Author Topic: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn  (Read 6206 times)

Katnina

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 163
  • Age: 43
  • Location: NYC
  • 33 & happily retired!
Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« on: October 23, 2013, 10:09:42 PM »
Has anyone else here read any of Daniel Quinn's books?
I just finished reading Ishmael, at the recommendation of my husband, and it blew my mind.  Would love to discuss it with like-minded MMMers if anyone else is interested!?

On to My Ishmael once I finish a Native American history book I've owned for 10 years, but was finally inspired to read thanks to Ishmael.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2013, 11:34:39 PM »
I read it in 9th grade or so and it blew my mind, I remember loving it.

But I don't have a great memory when it comes to books, so I can read stuff over and over and not remember it; my favorite books I've read 50+ times.  I've often read books and not realized until the end that I've read them before (even multiple times before). 

So I read it again towards the end of college.  My impression about it then was that it was quite juvenile, overly simplified, and flat out wrong.

That's one of the few times in my life I was stunned by how much my opinions on things had changed, and on how I could be so wrong about something.  I was 100% confident when rereading it that it would be amazing, I'd love it, etc., and I was wrong.  It's quite off-putting to be 100% confident about something and be wrong.

Actually now my curiosity is piqued; I wonder what I'd think about it now, another 7-8 years later (the first reading was about 6 years before the second one).  I don't recall that much about Ishmael's contents now, just those two impressions from each time - loving it to disliking quite a bit about it and being stunned that I did.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Katnina

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 163
  • Age: 43
  • Location: NYC
  • 33 & happily retired!
Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2013, 10:38:56 AM »
Very interesting indeed that you could have such a different reaction to the same book- I am quite curious as to how you would see it now, given the time difference between now and your last reading. 
I think what struck me most is the idea of a wholistic view of the world-something I don't often see in other works.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2014, 05:43:43 PM »
I first read Ishmael when I was about 21 and it blew my mind.

I re-read it when I was about 35 and I was much less impressed.  I still thought it had some interesting points but, as arebelspy said, it was overly simplified.  Recent research into hunter/gatherer cultures also shows Quinn has some aspects just plain wrong.

Overall though, I think the book has a great message and if some of the ideas could be incorporated into our societal fabric today it would be a great improvement over what we currently have.

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5961
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2014, 10:30:18 AM »
Aspects like what?

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2014, 11:31:29 PM »
Primarily to do with such things as how "leavers" hunt and gather, how they interact with others, what their fundamental nature is as compared to "taker" cultures, things like that.

For example Quinn falls very much into the "eco guru myth".  Quinn paints HG societies as being totally in tune with their environment and only taking what they need to survive, being custodians of the earth, that sort of thing.  Whereas in fact we know many HG societies hunted many species to extinction.  Many also did so in a way that fundamentally changed the environment in which they lived.  Many such societies impacted their environment to such a degree as to cause, in part, the total destruction of their environment to the point of causing their own eventual extinction.

Quinn also paints "leaver" cultures as somehow having a different nature to "taker" cultures.  To support this idea he uses examples from cultures that have continued to this day as HG societies and how they have not adopted "totalitarian agriculture" but have instead continued to HG.  Evidence of other HG societies that have changed to a more "taker" type culture much later in human history, show that their fundamental nature is no different.  Some of these societies have changed after being exposed to "take" type culture but others have been in the process of changing long before being exposed.  The fact a culture has remained HG to this day is not really evidence that their nature is any different to any other human.

He does have some interesting ideas on cultural myths, the agricultural revolution and how we might incorporate a sense of tribalism into modern culture.  Where it all gets let down, in my opinion, is the rose tinted glasses he seems to see HG cultures through.

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5961
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2014, 12:10:09 AM »
Interesting. I think our interpretation of the work has been very different.

For example Quinn falls very much into the "eco guru myth".  Quinn paints HG societies as being totally in tune with their environment and only taking what they need to survive, being custodians of the earth, that sort of thing.
I know it's not fashionable but I see foragers' ecological perfection as a mostly-true approximation. I don't know that it's because of foragers beliefs rather than the systems that come with the territory of foraging, and it's certainly not 100% right, but it's a pretty good approximation for a work in the popular sphere.

