In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

“Natural Habitats”

Jill

This comment came from an article in the Independent:

While I’m glad for the chance to see them in their natural habitat, I really fear for them. Now that their existence is known, they’re likely to be “helped” to the point of extinction. Illnesses that are common and mild to us are enough to kill indiginous tribes. Many are unable to digest the food we eat without a lot of discomfort. No good will come of contacting them.

I’m sure more good will come from talking about them as if they’re a rare species of animal.

To be clear, I also think indigenous people should be left alone, at least when they’re making it clear that they don’t want outsiders coming in. But we can make that argument without treating them like savages or weird curiosities.

17 thoughts on “Natural Habitats”

  1. I’m sure more good will come from talking about them as if they’re a rare species of animal.

    The differences might make you feel bad, but it is well-known that Native Americans were very vulnerable to Old World diseases.

  2. The differences might make you feel bad, but it is well-known that Native Americans were very vulnerable to Old World diseases.

    Uh… I think you missed my point. It’s not that the differences make me “feel bad” — and yes, I am aware that native Americans were very vulnerable to Old World diseases. What I object to is talking about them like they’re animals, and how we’re lucky to have seen them living in their “natural habitats” and whatnot. I don’t object to the fact that stomping into indigenous communities is bad for them.

  3. Jill,

    I agree; the “natural habitat” comment is a phrase reserved normally for insects and animals, not human beings. It would have been to have said that “home territory” or “homeland” instead.

    Statements like that are not rare when talking about so-called primitive, non-whites. The value judgment is that European societies are more advanced technologically. Therefore, they are superior to others.

    Given that there are a number of indigenous peoples who have matriarchies in place that have prevented wars, “superior” and “advanced” are debatable.

  4. Given that there are a number of indigenous peoples who have matriarchies in place that have prevented wars, “superior” and “advanced” are debatable.

    Do you have examples? Not a snarky tone in my question, I’m genuinely unaware and would like to know.

    I’m torn about what to think about these people. Their personal opinions as to what they might like to do with their lives would probably differ keenly, especially if some of them are slaves, or forced marriage is common.

  6. Yeah, I’ve been pretty dismayed at the media coverage of those photographs. For another perspective, there’s an organization called Survival which advocates for “isolated tribes” to have their land protected and their choices respected. Their site isn’t exactly free of condescension and romanticism, but it’s an improvement on most of these newspaper articles.

  7. Well, if you want to know about indigenous people of the Amazon rainforest, the Yanomamo have been written about extensively — although not without bias, which has been a famous subject of debate. The Yanomamo however live quite a ways to the northeast of this newly encountered group of people, on the border between Brazil and Venezuela as opposed to between Brazil and Peru, and their way of life has been changed irrevocably since they were the popular “oooh an uncontacted group of people” almost a hundred years ago, followed by the Andaman islanders etc.

    With regards to your question, Louise, a book that might be worth checking out is Into the Heart, by one of the anthropologists who spent the most time with Yanomamo. It’s disturbing in more ways than just the usual “westerner interprets indigenous culture” flaws of 20th century anthropology… both the author and his mentor (who he disagrees vehemently with) describe a fairly difficult life for Yanomamo women, who are beaten regularly by their husbands, are taught that it’s a sign of affection, etc. I don’t really know how to distinguish interpretation of these writers from what was going on on the ground (nor perhaps is that possible at all) but there are quite a few accounts of any unmarried woman, or woman from another village, being considered “fair game” for rape if walking somewhere alone. The author, Kenneth Good, has to struggle with himself over what to do about watching women being gang raped. (new york times review here)

    Anyway, not an example of a matriarchal (or even matrilineal) culture. Mainstream anthropology and sociology tends to agree that classically defined matriarchy is a myth mostly fabricated by Europeans (like Engels and Robert Graves, etc.)

