It is quite cold here and wet too. The streets are almost always wet because it rains any time. So whatever I had heard about the UK has been validated. In addition, they drive on the left side of the road, call a “lift” not elevator but “lift”, apartment “flat” and call a movie “film”. So it is like I found the mother tongue. Anyway, back to today’s Wide Angle. This is about a book that I have read courtesy Rohit who gave it to me. It is called “Blindness” by Jose Saramago. It is a fantastic piece of work and was also made into a movie by the same name which released this year starring Susan Moore. The book is about epidemics, the nature of our reactions to them, and how easy it is for societal norms to break down when confronted with the unknown. When I write about the book, you will clearly see parallels with the Swine flu episode in Pune recently which I will also compare with.
The book is based in a random town somewhere in the US where all of a sudden on a busy traffic intersection, a man driving a car goes blind. The whole traffic stops because this car isn’t moving and when people open the door of the car, the man says “I am blind”. The man is taken to a doctor by some good people. By the next morning, all the people who the man has been in touch with go blind. This blindness is different from normal blindness, people see a white curtain in front of their eyes in the place of darkness – minor detail. The doctor also goes blind, his wife doesn’t. Government authorities order all those who have become blind to be quarantined and they are sent to the mental hospital. The doctor’s wife who can see pretends that she is blind and goes with him so that he is not alone.
Initially a group of few folks who have gone blind including the doctor and his wife are sent to this hospital. They are able to live with slight discomfort but there are beds to sleep upon and clean toilets. The group naturally gets by with each others’ help since they are blind but there is order. Soon more and more people are sent to the hospital since the blindness is spreading rapidly now. The hospital is now getting cramped and conditions are fast deteriorating. In addition, armed soldiers keep guard at the gates so that no one can escape. The residents are provided food twice a day by keeping the vessels in the open ground outside the hospital. Soon more and more blind people arrive and the place now becomes squalid and dirty. In one scene, the doctor’s wife goes to the toilet at night but steps over feces of people all the way.
The place starts getting more and more violent as order starts breaking down. Soon the stronger ones start dominating and push people around. After a while, the stronger and crooked people form a gang and steal all the food vessels. People start going hungry and go to these crooks. They ask for women in return for provision of food. No amount of cajoling works. Then there ensues a debate between the women and men of the other quarters from where the women are going to be supplied – the men say why don’t you do it and the women are refusing, they ask the men, what if they were asking for you, would you go. Anyway, the women go and food is supplied. This goes on for some time until the day no food is provided.
The people inside tentatively go out and find that there is no guard around. The whole world has gone blind now and there is no government or order in society. The doctor, his wife who can see and the original group of people with them move out and start looking for food. Things are pretty bad outside since most of the shops have been vandalized by gangs of people looking for food. People have now become adept at picking scent of food and there are violent fights between gangs for the last remaining bits of food. The doctor’s wife now leads the group and takes them through streets where anarchy reigns in search of food. Once they find food in the basement of a shop, but the place is immediately ravaged by another gang looking for food.
Finally, after many tribulations, the group ends up at the doctor’s apartment where they get something to eat. The doctor’s wife washes all of them and they settle down peacefully. The end of the book comes up with dawn coming over the city and the first man who had gone blind saying “I can see”. The sight starts returning to people in the order it had gone away.
This is a very simplistic narration of the book because the plot is very simple and also because I want you all to read it and experience the thrill. I’d like to share my thoughts on the book now. First thing – epidemics that are infectious and society’s response to them. Didn’t we all observe this during the swine flu scare – people freaking out, everyone wearing masks, masks running out in medical stores. Remember people being quarantined in hospitals, patients running out of the quarantine, general panic. I have heard stories of groups of people standing and turning back travelers alighting from buses from Pune at Kolhapur. People had horror stories of them being looked at with fear when they sneezed or coughed. Any absence from work was looked at as “Swine flu?”. Do we remember the deserted streets in Pune and no traffic for those few days. This is what epidemics are about, needless panic and overbearing measures by authorities to contain them.
The second point that I can think of from this book is what happens when the thin fabric of order that holds the society breaks down. The moment these bonds of shame/conduct are broken down, chaos reigns and anarchy sets in. This mostly happens when there is competition for limited resources, I have seen it happen even in the US, I was flying out to another city on Christmas eve and it was absolutely crowded, there was murderous rage in everyone for seating, getting into the plane, placing cabin baggage etc. In our country, it is common in most of the situations since we are so crowded. Haven’t you seen queues breaking down, the strong pushing the weak, or stampedes happening – remember the sari distribution that went awry in UP and people dying. Bottomline, it takes a very gentle push for the animal in us to come out and the bonds that hold the society together in order need to be handled delicately and protected.
So much for my interpretations, go and read the book, it is a fantastic read, would teach you a thing or two about civilization and epidemics
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Wide Angle 12 - What are you - Conservative or Liberal?
This week I delve into an interesting divide of views and ideas/ideology that exists in the world and has often led to big turf wars. We in India are not as clearly divided into camps as in the Western countries because post independence, we have been only molded in one particular stream of thought. Most of us are therefore not entirely aware of this divide of ideas so I thought it would be a good idea to talk about the left/right debate and show it up to you all so that you can determine for yourself where you stand on the side of this Great Divide.
The worldview on many things but primarily economic policies and social views is divided into what is called “Conservative” and “Liberal”. This is also characteristically the Left and Right divide with Liberals being the Left and Conservatives being the Right. These terms came into existence after the 18th century in the West primarily Europe to begin with and then into US. These concepts were also a consequence of the Industrial Revolution that completely changed the way goods were created and also the ways economies operated. Before the Industrial revolution, goods would be produced by a few skilled artisans or workmen and it took huge effort to create them. Consumption of these goods was for a privileged few with common folks having to do with bare minimum. Prime occupation was agriculture and relationships were mostly feudal. Then the steam engine happened and along with other machinery revolutionized the way goods were produced by bringing in factories. This led to mass production and easy availability of goods but also led to creation of lot of wealth for a few people based on labor of many under excruciating conditions. Modern day capitalism was born where capitalists could invest their money into a productive activity and based on easily available and exploited labor could become many times more wealthy than common folks.
As is widely known, Fredrick Engels was the one to think about an alternative to this system which was to have workers or representative of common folks i.e. the State controls the means of production so that the gains of this productive activity would be equally shared between everyone. This was the genesis of socialism – also called left wing thought. This further led to Karl Marx postulating his thoughts into Das Capital and laying the bedrock of Communism that takes socialism to the extreme of left thoughts – it advocates overthrow of the capitalist order by a proletariat revolution and a supreme controlling state. In a nutshell, the left wing of thought is about more control and intervention of the state in most spheres of life but especially economic activity thus also enabling it to distribute the wealth amongst everyone.
More often than not, the left wing of thought would be against the established social order since historically social orders become oppressive over a period. An example would be the Left in many countries opposing Church interference or in India opposing the caste system etc. “Religion is the opium of the masses” is what Marx had said and in many ways, the Left is against organized religion and the doctrinaire policies of religion. This is what makes the leftists “Liberals”.
