Globalisation v Parochialism

TruckerT

Generali wrote: »

Now the Aboriginal thing is very interesting to me.

Supposedly (and I really don't know whether this is true) Aboriginal Australian groups (not tribes) didn't have any concept of ownership. That in itself seems like a huge sweeping statement to me about people living 1000s of kms apart in a land without horses or mechanised travel.

Now I've read stuff written as late as the 1950s and 1960s where aboriginal family groups have avoided contact with the whites up until there was at least an outside chance that they'd be treated in something like a reasonable fashion.

From what I've read (not nearly enough) I think that there was some ownership of 'stuff'. Spiritual things were often owned either by a Shaman figure or by individual men I believe. Hunting tools the same.

Land wasn't owned in any way of which I am aware but then there are painted caves and carved rocks and that painting could be a mark of ownership, or not of course.

As to whether Aboriginals were self sufficient...? I have doubts about that. There were certainly contacts between family groups to allow marriages across groups for pretty obvious reasons. There is also some evidence, I believe, that inter family group contact was used to share and to trade. Without ownership there can be no trade. I can't swap what's not mine for what's not yours. I guess it depends what you call self-sufficient.

I certainly don't and won't defend what white people did to the traditional owners of Australia. What is happening today is slightly better in a similar way to stopping beating up a small child and moving on to her mum. It's an improvement but not really what you'd call right.

I didn't intend to suggest that each individual was self-sufficient. My point was that the group as a whole was self-sufficient, and felt no need to add to their combined 'wealth'.

The Australian aborigines certainly never claimed to 'own' their land - and they were unable to understand the Brits' obsession with the very idea of 'land ownership'.

TruckerT

Generali

TruckerT wrote: »

I didn't intend to suggest that each individual was self-sufficient. My point was that the group as a whole was self-sufficient, and felt no need to add to their combined 'wealth'.

What do you mean by a 'group' when it comes to Aussie Aboriginals? I have difficulty getting it TBH.

AIUI there were pretty close family groups that hunted and farmed together. Then beyond that there were extended family groups and other contact groups that you'd look to send your son or daughter off with and perhaps trade rather than share goods with. I suppose those goods could be thought of as wealth in the (apparent) absence of land ownership or money.

TruckerT wrote: »

The Australian aborigines certainly never claimed to 'own' their land - and they were unable to understand the Brits' obsession with the very idea of 'land ownership'.

So they say. Pemulwuy (who now has a suburb named after him that is full of mortgage-belt 2nd generation immigrants ironically) was pretty keen to fight for his land it would appear.

TBH, you (and almost everyone else to be fair) uses absolute terms about Aboriginal culture, law etc but these are huge generalisations. It's a bit like saying all Europeans are Reindeer herders.

I'm not trying to be aggressive but this is an area I'm fascinated by but haven't had a chance to investigate properly.

kabayiri

Do we end up with a dependency culture alongside a globalised production model?

Perhaps in the olden days people felt in touch with their communities. They understood how they depended on other peoples' services within the community and how in turn people depended on them.

Today, how many can hide behind cliches which are so common they become accepted truths. "We can never compete with China on price"; "Why make stuff, it's not where the value is"; "We don't want to work the hours they do in Indian call centres".

Don't those points reflect a lack of control over your own livelihood?

I noted with interest how some small communities in Greece had gone back to bartering/local currency - it must be pretty disempowering feeling your future depended on decisions made in Germany.

Thrugelmir

TruckerT wrote: »

and world domination.

Made me chuckle. Most Chinese people would happily settle for a lot less.

TruckerT

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Made me chuckle. Most Chinese people would happily settle for a lot less.

That's good news! Do they have any choice?

TruckerT

TruckerT

Generali wrote: »

What do you mean by a 'group' when it comes to Aussie Aboriginals? I have difficulty getting it TBH.

AIUI there were pretty close family groups that hunted and farmed together. Then beyond that there were extended family groups and other contact groups that you'd look to send your son or daughter off with and perhaps trade rather than share goods with. I suppose those goods could be thought of as wealth in the (apparent) absence of land ownership or money.



So they say. Pemulwuy (who now has a suburb named after him that is full of mortgage-belt 2nd generation immigrants ironically) was pretty keen to fight for his land it would appear.

TBH, you (and almost everyone else to be fair) uses absolute terms about Aboriginal culture, law etc but these are huge generalisations. It's a bit like saying all Europeans are Reindeer herders.

I'm not trying to be aggressive but this is an area I'm fascinated by but haven't had a chance to investigate properly.

The size of a group is not particularly important - it's about a set of shared values. European capitalists are currently struggling to restore their status quo. That's what Pemulwuy was trying to do. I don't believe Australian aborigines would have understood the meaning of the word 'wealth'.

TruckerT

Thrugelmir

TruckerT wrote: »

That's good news! Do they have any choice?

Given the poverty in rural areas then no is the answer.

TruckerT

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Given the poverty in rural areas then no is the answer.

I suspect you have a particular interest in China.

But I'm not sure whether you think that China's equivalent of the UK's north/south divide is likely to be alleviated by their government's capitalist activities, or whether you think it will be exacerbated.

TruckerT

Conrad

TruckerT wrote: »

I agree that 20th century mass production has a limited future. But without it, Capitalism is unlikely to survive.

The latest x-box is being discussed in the Guardian online, where you will find erstwhile anti - capitalist / anti globalisation protagonists cheerfully discussing their looking forward to enjoying their new x-box.

I see this hypocrisy repeated ad - infenitum.

This is the reality of capitalism and why it won't ever disappear.

grizzly1911

Conrad wrote: »

The latest x-box is being discussed in the Guardian online, where you will find erstwhile anti - capitalist / anti globalisation protagonists cheerfully discussing their looking forward to enjoying their new x-box.

I see this hypocrisy repeated ad - infenitum.

This is the reality of capitalism and why it won't ever disappear.

A bit like the Tally Man knocking on the door each week to see if you needed a top up.