Out of Eden

Pre-modern lifestyles were fraught with violence, disease, and uncertainty. We should be happy that indigenous societies are increasingly leaving them behind.

BY CHARLES KENNY | APRIL 26, 2011

The image of the innocent indigene, unsullied by the coarsening traffic of civilization, has a long history. When Christopher Columbus returned from the New World, he reported his interaction with peaceful natives living the life of Adam and Eve in a new Eden. His descriptions were part of a ploy to snatch success out his failure to reach the Spice Islands of the East Indies. And the image remains a powerful advertising tool to this day.

A recent full-page advertisement in a glossy magazine showed a picture of a smiling woman from the Jarawa tribe in the Andaman Islands off the coast of India. The accompanying text read, "No war, no poverty, no drug abuse, no corruption, no pollution, no overpopulation, no prisons -- and we call them primitive?" Their 55,000-year, isolated, self-sufficient and sustainable existence is at threat, the ad suggested. Luckily, Survival International "is helping the Jarawa protect their land and defend their lives."

The Jarawa have lived on the Andamans for thousands of years, but only a few hundred are left, dislocated from their original lands, encroached upon by new roads, poachers, and tourists. Until recently, they were frequent victims of violent raids and kidnapping by officials trying to ensure the tribe would peacefully accept its fate. It is great that Survival International -- an international nongovernmental organization the presents itself as "the movement for tribal peoples" -- wants to advocate for those who remain. Somebody surely should. The NGO was part of a successful attempt to prevent local authorities forcibly resettling the Jarawa in 1990, the kind of move that rarely turns out well for indigenous populations (think of Native Americans). Elsewhere in the world, Survival International has played a similarly important role, highlighting the suffering of tribal peoples from the Amazon to Siberia and spotlighting (as it says on its website) "uncontacted peoples" who "offer today's world alternative values and ways of successful living."

But therein lies the problem. The glorification of the Jarawa and in general of tribal life, with its supposed freedom from violence, poverty, drugs, crime, and overpopulation, is part of a dangerous denial of the huge benefits that modernity has brought to the vast mass of humanity. It is easy to get emotional about a supposedly idyllic Stone Age existence when we're staring at elegant photographs on a computer screen while sipping our Starbucks chai latte. But if we decided to actually return to the lifestyle of uncontacted peoples, the vast majority of the planet would die off from starvation, and those who remained would face nasty, brutish, and short lives. Romanticizing that lifestyle provides no insights into how we can better run a planet of 7 billion people on a sustainable basis -- and does little to illuminate the challenges and needs of tribal people themselves.

To start with, how about the claim that indigenous peoples are ignorant of war? Over the last century and a half, many Jarawa have been shot at and killed by poachers and officials alike -- but they have also carried out numerous attacks of their own, to the extent that there is a standard government payment of $350 made to the family of each settler they kill. And the Jarawa are far from the exception among tribal peoples when it comes to war. Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker suggests that somewhere between 5 and 30 percent of deaths in most pre-agricultural societies are caused by violence (although his estimates are disputed).

DESHAKALYAN CHOWDHURY/AFP/Getty Images

 

Charles Kenny is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, a Schwartz fellow at the New America Foundation, and author, most recently, of Getting Better: Why Global Development Is Succeeding and How We Can Improve the World Even More. "The Optimist," his column for ForeignPolicy.com, runs weekly.

AVILLA

8:30 PM ET

April 26, 2011

Fascinating article.

When I was in college, we went on a trip to a rural village in Kenya to "observe their way of life". It was just how you'd picture a random African village--poor, tribalistic, strange food, little medicine, no technology that had been created since the turn of the 17th century. I remember asking one of the women there if they were familiar with modern technology, and if so, why didn't they use it? She told me that they were aware of it, but using it would ruin the "authenticity" of the village, and the tourists would stop coming. And because the tourists were expected to buy some trinkets off of the local women before they left, that would ruin the village's main supply of money. It's all very weird. We keep these people in the dark ages for our own amusement, even though their life expectancies, disease rates, and educational prospects would drastically increase if we allowed them to modernize themselves.