The other side of this divide is the Right or the conservatives. Conservative thought is typically called that because they would like to retain the status quo and oppose radical changes in any way to anything. In the West, conservatives were organized against a host of issues for e.g. they were for less government in the economy, against labor’s rights, for landlords and feudalism and many other things. Traditionally, the conservatives are also aligned with religious figures be it the Church in the West or Islamists in the mid West etc. The rightists are also for economic freedom i.e. the rights of markets to evolve by themselves and free trade etc. The leftists have a term for the rightists “Reactionary” since these folks react to the liberal changes that the liberals want to bring.
The funny part is that over a while, the liberals have come to stand for controlled economies that often lead to lack of economic freedom in the socialist countries with large bureaucracies involved in stalling free market enterprise like the one that existed in India before the reforms of 1992. So you will hear the left leaders like Nilotpal Basu railing against “neo liberal” policies driven by the government which means either bringing labor reforms or allowing foreign investment etc.
Let me quickly take you through the history and anatomy of the three countries most associated with us and where they stand in terms of the Left/Right divide:
US:
The US has the Republican party i.e. the conservative party and the Democratic party which is their liberal party. The founding thought of America is about less government and that is in their DNA. They always crow against bigger government or interference by government in economy. That is why the US is the leader of the capitalist world and they were fighting the Cold War against the Soviet Union which was the leader of the “Left” world. The Republican party in US believes more in free trade, lesser taxes for everyone, less government spending in the social sector, lesser dole. It is also aligned with the Church and Baptist organizations and sometimes the extreme right including White Supremacist groups. It is less dependent on the minority vote and is typically less encouraging of immigration.
The Democratic party is a left leaning party and is a party of trade unions, liberal intellectuals of California and New York, minority supporters like the Blacks and Hispanics etc. They are typically for more government control and more spending on social schemes. They are also more pro-immigration and by default support abortion etc. which the Republicans are slightly against.
UK:
UK has the Conservative party which is the right wing party and Labor Party which is the left wing party. The agendas of these two map to what I described for the republican and democrat structure in the US.
India:
Opposite of what happened to US, our country was founded by people who strongly believed in the Left Wing thought. Jawaharlal Nehru was a proponent of something called Fabian socialism and was a follower of Professor Harold Lasky who was an authority on this. Since he was our first Prime Minister and ruled for 17 years, the socialist bent of mind and direction of economy was ingrained into our policies. The public sector units established in those years and subsequently were at the “Commanding Heights Of the economy” and still exist today. Most of the thoughts of our countrymen at least the educated ones reflect the liberal thought because left wing intellectuals dominate the intellectual and media discourse in the country. Indians always love big government and look to the “mai baap sarkar” for everything. However, the good part about this discourse is that many suffocating social practices have been weeded out. We never had a real right wing party till the BJP came to the fore but on most of its policies, BJP and Congress do tend to overlap though the Congress is slightly “Left of Centre”.
So that was in a nutshell, a view on the Left/Right divide in the world that has led to many tiffs. Now, you need to map yourselves in terms of where you belong – you could be economically conservative and socially liberal or socially conservative and economically liberal. I am a right winger on the economic policies and a liberal on the social side. What are you?
The worldview on many things but primarily economic policies and social views is divided into what is called “Conservative” and “Liberal”. This is also characteristically the Left and Right divide with Liberals being the Left and Conservatives being the Right. These terms came into existence after the 18th century in the West primarily Europe to begin with and then into US. These concepts were also a consequence of the Industrial Revolution that completely changed the way goods were created and also the ways economies operated. Before the Industrial revolution, goods would be produced by a few skilled artisans or workmen and it took huge effort to create them. Consumption of these goods was for a privileged few with common folks having to do with bare minimum. Prime occupation was agriculture and relationships were mostly feudal. Then the steam engine happened and along with other machinery revolutionized the way goods were produced by bringing in factories. This led to mass production and easy availability of goods but also led to creation of lot of wealth for a few people based on labor of many under excruciating conditions. Modern day capitalism was born where capitalists could invest their money into a productive activity and based on easily available and exploited labor could become many times more wealthy than common folks.
As is widely known, Fredrick Engels was the one to think about an alternative to this system which was to have workers or representative of common folks i.e. the State controls the means of production so that the gains of this productive activity would be equally shared between everyone. This was the genesis of socialism – also called left wing thought. This further led to Karl Marx postulating his thoughts into Das Capital and laying the bedrock of Communism that takes socialism to the extreme of left thoughts – it advocates overthrow of the capitalist order by a proletariat revolution and a supreme controlling state. In a nutshell, the left wing of thought is about more control and intervention of the state in most spheres of life but especially economic activity thus also enabling it to distribute the wealth amongst everyone.
More often than not, the left wing of thought would be against the established social order since historically social orders become oppressive over a period. An example would be the Left in many countries opposing Church interference or in India opposing the caste system etc. “Religion is the opium of the masses” is what Marx had said and in many ways, the Left is against organized religion and the doctrinaire policies of religion. This is what makes the leftists “Liberals”.
The other side of this divide is the Right or the conservatives. Conservative thought is typically called that because they would like to retain the status quo and oppose radical changes in any way to anything. In the West, conservatives were organized against a host of issues for e.g. they were for less government in the economy, against labor’s rights, for landlords and feudalism and many other things. Traditionally, the conservatives are also aligned with religious figures be it the Church in the West or Islamists in the mid West etc. The rightists are also for economic freedom i.e. the rights of markets to evolve by themselves and free trade etc. The leftists have a term for the rightists “Reactionary” since these folks react to the liberal changes that the liberals want to bring.
The funny part is that over a while, the liberals have come to stand for controlled economies that often lead to lack of economic freedom in the socialist countries with large bureaucracies involved in stalling free market enterprise like the one that existed in India before the reforms of 1992. So you will hear the left leaders like Nilotpal Basu railing against “neo liberal” policies driven by the government which means either bringing labor reforms or allowing foreign investment etc.
Let me quickly take you through the history and anatomy of the three countries most associated with us and where they stand in terms of the Left/Right divide:
US:
The US has the Republican party i.e. the conservative party and the Democratic party which is their liberal party. The founding thought of America is about less government and that is in their DNA. They always crow against bigger government or interference by government in economy. That is why the US is the leader of the capitalist world and they were fighting the Cold War against the Soviet Union which was the leader of the “Left” world. The Republican party in US believes more in free trade, lesser taxes for everyone, less government spending in the social sector, lesser dole. It is also aligned with the Church and Baptist organizations and sometimes the extreme right including White Supremacist groups. It is less dependent on the minority vote and is typically less encouraging of immigration.
The Democratic party is a left leaning party and is a party of trade unions, liberal intellectuals of California and New York, minority supporters like the Blacks and Hispanics etc. They are typically for more government control and more spending on social schemes. They are also more pro-immigration and by default support abortion etc. which the Republicans are slightly against.