Quote
Whereas in fact we know many HG societies hunted many species to extinction.  Many also did so in a way that fundamentally changed the environment in which they lived.  Many such societies impacted their environment to such a degree as to cause, in part, the total destruction of their environment to the point of causing their own eventual extinction.
Such as? Are you referring to the pleistocene megafauna in the Americas, which have no generally agreed cause of extinction and may have been going extinct even before humans arrived into the hemisphere?

Quote
Quinn also paints "leaver" cultures as somehow having a different nature to "taker" cultures.  To support this idea he uses examples from cultures that have continued to this day as HG societies and how they have not adopted "totalitarian agriculture" but have instead continued to HG.  Evidence of other HG societies that have changed to a more "taker" type culture much later in human history, show that their fundamental nature is no different.  Some of these societies have changed after being exposed to "take" type culture but others have been in the process of changing long before being exposed.  The fact a culture has remained HG to this day is not really evidence that their nature is any different to any other human.
I thought that the thesis of the book was that taker culture was a single cultural innovation like monotheism, which Quinn believed he nailed down to a specific time and place (fertile crescent, 10,000 BP). Then what distinguished taker and leaver cultures was which group a people descended from, not a fixed trait or some part of human nature that every member of the society had or lacked.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2014, 10:10:53 PM »
Interesting. I think our interpretation of the work has been very different.
Very likely.  Also, I will admit it has been many years since I last read the book so I might be mistaken in some of my views on the ideas Quinn put forward.
Quote from: grantmeaname
I know it's not fashionable but I see foragers' ecological perfection as a mostly-true approximation. I don't know that it's because of foragers beliefs rather than the systems that come with the territory of foraging, and it's certainly not 100% right, but it's a pretty good approximation for a work in the popular sphere.
I don't agree.

There are two primary reasons foragers must move around to sustain their lifestyle.
1:  To follow the migration patterns of the animals they are hunting
2:  Because they have hunted the animals in their area to the point where there are so few they can't sustain their population

Reason 2 is entirely at odds with the idea foragers are virtually ecologically perfect.  If there was a reason they could not move to a new hunting ground, ie: they are surrounded by hostile tribes, they would hunt the animals to extinction, as has been the case in some areas.
Quote from: grantmeaname
Such as? Are you referring to the pleistocene megafauna in the Americas, which have no generally agreed cause of extinction and may have been going extinct even before humans arrived into the hemisphere?
No I am not referring to megafauna.

Examples include the Maoris arriving in New Zealand and hunting many species of animals to extinction.  The Aboriginals of Australia using bushfire to flush out prey which had the consequence over time of completely changing the environment and is thought to very like have led to the extinction of some species.  Many Polynesian cultures hunting species of seaside crustaceans to extinction.

Quote from: grantmeaname
I thought that the thesis of the book was that taker culture was a single cultural innovation like monotheism, which Quinn believed he nailed down to a specific time and place (fertile crescent, 10,000 BP). Then what distinguished taker and leaver cultures was which group a people descended from, not a fixed trait or some part of human nature that every member of the society had or lacked.
I think you are probably right here but it just sort of proves my point.  He is suggesting that a trait of "taker" culture spread around the world and those cultures not exposed to this trait developed along completely different lines.  As if somehow any culture left alone would naturally end up a "leaver" culture.

Firstly, current research leads to the conclusion that language played a fundamental role in the development of what we generally call "civilization" and certainly what Quinn would describe as "taker" culture.  Without language, civilization just isn't possible.  Current research shows that language seems to have sprung into existence in many parts of the world at almost exactly the same time and without the cross pollination that was once thought to be necessary.

Along with language, greater control of the food supply is also a necessary component.  This is the part that Quinn focuses on.  It is commonly accepted that what we term the agricultural revolution started around 10,000 BCE in the fertile crescent.  So from that point of view Quinn is correct.  However, recent evidence shows that many other areas of the world were developing primitive forms of agriculture at around the same time.  Who is to say they would not have, in time, gone down the same path even if never exposed to "taker" culture.

For Quinn's version to be correct you must first completely ignore the role language plays in civilization and the fact it developed around the world at roughly the same time.  You must then ignore that agriculture was being developed around the world at about the same time as it was in the fertile crescent.  Lastly a situation must take place in which a single cultural trait spread throughout the world and it was this trait and not the language/agriculture equation that led to all "taker" cultures developing.  It seems a bit of a stretch to me.

