When one percent began oppressing 99 percent,
civilisation was born. That is one of the arguments of Rutger Bregman in his Hopeful
History of Humankind. Even today we have a world where one percent
oppresses 99%. The one percent consists of some super-rich and certain
governments or political systems.
“Civilisation has become
synonymous with peace and progress, and wilderness with war and decline. In
reality, for most of human existence, it was the other way around.” That’s Bregman
again. We think of ourselves as civilised and our ancient ancestors as savages.
Bregman shows that most of those ancestors were far more benign than us towards
each other as well as the planet.
When someone decided to put up
a fence around some area and said, ‘This is mine,’ the problem began. Earlier
people shared whatever was there. They couldn’t think of amassing food, for
example, when another member of the tribe went hungry. It just wouldn’t happen
because they didn’t have such notions as hoarding things and lording over
others.
Bregman cites an example from
Christopher Columbus. When this ‘civilised white man’ landed in Bahamas in
1492, the first thing that struck him about the people there was: “They do not
bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword … and they cut
themselves out of ignorance.” This gave Columbus an idea. “They would make fine
servants,” he decided. “With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them
do whatever we want.”
That’s just what the civilised
white man did. Subjugate and enslave. This is what civilisation has been for
its most part.
The great civilisations of Greece
and Rome and Egypt all had slaves who were treated inhumanly. Even India had a
form of slavery; we called it caste system. The primitive people whom these
civilisations considered savage were far better people who valued notions of equity
and justice, cooperation and magnanimity.
Civilisation has enslaved the
majority. Not only the slaves. Now there are no slaves. But there are victims.
Vast majority of the world’s population today are victims of small groups of
powerful people. A few people live life king-size and the majority of the
others live like slaves.
Aren’t thousands of farmers
whose protests and demands are not even given an ear to for months being
treated as slaves were treated in ancient days? How better than the old slaves are
the millions of people who live in subhuman conditions in slums and other
wretched places? Remember the thousands who walked hundreds of kilometres when
the Prime Minister declared lockdown without notice last year? Remember the hundreds
who stood in long queues before ATMs when the PM declared demonetisation on an insane
whim? You think all these thousands are free people? Better than the old
slaves?
Think of the many Muslim
countries where terrorists or extremists determine what the people can wear,
what they can eat, where they can travel, how much they can study, and so on. Civilised?
In some ways India is becoming
similar to that. We have certain right-wing organisations now thriving by circumscribing
the freedoms and choices of other people. Are we civilised?
Think of a government that
keeps raising the prices of essential commodities when a pandemic is hitting
the people below their belts. Civilised?
Our civilisation doesn’t seem
much better than the rule of the highway bandit who holds you up on your way
with the order, “Hands up!”
‘Hands off’ is civilisation.
PS. This post is a part of Blogchatter Half
Marathon.
Civilizations thrive on inequality. Unequal nations, people, gender. Keeping it all afloat is the only way the powerful can hope to sustain their supremacy. I see no end to it ever.
ReplyDeleteAs long as we stick to a capitalist system, inequality can't be eradicated. Which other effective system do we have? Socialism failed wherever it was tried. We can't obviously go back to the tribal systems. But I must add that there are still tribes in Northeast India (and perhaps elsewhere) that have far superior systems of their own.
DeleteHari OM
ReplyDeleteThere will always be a battle between our altruistic and selfish instincts, our openness and our protectiveness. It is a matter of the basic survival instinct to protect what one has. There could be some debate as to a few of the assumptions made by Bregman, bearing in mind he is a historian and not a philosopher, as such. But overall his point (as is the case with pretty much every philosophy) is that the state of society reflects the collective reality of the individuals within it. Therefore, to bring about change, there must be a sufficient number of individuals on the 'same page' about the aims for that society for change to be effected.
John Stuart Mill wrote:
“To think [...] it is of no use to attempt to influence the constitution of the government by acting on opinion, is to forget that opinion is itself one of the greatest active social forces. One person with a belief is a social power equal to ninety-nine who have only interests.” (One wonders if this is what prompted JB's 1% to 99% observation?)
It is also from Mill that the following is quoted (and contains the basis of a much more widely used quote that is misatributed):
"Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject." (In that last sentence is contained that which you alluded to earlier and with which I agree - not enough folk are willing to put the work into thinking for themselves.)
It is an unfortunate thing that throughout history, the waves of negative nature have been tapped into by those few who would use the fact that most want to be led like sheep. What history reveals, however, is that such regimes cannot last. The good will prevail again. What is important is that as many individuals as possible educate themselves to their higher possibilities, improve themselves to match the theories and ensure that enough positive opinion is spread to counterbalance the negative.
Do not for one moment think that there is no empathy or that this absolves one from caring for those under any form of victimhood - but that is exactly part of the process of determining what is right and what is wrong. The difference comes when we stop complaining and start acting... if we cannot physically act ourselves, we must do our best to educate those who can to rise above their negative and work towards their positive. We do not do this by constanty pointing out the faults. We do this by highlighting the ideals and demonstrating them through our own conduct.
What is happening now - in India, but also in other countries, including the UK (albeit more subtly) - must generate, eventually, the revolution to overturn it. The scale of time is what is in question - how long will it take for "good men to associate to oppose the cabals of bad men." (That is the line from Edmund Burke that is conflated with JSM and gives us that quote which needs now to be shouted from the rooftops...“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”)
YAM xx
Thanks you, Yamini, for this detailed and thoughtful response. It adds much to my post, especially some much-needed hope or optimism. I'm still reading Bregman. This post is based on what I read so far and I'm sure as I go on, my understanding of the author will improve and may even alter. Somewhere in this very chapter (on which this post is based largely) he says that the situation is improving now compared to what was happening till the last century. There is more awareness now.
DeleteBut the majority remaining silent spectators is a serious problem, as you say. This is what empowers the 1% really.
I appreciate the thoughts of Rutger Bregman spelled out in this article of yours. You have asserted in a comment that there are still tribes in Northeast India (and perhaps elsewhere too) which have far superior systems of their own. I feel, you are right. The so-called civilized ones are interested in civilizing the uncivilized (!) ones by subjugating (and exploiting) them. This so-called civilized process justifies oppression and exploitation of the weaker (unjustifiably termed as uncivilized) ones and denies them their basic human rights.
ReplyDeleteThis is the irony, in fact. The white man considered it his god-given burden to civilise the world. But they were the real brutes. Harari tells an interesting story about it in Sapiens. About a Red Indian who approached Neil Armstrong with a request. The story ends with the message that the white men are the real brutes. Well, what the white man did in some places, brown sahibs did in India for a long time.
DeleteWhat the white man did in some places, brown sahibs did in India for a long time. Again, you are right. And what about the sahibs of today's India?
DeleteAN interesting read.
ReplyDeleteThank you
Deletesadly we aren't really civilized. The way we act inhumanely many times proves it. Wonder when we'll learn to live in harmony
ReplyDeleteI don't see much reason for optimism on this.
Delete