Dispelling the "Man the Mighty Hunter" Myth

Basically, the popular story that has been propagated in our culture for
centuries that the first humans were big, bad, mighty hunters is probably a
big, bad, mighty myth. We all know the story . . . hairy, brawny cavemen
hauling a big dead animal with one hand and dragging a woman (the other
conquered beast) with the other. The real story is likely a whole lot
different, and perhaps a whole lot less dramatic for those with a vested
interested in cultivating the myth (note: this is not a "conspiracy
theory").

I suppose if we only studied the far northern tribes where plant life was
not abundant and hunting was the primary means of survival, we might be able
to craft such a story. But these cultures are relatively recent ones and
don't help much in understanding the habits of our original descendants much
further south. Even so, it is likely that *intentional* hunting did not
surface until around 20,000 years ago, well into the story of human
evolution.

The original humans were foragers, probably eating as much as 80 percent
plants, nuts and seeds while occasionally and quite accidentally stumbling
upon a lizard or an egg, and animal carcasses. Organized hunting came much,
much later. In other words, the first humans were not the violent, beastly,
predators we've heard so much about, particularly from the right-wing,
social darwinist crowd who have used this myth to justify the unethical and
unnatural behaviours associated with the "dog eat dog" world of modern
business/industrialism/war.

One of the reasons early humans may have taken up hunting was in an attempt
to counter the power balance which probably tilted toward women. Women in
primal society were viewed as capturing the very essence of power in the
natural world: the ability to give life (keep in mind that early man may not
have yet discovered his role in this whole reproductive process, and
therefore the feelings of insecurity). Even the conservative anthropologist
Robin Fox hints at this:

"Women participated in the natural world through childbirth; men stood apart
from the natural world, mostly through the hunt and war. Women created life;
men destroyed it. A good deal of the male religion involved a careful
attempt, through hunt rituals and scalp ceremonies, to restore this
balance." (from "Encounter with Anthropology").

Men, in other words, gained power by stripping power from other living
creatures in the natural world. Animals were viewed as mystical, mysterious,
and powerful in the primal word.

But this unnatural behaviour and it's perceived power did not come without a
heavy psychological price. Early hunters felt a great deal of guilt about
killing animals -- animals that were, like humans, *part of* nature, not
separate entities from nature.

From James Serpell's "In the Company of Animals":

"Although it varies in detail from place to place, the undercurrent of guilt
and the need for some form of atonement for animal slaughter is common among
hunting people. In certain African tribes, for example, hunters are obliged
to undergo ceremonial acts of purification in order to remove the stain of
murder from their consciences."

This is certainly consistent with our modern modes of animal production,
where thousands of animals are enclosed in big buildings, hidden away from
common view, and slaughterhouses are certainly not places to take the kids
for a weekend jaunt. We like the taste of meat, but most of us sure don't
want to be involved with it's capture, killing, and preparation.

So why has the myth been so dominant? Probably for a number of reasons, but
mostly sheer human nature. It's a convenient story propagated by
male-dominated culture (and anthropology) and it makes for a cool story for
the popular press. Frankly, we see what we want to see and for the people in
charge of influencing and creating history (organized religion, philosophy
(descartes, bacon), anthropology -- all male dominated), it works to their
advantage. Conspiracy? Of course not. Convenience? Probably. In addition,
cultural values, once embedded, take hold and grow roots and are very
difficult to change. We stick with what works and we learn what we've been
taught, and frankly, we don't like our traditions and beliefs challenged, no
matter how seemingly irrational or destructive. This is not to say hunting
and killing animals did not play an important role in human evolution. But
that role may have very well been quite different from the one we're used to
hearing about, and the exaggerated, enhanced version of history we've come
to see on the movie screen and in our history books may not be the "real
story".

<snip>

> Perhaps "like other human supremacists from the Anti camp...." you
> can't resist trying to stick your opponents into neat little
> negative categories so you can (to use one of jonnie's favorite
> terms) marginalize them. Try dealing with Mason as an individual,
> not some stereotype you think he fits.

Bingo. It's the Rush Limbaugh tactic . . . create a word or phrase that
neatly categorizes the negative elements of a particular group and keep
using that word or phrase over and over again until it sticks. It's handy
for people like Rush who lack the ability to counter the evidence with
intelligent responses - whenever someone disagrees with him, they get
dismissed as a "liberal". It's the same here, as you have pointed out. Don't
like a point of view? Well he must be a "leftist", or "liberal", or
"luddite", or "vegan" or . . . you get the drift.

Unfortunately, these people lack the emotional intelligence to carry on a
civil discussion, which is why wasting time trying to be reasonable with
them is not an intelligent use of one's time.