On a separate note, one thing that really annoyed me about the book even on first reading.  The terms "taker" and "leaver".  Quinn puts forward that these terms be used instead of the loaded terms "civilized" and "primitive".  He contends taker and leaver are neutral and not loaded terms.  Now I totally agree that civilized and primitive are loaded.  However I don't think taker and leaver are any less loaded or emotional.  It's a small thing but those two terms just never sat well with me.

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5961
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2014, 06:14:51 AM »
Like I said, it's been a long time since I read it too. Not that it's even a problem we interpreted the work differently.

Examples include the Maoris arriving in New Zealand and hunting many species of animals to extinction.  The Aboriginals of Australia using bushfire to flush out prey which had the consequence over time of completely changing the environment and is thought to very like have led to the extinction of some species.  Many Polynesian cultures hunting species of seaside crustaceans to extinction.
I guess I don't see extinction in this case as that bad a thing, then? Ecosystems change and new predators appear. New Zealand still had a functional ecosystem after man, it's just got different birds now. I get that extinctions can be bad, but what distinguishes a bad extinction from a natural consequence of the introduction of a new species?

Quote
For Quinn's version to be correct you must first completely ignore the role language plays in civilization and the fact it developed around the world at roughly the same time.  You must then ignore that agriculture was being developed around the world at about the same time as it was in the fertile crescent.  Lastly a situation must take place in which a single cultural trait spread throughout the world and it was this trait and not the language/agriculture equation that led to all "taker" cultures developing.  It seems a bit of a stretch to me.
I disagree. I think the argument is that agriculture was developing in other places but not totalitarian agriculture. Even with an anthropology degree I'm not really sure that's a testable hypothesis, because I'm not sure what Quinn argues are the hallmarks or results of non-totalitarian agriculture, but I thought it was clear that it wasn't agriculture per se that he had a problem with. As for language: we've had language for a long, long time, so I'm not really sure what it has to do with civilization or the whole "taker"/"leaver" notion.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2014, 08:08:45 PM »
Like I said, it's been a long time since I read it too. Not that it's even a problem we interpreted the work differently.
Not a problem at all.  Differences can lead to great discussions.
Quote from: grantmeaname
I guess I don't see extinction in this case as that bad a thing, then? Ecosystems change and new predators appear. New Zealand still had a functional ecosystem after man, it's just got different birds now. I get that extinctions can be bad, but what distinguishes a bad extinction from a natural consequence of the introduction of a new species?
I guess I see the term "ecological perfection" as being in tune and balance with the environment and not in changing it to whatever suits your needs by hunting species to extinction and fundamentally changing the environment.

In that case the world has a functioning ecosystem now.  Many species are dead and many new ones have gained prominence and much of the environment is changed dramatically.  However, based on the idea that fundamentally changing the ecosystem and hunting species to extinction isn't a bad thing taker culture is no worse than leaver culture really, just different.

Even the whole climate change and depletion of resources isn't primarily a result of totalitarian agriculture, it is a case of having way too many people on the planet wanting way too many things.  So if totalitarian agriculture is the defining character of taker culture, even climate change and the gradual destruction of the environment isn't a problem that can be placed at the feet of taker cultures.
Quote from: grantmeaname
I disagree. I think the argument is that agriculture was developing in other places but not totalitarian agriculture. Even with an anthropology degree I'm not really sure that's a testable hypothesis, because I'm not sure what Quinn argues are the hallmarks or results of non-totalitarian agriculture, but I thought it was clear that it wasn't agriculture per se that he had a problem with.
I very much got the idea that Quinn believes totalitarian agriculture was a trait developed by a single culture and that other cultures would never have developed this trait without being exposed to taker cultural.  What I meant by "going down the same path in time" is that it is very possible these other cultures that were developing agriculture may well have gone down the path of totalitarian agriculture in time even without being exposed to taker culture.  So I think it is a major leap to suggest that totalitarian agriculture is a single cultural innovation such as monotheism which then spread throughout the rest of the world.
Quote from: grantmeaname
As for language: we've had language for a long, long time, so I'm not really sure what it has to do with civilization or the whole "taker"/"leaver" notion.
For starters, Quinn pretty much completely ignores the role language plaid in the development of what we term civilization and what he terms taker culture.  Quinn basically postulates that taker culture is the result of a single innovation, that of totalitarian agriculture.  This is highly unlikely in itself.  It is virtually impossible that a culture could develop totalitarian agriculture without developing language.  The fact that all humans developed language, and did so at roughly the same time as each other, lends itself more to the theory that most humans would have developed totalitarian agriculture at some point rather than it being a product of a single culture that spread through out the world.

