Bushmen Case
Essay Preview: Bushmen Case
Report this essay
Understanding the culture of the Bushmen can bring forth many interesting emotions and thoughts. They are a unique people who maintain their first traditions and therefore are classified as a modern, primitive people. Although many people do not know the reality of the Bushmen or view them as too primitive, the narrators intentions are easy to understand. Hunting creates both mechanical and social solidarity through economics, social standing, and marriage.
The Bushmens economics are fairly simple and easy to follow, meaning that there are no loops or tricks. The Bushmens economics center around hunting and gathering because everyone gets an equal portion of the goods obtained. There is an exception to this equality, take hunting for instance: the person who is responsible for killing the game gets the biggest share but most often gives it away. To illustrate this point a bit further we need to go to the beginning of the book when Gai was the hunter and had un-contestably been given the larger share. “After the meat had been divided again in this way and cooked, the cooked food was shared. No one, of course, contested Gais large share, because he had been the hunter and by their law that much belonged to him. No one doubted that he should share his large amount with others, and they were not wrong, of course; he did. It is not the amount eaten by any person but the formal ownership of every part that matters to Bushmen”(Thomas, 1989). We see that unless there is a hunter that provides food there is no productivity, consumption, or transfer of goods, which is the essence of economics. We also see that the Bushmen society has a solidified economy. They depend on each other to survive. Because of this Bushmen rule, people can trust in each other and have confidence that the food obtained will be divided equally, this is the definition of solidarity because it keep people together.
The interesting part about the Bushmens economics is that nothing is wasted and taken for granted. One thing is used and served for many uses. Going back to hunting, whenever food is brought back to campgrounds every living matter on the animals body is used for something. The books shows a great example when it says, “The gemsbok had vanished. All that remained from the butchering was the pile of squeezed, dry grass from the rumen and a few lumps of feces that the redheaded flies buzzed over. The meat, bones, head, hide, and brush like tail all now belonged to people, and all the people had carried their portions away”(Thomas, 1989). Whether the gemsbok was used for food, clothes, tools, or future hunts, it was all the same. The skin of the animal was used as leather, which served as clothes, bags and tools. The more a man hunts and succeeds the more he can provide for the group and for his family and the more his family has to wear and eat. It all falls back on how good of a hunter one is. The Bushmen know and can distinguish when some have more than themselves. They are able to recognize, for example, that European clothing is made from a different material and they esteemed them to be mightier than themselves. The reason why hunting is so important to the Bushmen is because without it they cannot survive and thus have no way of forming relationships with others. This also tells us that hunting is difficult and does not come with ease.
The geography and the hunter plays a big role also. For instance, we learn about the Kung Bushmen and the differences between them and the Gikwe Bushmen, especially with their solidarity. We learn that it wasnt as difficult to survive. We learn how important a good hunter is to a societys economics. On page 242, it reads, “It was very sad and heavy day the day that Short Kwi left. It depresses Bushmen terribly to see one of their number crippled, which of course, in almost every case means the end of that persons productive life as a supporter of the people-one becomes a poor person and depends upon the enforced charity of ones near relative while suffering avoidance by ones remoter kin; but it depresses Bushmen even more to see one of their number taken away. It is the end of a link in their unity, and when it happens part of the chain of their relationships, part of their pattern is destroyed (Thomas, 1989).” We see here that hunting and economics correlate. It is the source of economics for the Bushmen. Whether one Bushmen contributes by hunting, gathering, making arrows from the bones, or leather from the skin, we are positive about one thing: they are all contributors to the societys economy and that is what their solidarity is all about. One must be able to provide for the benefit of the society.
Secondly, social standing in the Bushman society is another important characteristic of their solidarity. Hunting is a standard way of social classification, but there is also other ways that contribute to the social race, Such as age and contribution to the society. Take Lazy Kwi father-in-law for example. “Luckily for his family, his father-in-law made beautiful arrows and in the hunting system of Bushmen the man who gives or lends the arrow with which a buck is shot is automatically the owner of a large share of meat. In fact, the old man had a dominant voice in the running of the family, for though old men may be aged and consumptive, those younger than they do what they say (Thomas, 1989).” We can clearly see here that contributing to the success of the hunt is huge in the outcome of the individual contributing and his family, and thats why Lazy Kwi benefited from his father-in-law. It is also interesting that even though many older Bushmen cannot hunt as good as they used too, the rest of the group still acknowledges who they are and do what they say out of respect. This demonstrates their social standing. This form of respect towards older people helps the group and old people in specific feel included in the society.
Going back to Lazy Kwi, it is said in the book that his was a “kind, warmhearted man, devoted to his family, and was named Lazy, an insulting name, only because he was not a good hunter (Thomas, 1989).” And when it came down to dividing the meat he never got large amounts, the book says, “But because he did not hunt he never owned large shares of meat and ate only what came to him by the Bushmens