 

REDU4

12:47 AM ET

April 27, 2011

Well you pretty much just

Well you pretty much just contradicted yourself. It sounds very much like they would be much better off without having to live as a small society within a dominant imperialistic world.
Now they NEED the tourists to buy things from them because they need money. Seems they were fine before that whole system set itself up... sometime after European colonization and slavery!
They could adopt some medical advancements and still continue living their native lifestyles, but this arrogant article seems to think they should forget who they are and become like us. With nativism comes violence and illness?? Yeah right. Why does that sound so much like the rhetoric of... well, every other colonizing force that has ever been, throughout history? Forcing technology on people is just as bad as forcing religion on people.

 

KATERINA PEKOVA

1:39 PM ET

April 27, 2011

Technology Shouldn't be Enforced on People

I totally agree with Redu4: just like religion, technology shouldn't be enforced on people. But I wouldn't rush and call "Eden" the place these people live. They do live in violent societies, free of any medical capabilities, except using their plants. I think it's fair to let them decide their level of involvement into our modern society. They should be treated with respect and protected; pretty much like we protect endangered species. Not that I would compare them with animals or anything!

They know we exist, they know where to find us - we should let them decide for themselves what they want to do. Their lives aren't simple because these people struggle every day to find food. But our modern lives aren't simple either, should we have a look at Japan's nuclear crisis for example. We think technology will set us free when instead technology could kill us all, as we already saw here: http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/22/skynet_goes_operational_over_libya

 

ROMNEY

9:44 PM ET

April 26, 2011

Very Interesting

As someone with anthropological interests, I've struggled with this issue as well.

 

ADAM ONGE

12:51 AM ET

April 27, 2011

Onge from the Andaman Islands

As an Onge from the Andaman Islands, I would be all for scientific and technological advances. We should all go with the flow of progress.That's why I don't understand why some "civilized" people in "advanced societies" are so against GM (genetically modified) foods. Most of the crops and the farm animals (not to mention pets) have been genetically modified through selective breeding by human civilizations over thousands of years. I don't see any reason why we should stop doing that. Now that we understand a lot more about the genetics of all living beings we might as well start playing "God" by modifying genetic codes according to our needs. A iPhone is also not quite a natural product, is it? It is indeed a "Brave New World" and every member of our species homo sapiens should be a part of it, no?

 

SHLOMO2000

2:33 AM ET

April 28, 2011

Are you really an Onge?

Or are you just calling yourself that?

 

ADAM ONGE

4:02 PM ET

April 28, 2011

Onge

I was speaking on behalf of the Onge's, but in fact, I might actually be distantly related to the Onge's, genetically speaking (sic), since I was born within a 250 mile radius from the Andaman Islands.

 

RAHAMLET

3:15 AM ET

April 29, 2011

speak for yourself not for others

Adam Onge, if you are only "distantly genetically related" to a people and do not practice or respect their culture, spirituality, etc, please do not speak for them.
I would also suggest you do your research regarding GMO before you praise it. Selective breeding and the deliberate implantation of of species genetics which could never naturally occur (for example fish genes into corn, bacterial warfare genetics into soy, and so forth) are not at all the same thing. If rats cannot thrive past a second generation on GM soy what would make you believe that humans can?
As a nutritionist and sustainability consultant I see what happens to indigenous cultures and human/community health when modern "civilisation" is introduced. A more or less complete train wreck of their physical health within a single generation, for starters.
As to messing with nature - what we know about the enormous and complex web of life is so paltry ... you perhaps have not heard the admonition about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing? Again do a little research on how playing god has produced one disaster aft another.
We are, as a population spiralled out of control and beyond all reasonable limits of numbers and voracious hunger for non-renewable resources, in a state of dramatic overkill. As harsh as it sounds, the stone age way of life works - it is sustainable for people and planet. We can and must learn from that. I do not advocate infanticide, but if GM food has a single dubious virtue it would be in how it is sterilising the populations which are using up the most resources of the planet in the most profligate, polluting fashion.

