A reasonable reader might wonder at the treatment of a highly respected
science. “Just what is it about anthropology that upsets you?” My
answer is
that anthropology is important. it is the fountainhead of a whole
range of
disciplines. Not only are there cultural anthropology, political
anthropology, ethnology, linguistics, economic anthropology and
others, but
psychology, social studies, economics, and the humanities are all
influenced
by this root science. Every occupation from law-enforcement and
penology to
international monetary policy-making is populated with students
of
anthropology. The importance of anthropology has not been ignored
by anyone
who is in the people business. Policy makers, editors, advertisers,
and
police, whether they are aware of it or not, have been programmed
by
anthropology. The corporations are cognizant of its importance.
There is a
powerful political element involved here. This is the reason why
those who
finance higher education keep a tight rein on any innovations by
naive
scholars. Anthropology is a potentially dangerous thing.
Why is anthropology important? It is the study of Man and the problem
of
every living thing on this planet is Man. Without an understanding
of Man we
cannot even approach a solution to the coming apocalypse. We need
to know
more than his genetic makeup. We need to know him as he is and not
as we
would like him to be. We need a psychoanalysis of Man . . . a written
and
thorough inventory of the species. Humanity has become a force in
the
universe . . . a new force that moves the very process of creation
itself to
a new level. Certainly this must have been the aim of the creator
when she
motivated that ape to pick up a pointed stick. Man represents a
new level of
creative potential. he is the answer to entropy. His creations do
not take
millions of years to fruition. Human creation is the result of applied
reason coupled with divine inspiration. Today we can investigate
the cosmos.
We see in our own solar system planets that are inhospitable to
life. The
rampant growth of our knowledge might someday make them bloom. We
are at a
point when we can blossom into something beautiful or self-destruct.
We do
not have to turn into another of god’s mistakes. God make
mistakes?! Why
not? God is not perfect . . . Perfection is stasis and God is not
dead. This
is not humanism. Humanism can do without God. This is Dualism and
means that
Man must work with God as a partner. He must learn to listen to
the
still-small voice that will direct him. He must elevate the altruism
that
was the gift of God to the tribe. God made the jungle and out of
the jungle
came Man. Man cannot go back to the jungle. He can not allow the
jungle to
come between him and his divine destiny. He must overcome the techno-jungle
that has entered the tribal compound and he must stop its corporations
from
destroying the natural jungle. Man must become responsible for relating
his
own biological success to his own holding capacity. he must learn
to control
his Totem gene. Killer Man must become the demi-god he was meant
to be.
We live in an era when technology and invention are turning
to things like
genetic cloning and artificial intelligence. We are stuck with a
social
outlook that has not progressed at all and are watching corporation
conservatism dismantle fifty years of progress. The deaths
of slave society
and feudal society were the result of technical innovations. Each
of the
former societies went in the trash can of history for the same reason.
Like
its forerunners; bourgeois society in its final stage has become
oppressive
to the majority of the tribe. The answer of those in power is repression,
more jails, more police, and militarism. Palliatives like social
security,
welfare, and Medicaid are going to be scrapped when they are most
needed.
GATT and NAFTA have little to do with free trade but have a lot to
do with
cheap labor and unlimited exploitation of the environment. Sweat
shops in
Asia bring sweatshops to New York and Los Angeles. The new fast-track
will
allow a World Trade Authority to level what is left of American
labor and
environmental gains.
I am an optimist: one of God’s fools. I have always been a survivor
and I
want to see my great-grandchildren’s children survive. I want to
see you
survive. I don’t believe in the perfectibility of Man because nothing
will
ever be perfect. Perfection: a human conception, like anthropomorphism,
came out of our role as a manual creator. We have trouble imagining
a God of
Einstinian dimensions. We want a little God that we can visualize
. . . a
baby God playing with clay. The idea of a God that touched off the
Big Bang
and sent galaxies hurtling through space is frightening to us. It
makes us
think that we are insignificant. But the fact that we are beginning
to get
an understanding of the cosmic reality indicates that we are very
significant indeed.
My interest in anthropology developed as a result of an inner knowledge
that
if we were going to reach an understanding of what is happening
today, we
would have to have a more realistic understanding of ourselves,
not only as
individuals but as a species. I had to take a complete moral inventory
of
myself in order to find out what was wrong with me as a person.
In doing
this I found out that much that I had condemned myself for was
understandable. Raised in the great depression and immersed in the
caldron
of W.W.II; there were many reasons for my many shortcomings that
I had
little control over. I had to take a good hard look back into my
own
personal history. Part of my personal character was a revolt
against
authority. This is only a character defect if it lands one in jail.
It can
also lead one to become a crusader. In my case: I exercised both
options.
The moral psychological shambles that resulted from my personal
disillusion
with Marxism is today mirrored by the problems facing whole countries
who
have come to the same conclusion. Having taken my own personal inventory
I
was now ready to take an inventory of my species. The first thing
that
struck me was its enormous age. From three to five-million years
we have
been differentiated from the other animals because of our technology.
