Quite extensive anthropological research took place over the 20th Century, in particular the latter half, which challenged the image portrayed of primitive savages, or warlike tribes living in remote parts of the Earth. This image had been widespread among those who lived in what were referred to as the civilised world in previous centuries.
Dozens of small hunter-gatherer societies (mostly in the warm climates of Asia, Africa and South America, but also in Siberia and Northern Canada), who had not come into contact with the so-called developed world were discovered and then studied for the benefit of the developed world, and now you and I!
Some of these societies were in jungle type terrain, but others were in remote deserts. They usually consisted of small groups of about 50 people who moved within relatively small areas, sustaining themselves by hunting available game and eating seasonal plants.
In these small groups, who had friends and relatives in neighbouring groups, sharing of food and resources, non-directive child-rearing, and respect for individual decision making were dominant in their culture. Over and over again, it was found that group decisions were made by consensus, and while there may have been influential elders (leaders) there was no boss as such. Major decisions were made by the band as a whole not a dominant leader. More about this later!
As a core value, equality was paramount – as inequality got in the way of survival itself.
What they meant by equality was, predominantly, that each person was entitled to food and all means to gather or hunt (or provide shelter) – what we would call material goods – were shared. Those who didn’t share, or who got greedy were shunned by the group – as a way of keeping upstarts in line so to speak.
Many anthropologists, of different nationalities, report similar stories from many different sources. While there may be slight variations (some might not be quite as classless or as peaceful as others) the prevailing views are the same. After careful cross-checking and thorough examination, it was found that those groups, bands, or tribes who were found to be warlike or violent were either all cultivators or farmers or had come into contact with modern cultures. Some of these had been subjected to slavery, exploitation, cruelty and violence from European colonists – so were certainly not untouched.
These findings (from studies done in 1988 onwards – so are relatively new) surprised many people. After all, we humans, in every type of society that has ever been known, get on well enough together (otherwise we wouldn’t be here at all) but, when under pressure, or faced with threat, typically resort to violence, punishment, coercion, hierarchy and even abuse and mistreatment of other humans to either restore order or simply get what we want.
Equality, peace, freedom, human rights etc. are, all too often, desirable qualities that we aspire to rather than the reality of our lives. And as I mentioned elsewhere in the blog, inequality, poverty, lack of human rights, etc. are causative factors in almost all the trouble that there is in the world (including a significant amount of crime).
How do hunter gatherer tribes maintain and sustain all the positive attributes that are described above?
When reading about this I was enthused by what we, in our modern technological societies, could learn from societies that seem to have got on okay with minimal technology – and I began placing what I read about their behaviour, lifestyle and ethos in the context of the root foundations referred to in the Chapter on the Universal Theories of Change.