I am probably totally wrong but I believe totalitarian agriculture is a natural result of a growing population in a finite space.  Even before the agricultural revolution humanity's numbers were growing.  Eventually a situation would have developed in which people had no choice but to use the space they had to grow as much food as they could.  Either that or to allow their population to dwindle and die off until a HG foraging lifestyle could sustain them as it does for other species. 

It's nice to think that as a species we could just let our natural food supply from a HG lifestyle dictate how many people could live in an area.  However, we are the only species we know of that has sentient consciousness.  With that comes a conscious desire, as opposed to an instinctual one, to continue living and for those we love to continue living.  I don't think it would ever be the case that humanity as a whole would allow themselves or those they love to starve to death simply because they couldn't H&G enough food.  Humanity was always going to try to develop ways to feed itself.  Agriculture was already beginning around the world.  The next natural step is to try to get as much as possible from agriculture.

The only reason it happened sooner than otherwise is because the conditions within the fertile crescent lent itself to it.

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5961
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2014, 03:30:53 AM »
Quote from: grantmeaname
I guess I don't see extinction in this case as that bad a thing, then? Ecosystems change and new predators appear. New Zealand still had a functional ecosystem after man, it's just got different birds now. I get that extinctions can be bad, but what distinguishes a bad extinction from a natural consequence of the introduction of a new species?
I guess I see the term "ecological perfection" as being in tune and balance with the environment and not in changing it to whatever suits your needs by hunting species to extinction and fundamentally changing the environment.

In that case the world has a functioning ecosystem now.  Many species are dead and many new ones have gained prominence and much of the environment is changed dramatically.  However, based on the idea that fundamentally changing the ecosystem and hunting species to extinction isn't a bad thing taker culture is no worse than leaver culture really, just different.
I don't think the world's ecosystem is perfect now. I'm saying that some extinctions occur because a new species is introduced and outcompetes the old one, closing or shrinking its ecological niche, and that I'm not so sure those are terrible - they're the way things have always been. Other extinctions, like the passenger pigeon, are clearly a result of human excess and were probably totally avoidable.

Quote
Even the whole climate change and depletion of resources isn't primarily a result of totalitarian agriculture, it is a case of having way too many people on the planet wanting way too many things.  So if totalitarian agriculture is the defining character of taker culture, even climate change and the gradual destruction of the environment isn't a problem that can be placed at the feet of taker cultures.
I think the argument was totalitarian agriculture -> huge population growth -> depletion/climate change/other ills.

Quote
For starters, Quinn pretty much completely ignores the role language plaid in the development of what we term civilization and what he terms taker culture.  Quinn basically postulates that taker culture is the result of a single innovation, that of totalitarian agriculture.  This is highly unlikely in itself.  It is virtually impossible that a culture could develop totalitarian agriculture without developing language.  The fact that all humans developed language, and did so at roughly the same time as each other, lends itself more to the theory that most humans would have developed totalitarian agriculture at some point rather than it being a product of a single culture that spread through out the world.
My understanding of the origin of language is that over the last five million years or more the degree to which communication has been growing more nuanced and varied has continuously grown. It wasn't an 'innovation' like fire, where one day we didn't have language, and the next we did, and unlike fire and stone tools it's not something that can precisely be placed in the fossil record. Further, until about 100,000 years ago, all of humanity was a couple thousand individuals living within a thousand miles or so. But the reason it feels irrelevant to me is that there's good reason to think that we used language for millenia (perhaps hundreds of millenia) before the birth of civilization and the subject of Ishmael. I agree that civilization as we know required language, but so did a lot of other things that came before it.