UK:
UK has the Conservative party which is the right wing party and Labor Party which is the left wing party. The agendas of these two map to what I described for the republican and democrat structure in the US.
India:
Opposite of what happened to US, our country was founded by people who strongly believed in the Left Wing thought. Jawaharlal Nehru was a proponent of something called Fabian socialism and was a follower of Professor Harold Lasky who was an authority on this. Since he was our first Prime Minister and ruled for 17 years, the socialist bent of mind and direction of economy was ingrained into our policies. The public sector units established in those years and subsequently were at the “Commanding Heights Of the economy” and still exist today. Most of the thoughts of our countrymen at least the educated ones reflect the liberal thought because left wing intellectuals dominate the intellectual and media discourse in the country. Indians always love big government and look to the “mai baap sarkar” for everything. However, the good part about this discourse is that many suffocating social practices have been weeded out. We never had a real right wing party till the BJP came to the fore but on most of its policies, BJP and Congress do tend to overlap though the Congress is slightly “Left of Centre”.
So that was in a nutshell, a view on the Left/Right divide in the world that has led to many tiffs. Now, you need to map yourselves in terms of where you belong – you could be economically conservative and socially liberal or socially conservative and economically liberal. I am a right winger on the economic policies and a liberal on the social side. What are you?
Wide Angle 9 - Crossing the Rubicon
This week’s Wide Angle is about a phrase that is commonly used in the English language but has a huge historical significance. I thought it would be a good idea to give a peep into the history of this phrase. The phrase is “Crossing the Rubicon”. This phrase is used to describe an event which is extremely path breaking, when the protagonist associated with it has to undergo a series of dilemmas before arriving at a decision to take a particular course of action – literally biting the bullet. Many events fit into this category e.g. India’s N-tests in 1998, Hitler’s invasion of Soviet Union (he thought long and hard), Japan’s decision to invade US instead of USSR in the Second World War etc. This event is also a point of no return for the person because the decision once taken unleashes a series of events that one may not be able to totally control. This is also what makes the decision so difficult to make. The phrase is taken from an event that happened in ancient history in Rome and is linked to Julius Caesar. It was Julius Caesar who crossed the Rubicon River and forever changed the face of Roman history after weeks of agonizing thought.
First a brief history of the Roman republic itself. Rome is surrounded by seven hills and is located at the banks of the river Tiber. It is said to have been found by two brothers Remus and Romulus after whom the city was named. It was ruled over by Greek origin kings called Etruscans till the 5th century BC who were often unpopular. The Roman people rose against these kings repeatedly until in 510 BC, the last king Tarquinius Superbus was overthrown by Lucius Brutus and Rome was established as a republic. Word as per the western historians (who have also written our history) is that this was history’s first functional republic though I have read some accounts of communities in ancient Orissa who were republics too. Anyway, the way the republic was administered was through the Senate which derived most of its senators through a class of noblemen called Patricians. The common folk of Rome were called Plebians and there was “An Assembly of the People” for them where they could pass resolutions.
The senators had to be elected every few years though they achieved this through patronage and often money power. To help run the republic smoothly from a leadership perspective, two Consuls were elected who would coordinate and run the republic and its empire. This was arranged in such a way so that no single person could dominate because one consul could veto the actions of the other consul. Also, the consuls had a term of only one year after which they had to be re-elected. This was done so that no one got used to office and to avoid dictatorial tendencies developing. There was also a provision to appoint someone a dictator for 6 months in case of an emergency but he had to relinquish control after those six months were over. To represent the plebs and their voices, there was a tribune elected who would speak for the people, this was a very powerful position to begin with but was eventually brought under senatorial control.
Anyway, this republic developed extraordinary martial capabilities and produced outstanding generals so that Rome first captured all of Italy by edging out all other neighbor kingdoms and subjugating them. The expansion then moved to East with the Balkans and Greece coming under the Roman boot. It also moved South after the defeat of Carthage (modern day Tunisia) into Africa with Egypt also coming under Roman control. As the power of the empire grew, the stakes became higher and inevitably led to the rise of very powerful military men. The army also changed its characteristics from being a peasant army in the early days (where people campaigned for 6 months and then got back to harvest their fields) to a more professional army.
With the rise of military strongmen came the need to maintain the republic without letting any of them become a dictator. There were also violent civil wars as those that brought Marius or Sulla in power around 102-101 BC. During the time of military strongmen ruling, they ensured that the senate either appointed them dictators or made them consul for as long as they wanted but these phases never lasted long and the republic endured. One rule that was always followed was that a general would not be allowed to enter Rome with his war clothes on and he always had to leave his army command if he had to enter the Senate.
Now coming back to Caesar. Before Caesar, another character made a huge mark in Roman conquest around 80BC, he was Pompey Magnus. He was a brilliant general who was credited with crushing the slave rebellion, cleaning the pirates out of the Mediterranean and a lot of victories in various battles. In 70 BC, he formed a Triumvirate with Julius Cesar (who was an administrator in the civil service at that time) and Crassus and ruled Rome with Senate support for some time. Then Caesar was given the command of an army to go out and completely capture Gaul (modern day France). Caesar proved to be a brilliant general and won many famous victories in Gaul, Germania and campaigned up to Britain. The loot that he brought back made him very popular in Rome amongst the plebs and this was causing the Senate to become restive.
Pompey who was living a sedentary life in Rome also became nervous with Caesar’s growing popularity and power and started scheming in order to convince the senate that Caesar was dangerous since he could overthrow the republic any time and become king (this was the biggest fear the Senators had). Caesar wanted his consulship continued but Pompey made the senate declare that Caesar would have to give up his army before he could get it and that he would have to come to Rome to get it. Caesar felt that if he did so, he would be executed or rendered irrelevant since he would be powerless. The senate remained unyielding in its attitude towards Caesar, passing an emergency decree called senatus consultum ultimum, a kind of emergency decree that authorized execution without trial.
At that moment Caesar was stationed outside Italy at the banks of the Rubicon River. He was in two minds as to what to do – if he entered Italy without his army, he would be powerless and a common citizen – if he entered with the army, it was open rebellion and he would be an outlaw. After weeks of agonizing thought, he decided to “Cross the Rubicon” with his troops and march on to Rome. He is said to have uttered his famous words, “Alea iacta est” – ‘The die is cast”.
The moment the senate and Pompey heard about Caesar’s entry into Italy with his army, most of them fled Rome because none of them had any armies in Italy though Pompey had troops in Spain. Caesar entered Rome without opposition and made himself a “Consul” and in the next few years completely routed Pompey and his supporters. The Senate was stuffed with Caesar’s supporters. Caesar had effectively become king; no one dared oppose him in Rome. However, he was killed by Brutus and other people because they did not want a tyrant coming up. The trend had been set though and after Caesar, Octavian – his nephew captured power and ruled like an emperor for the next 40 years. The republic was completely buried during this time and the Roman Republic became a Roman Empire. Octavian was succeeded by a long list of emperors till 5th century AD when the empire dissolved.
