Time for another change of pace from Geopolitics: primitivism...
I don't normally write about primitivism, although it is a topic that interests me a great deal. Other people tend to do it better--the Tribe of Anthropik being the best example. See Jason Godesky's Thirty Theses for an excellent primer. To most people John Zerzan is the leading luminary of primitivism. He's a very kind and intelligent man, from what little personal contact I've had with him, but I don't agree with parts of his more extreme brand of primitivism. For example, I disagree with the assertion that human symbolism, time, art, and language are themselves evils. As I pointed out in A Theory of Power, these tools are not themselves evil, but they have inherent power-relationships associated with them, and we must find ways to control their side effects or we give up control to these symbols...
In general, I see primitivism as one of a number of possible strategies in a post-collapse scenario. It is certainly the most proven--it has demonstrated over hundred of thousands of years that it WILL work. That doesn't mean that it is the only solution, although it certainly seems to be the safest choice. However, I am fairly confident that some alternatives exist--specifically, strategies that merge some elements of pure primitivism with some elements of horticulture, and even some--though carefully constrained and controlled--elements of hierarchal civilization. Just like there are a million different ways to implement primitivism, there are a million different ways to implement non-primitivist strategies. Why bother, though, if primitivism is the safest bet? Well, I think that while primitivism is a proven option, that in itself doesn't make it the BEST option. In fact, I think that if we carefully understand why primitivism offers a superior quality and sustainability of life in some areas, and the benefits and pitfalls of non-primitivist solutions, then a hybrid will be able to provide superior quality of life. I don't mean to paint Anthropik as some zany, purist primitivists--their own writings recognize this kind of hybrid potential. Godesky has even pointed out that tribalism (which I think is his phrase for an intelligent, hybrid primitivism that keeps the necessary aspects of the purist perspective and augments as is wise to do so) and space exploration are not a priori incompatible. Even Zerzan, in a letter to me a few years ago, explicitly endorsed "permaculture or Fukuoka type methods."
That long introduction out of the way, the purpose of this post is to simply state that learning a pure primitivist skill set is never a bad idea. More than mere "survival training," the primitivist skill set provides a potentially complete option that hedges bets against any of a number of future scenarios. One part of the primitivist skill set is hunting--something that, without the benefits of modern civilization, may be much more difficult than most people anticipate. If you don't already have a rifle and bullets, what the hell do you do? Trying to build a bow and arrows with no "modern" tools is an invitation to frustration. I can be done--but you'd better not try to learn when you're already hungry. You can make a spear pretty easily, but getting close enough to large game to use it is another problem altogether. So what to do? Well, anthropology and ancient history teach us that there is a very effective weapon, easily made, with good range, that is useful against a wide range of smaller game, from rabbits and squirrels to birds: the sling. Ancient Britons took down fully armored Roman Legionaries with slings at several hundred feet, so I'm guessing that they could even take down a deer. I read somewhere that some guy also took down a Goliath with a sling, but I'm not sure how much credibility to lend to the story. Not that this is really in any way insightful--most people have probably heard of a sling--but there is a catch: they're damn hard to aim at first. But with a little practice, you can get our aim down pretty quickly. I made a sling while camping once--not, I should say, out of wild materials--and found that after about an hour I could consistently hit a log at about 50 feet.
Anyway, I plan to try making two slings, the first from "modern" materials, and the second from wild materials around my house. I'll let you know how it works out. My inspiration for this bit was the two rabbits and a squirrel that I saw in my back yard this morning... but I don't think I'll be hunting in the backyard anytime soon--too many windows. And on that note, a word of caution: at least for novices like myself, sling have this nasty tendency to sometimes sling their projectile in an entirely unintended direction, so best to practice alone at first...
Resource on slings:
Wikipedia: Slings (Weapons)
Slinging.org
The Sling (Ancient Weapons)
Happy hunting...
17 comments:
Kudos! I've found that slings seem to attract a lot of curiosity when you start using them around a group. "Hey, cool! Can I try?" - and they'll be at it for half an hour. I made a sling out of yucca on a backpacking trip, and half the group had some fun with it for a good several hours. Oh yes, and that one didn't take any tools except a rock to bash the yucca leaves.
There is, of course, the ol' boomerang/rabbit stick for those who don't want to have to work so hard on the weapon.
Hope it goes well.
Maybe this will surprise you (or maybe not), but I agree wholeheartedly. I don't foresee the "new primitive" to be quite the same as the "old primitive" at all. Nor do I think we should stop innovating--as if we could! No, my point of view is summed up by the Akan word, sankofa, meaning, basically, to go back to retrieve something lost. In this case, what we've lost is how to live. I think we need to peel it back to the last time we still had that, and start again from there.
As you say, primitive skills are the safest bet we have; that's why I'm going with it. Others might be possible, but the further they get from the primitive, the less likely they become.
I was a little troubled by this idea, though:
... and even some--though carefully constrained and controlled--elements of hierarchal civilization.
