The second characteristic of the Indian chieftainship — generosity — appears to be more than a duty: it is a bondage. Ethnologists have observed that among the most varied peoples of South America this obligation to give, to which the chief is bound, is experienced by the Indians as a kind of right to subject him to a continuous looting. And if the unfortunate leader tries to check this flight of gifts, he is immediately shorn of all prestige and power. Francis Huxley writes of the Urubu: “It is the business of a chief to be generous and to give what is asked of him. In some Indian tribes you can always tell the chief because he has the fewest possessions and wears the shabbiest ornaments. He has had to give away everything else.”[5]

'The situation is similar among the Nambicuara, described by Claude Levi-Strauss: “Generosity plays a fundamental role in determining the degree of popularity the new chief will enjoy ....”[6] Sometimes the chief, exasperated by the repeated demands, cries out: “All gone! No more giving! Let someone else give in my place!”[7] It would be pointless to multiply examples of this kind, for this relationship of Indians to their chief is unchanging across the entire continent (Guiana, upper Xingu, and so on). Greed and power are incompatible; to be a chief it is necessary to be generous.

Comments

monday wrote on January 20, 2023 at 12:48 PM

#267,978

I never took this text to read from the beginning, but I remember when I was learning about green anarchism and anticiv this was one of the most referenced text. And it's an academic source

Majrelende OP wrote on January 20, 2023 at 8:28 PM

#268,026

Replying to monday (#267,978)

It seems interesting so far, but dense, and also quite male-centred, the latter of which I don't like. Maybe it will get better.

I have been liking reading academic texts because they tend to be focused on explaining phenomena rather than necessarily bringing them about; in this case, anarchy. And honestly, if they are at all worth reading. Practical knowledge arises from familiarity; you can read a whole book about controlling something, or what should be, while knowing close to nothing at the end, but a book full of simple descriptions can hardly be read without inviting a plethora of ideas.

Most of anarchism seems focused on ethical or practical arguments, which is understandable seeing as to real anarchy's paucity of representation. It is inevitable, I think, as anarchy is somewhat antithetical to the concept of the public, and global communications--but not necessarily desirable.