Thus the decline and rout of the Roman Republic experiment can be attributed to that one moment in history when Caesar had to make his decision about whether he should cross the river or not. He did “Cross the Rubicon” and brought on the end of the Roman Republic. Many such moments have happened in history post this which have been equal game changers. We often face such moments in our lives when we are at the threshold of something new or doing something unexpected and don’t know what to do. This is our “Crossing the Rubicon” moment – hope you survive them and make the right decisions.
First a brief history of the Roman republic itself. Rome is surrounded by seven hills and is located at the banks of the river Tiber. It is said to have been found by two brothers Remus and Romulus after whom the city was named. It was ruled over by Greek origin kings called Etruscans till the 5th century BC who were often unpopular. The Roman people rose against these kings repeatedly until in 510 BC, the last king Tarquinius Superbus was overthrown by Lucius Brutus and Rome was established as a republic. Word as per the western historians (who have also written our history) is that this was history’s first functional republic though I have read some accounts of communities in ancient Orissa who were republics too. Anyway, the way the republic was administered was through the Senate which derived most of its senators through a class of noblemen called Patricians. The common folk of Rome were called Plebians and there was “An Assembly of the People” for them where they could pass resolutions.
The senators had to be elected every few years though they achieved this through patronage and often money power. To help run the republic smoothly from a leadership perspective, two Consuls were elected who would coordinate and run the republic and its empire. This was arranged in such a way so that no single person could dominate because one consul could veto the actions of the other consul. Also, the consuls had a term of only one year after which they had to be re-elected. This was done so that no one got used to office and to avoid dictatorial tendencies developing. There was also a provision to appoint someone a dictator for 6 months in case of an emergency but he had to relinquish control after those six months were over. To represent the plebs and their voices, there was a tribune elected who would speak for the people, this was a very powerful position to begin with but was eventually brought under senatorial control.
Anyway, this republic developed extraordinary martial capabilities and produced outstanding generals so that Rome first captured all of Italy by edging out all other neighbor kingdoms and subjugating them. The expansion then moved to East with the Balkans and Greece coming under the Roman boot. It also moved South after the defeat of Carthage (modern day Tunisia) into Africa with Egypt also coming under Roman control. As the power of the empire grew, the stakes became higher and inevitably led to the rise of very powerful military men. The army also changed its characteristics from being a peasant army in the early days (where people campaigned for 6 months and then got back to harvest their fields) to a more professional army.
With the rise of military strongmen came the need to maintain the republic without letting any of them become a dictator. There were also violent civil wars as those that brought Marius or Sulla in power around 102-101 BC. During the time of military strongmen ruling, they ensured that the senate either appointed them dictators or made them consul for as long as they wanted but these phases never lasted long and the republic endured. One rule that was always followed was that a general would not be allowed to enter Rome with his war clothes on and he always had to leave his army command if he had to enter the Senate.
Now coming back to Caesar. Before Caesar, another character made a huge mark in Roman conquest around 80BC, he was Pompey Magnus. He was a brilliant general who was credited with crushing the slave rebellion, cleaning the pirates out of the Mediterranean and a lot of victories in various battles. In 70 BC, he formed a Triumvirate with Julius Cesar (who was an administrator in the civil service at that time) and Crassus and ruled Rome with Senate support for some time. Then Caesar was given the command of an army to go out and completely capture Gaul (modern day France). Caesar proved to be a brilliant general and won many famous victories in Gaul, Germania and campaigned up to Britain. The loot that he brought back made him very popular in Rome amongst the plebs and this was causing the Senate to become restive.
Pompey who was living a sedentary life in Rome also became nervous with Caesar’s growing popularity and power and started scheming in order to convince the senate that Caesar was dangerous since he could overthrow the republic any time and become king (this was the biggest fear the Senators had). Caesar wanted his consulship continued but Pompey made the senate declare that Caesar would have to give up his army before he could get it and that he would have to come to Rome to get it. Caesar felt that if he did so, he would be executed or rendered irrelevant since he would be powerless. The senate remained unyielding in its attitude towards Caesar, passing an emergency decree called senatus consultum ultimum, a kind of emergency decree that authorized execution without trial.
At that moment Caesar was stationed outside Italy at the banks of the Rubicon River. He was in two minds as to what to do – if he entered Italy without his army, he would be powerless and a common citizen – if he entered with the army, it was open rebellion and he would be an outlaw. After weeks of agonizing thought, he decided to “Cross the Rubicon” with his troops and march on to Rome. He is said to have uttered his famous words, “Alea iacta est” – ‘The die is cast”.
The moment the senate and Pompey heard about Caesar’s entry into Italy with his army, most of them fled Rome because none of them had any armies in Italy though Pompey had troops in Spain. Caesar entered Rome without opposition and made himself a “Consul” and in the next few years completely routed Pompey and his supporters. The Senate was stuffed with Caesar’s supporters. Caesar had effectively become king; no one dared oppose him in Rome. However, he was killed by Brutus and other people because they did not want a tyrant coming up. The trend had been set though and after Caesar, Octavian – his nephew captured power and ruled like an emperor for the next 40 years. The republic was completely buried during this time and the Roman Republic became a Roman Empire. Octavian was succeeded by a long list of emperors till 5th century AD when the empire dissolved.
Thus the decline and rout of the Roman Republic experiment can be attributed to that one moment in history when Caesar had to make his decision about whether he should cross the river or not. He did “Cross the Rubicon” and brought on the end of the Roman Republic. Many such moments have happened in history post this which have been equal game changers. We often face such moments in our lives when we are at the threshold of something new or doing something unexpected and don’t know what to do. This is our “Crossing the Rubicon” moment – hope you survive them and make the right decisions.
Wide Angle 7 - Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott
This week I write about a rather interesting event in American history which forever changed the way the society worked in terms of race relations and accelerated the coming to fore of the black race in American life. We in India do not know of Rosa Parks but this name is etched in American history forever. The parallel of Rosa Parks can be drawn with Mangal Pandey or with Gandhiji’s humiliation in South Africa i.e. a small token action of protest that tips the scales of a nascent movement into a big conflagration and changes history beyond recognition. This is what Rosa Parks’ contribution has been to American history.
Let me start from the beginning and build a little context into the history that led to Rosa Parks and the Montgomery boycott. As we all know, most of the African American population in the US is a descendant of the slaves brought over from Africa by slave traders to work in the agricultural regions of the Southern states. This influx of slaves started in the 17th century from the time the colonists from Europe (primarily UK) started moving to the New World (they called America that). They started cultivating cotton and tobacco and required manual labor for these farms. This is where the slaves came in. The slaves were horribly treated and subjected to animal like behavior. However, the Northern part of the US started developing more industrially as compared to agriculture in the South. A bit of geography here – by south, we mean the bible belt states of Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas etc.; by north – the progressive states of New York, Maryland, Washington DC, Connecticut, Massachusetts etc. The divide between these set of states was very stark i.e. the South supported slavery and the North opposed it.
