26th January 2007, 12:22 PM
Unitof1,
thanks for that, very interesting.
Survival are definitely up for the 'by hook or by crook' approach to campaigning, and they have clearly decided that it serves their purposes to portray the Bushmen as not a million miles from 'noble savages'. They are an unbrella for a loosely affiliated group of human rights organisations started up by a journalist, not archaeologists, or anthropologists. However, they are trying. Your point that the Bushmen have a claim because they live there now (not 20000 y.a.) is a very good one.
The government's main argument seems always to have been an ecological one: that the Bushmen are driving the wildlife to extinction. I'd suggest that what they need is not less archaeology (or heritage management, if you'd prefer that term) but more. Can we demonstrate that the Bushmen have had a stable hunting economy for some time? If so, the government's argument is exposed for the sham it is. We might also find out a bit more about a very interesting society's history.
Of course, if the introduction of firearms etc. really has made the Bushmen's economy unsustainable, they're stuffed either way.
'In the busy market there are fortunes to be won and lost, but in the cherry orchard there is peace'.
Chinese proverb
thanks for that, very interesting.
Survival are definitely up for the 'by hook or by crook' approach to campaigning, and they have clearly decided that it serves their purposes to portray the Bushmen as not a million miles from 'noble savages'. They are an unbrella for a loosely affiliated group of human rights organisations started up by a journalist, not archaeologists, or anthropologists. However, they are trying. Your point that the Bushmen have a claim because they live there now (not 20000 y.a.) is a very good one.
The government's main argument seems always to have been an ecological one: that the Bushmen are driving the wildlife to extinction. I'd suggest that what they need is not less archaeology (or heritage management, if you'd prefer that term) but more. Can we demonstrate that the Bushmen have had a stable hunting economy for some time? If so, the government's argument is exposed for the sham it is. We might also find out a bit more about a very interesting society's history.
Of course, if the introduction of firearms etc. really has made the Bushmen's economy unsustainable, they're stuffed either way.
'In the busy market there are fortunes to be won and lost, but in the cherry orchard there is peace'.
Chinese proverb