FREE ESSAY ON THE !KUNG BUSHMAN

THE !KUNG BUSHMAN

Most contemporary foraging groups, such as the !Kung and other Bushman tribes, are viewed
as a "primitive" people. Some have even gone as far to say that they are "the last
representatives of the stone age." While it is true that these people have the most
similar culture to what we believe primitive persons to have had, the analogies they can
provide us with the people of the past are very inaccurate. These comparisons are so
unrivaled due to factors such as time and the wrong sense of view many people have on
them. Another reason that we cannot compare the !Kung of today to the people of the past
is because they are now advancing in society with the use of technology. I believe that
the !Kung tribe is not comparable to the early people of their culture and that they are
just the same as us minus our technology, which in no way makes them 'primitive' people.
First of all, every culture varies in traditions over time. According to Shostak, it is
true that the !Kung people still have traditions that have been passed down for hundreds
of generations such as their poison arrows, their trance ritual, their wide knowledge of
over five hundred species of plants and animals-knowing which are edible, harmful,
cosmetic, and medical. Who are we to say that these traditions have not been altered in
the past ten thousand years? Howell declares that the !Kung were a very studied group
including their language, culture, and economic organization. Although they have been
extensively studied, Howell also proclaims, "It is surely illegitimate to use them as
though they are the prototypical hunter-gatherers, knowledge of whom tells us all we need
to know in order to apply the ethnographic analogy to models of prehistoric life."
Wild, maniac, unsophisticated, uneducated, vulgar...these are all words that come to mind
when I think of prehistoric or primitive. Obviously the !Kung tribe have grown with the
rest of society. How are we to say what the differences of prehistoric life was to the
modern day !Kung tribes? Human error would play a huge role in our "assumptions" of the
!Kung. For example, we might turn around to be just as wrong as the article of the
Nacirema. Obviously, there is already a misconception about the bushman. For example, in
McNeil's essay, he comments on how a woman was speaking to a bushman and demanded to see
one. When he explained to her that he was indeed a bushman she said, "No, a wild bushman,
with a tail." Lee states that the bushman represent "the basic human adaptation stripped
of the accretions and complications brought about by agriculture, urbanization, advanced
technology, and national and class conflict-all of the 'advances' of the last few
thousand years." Lee is being very ethnocentric in this statement. He is basing our
technology on the !Kung lifestyle. Webster Dictionary states technology as "a manner of
accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge."
According to this definition, the !Kung have a very advanced technology. They have proven
that they can accomplish tasks using very precise processes, methods, and vast knowledge.
It is not 'our' technology, but they have proved that they do not need ours to survive.
It is their own form of living, which makes them a unique, separate culture. This in no
way makes them animal like, wild, or undomesticated. In fact, the bushman have developed
techniques that are obviously creditable due to the fact that they survived this way for
so long. In addition, they have the same kinship-if not stronger-than our own. They can
handle disputes without a leader and are very fond of working together as a team. In this
aspect, they don't need our methods of living.
Our methods though, is exactly what the !Kung are getting involved in. According to
Howell, most bushman are settled on "settlement stations" with European farmers and
cattlemen. They also speak several languages, use store bought clothing, food,
electronics, and inoculations. They attend school and experience taxes, jail, even
subordination. This "arrival" to what we consider the modern world is completely changing
the culture of the !Kung, and at the same time one more reason why they cannot be labeled
as primitive. To make matters worse, there are persons who want to save these "primitive"
people and set them up in zoo like settings where they can be monitored! In this
situation, the bushman would be treated as animals, and the very fact that people are
considering this process proves that they are seen as animals already. This again shows
ethnocentrism on behalf of those who are in favor of setting them up. And what culture
would it show? According to the New York Times article, the !Kung trick tourists: "we
change into beaded loin clothes. Skin quivers, bows and spears appear, and we lead people
on a two hours track across the field." The bushman are pretending to be people they are
not, giving the tourists what they want. This also gives tourists the wrong impression
and significantly aids in the ignorance of the !Kung. This would be devastating to their
culture. Culture, after all, is associated with the changes a society goes through over
time. If these 'prisons' were to be set up, the culture would be forced and therefore in
no way a comparison to early persons. 
Obviously, the !Kung have a very unique culture compared to how we live our lives. They
in no way, however, represent what the culture of early persons to have. They have their
own culture, unique to their society, and like ours...ever changing. What most people
consider "primitive" is an ethnocentric remark to the difference of their culture to
ours. The !Kung just have their very own technology, which is very efficient seeing that
they survived this long. Due to time, ignorance, and the bushman's leaning towards our
methods, they in no way can be compared to early people by means of their culture. The
!Kung Bushmen are living their own lives now, in the present, therefore they can be in no
way considered 'people of the past.'