A 2010 special issue of the peer-reviewed journal Current Anthropology shows a fascinating way in which anthropology can emerge from current debates and quarrels in American culture, even while it looks at traditional "hunter-gatherer" societies. The special issue's stated theme for research is "Intergenerational Wealth Transmission and Inequality in Premodern Societies". If the reader is inclined to practice anthropology upon the anthropologists contributing to this journal, then it would have to be noted that this 2010 examination of this issue in premodern societies may come from an increased awareness of the issue within the anthropologists' own modern society. Between Bush-era debates and policy shift on the subject of the so-called "death tax" and Obama-era public protests about the "99 percent," the subject of inherited wealth, and inequality of wealth, is a serious topic for public debate in America itself. It is within this social context that the work in Current Anthropology's 2010 special issue begs to be understood. The first article in the special issue, "Wealth Transmission and Inequality among Hunter-Gatherers," brings together ten separate authors to consider the question which has come foremost in American culture by examining five sample populations in South America, sub-Saharan Africa, southeast Asia, and Melanesia. The work of Smith, Hill, Marlowe et al. in the article must be examined to understand how these anthropologists define their terms, find
The main idea of “The Trobrianders of Papua New Guinea” is to provide the reader with an understanding of gender roles and the accumulation of gender specific wealth, as well as, how that wealth is used to further social and political agendas within society. It is important to note that the Trobrianders are a matrilineal society. This has a major effect on how wealth is accumulated and distributed and also serves to reinforce family ties.
Caleb L. Fry and Lauren T. Rios Department of Anthropology Lake Tahoe Community College One College Drive South Lake Tahoe, California 96150 USA Faculty Advisor: Daryl G. Frazetti Abstract
The transition from the traditional hunter gatherer societies, in to an agriculture based living system, has allowed humans to increase their population size, putting strains on the Earth’s environment. Agriculture has also brought along with it a decrease in women’s roles in the community, while also bringing about a class system where the wealthy rule, and were the weak and poor obey. As humans began to domesticate more plants and animals, they settled in permanent areas. The Change from hunter gatherer benefited few, but had dire consequences for the earth and groups with in it. One such consequence was the population increase, which has lead to major issues throughout history, and one that has ties to current global issues.
This ensured people stayed modest and humble and never got ahead of themselves. An example of the value of equality being demonstrated lies in the principle that the owner of the arrow that killed an animal had the right to distribute meat from animal, and not the hunter himself who actually did the hard work. Another example would be the system of the unequal gift exchange: when one gifted something to someone, and in reciprocation received something, it might not necessarily be equivalent in value. Richard Lee, a famous anthropologist was told that the practice was aimed at leveling wealth, not accumulating it, which in turn had an important repercussion of establishing social relations. In stark contrast the Chumash made a glaring show of their individual prosperity and their inequality in economic and social status by publicly displaying their wealth as exemplified in their burials, clothing, houses, and the adornments on their heads and collars. They additionally leaned towards private accumulation rather than sharing and equality.
Before the great transformation, no economy was subject to being a prisoner of the market (Polanyi 43). Polanyi discusses previous forms of economic organization that function effectively without the system of markets (43). It can be said that through the social being of man and his relationships, that he values material goods only as they serve to an end (Polanyi 46). Within Tribal communities, each member takes on the ideology towards noneconomic ends, that is, not connecting the means of production or distribution in significance with the ownership of goods (Polanyi 46). Members of the tribe place no desire upon economic interests of the individual, but rather on the collective. Reciprocity and redistribution are certain behaviours that communities maintain (Polanyi 47). Reciprocity, regards the sexual organization of society, and redistribution is functioning under a common chief representing domain and authority
Flannery and Marcus discuss in our textbook about the social renown that comes from agriculture. “It is also the case that for most parts of the world, Rousseau was right: not until people had begun to raise crops or animals do we see signs of emerging inequality” (Flannery and Marcus 2012:91). This is especially true for Cahokia. In Cahokia, food storage changed in the Mississippian period. Woods, in his article, points out the fact that there is archeological evidence for food storage as being a communal event at Cahokia and that Cahokian households typically lacked a storage place of their own, which gave rise to the need for a large, community-based facility (2004:149). This was not always the case. There was evidence back in the Late Woodland period, prior to the Mississippian Period that shows there were domestic storage features in households and little evidence for communal storage. The rise of communal storage also gives rise to social power of the elites. “… the institutionalization of social ranking, DeBoer contends that ‘There is no mystery to the absences of subterranean storage in such circumstances. It is expected’” (Woods 2004:154). This being said, the change from subterranean food storage to aboveground food storage changed once Cahokia elites were gaining more and more power and becoming redistributors. This is an exemplary indication of social inequality. The chiefs and elites control the food storage and how much gets redistributed and how much goes back in to replace what was used. The producers and consumers of the food do not get much say in the matter because it is not their
The discussion of poverty, or what it means to be poor, seems to be very straightforward in the twenty first century. However, as one ponders what it means to be living in poverty, the meaning starts to become less clear. The problem lies on what one group of people believes poverty compared to another group of individuals. Group A can think Group B is a poor community: Meanwhile, Group B can think the opposite. A perfect example of this scenario is immigrants moved from Europe and began settling in America with the Native Americans. William Cronan describes how the interaction between the two different cultures was confusing for the two different groups. Cronon’s book, Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England, presents the problem of the one-sided poverty idea. Cronon says, “Many European visitors were struck by what seemed to them the poverty of Indians who lived in the midst of a landscape endowed so astonishingly with abundance.” The best way to understand why the Europeans interpreted the Native Americans this way, is to look at
During the Colonial Era of 1607-1776, the variations in families served as a staple for how our modern day families have metamorphosized. During the earliest years of our nation, Native American families were composed of two million people that were broken up into 240 groups that followed precise family and kinship patterns (66). The majority of the groups were patrilineal: rights and property were granted by the father's descent, while a handful was matrilineal: rights and property were granted by the mother's descent; the Zuni, Hopi, and Iroquois are examples of this. Native American families were small in size with a high rate of child mortality. Disciplinary methods lacked, as children were praised for doing well and shamed publicly if they did wrong.
