Could it be that we were not always the murdering apes we think we are today?
In my introduction I mentioned book-reviews, so I'd like to start out with a book whose message has stayed with me for quite some time after reading it. This idea would keep coming up in my mind again and again, whenever people made generalizing arguments about the inherent evilness of human nature. “They (or we),” so it goes, “are naturally selfish, destructive, greedy, stupid, unwilling to learn, and always prone to violence.” But am I to accept this notion, just because it is being repeated so often? Couldn't it be just as likely that it is being used to excuse one's own selfishness, greed, and unwillingness to learn? The book that provided me with an interesting alternative is
The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler.
Although it was Eisler who assembled the ideas in her book, they go back to the Lithuanian archeologist Marija Gimbutas, who Eisler heavily references in her work. Her studies on various sites, throughout Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean, from neolithic to bronze-age times, led her to the conclusion that those cultures were marked by partnership between the sexes, trust and cooperation, and an absence of warfare, conquest and domination. The notion of these egalitarian, matrifocal societies (as opposed to matriarchal, which itself suggests domination) is based on the absence of any structures of fortification, or the display of victorious conquerors trampling on slaves or animals in their artwork. Instead, their art focuses on nature, as well as the human form, particularly that of voluptuous, fertile / pregnant women, which Gimbutas interprets as images of the Mother Goddess.
Just writing down these words I can feel the scorn pouring in :
“Say, you don't actually believe all this nonsense of dirty-hippie harmony and kum-ba-yah?”
My answer would be the same as to most questions regarding beliefs: While I don't surrender to fully believing it, I think categorically excluding it would be just as foolish.
Certainly, the way we're taught it is hard to imagine why in a world without kings, courts, and police any bully would refrain from beating up a smaller one, taking his lunch money, raping his girlfriend, and forcing them into slavery. I would say, being a member of the community is a good enough reason. After all, the bully is just as dependent on others as they are on him. If people stop taking care of you because you messed up your good standing among them, even a sprained ankle could be a death sentence. But in my opinion, there is a much stronger reason why people did not exploit each other, and it has to do with how they were raised.
How does our upbringing affect us?
Imagine what would happen if I walked down the street with no pants on in broad daylight. Let's make that no underpants either, letting it all dangle in full freedom. I'm not sure what exactly would happen, but I am fairly certain I wouldn't even make it to the next corner. Why? People would notice me doing something that they consider 100% unacceptable, and they would try to stop me any way possible. (And I wasn't even hurting anyone...) I also believe the reaction would be not as severe in Germany as here in Mexico. Over there throwing trash in the streets would provoke a greater outcry.
So then, it's not that hard to imagine a society, where the older generations (grandmothers, according to Eisler and Gimbutas, but I would also include grandfathers) teach the younger ones to treat others with respect, for the benefit of all. Eventually, those same kids would carry on the same tradition with their offspring through the centuries and millennia, until...
well, until they are confronted by organized conquest, institutionalized violence, rape, slavery, and the subjugation of women, all at the hands of the “Kurgan peoples” as Gimutas calls them: step-nomads from central Asia, probably Indo-Europeans, who practiced a lifestyle that favored exploitation over cooperation. And once a people have been enslaved, most of their original culture becomes forgotten, or possibly remain as a hazy memory, fairy tales of a golden age, some long long time ago.
Why does this all matter, anyway?
Even if Gimbutas is right, it only shows how weak that culture was against invaders. In either case, it doesn't change our current situation all that much. Or does it?
I think it's important to keep in mind the possibility of an inherently peaceful society, because ultimately it will affect how we see things today. For example, here in Mexico it is not uncommon to see walls with pieces of broken bottles integrated into the top. Sure, it looks ugly, and it's painful to even think about getting too close to them, but it keeps bad guys out of your property. (Yeah, right!) And Mexico is not alone. This kind of defensive measure is practiced throughout the world, from Nigeria to Bangladesh. Interestingly though, I have never come across it in Germany, New Zealand, or even Hungary. Could it be that they don't need it? Maybe they have less bad guys or a stronger, more immediate police force? (Doubt it!) Or maybe it's just that people simply don't climb over each other's walls. Or they might not even build a wall, and opt for a little fence instead. In some places they don't even bother locking their front doors!
What a difference a fence makes...!
So in the end, I don't think it matters whether Gimbutas is right in her interpretation of her findings. Also, our own view of the past is not going to change the present. However, it might change our future for the better. And this is what I think is really important. If we accept the notion that human interaction can be more trusting, more interdependent, more honest, and more beneficial in other places, just as in other times, then we are ready to let this notion help us make some wonderful changes in our and each other's lives. Maybe not here and now, but possibly tomorrow.
Join LBRY To Get Your Own Copies!
If you are interested in reading these books, you can find them on my stortebeker channel at LBRY. If you are interested in joining LBRY, please follow my invite. You may also be interested in my other book reviews in my Bibliophilia series:
My 12 Most Recommendable Permaculture Readings
Another 12 Permaculture Books - Specialized Readings
Riane Eisler – The Chalice and the Blade
William McDonough and Michael Braungart - Cradle to Cradle
Charles Eisenstein - Sacred Economics
Ken Kesey - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Charles C. Mann - 1491
Tom Wolfe - From Bauhaus to Our House
Ideas and Concepts of Daniel Quinn
B. Traven - The Death Ship and The Cotton Pickers
Books by Wladimir Kaminer
Remembering the Good Doctor Gonzo - Hunter S. Thompson
Tom Wolfe - The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test
Robert A. Wilson Expanding His Readers' Minds
Gary Jennings' Head-dive into Mexican History