America was founded in the East starting from Virginia and its expansion went westwards i.e. they cleared the Indian population and claimed and cultivated land. For a long time, the American government followed the policy of appeasing both North and South by dividing any newly formed state into a Northern component and a Southern component. The tensions kept mounting and this led to the American Civil war in 1861-1864 during Lincoln’s presidency. This was fought over slavery and the South was defeated – the South wanted to secede but Lincoln wanted to hold the county together and hence the Civil War. After the Civil War, slavery was abolished throughout America. This was supposed to bring in freedom to the slaves in the South.
However, in the place of slavery a new system called “Jim Crow” came into place in the South. This effectively meant a segregation of social life into the white zone and the black zone. Everything was separate – black people could not eat with whites, could not go school with whites, had to live away from the town, could not use the same toilets etc. All the facilities for blacks were vastly inferior. Also, till the mid 30s, blacks were often lynched by white mobs on any pretext and the killers would go scot free. To be a black in the South was a life of humiliation and poverty. The North was better and hence quite a few blacks moved to cities like New York, Chicago etc. during the 20s till the 50s. This is often called the Great Migration – this also led to white populations moving to suburbs of the cities leaving the inner cities. In the South, there were laws that forced segregation and politicians took stand for segregation since the population supported it. There had already started movements that were opposing this which comprised of blacks from the South and North but also liberal white folks from the North (remember Mississippi Burning the movie). The NAACP (National Association for Colored People) was busy fighting these laws and practices but all the efforts were sporadic and non cohesive till Rosa Parks happened.
On Dec 1, 1955, Rosa Parks, a middle aged seamstress, boarded the bus from her workplace to come home in Montgomery town, Alabama. The practice in those buses was that White folks would sit in the front of the buses and black folks would sit at the back of the bus in designated seats. If the white seats got full, the black folks sitting at the front of the black zone had to get up and make way for the white folks who were standing. On that day, the same thing happened and the conductor of the bus asked Rosa and a few others to move behind. Everyone did but Rosa refused for some reason (she is still not clear why, maybe she had had enough). The conductor threatened to have her arrested but she did not budge. The bus was stopped and Rosa Parks was put under arrest. The NAACP which was looking for a reason to rally decided to use this incident as a token and bailed her out and from here began the great Montgomery bus boycott.
This is also the first time Martin Luther King Jr. came into picture. He was 26 at that time and the NAACP folks from Montgomery asked King to lead the protest. All the black folks from Montgomery decided to boycott the bus service till the segregation policy was not abandoned. King believed in non violent protest like Gandhiji (he was inspired by him) and decided to use this way to make the protest hence the bus boycott. All blacks of the city boycotted the bus service. Of course, it was a mighty inconvenience for everyone because people had to travel miles to work but the boycott continued. To tide over peoples’ difficulties, everyone pooled in cabs, cars, mini trucks etc. The police was against the boycotting population and used every trick in the book to trouble them. People got fined for minor traffic infractions, for running “illegal business” i.e. for the cars that were pooling people. During this process, King’s house was fire bombed but he kept his cool and did not let his followers get violent.
The entire nation was witness to this drama and public sympathy was slowly turning in favor of King. In parallel, King and his people had filed a case in the Supreme Court against the segregation in the bus service. For 381 days during which the boycott was carried out, Montgomery’s buses went empty and many people walked to work, but the unity and sense of purpose was not broken. Finally, the judgment of the Supreme Court was in favor of the protesters and that is when King and his few followers entered from the front of a bus and sat in the front. Thus ended the boycott resulting in a victory for the black population of Montgomery.
This form of protest was repeated across different places in the country in different ways to similar results. In many places, the Central government sent Federal troops to maintain peace over forced de-segregation of schools (black students going to white only schools) but slowly the tide of public opinion turned over the fifties and sixties and that led to President Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights Bill that ended all segregation and set up laws for positive discrimination in favor of blacks in the workplace and beyond. Look where America has reached now despite all its racial problems which have not yet ceased – it has a black president. The root cause of all this can be traced to one little lady who refused to vacate her seat – sometimes a small light of match is enough to burn the whole forest down, this event amply demonstrates that.
Let me start from the beginning and build a little context into the history that led to Rosa Parks and the Montgomery boycott. As we all know, most of the African American population in the US is a descendant of the slaves brought over from Africa by slave traders to work in the agricultural regions of the Southern states. This influx of slaves started in the 17th century from the time the colonists from Europe (primarily UK) started moving to the New World (they called America that). They started cultivating cotton and tobacco and required manual labor for these farms. This is where the slaves came in. The slaves were horribly treated and subjected to animal like behavior. However, the Northern part of the US started developing more industrially as compared to agriculture in the South. A bit of geography here – by south, we mean the bible belt states of Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas etc.; by north – the progressive states of New York, Maryland, Washington DC, Connecticut, Massachusetts etc. The divide between these set of states was very stark i.e. the South supported slavery and the North opposed it.
America was founded in the East starting from Virginia and its expansion went westwards i.e. they cleared the Indian population and claimed and cultivated land. For a long time, the American government followed the policy of appeasing both North and South by dividing any newly formed state into a Northern component and a Southern component. The tensions kept mounting and this led to the American Civil war in 1861-1864 during Lincoln’s presidency. This was fought over slavery and the South was defeated – the South wanted to secede but Lincoln wanted to hold the county together and hence the Civil War. After the Civil War, slavery was abolished throughout America. This was supposed to bring in freedom to the slaves in the South.
However, in the place of slavery a new system called “Jim Crow” came into place in the South. This effectively meant a segregation of social life into the white zone and the black zone. Everything was separate – black people could not eat with whites, could not go school with whites, had to live away from the town, could not use the same toilets etc. All the facilities for blacks were vastly inferior. Also, till the mid 30s, blacks were often lynched by white mobs on any pretext and the killers would go scot free. To be a black in the South was a life of humiliation and poverty. The North was better and hence quite a few blacks moved to cities like New York, Chicago etc. during the 20s till the 50s. This is often called the Great Migration – this also led to white populations moving to suburbs of the cities leaving the inner cities. In the South, there were laws that forced segregation and politicians took stand for segregation since the population supported it. There had already started movements that were opposing this which comprised of blacks from the South and North but also liberal white folks from the North (remember Mississippi Burning the movie). The NAACP (National Association for Colored People) was busy fighting these laws and practices but all the efforts were sporadic and non cohesive till Rosa Parks happened.
On Dec 1, 1955, Rosa Parks, a middle aged seamstress, boarded the bus from her workplace to come home in Montgomery town, Alabama. The practice in those buses was that White folks would sit in the front of the buses and black folks would sit at the back of the bus in designated seats. If the white seats got full, the black folks sitting at the front of the black zone had to get up and make way for the white folks who were standing. On that day, the same thing happened and the conductor of the bus asked Rosa and a few others to move behind. Everyone did but Rosa refused for some reason (she is still not clear why, maybe she had had enough). The conductor threatened to have her arrested but she did not budge. The bus was stopped and Rosa Parks was put under arrest. The NAACP which was looking for a reason to rally decided to use this incident as a token and bailed her out and from here began the great Montgomery bus boycott.