Obviously, even as primitive beings armed with spears, we managed
to survive
in just about any climate or ecology. It was also equally obvious
that the
reason for this ability was because we had or could develop technology
to
meet just about any situation. When I looked for the beginnings
of
civilization I found that it happened only ten-thousand years ago
as a
result of the development of agriculture. If I were to do a fearless
and
thorough inventory of humanity it would have to begin at the beginning
five
million years ago. In comparing my own microcosmic history to the
macrocosmic life of humanity: it became obvious, that in searching
for human
nature, I would do well to ignore the confusing cultural and economic
mish-mash that was characteristic of civilization.
Investigating post-agricultural cultures for behavior would be like
trying
to find out the reason for all of the erratic and self-destructive
things
that I did. The reason was that I had discovered alcohol.
The reason
agriculture changed normal happy humans into greed driven neurotics
was
because they had discovered private-property. They say it is only
human
nature to want to get ahead. Is it? I know of no examples of a hunting
and
gathering tribe where this is so. Thus it would appear that economic
ambition is a cultural thing and is not at all genetically determined.
In
discovering what is nature and what is nurture we have to stick
with the
5,000,000 years for nature and oppose it with 10,000 years of nurture.
Of course my transition from a drunk into an anthropologist raised
problems;
but the problems lay more with the anthropology than they did with
me. One
factor that has held true for both primitive and civilized Man
was that
both were symbiotic with technology. Nowhere did I ever find any
example of
human beings existing without some form of technology. In the shelves
of
anthropological works that I have; very few even have the word technology
in
their appendix. This worried me . . . It was like the many economic
books I
read where the word capitalism was freely used; but where the word
corporation was missing from the appendix. I could not believe that
both
these words describing phenomena so ubiquitous were missing as a
result of
oversight or ignorance. This raised my old revolutionary hackles.
It caused
me to construct a conspiracy theory. Somewhere; some force was deliberately
trying to keep me stupid. There was too much evidence for this for
it to be
simple paranoia.
“In the land of the blind . . . the one-eyed man is king.” But before
mounting my throne as king of the anthropologists I was stopped
by the
realization that the poor bastards were not dumb . . . they were
just
scared. Further investigation, into possible forces that were making
these
Galileos recant, led me to The American Enterprise Institute, The
American
Heritage Institute, The Rand Corporation, and a whole army of tax-exempt
foundations and think-tanks with their boards dominated by corporation
CEOs.
The poor devils had to publish or perish, and what they had to publish
had
better meet the standards of publishers who were themselves corporate
conglomerates. Naturally I had at least one good eye. I never liked
corporations since my boyhood in Flint Michigan; a General Motors
company
town. I hated school and turned down the army A.S.T.P. program where
they
put me on the campus of Michigan State, and when the war was over
I blithely
ignored the GI Bill of Rights. This left a book-worm with a Mensa
IQ out of
the academic decision making process; and made him a pariah to government
agencies with a mandate to carry out decisions made by corporation
boards
and their bought and paid for Congress critters. I couldn’t get
a letter to
the editor published. It wasn’t until I got hold of a computer and
got on
the internet that I saw a chance of breaking through the concrete
wall of
censorship erected by the corporations.
I have learned to appreciate the discoveries of Dart, Leakey, and
Johannson
without the neccesity to accept their conclusions. The current ideas
purporting to prove that early human-beings were essentially scavengers
seemed laughable to me. Why would a tribal hunter armed with spears
have to
take the leavings of some other animal? Why are the corporations
so intent
on proving that human beings are inherently selfish and without
the
redeeming qualities of social behavior? The answer came to me that
it was
because corporations are not human beings, and it is the task of
corporations to keep these social creatures separated just as they
separate
their employees in cubicles. It is because these man-made robots
are wary of
their creators. They know that the people who created them can un-create
them. The measure of an accountant is how well he adheres to the
bottom
line. This is the rule of the accountant. Accountants like the reliability
of numbers, and corporate policy is set by accountants.
It is understandable that a taxonomy should develop in naming the
different
stages of human development as though they were different species.
Australopithicus and Cro Magnon vary in their relative size and
intelligence, but size and intelligence are not factors that
determine
species. The fact that the Chimp and the Human are 99% genetically
identical, and that they have pursued different paths of development
since
an event occurring 5,000,000 years ago, leads me to believe that
just as the
there has been no ancestral claim for specieization by Chimps there
should
not be any for us. The sure test is whether mating produces offspring.
As it
is impossible to mate Lucy the australopithicine with George Bush
the homo
sapiens sapiens . . . we will never know for sure. I will
not allow the
American Enterprise Institute to separate me from my australopithicine
ancestors because they lived in loving tribes and shared; nor will
I adopt
the egocentric selfish paradigm set by corporation accountants.