That seems like a monogrammed invitation to catastrophe to me. Hierarchy has a sneaky way of propogating itself, and generally those who think they have it under control wind up being controlled instead.
Yeah, I agree with you concerns re: hierarchal civilization. I put that in there simply because I can't *prove* that it can't be controlled, so there seems to be the possibility that it may be a valid adaptation at some point. But that said, it scares me. I'm certanly not confident that I am capable of controlling such a thing, and I'm not sure that I'll ever be capable of that... but that said, I think it's important to recognize the possibility, no matter how remote.
I built an Apache sling from one of the articles at slinging.org. Great fun and easy! My only problem was I needed more cordage than the article suggested. (I am too tall for the minimum lengths suggested in the article.)
You might consider learning to trap and snare, primitive style. Meat without the energy intensity of the hunt.
Either way, once you've built your tools you need to know how to get the most out of them. One thing to start thinking about is how you are going to identify areas in the landscape that have which animals. There's more to it than most people, including most recreational hunters, realize.
Once the fauna figure out humans are back in force as predators, they may not be nearly as easy to find as they are now.
Anyway, have a great time slinging!
After a bit more research, I also stumbled upon the site that Eric mentioned - slinging.org (and I've now updated the resources links in the main poast). Very impressive, and definitely take a look at the forum. Over 30,000 posts on 2,000+ topics!
this post is very funny :)
i'll maybe try to use a sling, but in my lovely france, they are too much people per square for imagine surviving by hunting, or having a garden.
Be happy to live in such an empty country. :)
post scriptum : your blog is REALY interesting me, i've just discover it a few hours ago, and i've spend all my time in reading it...(hell, 3h47 already :] )
Far be it from me to tell you to give up the sling as a hobby, but as a practical way of putting meat on the table I'm quite sceptical...
I can hit a log at 50' by throwing a rock at it WITHOUT a sling, but it's a long way from that to saying I could kill a derr, or even a racoon with one at the same range...
The obvious first choice is firearms, and for a "survival mode" situation I would suggest aquiring and becoming skilled with, 2: A 12 gauge, double barrelled, shotgun, and a .22 cal bolt action or lever action rifle.
What to do when the ammo. runs out? Bow and / or crossbow. Given an appopriate choice of wood for the bow (white ash is a good choice in Canada where I am) making your own bow is overly difficult. (I made my first one when I was about 12 years old and it was fine) Even the $20 fiberglass bows sold at hardware stores and marketed as childrens bows give you a capability greater comperable to a .22 rifle at short range, which is where most actual hunting will occur. Stored correctly they will last you the rest of your life. So, why not start with that now and at the same time work on your bow and arrow making skills from natural materials, which should only be necessary as something to pass down to your grandchildren?
Typo in my last:
making your own bow is overly difficult.
should have been
making your own bow is NOT overly difficult.
Fair enough critique, given that firearms are quite available, and quite effective. Ammunition may not last a lifetime, though. Who knows.
As for the value of a sling: I used to be a pitcher, and I can still throw a baseball about 70 miles an hour (never was very good, but I could throw hard). I'm guessing that I can throw a rock just as hard. However, with a sling, an average person can throw a stone over 240 miles per hour (see slinging.org)--now that's enough to take down a deer. Slings can also be used with pebbles, which when only going 50 mph (like out of my hand) won't take down a bird, but even a small stone at 200 mph will fell a bird.
My concern here (as with much of the knowledge required to make primitivism viable) is that the knowledge of many things--like slings--that will EVENTUALLY be necessary will be lost in that interim period between the end of the "information superhighway" and the end of remnants of the modern world--like .22LR rifles and ammo. There is a need to bridge that gap...
Far be it from me to tell you to give up the sling as a hobby, but as a practical way of putting meat on the table I'm quite sceptical...
For me, the fact that people did it for hundreds of thousands of years outweighs any theoretical concerns.
So, why not start with that now and at the same time work on your bow and arrow making skills from natural materials, which should only be necessary as something to pass down to your grandchildren?
Aye, I've typically preferred bows over slings, but both are quite possible to use, and there are pros and cons to each.
There is a need to bridge that gap...
For my money, I think it's probably safer to go straight to what's sustainable, and just lay low for that short interrim period while the ammo runs out.
Heck, ammo's already running low...
"However, with a sling, an average person can throw a stone over 240 miles per hour (see slinging.org)--now that's enough to take down a deer."
O.K., but, you can't eat physics...
I did check out the website, and could not find any links to modern examples of hunting, maybe I just missed the links, if so could you point me...
Obviously hunting smaller game with a rubber powered slingshot isvery do-able, but thats not what we are talking about...
Having done some deer hunting, with both firearms and crossbow, I'm trying to imagine how it might work in the real world with a sling. Considering North American terain / deer habitat.