    In the book linked above, the author is “given” a 12-year-old girl to marry, which is pretty awkward at first. I recall he does actually sleep with her a couple years later, although I don’t remember at what age — and obviously the Yanomamo consider the age of maturity differently — in part so that girls are already wed at puberty, since otherwise they would be raped. And she does get raped by a number of other men when her western husband leaves on a trip for supplies. When she’s older, he gets her out of there and brings her back to New Jersey, where they lived for several years and raised three kids. But she eventually decides that she doesn’t want to live in the bizzare united states, and returns to the Amazon without her kids. There was a documentary film about their relationship as well, if I recall correctly.

    I have no idea if this newly flown-over tribe (why? why do people see value in flying over and scaring a group of isolated indigenous people?) is anything like the Yanomamo. I still don’t know if the Yanomamo are fairly portrayed by any of their Western chroniclers, or how to ethically evaluate all of this, since the reported treatment of women is shudderingly horrifying to our sensibilities. On the other hand, is the moral thing to do to destroy tribes and drag all the women out and have them live in tract housing in the industrialized suburbs? Probably not, and laws protecting indigenous people (most of these groups in S. America live in protected preserves and reservations, but are being slaughtered by gold miners and loggers anyway) seem to agree. But there you have it, if you want to read more about it.

  8. Well, if the noun “savages” doesn’t apply to them, then I guess we can throw the word out, as it now has no meaning.

    “Natural habitat” is dehumanizing, yes. The problem is not treating them as animals. All human beings are animals. The problem is treating them as not-human.

  9. Well, if the noun “savages” doesn’t apply to them, then I guess we can throw the word out

    Fine by me.

  10. the reported treatment of women is shudderingly horrifying to our sensibilities.

    See, this is where I start to have trouble with the cultural relativism and separate observer ideals of anthropology. Shouldn’t the rape of women be considered an atrocity to any sensibility?

    And how is permanently walling off a culture (presumably to preserve/study it) any less condescending if you change the wording from “natural habitat” to “homeland”? Or for that matter, morally superior to interacting with it? Why does a stultifying/violent culture that only involves 30 people deserve protecting, but one with 30,000 or 30,000,000 doesn’t?

    Of course, I don’t know exactly what this recently discovered culture is like, and I’m not calling them savages, but I also don’t think there’s anything sacred about having been exceptionally isolated from the modern world.

  11. They are animals unless you are claiming they are plants, protists, fungi, or bacteria.

  12. Also, why are we so okay with letting them live in their primitive ways but all up in arms about say the FLDS wanting to do the same?

  13. They are animals unless you are claiming they are plants, protists, fungi, or bacteria.

    Jesus, people. I realize humans are animals. I was using the word “animals” in its most common form, which typically refers to non-human animals. Ok? Ok. Now let’s move on.

  14. The Yanamamo are an extreme case. Anthropologists have been known to call them “those bastards” because studies seemed to indicate they’re one of the few cultures to routinely violate the law of hospitality (that is, once someone is your guest you don’t harm them.)

    Many of the American Indian indigenous cultures had a high degree of respect for women, or high tolerance for gays, or often both. Some, like the Iroquois, had better treatment of women than *we* do (the notion of the origin matriarchy that lived in perfect harmony is a myth, but the Iroquois were in fact about as matriarchal as we are patriarchal, which is to say they didn’t actively discriminate against men, but men went to live with wives’ families and most of the governing power was concentrated in the hands of the women’s council. Of course, the Iroquois would also kill you dead if you crossed them, thus disproving the notion that matriarchy is peaceful and pacifistic.)

  15. One phrase I heard and disliked was describing them as a “Lost Tribe”. Uh, they were not “lost”, their people have been there all along. Just because something is new to white people doesn’t mean it didn’t exist before.

  17. I don’t know if this thread is still going, but I’d like second Holly re: matriarchy. It seems legendary matriarchal pasts were used as a justification for the oppression of women. Roughly, back when women were in control, they were horrible to us. Now the situation is reversed, so they’re getting what they deserve.

Comments are currently closed.