Quote
I am probably totally wrong but I believe totalitarian agriculture is a natural result of a growing population in a finite space...The only reason it happened sooner than otherwise is because the conditions within the fertile crescent lent itself to it.
I agree almost entirely with this. Since reading Ishmael this is probably the way my views have shifted.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15966
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« Reply #11 on: May 16, 2014, 05:11:06 AM »
Quote from: grantmeaname
Such as? Are you referring to the pleistocene megafauna in the Americas, which have no generally agreed cause of extinction and may have been going extinct even before humans arrived into the hemisphere?
No I am not referring to megafauna.

Examples include the Maoris arriving in New Zealand and hunting many species of animals to extinction.  The Aboriginals of Australia using bushfire to flush out prey which had the consequence over time of completely changing the environment and is thought to very like have led to the extinction of some species.  Many Polynesian cultures hunting species of seaside crustaceans to extinction.
The attitude toward the Aboriginals of Australia has radically changed over the past years. They are now thought to have farmed the land virtually as a continent, and that firestick farming was part of it. Fire is not supposed to have been used to flush out prey, rather to create the lightly treed grassland system that greeted the Europeans. They are thought to have farmed yams by replacing the tops when they dug them out, creating fields along rivers and streams  (this may have been influenced from the 1600's by Dutch shipwreck survivors - who left dutch words in the Aboriginal languages of the west coast). they certainly farmed fish, and had permanent fish trap systems in rivers that are 40,000 years old, and were still in use when Europeans arrived (one is said to be the oldest existing man made structure - anywhere). They moved fish spawn from river to river to ensure species prospered. The amount of time they have been in Australia now makes it pretty certain that they helped the megafauna to become extinct, and that they traveled by boat to Australia, as there was no land bridge when they came.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2014, 01:53:26 PM »
I don't think the world's ecosystem is perfect now. I'm saying that some extinctions occur because a new species is introduced and outcompetes the old one, closing or shrinking its ecological niche, and that I'm not so sure those are terrible - they're the way things have always been. Other extinctions, like the passenger pigeon, are clearly a result of human excess and were probably totally avoidable.
I guess then one must open the messy can of worms about which extinctions due to mans excess are ok and which are not.  I guess I don't make the distinction that the passenger pigeon = avoidable and due to human excess but Maori hunting local species to extinction is ok and just a new species out competing the old.
Quote from: grantmeaname
I think the argument was totalitarian agriculture -> huge population growth -> depletion/climate change/other ills.
I guess I just don't think he has made the argument.  He is basically placing the worlds ills at the feet of one specific thing and ignoring everything else and, whilst the book is an interesting read, he puts forward nothing but his own story as evidence.
Quote from: grantmeaname
My understanding of the origin of language is that over the last five million years or more the degree to which communication has been growing more nuanced and varied has continuously grown. It wasn't an 'innovation' like fire, where one day we didn't have language, and the next we did, and unlike fire and stone tools it's not something that can precisely be placed in the fossil record. Further, until about 100,000 years ago, all of humanity was a couple thousand individuals living within a thousand miles or so. But the reason it feels irrelevant to me is that there's good reason to think that we used language for millenia (perhaps hundreds of millenia) before the birth of civilization and the subject of Ishmael. I agree that civilization as we know required language, but so did a lot of other things that came before it.
I see the development of language as a good parallel for how agriculture likely would have developed.  Both are absolutely fundamental to civilization as we know it.  Both developed in similar ways, ie: around the world at roughly the same time without significant cross pollination.  I see no reason to believe agriculture would have then splintered off and followed a different route to what language did.  Language got more and more nuanced and complicated as time went on.  I believe agriculture would have done the same since up to that point its development had mirrored language.  Quinn on the other hand seems to believe that agriculture around the world would have frozen in time at a simple level if it weren't for this single cultural development that then spread everywhere.  It just doesn't make much sense.
Quote from: grantmeaname
I agree almost entirely with this. Since reading Ishmael this is probably the way my views have shifted.
Always nice to find common ground. :)