Lets consider a hunter to deer distance of 40 yards (120') which is achivable with luck and practice. So you have to get your sling from the "carry" position, whatever that may be, load your stone, take aim, windup, and release, and allow for the additional 1/3 of a second that it would take a stone moving at 240 miles an hour to cover that distance, in the couple of seconds that you have available; Because as soon as you start twirling a sling around your head that deer WILL be aware of you and leaving town very fast.
You then have to hit at least a wounding blow on a target which is actually not that big at that distance, and will, I would imagine, allmost certainly have moved some distance from where it was when you committed to relasing the stone.
This is a very different problem than scaring off a wolf that is stalking sheep, or lobbing "indirect fire" into a mass of infantry some distance away who can't really get out of the way.
When I said 40 yards I was thinking about the kind of shot distances i have hunted at, but in those cases tree cover was involved between me and the deer. This creates more issues for the sling hunt. Do you have room to operate the weapon, and will a tree limb deflect the stone?
If you need to have open ground between you and the deer you need to be a very good stalker, or very well cammo'd to get that close, so it gets even worse.
Again, I'm not saying it can't work, just that it seems "the long way around" when the technology of the bow seems just about as likly to be available. Even that takes much practice (at least for me) to get to the point where a sucessful hunt can be anticipated...
err... wait a sec. Deer hunting with a sling? I'm not so sure about that. Now, birds and other smaller animals, yeah, but I think if you're going to hunt a deer, a spear or bow would just work a lot better for ya...
Yeah, the post was never intended to suggest that deer hunting with a sling is the way to go -- my initial thought stemmed from seeing two rabbits and a squirrel within 20 feet of my back door. That said, it seems that several native american groups did in fact hunt deer with slings at times--and a 4 ounce rock traveling 200 mph will certainly do the trick, provided that the target areas will be different than with a bow.
Also, aparently in contradiction to the popular peception, you don't want to swing the sling around before throwing--that only decreases accuracy. Instead, you only use the sling as an extension of your throwing arm, so it is used in a sinble motion from dangling by your side, over your head as with a crickett pitch (to maximize leverage), and then release. No twirling...
tHi gang.
With the collapse of civilization as we know it (at least on this continent) an inevitability, it is important to strategize about future survival.
This can be done in two rough phases: the transition period from the current state of affairs through the various impending calamaties of the near-future and their aftermath; and (hopefully)a somewhat more stable period within a few generations.
Human beings in general and those of us in North America in particular, will have to adapt to some very different circumstances. It will be awkward and painful, to say the least, but we humans are pretty adept in adaptation (I just hope that this time we will do so in a sustainable and envirnomentally respectful manner).
Anyhow, 2 big things that leap to mind:
First: how/will it be possible for there to be viable non-violent responses to inevitable reactionary violence?
Two: what will happen to all the nuke plants, silos, etc. that require regular and skilled maintenance and upkeep in the aftermath? (If the nukes melt down, everything is screwed.)
Keep up the excelent blogging!
With millions of people out hunting (instead of shopping at "FoodBag"), there will quickly be no game to hunt.
The only game to hunt and eat will be...(gasp) PEOPLE!
How about a cookbook for human meat??
That would prove more useful than hunting techniques would be with no game to hunt.
And please, try to come up with something more appetizing than soylent green.
That stuff tastes like crap!
Cool blog, by the way.
Like Jason (hi Jason), I agree that primitivism is not a particular state or phase of development, but rather a return to something lost. Further, it is a return best found through deliberate acts of self-reliance, and it is this self-reliance which reverberates harmonically with the anarchist.
[And when I say "anarchist" please understand that I mean a creative and ethically mature sovereign individual, not just a nihilist, or a punk who thinks an A in a circle is even cooler than a swastika.]
"Self-reliance" is not a closed system, either, because learning how to interact with others in order to obtain things you need by way of trade will be just as important as ever - indeed much more so. You want milk, you take care of a cow, and you get milk from the cow. Your self-reliance is not lessened by the fact that the udders are not yours. In fact compared to modern man, your self-reliance is great because it requires the labor of the minimum number of people (one) and makes sustainable use of resources. Compare that to relying on the almost-incomprehensibly immense system of machines, chemicals and human labor required to get your milk or just about any other product today.
Interdependency is a double-edged sword, but is a human sword and one without which we wouldn't have made it this far. And while it is clear that primitive peoples have a lot more "self-reliance" than we do in matters of survival, this is not because they're antisocial or nihilistic. Quite the opposite - it is a modern trait to be as isolated as we are, even in a crowd.
What these idealized anarcho-primitivists have in common with true primitives is an economy of scope and scale, not a limitation on creative intelligence. This is a mistake often made by critics of primitivism. With a few notable exceptions, most primitivists would not wish for humankind to suddenly lose all the mental technologies which made us human to begin with - symbolism, language, art, and so on. But what they would agree on is that those mental technologies should be used with great care and economy. The goal (whether attainable or merely an abstraction to guide behavior) is to leave more than you take, and to generate the smallest possible footprint, both individually and collectively.
Jeff, I'm curious to find out if you've pursued the sling further and what results you've had.
jhereg
Post a Comment