
courtney´s last blog ..This Just In: Cable News Full of Idiots
by Cat
18 Feb 2010 at 04:52
I believe it is a true sign of cultural failure when a people feast on unleavened bread the night before a 40 day fast. Beads, boobs and booze – now that’s a sign of the highest of civilization.
Cat´s last blog ..I’m on Vacation
by Joe
18 Feb 2010 at 05:47
I don’t want an iPhone… but I really want an iPod touch.
There… figured I’d break the pattern of LOOOOONG comments to this post.
Joe´s last blog ..A smattering of videos
by Coal Miner's Granddaughter
18 Feb 2010 at 06:14
Civilization is marked by cell phones and King Cake? We’re so screwed.
Awesome post, hon. Gives me something to chew on besides the fat.
Coal Miner’s Granddaughter´s last blog ..Sex-Crazed Underwater Bad Ass*
by Jamie
18 Feb 2010 at 06:21
Hunter/gatherers in prime environments only need to work about 10-15 hours per week to live quite nicely (as they would understand it). Once you start farming, your workload rises intensely. Once you hit industrialization, it skyrockets. We may have to physically perform less arduous work, but the hours are staggeringly more (in this comparison, work not only includes your “job” but food gathering (shopping), food preparation, cleaning, etc.). Societies tend to move out of hunting/gathering because they live in such wonderfully fecund environments (the Valley of Mexico for example) that they are able to cease moving constantly; being sedentary and the excess of food allows population increase, and then all of sudden you have to farm, or your now larger population collapses.
One other note, your British imperialists would not have thought of themselves as “Western,” that concept does not come into existence until the late 19th century. And it comes about as a way to justify oppressing “non-Western” peoples (and allowing historians like Diamond to write their triumphalist histories).
by Vixen
18 Feb 2010 at 07:33
All of you are way more educated and well read than I, so I’d hate to even hazard a guess, but I like the idea of the “we are happy the way we are” idea. My entire 47 years I have often fantasized about growing up/living in a much simpler, older time. I know full well it would be a much harder existence but somewhere inside my genetic make up I crave that kind of life. Strange, but true.
Vixen´s last blog ..WW~Packing For Snow When It’s 80F Outside
by admin
18 Feb 2010 at 09:05
Agnes – My impression of Australians was based on watching Kath and Kim in the UK. It wasn’t far off
TUB – Racial superiority isn’t a viable argument. I don’t think ‘race’ is a legitimate biological concept. Human variation is a continuum and you can follow human migration and know that ultimately we’re all African. Phenotypic differences are due to adaptation to a specific climate. But I see your point, if you’re inclined toward racism anyway you could make an illogical conclusion.
I liked Jeff Beck in the Traveling Wilburys.
Jacob – I think independent discovery of agriculture in the Americas is debatable. Definitely arose in Central America, but another hypothesis is that the concept, but not the crops, spread from there. In other words, interactions between North Americans and Central Americans gave the former the concept of agriculture, but when they tried to plant Mexican corn in Georgia it wouldn’t grow properly. So instead, they started working on domesticating local crops. Ultimately, through selective breeding people began to spread maize cultivation into different climactic conditions. Same thing could have happened in South America. Of course, this relies on extensive interaction between indigenous Americans, but we know there was wide ranging trade, so not inconceivable and this is more like the case in the Old World, with agriculture arising in one place and radiating from there.
As for a different historical outcome, one of the things that annoys me is the brand of self-loathing that a lot of Westerners adopt. Does anyone really think that if the situation were reversed – e.g. China made contact with the Americas or Australia and technology trade occured in that direction – that the Aztecs would have been any less imperialistic than the Europeans would have been? It’s human nature. We’re a violent, expansionist and xenophobic species. I think it’s a type of false humility to rend our garments about our tradition of imperialism.
Jacob (again) – It wasn’t just military technology. They had navigation, ships that could cross oceans, complex political systems to allow for the mounting of exploratory missions, agriculture systems to feed such missions. And the horse. The horse was probably the biggest advantage that the Europeans (and Asians) had.
More later, these pseudo-academic debates are time consuming!
A Free Man´s last blog ..And if I weren’t a civil servant, I’d have a place in the colonies
by admin
18 Feb 2010 at 11:44
Jamie – Do you really think that Diamond’s book is “triumphalist”? I found it excessively apologetic, I mean he spends a good part of the book trying to convince the reader that cannibalistic bands in highland New Guinea are the ideal civilization. Or maybe I read it differently than you do.
by ssg
18 Feb 2010 at 19:50
ever think about the characteristics of those who moved away, ventured elsewhere? or their genetics? how they may have differed from those that were left behind? how environment and chance and genetic drift can have large effects? how human beings learn from one another, that ideas are contagious?
no time to elaborate, good post!
ssg´s last blog ..hello again
by admin
18 Feb 2010 at 19:58
SSG – That’s a really good point. There was a paper that just came out that showed that Neolithic farming men were more reproductively successful than hunter-gathering men. It was really interesting – based on mitochondrial and Y chromosome sequences. I don’t remember all the details, but that sort of evolutionary genetics is cool stuff. Way cooler than ferns. Ferns suck.
by Not Afraid To Use It
19 Feb 2010 at 13:16
I just read an article somewhere stating that anthropologists and archaeologists are going to have to rethink the whole “primitive” South America bit as it looks like they had indoor plumbing ages ago. When ar we gong to learn that just because we don’t understand what we are looking at doesn’t make it primitive. I love it when the Establishment is proven to be wrong, or short-sighted.
Not Afraid To Use It´s last blog ..The Snowboard Police
by Danielle
20 Feb 2010 at 11:16
How long will it take the current Australians to evolve into having dark skin like the indigenous? Or will it never happen because even though 1 in 2 get skin cancer here, not many probably die from it before they can reproduce?
by Jill/Twipply Skwood
23 Feb 2010 at 02:27
OH! Somebody in my house is reading that book! I think it’s The-Guy-Who-Knows-A-Song-About-A-Chicken, but it could be my dad. I just keep seeing it in various places around the house.
I wonder about that sometimes in relation to happiness. Like, we have ipods now and I LOVE my ipod. But I wonder if I had lived a century ago or a couple of centuries ago, if my ratio of happy to depressed days would be about the same because of who I am, and not whether or not I own an ipod.
Jill/Twipply Skwood´s last blog ..Preschool: it’s where the poop is. And the vomit. And the ear infections. And the strep throat. They’re cute though. Gotta give them that.
by mickey
25 Feb 2010 at 06:59
National Geographic recently ran an article about one of the last hunter/gatherer tribes in Africa. I am never surprised to learn that these people seem perfectly happy and content with their lives. They have enough to eat, don’t work long hours and enjoy the company of those around them.
So simple.
mickey´s last blog ..Suck it, Sunnyvale, California!
by Gwen Jackson
26 Feb 2010 at 00:06
Thought-provoking post. I happen to agree with Arizaphale’s daughter’s theory. I don’t think primitive cultures are/were any less happy than technologically advanced cultures. This reminds me of the last episode of Battlestar Galactica (yes, I’m a sci-fi nerd) in which all the survivors opt to give up all their advanced technology and start over on a primitive planet. The ultimate message being that all those advances complicated their lives and they were better off without them.