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2014, 02:00:05 PM »
The attitude toward the Aboriginals of Australia has radically changed over the past years. They are now thought to have farmed the land virtually as a continent, and that firestick farming was part of it. Fire is not supposed to have been used to flush out prey, rather to create the lightly treed grassland system that greeted the Europeans. They are thought to have farmed yams by replacing the tops when they dug them out, creating fields along rivers and streams  (this may have been influenced from the 1600's by Dutch shipwreck survivors - who left dutch words in the Aboriginal languages of the west coast). they certainly farmed fish, and had permanent fish trap systems in rivers that are 40,000 years old, and were still in use when Europeans arrived (one is said to be the oldest existing man made structure - anywhere). They moved fish spawn from river to river to ensure species prospered. The amount of time they have been in Australia now makes it pretty certain that they helped the megafauna to become extinct, and that they traveled by boat to Australia, as there was no land bridge when they came.
Whether fire was used as a farming tool or a hunting tool is almost irrelevant to the point.  I'm sure it was probably used for both to some degree.  The point however, is that they fundamentally changed the natural environment in which they lived to better suit their purposes and to better sustain themselves.  In so doing they, in all likelihood, caused or played a significant role in, the extinction of many species.

To me this doesn't fit the eco perfect hunter gatherer guru stereotype.  I see it as a process that is not much different to what mass clearing and farming is.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15966
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2014, 02:49:58 PM »
The attitude toward the Aboriginals of Australia has radically changed over the past years. They are now thought to have farmed the land virtually as a continent, and that firestick farming was part of it. Fire is not supposed to have been used to flush out prey, rather to create the lightly treed grassland system that greeted the Europeans. They are thought to have farmed yams by replacing the tops when they dug them out, creating fields along rivers and streams  (this may have been influenced from the 1600's by Dutch shipwreck survivors - who left dutch words in the Aboriginal languages of the west coast). they certainly farmed fish, and had permanent fish trap systems in rivers that are 40,000 years old, and were still in use when Europeans arrived (one is said to be the oldest existing man made structure - anywhere). They moved fish spawn from river to river to ensure species prospered. The amount of time they have been in Australia now makes it pretty certain that they helped the megafauna to become extinct, and that they traveled by boat to Australia, as there was no land bridge when they came.
Whether fire was used as a farming tool or a hunting tool is almost irrelevant to the point.  I'm sure it was probably used for both to some degree.  The point however, is that they fundamentally changed the natural environment in which they lived to better suit their purposes and to better sustain themselves.  In so doing they, in all likelihood, caused or played a significant role in, the extinction of many species.

To me this doesn't fit the eco perfect hunter gatherer guru stereotype.  I see it as a process that is not much different to what mass clearing and farming is.
Well, to be able to live the same way for 40,000 years (there are many things around Australia that show this is the case), using things like fish traps that lasted as standard tools for 40,000 years means that they created a more sustainable environment than any other existing culture - especially as there was an ice age in the middle of it. No other culture has been able to show more than 1/4 of that. Think of it - Stonehenge is only 5000 years old - less than 1/8 the age of these fish traps - the ones at Brewarrina were a pattern over 100 yards of river from bank to bank (including at its widest in flood) so they are of significant size - and involved moving significant amounts of rock (pity the council built a weir wall in the middle of them). And many artifacts are beginning to be dated at 60,000 years.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2014, 05:33:19 PM »
Well, to be able to live the same way for 40,000 years (there are many things around Australia that show this is the case), using things like fish traps that lasted as standard tools for 40,000 years means that they created a more sustainable environment than any other existing culture - especially as there was an ice age in the middle of it. No other culture has been able to show more than 1/4 of that. Think of it - Stonehenge is only 5000 years old - less than 1/8 the age of these fish traps - the ones at Brewarrina were a pattern over 100 yards of river from bank to bank (including at its widest in flood) so they are of significant size - and involved moving significant amounts of rock (pity the council built a weir wall in the middle of them). And many artifacts are beginning to be dated at 60,000 years.
I don't deny it is an achievement.  And I'm certainly not trying to paint the Aboriginal people, or any others, as rampant pillagers of the environment no different to mega corporations today.

But lets not romanticize them either.  Things were not completely stable and unchanging for 40,000 years with the Aboriginal people as some sort of noble custodian cum guardian of mother Gia.  Species were being hunted to extinction, environments were being changed to the extent that other species were becoming extinct because of that change, populations were growing, agriculture was getting more specialized.  All these things indicate that there is a good possibility that in time the Aboriginal people would have progressed, agriculturally speaking, to the point where they developed some form of "totalitarian" agriculture.  If nothing else, the gradual specialization of Aboriginal agriculture, in total isolation and without any contamination by "taker" cultures, goes directly against Quinns' hypothesis that totalitarian agriculture is some sort of aberration spread through out the world having originated from a single culture.

