[Ayoob]

I was at a farmer's market in Hollywood last weekend picking up some peppers and stuff when I saw a table of old books. All kinds of historical Los Angeles books and The Mountain People. Give me whatever you want for it, he says. Three bucks OK? Sure.

I finally finished it a couple days ago in the back of the ambulance. We had spent the day rolling around LA in some fairly nice neighborhoods, the patients were mostly OK, the nurses were in a good mood.

But I had a sick feeling in my stomach at the end. The conclusions Turnbull comes to are so evident here in the US. The system he describes about how we raise our children is really amazing. It's so similar to how the Ik did things. You only really see it at the very end, but there it is.

I would recommend this book as absolute pornography for the doomers. It is a very harsh tragedy. Also for the people that think we're all going to just get along... I think it's instructive to see what people do when they are pushed into a corner. It is good to see the best in humanity. That is where hope comes from. However, it doesn't pay to purposefully ignore what can happen in desperate times. Consider both.

I have read in various places that Turnbull embellished the story, and that he has recanted parts of it. I can't remember which parts are under discussion. However, the book is pretty level at aiming charges at the guilty parties. I don't think anyone really gets away with much if there is "some embellishment." If it's substantially fiction... that's another matter. I don't get the impression that anyone was saying that he just wrote straight from his imagination, it was more that his timeline was off or he emphasized some things and played others down. There's a wikipedia entry on it.

I've read it, I'm done with it. If anyone wants it, IM me and I'll pass it on to the next victim.

[I_Like_Plants]

Oh yeah Turnbull rules. Read his book The Forest People too, it's as cheerful as The Mountain People is gloomy.

they did a TV show on the Iks, I remember seeing it in the late 70s.

[Carlhole]

The Most Important Book Ever Written About Human Nature In the 20th Century, September 22, 2005 By Justin M. Teerlinck - See all my reviews

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Amazon Reviewer', 'T')his anthropological classic is important on a number of levels. Leading by example, Turnbull provides a lesson for anthropology students about the bravery required to embraces one's biases, instead of just pretending they do not exist. On a deeper level, he chronicles the disintegration of a culture through starvation to reveal the human nature that underlies all cultures. He describes, through the story of one people, what all people are capable of in dire circumstances.

Many people would prefer to read ethnographic accounts where the anthropologist sugar coats their real opinions. Indeed, this is what the scientific community expects. In many cases, the ethnographic writer poisons their own writing that comes out of bad experiences by superimposing a fase, insincere gloss of respect and understanding on top of a culture that they clearly feel superior to.

Turnbull does not feel superior to the Ik, but he is bluntly honest with himself and his readers about his pessimistic outlook and his view that the remainder of the Ik culture should be disbanded. Readers have complained about Turnbull's "bias" when in fact they simply disagree with the conclusions he reached. Many readers' complaints betray vast ignorance about ethnographic fieldwork, anthropological research methods and accuse the author of hypocricy while practicing it themselves.

Indeed, some people imply that Turbull led a cushy life among the Ik because he eat (in private, hiding in his Land Rover) while the Ik starved for two years. What an evil, greedy man, say the critics. Why didn't he do something? Well, he DID do something. He brought their plight to the attention of the world. What was he supposed to do, starve to death along with them? That would have been a futile, empty gesture that served no one and nothing except the ego gratification of one person. Instead, he spent two long, lonely years living among and trying desperately to understand people who were dying, and who constantly attempted to manipulate him and kill him. In one instance, they attempted to push him off of a cliff. In many other instances, they laughed mercilessly when he seriously injured himself. They let lions take their children away to be eaten. No sane human being could ever realistically come to a pleasant, poltically correct middle ground of love and admiration under these circumstances. The fact that Turnbull did not shamelessly kow tow to these sorts of empty headed demands makes his account of the Ik one of the most authentic, humane ethnographies ever written. Just in case anyone thinks Colin Turnbull is incapable of admiring or respecting another culture, read The Forest People and then judge.

People who chide Turnbull for not "doing enough" do not understand that anthropologists are not U.N. aid workers. Anthropologists enter the field to do their best to learn from and understand another culture--not save it, destroy it or alter it in any fundamental way. If anthropologists intentionally set about doing any of those things, then they have ceased to perform real ethnographic fieldwork. Instead, once the anthropological mission is over, then the anthropologist can become an activist and aid worker on behalf of the culture that hosted them--and most do. The humanitarian credentials and compassionate intensions of most anthropologists are perpetually debased but those who make judgements based on ignorance, past stereotypes, and a desire to hurl cheap shots based on the state of the discipline fifty or more years ago. Granted there are still jerks and racists in the profession, but I haven't met any (after five years of being taught by anthropologists) and nobody I know who actually knows an anthropologist can say anything bad about any specific individual--even ardent critics of the disicipline. I think its finally time to put to rest the tiresome notion that most anthropologists are unfeeling representatives of cultural imperialism. Maybe a few are, but most are not.