This is also the first time Martin Luther King Jr. came into picture. He was 26 at that time and the NAACP folks from Montgomery asked King to lead the protest. All the black folks from Montgomery decided to boycott the bus service till the segregation policy was not abandoned. King believed in non violent protest like Gandhiji (he was inspired by him) and decided to use this way to make the protest hence the bus boycott. All blacks of the city boycotted the bus service. Of course, it was a mighty inconvenience for everyone because people had to travel miles to work but the boycott continued. To tide over peoples’ difficulties, everyone pooled in cabs, cars, mini trucks etc. The police was against the boycotting population and used every trick in the book to trouble them. People got fined for minor traffic infractions, for running “illegal business” i.e. for the cars that were pooling people. During this process, King’s house was fire bombed but he kept his cool and did not let his followers get violent.
The entire nation was witness to this drama and public sympathy was slowly turning in favor of King. In parallel, King and his people had filed a case in the Supreme Court against the segregation in the bus service. For 381 days during which the boycott was carried out, Montgomery’s buses went empty and many people walked to work, but the unity and sense of purpose was not broken. Finally, the judgment of the Supreme Court was in favor of the protesters and that is when King and his few followers entered from the front of a bus and sat in the front. Thus ended the boycott resulting in a victory for the black population of Montgomery.
This form of protest was repeated across different places in the country in different ways to similar results. In many places, the Central government sent Federal troops to maintain peace over forced de-segregation of schools (black students going to white only schools) but slowly the tide of public opinion turned over the fifties and sixties and that led to President Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights Bill that ended all segregation and set up laws for positive discrimination in favor of blacks in the workplace and beyond. Look where America has reached now despite all its racial problems which have not yet ceased – it has a black president. The root cause of all this can be traced to one little lady who refused to vacate her seat – sometimes a small light of match is enough to burn the whole forest down, this event amply demonstrates that.
Wide Angle - Animal Farm
No this is not about zoology like last time. It is about a short but impelling book that in a few pages (around 100) redefines the meaning of revolution, power, leadership and corruption. The book is called Animal Farm written by George Orwell – it is available in all bookstores for around Rs. 100 and I recommend it as a must read. Now to the review:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." – Lord Acton
What has been the view of history on most of the revolutions started with a very noble idea that energized and unified a downtrodden populace but ended up in a totalitarian regime? Remember the transitions in history when power was transferred by upheaval and an uprooting of a current regime. Most of these went the way of being eventually centered on one person and ended up as dictatorships. This is the central premise of the book. The book was published in 1945 and is loosely based on the Soviet Union and its ways back then (When Stalin was in charge) – this was after 25 odd years of the October revolution that had brought the Communists to power and Stalin now had a vice-like grip on the nation. At the same time, the world had started to become disillusioned about the promises of the Soviet state since it had now become more of a personality cult and was hardly resembling of the idealistic society that had been once promised. The book reflects that disillusionment and was also ahead of its time because a clutch of nations in Asia and Africa became free post WW2 and there were great helmsmen around them who promised Utopia – most of them ended up as despotic misrules.
Back to the book, it starts with a farm called “Manor Farm” in England where Mr. Jones runs with an iron hand and the animals are starved, overworked, beaten and generally miserable. There is a revolutionary undercurrent in them stirred by the pigs that are the most intelligent of the lot and tend to take decisions for them. The leadership of this so called movement is with a poet-pig called Major who is old but idealistic and writes many inspiring words for the animals that inspire them towards an equal and free society. There are two smart young pigs under him – Snowball and Napolean who carry his words and are the real leaders of the animals. One day Major dies but leaves behind an inspiring song called “Beasts of England”. All animals know it by heart and sing it in private. Life is intolerable and one night it becomes even worse when the animals are underfed for two days and the men start beating them. All of a sudden, the animals revolt and kick the human beings out of the farm.
The animals then anoint the two pigs as their leaders and draw up a plan of an idealistic farm where everyone is equal, human beings are the enemies, no animal kills another, food is equally shared, there is time for leisure, old animals can retire and go to a pastoral space reserved for them etc. They write down seven commandments for themselves. Snowball is the more energetic and idealistic amongst them who takes a lot of “initiatives” for the good of the animals. Napolean is the quieter but sturdier of them and tends to debunk all that Snowball does. Napolean usurps power from Snowball one day and becomes the undisputed leader of Animal Farm (the animals have renamed it as that after the revolution).
The story then goes on to describe the degeneration that starts to happen as Napolean further tightens his grip on Animal Farm by breaking one commandment after another and becoming more human like in his behavior. The pigs become the ruling class and do no work but “think” all day and the lives of the animals are back to where they started from. All the while, they are kept happy under the illusion that even if life is hard, it is “their” farm that they are on and there is no other place like this anywhere. The book ends very poignantly with a scene where the oppressed animals are looking through the window of Napolean’s residence where he is having a party with the neighboring farm human beings after having struck a big deal and they cannot make out the difference between the humans and the pigs’ faces.
There are a few excellent characters in the book that you will always find in a despotic set up – the silent worker who tends to work harder and put in more effort not bothering about what goes on – this is a horse called Boxer who works the hardest on the farm and his motto is “I will work Harder”. Then there is Squealer who is the right hand of Napolean and transmits his messages to the animals, there is Benjamin the old donkey who has seen a lot in his life and is extremely cynical, his only response to the revolution when it happens is “Donkeys live a long time”. There is also the flock of sheep who only keep repeating “Four legs good, two legs bad” and Napolean always uses them to drown out his opponents’ speeches or just for propaganda.
It is an excellent, short book and with a lot lessons. What do we learn here – human nature is corruptible and concentrating too much power in someone else’s hands and trusting him completely is not very advisable. On the other side, as a leader one should always guard against becoming too smug, too self-righteous and avoid getting into the feeling of “It should happen because I THINK SO”. The slippery path to despotism begins from here and you can easily go from a “emulation-worthy” leader to being a “feared” leader. Finally, beware of anything that sounds too noble and being attributable to a single person because it invariably ends up being a personality cult – the person becomes the idea and the organization and all creativity ends.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." – Lord Acton
What has been the view of history on most of the revolutions started with a very noble idea that energized and unified a downtrodden populace but ended up in a totalitarian regime? Remember the transitions in history when power was transferred by upheaval and an uprooting of a current regime. Most of these went the way of being eventually centered on one person and ended up as dictatorships. This is the central premise of the book. The book was published in 1945 and is loosely based on the Soviet Union and its ways back then (When Stalin was in charge) – this was after 25 odd years of the October revolution that had brought the Communists to power and Stalin now had a vice-like grip on the nation. At the same time, the world had started to become disillusioned about the promises of the Soviet state since it had now become more of a personality cult and was hardly resembling of the idealistic society that had been once promised. The book reflects that disillusionment and was also ahead of its time because a clutch of nations in Asia and Africa became free post WW2 and there were great helmsmen around them who promised Utopia – most of them ended up as despotic misrules.