 

RICHARDE

2:46 AM ET

April 27, 2011

Racist straw man

I haven't seen the advert Kenny writes about, but unless Survival advocates for a wholesale "return" to tribal life (and it doesn't appear to on its website), then the premise of the article is a straw man.

And it's disappointing to see FP allowing lazy racism such as "Stone Age" and "pre-modern". Not only are such monikers factually incorrect, but acutely harmful to the people Kenny says need advocates.

 

GRANT

4:01 AM ET

April 27, 2011

It might be a sense that even

It might be a sense that even if we live in this complex, modern world at least there's someone who's keeping to old traditions (even if said old traditions are just as complex as our own).

 

CLAUD

9:22 AM ET

April 27, 2011

The right to choose

Well, it's pretty presumptuous for you to decide what's the best for tribal peoples and to judge the way they're living in.
I think they have the right to choose about their own future, about the way they want to live in. And I think Survival is tring to give them this chance. We all have the duty to respect them and to protect their rights without interferring with their choices as they do not interfer with the ones of the "mainstream society".

 

LILY19

9:31 AM ET

April 27, 2011

There must be a misunderstanding

Survival never advocates for a return to tribal life. It only aims to protect tribal peoples' choice as regards their own life and future.

Just have a look on its campaign "progress can kill" and you'll see the consequences of a racist speech like yours.

 

STEIN.R.ERIC

10:46 AM ET

April 27, 2011

Some poor reasoning I think

This article seems to get confused in its own arguments a bit. First off, it doesnt really separate pre and post agriculture lifestyles, which are crucially different.

For example, the claim that disease was a way to naturally 'keep the numbers down' is almost certainly not true since it wasnt until agricultural life allowed for such large populations to live in such close quarters with each other and animals (livestock) that disease could become epidemic or pandemic. Jarred Diamond argues this convincingly in Guns Germs and Steel.

Other arguments are wrought with errors, like this one - "if we decided to actually return to the lifestyle of uncontacted peoples, the vast majority of the planet would die off from starvation, and those who remained would face nasty, brutish, and short lives."

First off, a comparison is being made between the indigenous tribes of today in the modern world and those of the time of Columbus or even thousands of years ago or more. Second, no one is condoning a reversion back to indigenous lifestyles so suggesting the consequences of the world doing so seems like a false choice. Also, what kind of society would we be returning to? Hunter gatherer or agricultural? No distinction is made. And the claim that we would all starve if we reverted to indigenous lifestyles has 3 problems of its own 1) The indigenous tribes spoken of are agricultural, just like us, but only behind in tech so what is the crucial difference? 2) Modern agricultural advances have led to our massive population so OF COURSE a reversion back to more modest farming (or hunting gathering - this is unclear in the argument) would leave many starving - Our population never would have got to this point with indigenous methods so you cant attribute blame to it. 3) The claim that all pre modern life was Hobbesian is starting to show holes - it seems that hunter gatherer life wasnt all that massively violent with raging famine and life expectancy of 30 after all, like Pinker speaks of. Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá make some good arguments about this in Sex at Dawn.

Kenny continues to skips across millennia as if there were no change in human lifestyles - he does this again when he suggests the cliché that indigenous peoples are ignorant of war (and I dont think this is a real perception - less prone to war or less war like perhaps but 'ignorant of', surely not) and then goes on to site modern day examples as evidence of this! Really, this line of argumentation can't be taken for any value at all Im afraid.

I am no expert but I like reading about this stuff and it seems there is a growing realization that pre agricultural life was not as bad as we (and Hobbes) thought it was and evidence is cropping up to support this. To draw any parallels to what we can take from it however, we must practice better reasoning than this.

