Indian Giving
I was browsing my Amazon store (the page where they put suggestions that their algorithm has decided I might like) to clear out the junk, when I came across this odd book: The Gift : Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property. With such a strange title, I had no idea what to make of it or how it may have gotten there. Apparently it's connected with a linguistics book I added to my wishlist. So, I took a look at the first page to see what it was about since they had no description. The first paragraph reads thus:
When the Puritans first landed in Massachusetts, they discovered a thing so curious about the Indians' feelings for property that they felt called upon to give it a name. In 1764, when Thomas Hutchinson wrote his history of the colony, the term was already an old saying: "An Indian gift," he told his readers, "is a proverbial expression signifying a present for which an equivalent return is expected." We still use this, of course, in an even broader sense, calling that friend an Indian giver who is so uncivilized as to ask us to return a gift he has given.
It goes on to present a fictional scenario in which an Englishman visits an Indian lodge and is given a peace pipe, which they expect to be circulated among local tribes. Not understanding this custom, he keeps it and is surprised when they visit and want it back. There's also a bit on the second page that has me a little curious:
Tribal peoples usually distinguish between gifts and capital. Commonly they have a law that repeats the sensibility implicit in the idea of an Indian gift. "One man's gift," they say, "must not be another man's capital."
Besides being an interesting point, I'm just curious about what this concept has to do with so-called tribal peoples. What is it that predisposes them to this idea of circulating gifts? I'm always skeptical of any kind of claim about people called "tribal" or "primitive" or the like. This is an idea that we can easily associate with people who are more simple, down-to-earth, in touch with nature (your can keep going with that), or more whatever it is that makes them not us (less capitalistic?). And what about us? Do we not do the same thing? The book mentions that it's also acceptable in these cultures to give something equivalent. And I do believe that our gift giving is often (but not always) exactly that. It just plays a different cultural role, which is likely true for all of the peoples referred to.
In any case, I think I'll be leaving this book on the list, if only as a curiosity.
When the Puritans first landed in Massachusetts, they discovered a thing so curious about the Indians' feelings for property that they felt called upon to give it a name. In 1764, when Thomas Hutchinson wrote his history of the colony, the term was already an old saying: "An Indian gift," he told his readers, "is a proverbial expression signifying a present for which an equivalent return is expected." We still use this, of course, in an even broader sense, calling that friend an Indian giver who is so uncivilized as to ask us to return a gift he has given.
It goes on to present a fictional scenario in which an Englishman visits an Indian lodge and is given a peace pipe, which they expect to be circulated among local tribes. Not understanding this custom, he keeps it and is surprised when they visit and want it back. There's also a bit on the second page that has me a little curious:
Tribal peoples usually distinguish between gifts and capital. Commonly they have a law that repeats the sensibility implicit in the idea of an Indian gift. "One man's gift," they say, "must not be another man's capital."
Besides being an interesting point, I'm just curious about what this concept has to do with so-called tribal peoples. What is it that predisposes them to this idea of circulating gifts? I'm always skeptical of any kind of claim about people called "tribal" or "primitive" or the like. This is an idea that we can easily associate with people who are more simple, down-to-earth, in touch with nature (your can keep going with that), or more whatever it is that makes them not us (less capitalistic?). And what about us? Do we not do the same thing? The book mentions that it's also acceptable in these cultures to give something equivalent. And I do believe that our gift giving is often (but not always) exactly that. It just plays a different cultural role, which is likely true for all of the peoples referred to.
In any case, I think I'll be leaving this book on the list, if only as a curiosity.