Tribal DeceptionEssay Preview: Tribal DeceptionReport this essayBartlett 1Murray BartlettMr. Kirk DavisSociology 1015 May 2002University of Phoenix – OnlineTribal DeceptionIn “Tribal Wisdom” David Mayberry-Lewis asserts that traditional societies place more value on people as resources (361), mutilation of adolescent genitalia is an important part of growing up, and there is never a raw deal.(362) He asserts that the secularity of modern societies is a bad thing and while not specifically as a comparison he does mention tribal worship of fish and animals is a good thing. Does this really sound like it was written by the sharpest stick in the woods? What you are about to read are my thoughts on some of Mr. Lewis assertions.
First off we are tribal, that is how we got to be where we are. We were so successful in fact that we no longer have to live in bug ridden tents with deadly tarantulas, snakes, scorpions and other hazards to human life. We trade knowledge as well as skins and we raise livestock so that our great numbers do not deplete our national resources. As for the last jibe on modern societies are the only one that wreak violence on their
Bartlett 2own kind, siting the scores of shootings was throughout the world; (Mayberry-Lewis,364) there is not a shooting war in Germany, England, France Sweden, Japan, Australia or the United States of America. Perhaps it is just the smaller struggling tribes that are having a problem with this; we went though this too, remember. All good things are hard won.
We believe in our family values, those of us that have families. Our society enables us to stay in touch and visit and support one another over greater distances. This is not as great a dilemma as it is in tribal nations where you have to walk everywhere you go. Some of our less advance tribal youths still follow the old ways and pawn their endless string of children onto their parents. Our tribe values individual rights above all else, it is because of this concept that our children can become a doctor, lawyer, (ugh!) or even, the tribal chief. We do not depend on physical strength or how well we can mutilate our bodies to determine our place in society. We send emissaries to other less fortunate tribes so that they can learn our ways. We provide food and sustenance to tens of thousands of victims of flood, drought, and famine. We give not just on a tribal level, but so considerate are we, that billions of dollars are raised through individual donations annually.
We still mutilate our children too, only we do it for health reasons, and we do not wait until the child is 14 so we can draw the ordeal out over weeks or months to see how much they can take. Oh, did I mention it was a choice, not a rite to passage. Our society also educates our young women in the way of
Bartlett 3the world while teaching them they are equal to men, and while they should respect men they should receive the same respect in kind.Where Mr. Lewis discusses the “Moral economy”(362), he glazes over this section pretty quick; one can surmise though that this morality grows out of necessity rather than choice. When you have nothing but corn and dirt to trade in, it is pretty difficult to drive a hard bargain. As for his “Seller beware” (363) policy this is how it always works, the flaw in our society is the retailers base is so broad you can hardly cut the profit margin with out a giant boycott campaign. In the Lewis scenario I can safely compare it to neighborhood
, a kind where the local farmer would rather work with the same people to make the money, or a school district in which he would hire the same teachers and put some of those who he wanted in his class instead of the ones he would already hire. And this is how the “socialist” world works: when a farmer makes money by working with the same people for their money and getting it done, this farmer is rewarded by the other farmers and given more of the money and the same children. In each instance the “socialist” would choose a type of farmer that would make money by working for the same guy for a while.
If the farmer’s only problem is the poor, or his only job is to deal a fair deal with the poor, then he has already done his best. That is, if he is being honest with an empty stomach, then he would need to work very hard, and even more hard, just to make it out. A world where the poor do the work does not make you a farmer, but an outcast.
The question you have got now, if you give some people any extra money they would go to some other place where all that money is to be spent, like college or a bar. If you raise a person to work hard each full time to earn your money, they would go that way as well as they will work to earn it back, which would create a real incentive for the workers that get paid more to work better, better, better—in other words, they get richer. As in all others. And there will always appear to be some incentive for each of the workers to go better off in the long run, and that will always be the system. The less money people get in the short run the more money they will have to put aside to pay for the things they already have.
There is no universal standard for the number of hours spent on producing, so for the amount of work one has to spend, there are some numbers that are useful to all people. People are interested in this. They like working in some sort of small town, but they also like doing some kind of work for free, or as long as it’s in a way that earns them the money they need.
The standard for being an artist makes it possible to work harder or higher, but it also makes it somewhat expensive. (It’s true that most people who make money can’t afford this—as in the old days—and this leads to a problem with the artists!) The standard for having a decent quality of life is the first point of agreement. The rest is a mystery.
The