“Real freedom lies in wilderness, not in civilization,” as stated by Charles Lindbergh (“Charles Lindbergh,” 2001). I believe this quote better sums up the once free lives of the !Kung people among many other indigenous groups. The !Kung are a band of people who live close to the border of Botswana, Africa. Another name for the !Kung is Ju/’hoansi. At a time before resettlement and formation of the new border with Botswana, their lives were simpler, healthier, and free. The Ju/’hoansi are an indigenous people in Africa that once relied on the land for all of their lively needs such as food, water, clothing, and housing. In the early 1900s, the lives they once knew, died (Sylvain, 2001, p. 719). I believe when white settlers came to the
…show more content…
19). Both men and women were seen as living out gender egalitarianism, which is a society that there are a variety of jobs of prestige in any age and sex as long as there are people that are able to do the job (Miller Wolf, 2016). Within a case study from Kalahari author, Susan Kent, it was found that men would gather wild plants and hunt big game while women would trap small animals (Kent, 1995, p. 519). This did not necessarily entail that hunting made men more skillful, but instead proved that it took just as much time and effort to trap, as it was to hunt. As young individuals growing up in this culture, they had the chance for “equality of opportunity” for young men and women to have the ability to learn different tasks needed to live (Smith, 2010, p. 24). With equality throughout the genders, this allowed both parties to inherit land from their parents that was shared throughout their kin. These relationships were within families and kinship ties. This allowed an abundance of land to be foraged and traveled due to the current residency and kinship with …show more content…
Aside from taking their land from them, the Afrikan farmers forced the men and women into labor-intensive work as well as pay them in different quantities. The !Kung San Resettlement-Preview stated, “The !Kung were cut off from 90% of their land by being fenced in” (“The !Kung San Resettlement-Preview,” 2008). I noticed that this was the beginning change for their mode of production. With no land of their own, they were forced to figure out other ways of livelihood. The foraging aspect of their lives dissipated within the past three decades due to government laws that banned hunting. This has turned them into rural proletarians for agro-pastoralist famers with small livestock, cattle, and farm ground (Kent, 1995, p. 20). This was a part of gender stratification because men were the ones who worked on these farms, not women. Working day in and day out with these patriarchy farmers, the Ju/’hoansi men were impacted in such a way that they began to play the lead role in patriarchy within their homes. Bushmen, Boers, and Baasskap article from JSTOR expresses what paternalism is, “Paternalism is the most clearly articulated ideology of subordination at work on the farms: because it most overtly sets the parameters for race and class relations, it is the most conspicuous principle of inequality”
19). Both men and women were seen as living out gender egalitarianism, which is a society that there are a variety of jobs of prestige in any age and sex as long as there are people that are able to do the job (Miller Wolf, 2016). Within a case study from Kalahari author, Susan Kent, it was found that men would gather wild plants and hunt big game while women would trap small animals (Kent, 1995, p. 519). This did not necessarily entail that hunting made men more skillful, but instead proved that it took just as much time and effort to trap, as it was to hunt. As young individuals growing up in this culture, they had the chance for “equality of opportunity” for young men and women to have the ability to learn different tasks needed to live (Smith, 2010, p. 24). With equality throughout the genders, this allowed both parties to inherit land from their parents that was shared throughout their kin. These relationships were within families and kinship ties. This allowed an abundance of land to be foraged and traveled due to the current residency and kinship with …show more content…
Aside from taking their land from them, the Afrikan farmers forced the men and women into labor-intensive work as well as pay them in different quantities. The !Kung San Resettlement-Preview stated, “The !Kung were cut off from 90% of their land by being fenced in” (“The !Kung San Resettlement-Preview,” 2008). I noticed that this was the beginning change for their mode of production. With no land of their own, they were forced to figure out other ways of livelihood. The foraging aspect of their lives dissipated within the past three decades due to government laws that banned hunting. This has turned them into rural proletarians for agro-pastoralist famers with small livestock, cattle, and farm ground (Kent, 1995, p. 20). This was a part of gender stratification because men were the ones who worked on these farms, not women. Working day in and day out with these patriarchy farmers, the Ju/’hoansi men were impacted in such a way that they began to play the lead role in patriarchy within their homes. Bushmen, Boers, and Baasskap article from JSTOR expresses what paternalism is, “Paternalism is the most clearly articulated ideology of subordination at work on the farms: because it most overtly sets the parameters for race and class relations, it is the most conspicuous principle of inequality”