This book is written with the purpose of revealing truths about the Native American people and the horrible ways in which they are treated. These chapters compare and contrast kin-ordered societies with modern western societies. In writing about the differences of these cultures, Brodley provides insight as to why these societies inherently coexist because of capitalism’s demand of all wealth and resources to join the market system. It also begins to describe the colonial intervention of indigenous peoples, which describes and the immeasurable effects this had on kin-ordered societies. This resource will help me a lot in my knowledge of the history and traditions of kin-ordered societies. One reason this is so important for my research is because it provides a helpful guide into certain aspects of their society that many Native Americans seek to return to. The limiting factor of this resource is that it broadly describes all kin-ordered societies and does not specifically mention the Yakama people.
The Indians and English’s definition of wealth often differed due to the way their respective societies functioned. While both groups understood the concept of wealth, their definitions were far from the same. For Indians, wealth is not defined by the property that one possesses or the amount of money in a bank account. Rather, their definition of wealth has a greater dependence on a social power than financial success. This definition was derived by the way they functioned within their society. The lifestyle they led was that of a mobile one. This lifestyle did not support the owning of multiple goods because of the burden it placed on traveling (Cronon 53). As a result, they typically only own goods that would benefit them in some aspect of life, such as tools for farming or hunting, or they would dispose of their belongings was deemed useless (Cronon, 61). The English, on the other hand, viewed wealth as less of a social aspect and more of a financial
The central theme of this weeks reading is to give us insight on the Natives of the Northwest Coast social structure and how they were the outstanding exception to the stereotypes that hunting and gathering cultures or fish and gathering cultures in their case are classified by sparse possessions, small egalitarian bands and simple technologies. In their location there was a limited supply of food; less work was required to meet the needs of subsistence of the population rather than in farming communities of comparable size the food unused by the Northwest Coast people encourage development of social stratification. There usually was a ruling elite that controlled use of rights to communal property, with the “house society” for a form of social
In the first of three oral stories, “How Men and Women Got Together”, we experience the unique perspective of the Blood-Piegan tribe. In this oral story, an “Old Man” created both men and women separately, each with their own differences. He then attempts to combine the groups together in order to provide benefits for each group. Material possessions were one of the major driving forces in this story. Early on in the story it is explained, “After a while the men learned how to make bows and arrows. The women learned how to tan buffalo hides and make tipis and beautiful robes decorated with porcupine quills,”. The women in the story desired food and weapons, things that the men already had. Meanwhile, the men desired clothing and shelter, things that the women already had. Apparently, these material goods are valued enough in the Blood-Piegan culture that they were worth both men and women putting their differences aside to obtain. It is also apparent that men and women value
Prior to colonization, the Indigenous had a unified, democratic society. Hickerson (1973) described that, until European contact, “social organization remained firmly based in kinship and clanship and that modes of production and distribution remained egalitarian” (p. 18). The Indigenous peoples engaged in hunting, trapping, and fishing activities at a subsistence level. Indigenous communities did trade useful commodities and some luxuries. However, Hickerson (1973) described that trade and production were not directed towards profit, but rather, towards satisfying the immediate well-being of community members.
“The home base also enables the //Gana to store items of wealth and the means to obtain wealth, particularly skins and furs, which are collected in quantity and traded outside the Central Reserve (Cashdan, Elizabeth A., 1980, pg 2).” Acquiring wealth opposes the traditional !Kung lifestyle. Efforts are made in the !Kung and Nharo societies to distribute wealth and avoid hierarchy or stratification. The //Gana do acquire wealth with the ownership of donkeys, horses, cattle, drums, and goats. The number of any of these items accounts for personal wealth or band wealth. Those who do not own significant numbers of these items often tend to the livestock of others.
Wealth has affected american society and evermore has affect the fabric of families. Has the distribution of wealth gotten so out of control that the effect will reverberate for generations to come and as a society can we do something about it.