Ritvo's historical perspective on the classification of animals makes me think that the conundrum of our likeness to animals has hardly progressed since Darwin's The Origin of Species. In the 1800's, scientists posited the idea that we are not all that different from animals, and just as today, people cried out blasphemy. Other than the discovery that we share virtually all of our genetic code with animals, people still don't know what to think about the idea that humans are just another type of animal. We've been having the same argument for almost 200 years, and to what avail?
As Jared Diamond describes humans as just a third species of chimpanzee, I have to wonder how it is that humans came to dominate the animal kingdom. Is it possible that this domination is analogous to the Western domination over the third world? White people built the ships first and had the guns first, so they came to dominate over other people. Humans discovered fire first and made the spears first, so they came to dominate over other animals. This paints the scenario in a way that humans are not smarter or more cognitive than other animals, but that they stumbled upon the tools necessary for domination first. A victor of circumstance, not consciousness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
There may be an argument there for why white people have often in history dominated other peoples (though people other than white people have dominated over other peoples throughout history as well). However, it seems to me that a key part of that argument will have to answer why it's not legitimate to "claim victory" for doing something first, or why it is not a sign of greater ability or intelligence. Does it not take greater intelligence and ability to create and organize the use of tools? Why not?
I don't really see a good argument for the idea that humans created tools first and that other animals were simply lagging behind. I don't think that other animals except for monkeys would ever have been able to make a fire. They didn't have to for their survival--they have other means of survival. If they didn't, they'd be extinct.
So I don't see that for the humans versus other non-monkey animals. But I can see that potential argument for humans and other humans, where white people were just lucky to get a head start. Kind of like if, at the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey, what if the monolith was planted near the other group of monkeys?
Actually, there is significant evidence that white people didn't really get a head start...There is much archaeological evidence that supports that several native peoples that have been around for thousands of years have had the traditions of building boats, making long distance trade routes and deep sea fishing...long before any white man. These are just the fact we typically read in history books dominated by a colonial narrative.
As for guns...yeah maybe the white men were "lucky" enough to figure that one out first...but I don't think many other cultures were even attempting to create a killing machine of that sort.
That reminds me of 2001 again. It's not necessarily that Kubrick figured everything out and we're just now catching up to him (well... maybe...), but I do think that he makes incredibly interest comments via his films that are, for me, something to live up to as far as my desire to utilize strong ideas in film.
Anyway, at the beginning of 2001, when the monkey figures out what he can do with a bone--namely, bash things, and the inter-cutting with falling animals makes clear that the monkey realizes he can use to this to kill for food. But the first thing that he actually does is bash a monkey from a neighboring tribe, at first for self-defense, but that quickly turns into dominance. He throws that weapon up into the air, and that weapon jump cuts to a spaceship (technology). I think that there is a commentary there by Kubrick and/or Arthur C. Clarke (the writer of the novel and co-writer of the screenplay) as to our use of technology. At least, one of the commentaries. The scene is so incredibly evocative that it suggests so many ideas at once. That idea seems particularly clear to me, though.
It kind of comes down to which group was lucky enough to figure out what could be gained by organizing a controlling, dominant presence via violence first.
Another interesting thing is that that part of the movie is called "The Dawn of Man." In other words, the movie comments that MAN was born in that instant that that monkey picked up that bone and started bashing.
There are a lot more ideas about that movie to talk about. WE SHOULD SCREEN IT FOR THE CLASS! (in 70mm)
Post a Comment