In fact, it is highly likely that the only reason the Aboriginal people did not develop totalitarian agriculture earlier is because of the relatively hostile conditions in Australia with regards to crop growing.  The lack of fertile top soil and the low rain fall combine to make it very difficult to develop large scale dedicated grain based agriculture.  If the fertile crescent was the ideal place for the birth of the agricultural revolution it could be argued that the Australian environment was the absolute antithesis of it.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15966
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2014, 05:57:27 PM »
Well, to be able to live the same way for 40,000 years (there are many things around Australia that show this is the case), using things like fish traps that lasted as standard tools for 40,000 years means that they created a more sustainable environment than any other existing culture - especially as there was an ice age in the middle of it. No other culture has been able to show more than 1/4 of that. Think of it - Stonehenge is only 5000 years old - less than 1/8 the age of these fish traps - the ones at Brewarrina were a pattern over 100 yards of river from bank to bank (including at its widest in flood) so they are of significant size - and involved moving significant amounts of rock (pity the council built a weir wall in the middle of them). And many artifacts are beginning to be dated at 60,000 years.
I don't deny it is an achievement.  And I'm certainly not trying to paint the Aboriginal people, or any others, as rampant pillagers of the environment no different to mega corporations today.

But lets not romanticize them either.  Things were not completely stable and unchanging for 40,000 years with the Aboriginal people as some sort of noble custodian cum guardian of mother Gia.  Species were being hunted to extinction, environments were being changed to the extent that other species were becoming extinct because of that change, populations were growing, agriculture was getting more specialized.  All these things indicate that there is a good possibility that in time the Aboriginal people would have progressed, agriculturally speaking, to the point where they developed some form of "totalitarian" agriculture.  If nothing else, the gradual specialization of Aboriginal agriculture, in total isolation and without any contamination by "taker" cultures, goes directly against Quinns' hypothesis that totalitarian agriculture is some sort of aberration spread through out the world having originated from a single culture.

In fact, it is highly likely that the only reason the Aboriginal people did not develop totalitarian agriculture earlier is because of the relatively hostile conditions in Australia with regards to crop growing.  The lack of fertile top soil and the low rain fall combine to make it very difficult to develop large scale dedicated grain based agriculture.  If the fertile crescent was the ideal place for the birth of the agricultural revolution it could be argued that the Australian environment was the absolute antithesis of it.
I hope I was not romanticizing them. But the fact that they managed to have plant and animal based economies with more inhabitants than there are today in some central areas (for instance when explorers reached the Simpson desert, they were fed cake by the local group), indicates that they had a lot to offer. Of course, in a few years (once more archeology has been done there) it will be interesting to compare New Guinea and the Fertile Crescent, since New Guinea appears to be where most of the Asian crops were developed.

I am not terribly impressed by Ishmael. It appears to me typical of a person who has been converted, and will apply everything that he can find to his theory, and forget inconvenient facts.

The book reminds me of the person who worked out how to do all the drainage around my first house. His theory was that the world religions are divided between herders and growers: all the herder (animal based) religions go to war, and all the grower (plant based) religions are the peaceful ones who stay at home trying to wait until their crops can be harvested. It was sort of similar, but I think he had better arguments! He did good work, but we spent a lot of time talking.

amha

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2014, 10:29:42 PM »
I read it in 9th grade---assigned in my Humanities class---and fell in love with it. It was the first book that ever really changed how I view the world. I haven't read it since, and I suspect (for reasons argued above) that I probably wouldn't like it as much now... but I still have incredibly deep feelings for it, as sort of a first-girlfriend of literature and philosophy.

A year or two ago I was in a bookstore in San Francisco (shoutout to Dog-Eared Books at 20th & Valencia!), and they were selling remaindered copies of it. It made me intensely sad---this book that I had once loved, now being disposed of by the publisher---these copies that had apparently sat unread in a warehouse for the last decade or so.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
« Reply #18 on: May 19, 2014, 12:03:34 AM »
I hope I was not romanticizing them.
No, I did not mean to suggest you were personally romanticizing them.  It was meant as a general comment.