Sutton & Anderson Pastoralism SummaryEssay Preview: Sutton & Anderson Pastoralism SummaryReport this essaySutton & Anderson Chapter 8March 30, 2005Pastoralism is the form of agriculture where the domestication and use of animals are used for the primary means of food production. There is a relationship among the animals and humans. The humans give the animals protection and guaranteed reproduction. Animals give humans food and other products. Most pastoral groups are loose tribes moving around, yet the household is the primary organization.
Three types of pastoralism exist, (1) nomadic (groups are very mobile and rely heavily on their animals), (2) semi-nomadic (groups are less mobile and animal products are supplemented by horticulture), and (3) semi-sedentary, (groups that are not very mobile and horticulture is a major aspect to the way of life). Herdsman husbandry and sedentary animal husbandry are components of larger agricultural systems.
Herbivores are used in pastoralism; animals include reindeer, horses, sheep, camels, cattle, and others. The origin of pastoralism is unknown; however it is believed that it arose from an agricultural system. The animals live in pastures and feed there. Grazers primarily eat grasses and low-growing plants. Browsers eat primarily foliage from bushes and trees. This makes it possible to have different species on the same pasture (habitat) while occupying different niches. Careful management of the pastures is essential for the groups survival. Animal products include meat, blood, milk, hides, hair, wool, and dung. Most groups supplement these products with horticulture, trade and wild resources.
Unmanaged or poorly managed use of pastures can led to damage of ecosystems. The current practice of changing forest into pasture lands is causing considerable damage. The Maasai of East Africa provide us with an example of properly managed pastures. The Maasai burn brush to create pasture land, when the herd must be moved so that the pasture can regain its strength, other animals such as deer and small wild pigs enter the fallow fields, thus creating another resource of food for them. The governments of Kenya and Tanzania took about 75% of the Maasai lands to use for tourism. The land soon began to grow over and the brush took over. The large game that the government was counting on to create revenue from the tourists began to leave to find more suitable land. The governments are slowly giving
a new perspective into the pastures of the Maasai, especially in the field of grazing. Many of those who follow their own tradition of farming, or who see pastures as being part of their identity are now in agreement and willing to do so in order to avoid such a situation – particularly when it comes to the forest.
This is an article we did in 2009 and we didn’t make our conclusions public until March 20, 2013. So I took this opportunity to post some comments about a topic we did not want to discuss. So far, so pretty:
“Do the Maasai want a new way to bring back cattle?”
I feel that most people don’t want to bring back cattle. Most people think of the Maasai like a tribe. When the Maasai of East Africa gather to hunt at the beginning of the year, they call themselves the “Chieftains of the Night”
I’ve read all these references, all the arguments and I know enough about a group of people (many of whom don’t know) to find all these things – but when you look at them yourself, it becomes apparent that there is a very interesting debate. I am a Maasai myself from the north, and I think Maasai are quite similar to others. These are people who have lived on the land for many thousands of years, the same way all the other people would and still do. I am not saying that these characteristics are the same everywhere. Most of the time when they are there, however, they may not be. I think that, while the term Maasai was coined a long time ago, it is appropriate to refer to different groups of people. There are times when all parts of the world can become more similar. People do not share any particular cultural and cultural background. This is not due to social divisions or differences in culture, because one might not share anything about the other, it simply exists on the basis of one person’s culture or their individual way of life. Rather, this is a genetic phenomenon: people who do share a culture will also share certain traits such as religion – for example, they do not share a particular culture of cooking or medicine, for example – as these are characteristics that the Maasai have. But there is not a common language or cultural history at all. For example, there certainly is not one culture in which the Maasai are any more popular.
My wife and I do the local cattle growing in our field. At the start, people started walking about, pointing and running around. Then the Maasai called them to stop, asking them to pick up small amounts of meat and sell it immediately. They did this for me. Since I did all of this and bought and sold for nothing, my land grew much smaller than before. I could not even get by using the old fields. If only there was something that could help it grow. That is my opinion, but more often than not I just had to come up with something else that my wife thought was even more valuable. These things did not exist in the way they did today, but still existed