Back to the book, it starts with a farm called “Manor Farm” in England where Mr. Jones runs with an iron hand and the animals are starved, overworked, beaten and generally miserable. There is a revolutionary undercurrent in them stirred by the pigs that are the most intelligent of the lot and tend to take decisions for them. The leadership of this so called movement is with a poet-pig called Major who is old but idealistic and writes many inspiring words for the animals that inspire them towards an equal and free society. There are two smart young pigs under him – Snowball and Napolean who carry his words and are the real leaders of the animals. One day Major dies but leaves behind an inspiring song called “Beasts of England”. All animals know it by heart and sing it in private. Life is intolerable and one night it becomes even worse when the animals are underfed for two days and the men start beating them. All of a sudden, the animals revolt and kick the human beings out of the farm.
The animals then anoint the two pigs as their leaders and draw up a plan of an idealistic farm where everyone is equal, human beings are the enemies, no animal kills another, food is equally shared, there is time for leisure, old animals can retire and go to a pastoral space reserved for them etc. They write down seven commandments for themselves. Snowball is the more energetic and idealistic amongst them who takes a lot of “initiatives” for the good of the animals. Napolean is the quieter but sturdier of them and tends to debunk all that Snowball does. Napolean usurps power from Snowball one day and becomes the undisputed leader of Animal Farm (the animals have renamed it as that after the revolution).
The story then goes on to describe the degeneration that starts to happen as Napolean further tightens his grip on Animal Farm by breaking one commandment after another and becoming more human like in his behavior. The pigs become the ruling class and do no work but “think” all day and the lives of the animals are back to where they started from. All the while, they are kept happy under the illusion that even if life is hard, it is “their” farm that they are on and there is no other place like this anywhere. The book ends very poignantly with a scene where the oppressed animals are looking through the window of Napolean’s residence where he is having a party with the neighboring farm human beings after having struck a big deal and they cannot make out the difference between the humans and the pigs’ faces.
There are a few excellent characters in the book that you will always find in a despotic set up – the silent worker who tends to work harder and put in more effort not bothering about what goes on – this is a horse called Boxer who works the hardest on the farm and his motto is “I will work Harder”. Then there is Squealer who is the right hand of Napolean and transmits his messages to the animals, there is Benjamin the old donkey who has seen a lot in his life and is extremely cynical, his only response to the revolution when it happens is “Donkeys live a long time”. There is also the flock of sheep who only keep repeating “Four legs good, two legs bad” and Napolean always uses them to drown out his opponents’ speeches or just for propaganda.
It is an excellent, short book and with a lot lessons. What do we learn here – human nature is corruptible and concentrating too much power in someone else’s hands and trusting him completely is not very advisable. On the other side, as a leader one should always guard against becoming too smug, too self-righteous and avoid getting into the feeling of “It should happen because I THINK SO”. The slippery path to despotism begins from here and you can easily go from a “emulation-worthy” leader to being a “feared” leader. Finally, beware of anything that sounds too noble and being attributable to a single person because it invariably ends up being a personality cult – the person becomes the idea and the organization and all creativity ends.
Wide Angle - The Naked Ape
Let us digress a bit today and go to the basics of things – a look into the evolutionary world. This week I present a peer into a fabulous book that I read a while back but keep going to back to from time to time. This book has a lot of “a-ha” moments in terms of the explanation of the different behavioral and bodily facets of us i.e. human beings. The book is titled “The Naked Ape” and is written by Desmond Morris, a renowned zoologist. The book was first published in 1963 and was received with wide acclaim in the scientific world but universally horrified the religious and artistic world. He faced a lot of flak but the book and the ideas therein caught on and brought him such fame that he followed it up with a series of books prominent amongst them being “The Human Zoo” (a column coming on this book too). Why was it so disagreeable to the clergy and other folks? This was because he ripped away all the layers of mystique and higher purpose attached to the human being and only looked at the human being from a zoologist’s perspective i.e. like an animal. This clearly flows in from the topic i.e. he calls us “The Naked Ape” – why naked because of all the primates i.e. the ape and monkey family that we belong to, we are the only ones without a lush fur of hair i.e. from a zoologist’s view, the human animal is almost naked. There are other peculiarities that I will dwell on of the naked ape as we move further which are very specific to us and have developed out of evolutionary needs – I will only briefly touch upon them – you can read the book for details.
Before moving forward – a disclaimer – the book and what I write below may hurt religious or artistic sentiments – if so, I apologize and implore you not to read further – the column has been addressed to the assumed majority here – the educated, science-learnt folks who are receptive of the idea of evolution.
Origins
It is well established that the naked ape is a part of the primate family i.e. monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas etc. The basic premise of the book is that the naked ape; despite being a primate for centuries had to move out of his deep forests into the open land and compete with the specialized carnivores like lions, wolves etc. The naked ape evolved to handle this competition and developed peculiar traits that gave it such an edge and in a few centuries, got it the dominance of the world. Therefore the book compares the primate lifestyle and the carnivore lifestyle and then establishes the changes that we underwent to adapt to the carnivore world not just in our bodies, but in our life cycles, our sexuality, our feeding habits, our fighting habits etc. Let us first look at the two lifestyles: primate and carnivore.
Primate: These live in lush forests, where food is plentiful and readily available (fruits etc.), they climb and travel from tree to tree thus not being fast runners but good acrobats, they are part of huge groups where strict hierarchies work, there is no cooperation required amongst them so there is competition, the leader of the group is supreme, they eat a variety of food through the day since food is so easily available, they never have a fixed home base since it is not needed, they defecate anywhere since the feces always go out of sight, their nasal and auditory powers are not tremendous because its not needed but their vision is very well developed (to differentiate between different foods).
Carnivore (cat and dog family): These live in open areas and food is not so easily available i.e. it is to be hunted down, they travel great distances to hunt prey and hence are to have good physiques, ability to sprint is high, they have natural weapons, they have to cooperate with each other to hunt effectively hence no supreme leader exists, they always travel back to a home base, their feces are in front of them so they have evolved ways to dispose them, they go without food for long periods of time and when food is available, it is plentiful so they have to store and regurgitate food, they have excellent vision, sense of smell and sound.
Now the naked ape was happily living as a primate until he had to be forced out of the forests into the open (Garden of Eden and the expulsion anyone), there he had to compete with the big cats and dogs. We all know that the natural evolutionary response was developing intelligence which meant a bigger brain. We also know what we achieved with the bigger brain i.e. tools, fire, wheel, iron, copper etc. We also know that in terms of brain size vs body size our brains are the largest, in turn meaning larger heads. The female body just could not afford to have this big a head pass through during birth hence something called “Neoteny” came in.
