People have been putting people in these categories for centuries; rich and poor. However, the way different people interpret these terms can be wide spread and extremely dissimilar. Some define them in relation to monetary assets and affluence where as others relate their meanings to less tangible things in life such as happiness and fulfilment in life. The San and The League of the Iroquois had no tangible money within their societies, so we cannot determine whether they are rich or poor by todays poverty line standard. Nevertheless, there are a number of other aspects of their lives we can analyse in order to determine whether they are rich or poor and compare the communities between each other. This essay will look into these factors in order to answer the question whist keeping in mind the different interpretations of rich and poor.
This essay will argue that …
Who are the san
– If our society is over 200,000 years old, then hunting and gathering made up 90% of our existence.
The San or the Bushmen are widely recognised as the indigenous people of southern Africa
There are several factors which can be used to determine whether an individual and/or society is rich or poor. Monetary measurements are often used, such as income or wealth. However, this is not applicable when discussing The San or the League of Iroquois as, especially before contact with the Europeans, they did not have a recognised currency in order to trade goods. This is because they didn’t appear to need one, especially with The San, due to the underlying assumption of dyadic reciprocation; when you share your food with your neighbours, you expect them to share theirs another day. Therefore, we must instead focus on other economic, political, environmental and social factors so as to attempt to draw a conclusion.
Poverty and politics often go hand in hand, especially in concern to freedom. People can interpret the concept of freedom in many different ways. Some may think of it as the financial freedom to buy not only need but also what you want, others may see it as political freedom and others still, the freedom of movement. Where the San is concerned it is clear they had very little in the way of a governing body, they knew their responsibilities and code of conduct and there were very few confrontations. There were leaders, occasionally referred to as chiefs which was passed down hereditarily, however they did little in relation to governing and had very little power (CITE). Often the common rules were enforced via humiliation of those who go against them, but occasionally they resorted to execution.
This political freedom to make their own choices, as long as they follow the basic morals of society could indicate that The San are rich in relation to freedom. Nelson Mandela said, “while poverty persists, there is no true freedom”, therefore it could be argued at a stretch that as they have true freedom poverty is not persisting within their society.
However, the lack of a welfare state could leave people vulnerable if they cannot provide for themselves and do not have people willing to provide for them. There may be elderly members of the community who needed to be cared as although they have a low life expectancy, this is likely due to a high number of infant mortalities. There is a chance people lived into an elderly age where they could not hunt or gather their own food anymore and therefore needed to be provided for. This may become especially challenging given the San have to move around a lot and cover large distances in order to hunt and gather enough food and ensure they didn’t over exploit specific areas.
Many environmental factors can be used to determine whether The San were rich or poor: their food provision, the nutrition provided by nature and water resources available to them in order to meet their basic needs and ensure they were not undernourished. The San had an extensive diet available to them from fish, shell fish, over 80 species of animal and a vast range of vegetation and berries (Borshay Lee 1979). This would have been enough to sustain a stable and nutritious diet provided nature delivered them and they were able to hunt and gather enough. However, the main problem The San would face was the limited time they were able to keep food for. Most food would have had to be eaten within 48 hours although some meat would have been dried out to make biltong which would have lasted longer (Borshay Lee 1979). This may lead to problems during the winter months when nature was not as kind to them and food was not as abundant. Borshay Lee talks about The San as being “small, wiry and fine-boned” (1979, p?) which could suggest they were undernourished, not getting enough calories to sustain their lifestyle of being especially mobile. This undernourishment may support the idea that they did not get enough nutrition during the winter months, however, Tobias (1964) agues that this body type is common in Africa and is provided by their genetic makeup as having a lower body weight allows them to have a greater surface area in relation to weight to release heat.
Although we cannot use monetary income or wealth as a measure in this there are other economic factors that can be discussed, especially the relation of work to leisure time which can consequently affect happiness and health levels. Research by Borshay Lee found that, on average, men worked 12 days month and women worked 9 days a month. Although this research is from after contact with the Europeans it was likely to be the same beforehand as well. Although this doesn’t include childcare, this data suggests they had a high level of leisure time, giving them time to engage with their community and build strong relationships with their families and others around them.
Chapter 4: “Paid work can provide people with a sense of meaning and purpose” – Satisfaction, status and purpose. “Paid work, for many people, invades all other parts of life.” ‘Commitment to work under capitalism and growing consumerism can undermine the value of care and experiences of connectedness’ “families are less stable and more fragmented than in the past…. positive view is that family change reflects greater freedom of choice and opportunities for people to shape their own lives and develop more rewarding relationships.” friendship is a casualty of the invasiveness of paid work”