 

HASAH

12:01 PM ET

April 27, 2011

"The glorification of the

"The glorification of the Jarawa and in general of tribal life, with its supposed freedom from violence, poverty, drugs, crime, and overpopulation, is part of a dangerous denial of the huge benefits that modernity has brought to the vast mass of humanity"

The ad you mention is not meant as a denial of modernity and doesn't suggest we should go back to leading such a lifestyle as indigenous peoples do. It rather suggests that we should accept and respect their way of living and should not try to force our "progress" and "modern way of life" upon them. Unfortunately, many people still don't understand this...

 

VECINADEBLOG

12:16 PM ET

April 27, 2011

Coming from a semi-agricultural country, I agree

The issue is indeed complex, but I think the author compared tribes discovered by Columbus with the Jarawa only to point out how people coming from more developed societies can have wrong reasons for praising patriarchal lifestyle. In the case of NGOs like Survival Intl (which are parasites of postindustrialism), activists idealize a society in which they wouldn't live in because it gives them something to complain about (which is the only thing they "do").
I'm not one of those westerners who visit remote villages for fun (yay, there's a live chicken), I live in Romania where half the populations is rural, and believe me there's no romance in the countryside. A lot of people think cities are dangerous, but I feel safer in Bucharest than a few miles away in a more... natural environment, where brutal murders, rapes (child prostitutes and incest included) or thefts are truly at home. Not to mention women and kids are generally treated like animals and lack of hygiene makes it an "Eden" for diseases. I'd make a longer list why people would choose modern lifestyle if only they had the chance, but this comment is already not short enough to be read.

 

HURRICANEWARNING

1:35 PM ET

April 27, 2011

Having spent a fair amount of

Having spent a fair amount of time living amongst, and working with natives in different areas of the world, I will only say that this article is misleading...purposefully perhaps, im not sure (an educated person should know that painting broad brushstrokes ALMOST never works). Obviously, certain native societies have the same problems as everyone else, and were never that great to begin with. BUT there are many, many tribal societies that really were/ are living on the cusp of societal perfection (or as close as possible to the cusp). I ask this author to spend some time in Fiji, living away from the tourists with a real tribe, and while they are not completely devoid of technology and medicine, their materialism is almost 0, there happiness is 100% above any western nations, and their way of life is still much as it always was (save for the Christianity thing). Also, Native Americans, while currently living in conditions that rival any African slum, or terrible inner city project, used to be MUCH, MUCH better off than they are now. that is a fact. No, not all the tribes were great, loving, perfect peoples. But there were a few remarkable tribes, who espoused beliefs that are no more unbelievable than many modern western "certainties", and certainly no more crazy than Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. Their beliefs were remarkably healthy, their bodies were remarkably healthy, and their minds were remarkably healthy. Today, in America especially, we are sick, poisoned in the mind, body and soul. And while modern medicine might be great. A long life isn't all its cracked up to be when its spent in front of a computer, sitting in a cubicle, fighting obesity, depression, anxiety, fear, credit card debt, heart disease, cancer or any number of other modern problems that were almost unheard of in native societies.

I agree with your premise that we shouldn't assume that all primitive societies were great...but some were. And we would do well to learn lessons from them, or else we might share their fate sooner, rather than later.

 

MARGAUXSO

6:01 AM ET

April 28, 2011

I feel like there is a

I feel like there is a confusion in rhetoric. I understand that you are making the point not to paint a falsely romantic picture of the past, and use this longing for simplicity as a cheap marketing tool. But these people are not the past, they are the part of our shared present and future, and harping on nostalgia is not why this NGO exists. Rather, their work is an appeal to those that threaten their existence to see them as human beings in possession of the same right to self-determination as any who chooses to live in "the contacted world." The debate about how this is best accomplished is an on-going dialogue between tribal peoples and the governments with which they coexist, but if it is to be fruitful and peaceful for both there must be a basic acceptance of this idea, and to paint people living now as stone-age and primitive is only detrimental and antagonistic to the continued productivity of this dialogue.

 

JOHNSMITH8024

1:24 AM ET

April 29, 2011

Technology can not be forced

Everyone have the right and freedom to decide on their future and Tribal's are not separate. Tribal practices should be respected and protected. The final decision is upto them.

Mobile Application Development Training