As for the complaints about the last chapter in Turnbull's book, people are free to agree or disagree with his admittedly controversial conclusions about what ought to be done with the Ik, long term. I think his intension there was to begin an honest debate, not close the door on the subject. I have to wonder if the people who think Turnbull was suggesting destroying the Ik culture read the rest of the book. If you believe his observation, then it appears that there was nothing left of Ik culture. He suggested relocating individual people in an effort to save their lives even though their culture was lost. I don't think the Ik would have minded that, although a fair criticism is that Turnbull does not spend much time speculating about what they would want for themselves. But thats the whole point. The culture disintigrated to the point where there was no "they" anymore, just a bunch of individuals fighting against each other.

As for Turnbull's "bias" in the last chapter of the book, well...what do you expect from an essay that concludes and summarizes? Thats exactly what he does and he does it well, after demonstrating ample professional restraint in his observations throughout the rest of the book. I think people dislike the fact that Turnbull displays opinions that are not couched in the irrelevent, luke warm, uninsightful, psuedo-intellectual clap trap of conventional social scientific writing. The important thing is that Turnbull offers an intelligent, well-reasoned defense for his opinions and he clearly differentiates his opinions from his observations. So tell me then, where is the bias? If people disagree with Turnbull's conclusions thats okay but if they feel he never should have drawn any conclusions I would ask what the point was of doing the fieldwork in the first place if he wasn't supposed to think about it and have insights? Furthermore, Turnbull did something not even a tenth of a percent of Americans and Europeans will ever do in their lives: he spent two years living among, witnessing and trying to understand the experiences of starving, dying people. That alone is an act of bravery. Turnbull earned the right the come to any conclusions he made about the Ik more than any of us have earned the right to negatively judge him. Therefore, let any further disagreements proceed on intellectual grounds alone, and wisely leave character attacks out of the equasion.

This is a truly superior, thought provoking book that haunts me and resonantes with me years after reading it. Read it even if you think you will disagree.

[TheDude]

Ordered a copy, just on the basis of that review. Sounds utterly fascinating.

Anyone read Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War? Friend of mine was raving about it. Concerns a guy who's firmly stuck in 1863, no ifs ands or buts. Apparently he has scathing contempt for all the half-measures who got into it via Ken Burns; also for the crappy houses they're building on battle sites. Sounds like a real page turner as well. Guy who'll march 20 miles barefoot for a reenactment is ready for SHTF.

[Leanan]

I have this book. Take it with a grain of salt.

It is controversial, and some have disputed Turnbull's account. Whatever the truth, the Ik feel they were misrepresented by the book, and are angry about it to this day.

Among the criticisms made of Turnbull is that he did not actually speak the language, and relied on interpreters, many of whom were traditional enemies of the Ik, and might have had reason to paint them in a bad light.

Many of the claims made in the book have since been disproven.

Some of them are described at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mountain_People

[FoxV]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Amazon Reviewer', 'T')his anthropological classic is important on a number of levels.

[ohanian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Mountain People by Colin Turnbull gives anthropolical "proof" of how tentative and fragile are the things that we like to think make us human. In Turnbull's study of the Ik tribe in northern Uganda, he shines a bright light on a couple of items.

irst, his facts bear out how conceited the "civilized" world can be about their social and cultural values; it is easy to treat our fellow people nicely as long as our bellies are full. Indeed, the examination of the Ik shows just how much our morality and good nature is a luxury, added on to make us feel self-important. The conclusion to this observation is further proof that our morals are tentative and made-up. By no means are they universal or written in our brains by God, as religion suggests.

Second, Turnbull makes another strong point about how similar we are to animals. The differences between animal behavior and human behavior are very slight and subtle. To him, this is not a bad thing. I suppose the book would be quite shattering for one who shallowly believes in the superiority of humanity over all else. Of course, because the book is so well presented, one could draw different philosophical observations. Generally, Turnbull refrains from philosophizing, and presents his accounts of the Ik without judging them.

[FoxV]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FoxV', 'T')here was a follow up study of the Ik done by less "sensationalist" researchers. I'll ask my wife and post the title tonight.