Neoteny means the extension of birth time features late into life. To us it means that we are born with only 23% of the brain totally developed as against 75% for the chimpanzee (who attains full size in 6 months). Therefore our brain and body continues to develop till 22-23 – the time we become totally independent. Who would take care of this helpless, defenseless infant if the parents simply move on after birth like other primates? That is when the idea of pair bonding developed. It simply means a pair is formed encouraged by evolution between a male and female of the species and after birth, the pair bond becomes stronger for the sake of the infant. The cooperative societies and in turn kingdoms are just an extension of this idea. Pair bonding also means that the chances of female going around with other males when the male is out hunting (we are talking prehistory here) is reduced. Basically, evolution has worked ways (a lot of it is sexual but that you can read in the book, I wont write it here) to keep this bond together.
There are other changes in the naked ape due to adoption of the carnivore way – a cooperative group living and hunting (working now), feeding times spaced out like the carnivore, a fixed home base created to bring food back to and to rear progeny, specific socializing and sexual signals developed, specific responses developed for fighting etc.
I am hoping you get the basic idea of how the transformation took place and what it could entail for the naked ape when he adopted this hunting lifestyle. Of course, Desmond Morris explains it much better and in detail so go read the book. I am touching upon a few ideas that interested me to keep the write up short.
Rearing
Since the infant had to live with the mother for much longer, specific responses e.g. the smile, crying etc. were developed which was an equivalent of the clinging of the infant monkey to the mother. It is all a part of the security that the infant feels when the mother hugs him. An interesting observation made by him is about the nervous tick movements that we make in difficult situations or the rhythms that are a part of ancient or tribal music (e.g. drum beats) all link back to the heart beat that are so comforting, they transport us back to the time when we were in our mother’s womb and her big heart was thumping away above us (picture a speaker rocking from side to side before making a big speech, someone drumming fingers on a table etc.).
Feeding
This is the most interesting part. We all learnt to eat twice or thrice a day i.e. spaced out meals like the carnivore way. We also had to go around hunting for it i.e. the concept of working for a meal was imbibed into us. However, a closer look at us shows that we have not let go of the primate way – we do tend to munch through the day and most of that munching is of sweet stuff – chocolates, ice creams. What is this sweet tooth? It is the ancient primate urge that came from a diet of fruits. We also like to eat our food warm – some say this is a take from the carnivore habit where the prey is still warm when killed but Desmond says this may be because cooking and heating brings out more flavors from the food which we prefer because of our primate days.
Comfort
Have you noticed the monkeys sitting in a row once behind other grooming each other’s fur? That is the way of comforting the other and giving a sense of security and belongingness in the group. The naked ape equivalent of this is parties where a lot of social grooming happens, the end of the spectrum is us going to the doctor for minor ailments like cold, cough etc. and feeling better in a couple of days. It has been observed that people with anxiety, nervousness, and social fitment problems tend to catch more of these afflictions than happier people. This falling ill could be an extension of the need for comfort (which the doctor provides).
God
I would end this long discourse from an idea that is mentioned passing in the book but made a lot of sense. Morris asks about the concept of religion and why it has such a deep hold on us. The theory emanates out of our primate days when we were part of a group with hierarchies and a leader at the top who was the supreme leader. This was the most powerful ape that made all the decisions and we had to bow before him. We also could leave our cares to this ape. From time to time, this ape would be challenged and replaced but the seat remained. In our minds, this ancient urge to have a power above us who takes care of us, is omnipotent, omnipresent is quite strong and that is why we invented god. The next best thing to this was the king who sometimes claimed to be god. As everyone knows, religion is a structure built around God.
To end:
This is a very fleeting glimpse of the book and the ideas therein are Desmond Morris’s. The human being has developed out of a complex mix of circumstances and survival need into the formidable machine that it is. The book will answer a few questions from a zoological perspective of this supreme animal at the same time entertain you. Go read it; it will only expand your horizon.
Before moving forward – a disclaimer – the book and what I write below may hurt religious or artistic sentiments – if so, I apologize and implore you not to read further – the column has been addressed to the assumed majority here – the educated, science-learnt folks who are receptive of the idea of evolution.
Origins
It is well established that the naked ape is a part of the primate family i.e. monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas etc. The basic premise of the book is that the naked ape; despite being a primate for centuries had to move out of his deep forests into the open land and compete with the specialized carnivores like lions, wolves etc. The naked ape evolved to handle this competition and developed peculiar traits that gave it such an edge and in a few centuries, got it the dominance of the world. Therefore the book compares the primate lifestyle and the carnivore lifestyle and then establishes the changes that we underwent to adapt to the carnivore world not just in our bodies, but in our life cycles, our sexuality, our feeding habits, our fighting habits etc. Let us first look at the two lifestyles: primate and carnivore.
Primate: These live in lush forests, where food is plentiful and readily available (fruits etc.), they climb and travel from tree to tree thus not being fast runners but good acrobats, they are part of huge groups where strict hierarchies work, there is no cooperation required amongst them so there is competition, the leader of the group is supreme, they eat a variety of food through the day since food is so easily available, they never have a fixed home base since it is not needed, they defecate anywhere since the feces always go out of sight, their nasal and auditory powers are not tremendous because its not needed but their vision is very well developed (to differentiate between different foods).
Carnivore (cat and dog family): These live in open areas and food is not so easily available i.e. it is to be hunted down, they travel great distances to hunt prey and hence are to have good physiques, ability to sprint is high, they have natural weapons, they have to cooperate with each other to hunt effectively hence no supreme leader exists, they always travel back to a home base, their feces are in front of them so they have evolved ways to dispose them, they go without food for long periods of time and when food is available, it is plentiful so they have to store and regurgitate food, they have excellent vision, sense of smell and sound.
Now the naked ape was happily living as a primate until he had to be forced out of the forests into the open (Garden of Eden and the expulsion anyone), there he had to compete with the big cats and dogs. We all know that the natural evolutionary response was developing intelligence which meant a bigger brain. We also know what we achieved with the bigger brain i.e. tools, fire, wheel, iron, copper etc. We also know that in terms of brain size vs body size our brains are the largest, in turn meaning larger heads. The female body just could not afford to have this big a head pass through during birth hence something called “Neoteny” came in.
Neoteny means the extension of birth time features late into life. To us it means that we are born with only 23% of the brain totally developed as against 75% for the chimpanzee (who attains full size in 6 months). Therefore our brain and body continues to develop till 22-23 – the time we become totally independent. Who would take care of this helpless, defenseless infant if the parents simply move on after birth like other primates? That is when the idea of pair bonding developed. It simply means a pair is formed encouraged by evolution between a male and female of the species and after birth, the pair bond becomes stronger for the sake of the infant. The cooperative societies and in turn kingdoms are just an extension of this idea. Pair bonding also means that the chances of female going around with other males when the male is out hunting (we are talking prehistory here) is reduced. Basically, evolution has worked ways (a lot of it is sexual but that you can read in the book, I wont write it here) to keep this bond together.
There are other changes in the naked ape due to adoption of the carnivore way – a cooperative group living and hunting (working now), feeding times spaced out like the carnivore, a fixed home base created to bring food back to and to rear progeny, specific socializing and sexual signals developed, specific responses developed for fighting etc.
I am hoping you get the basic idea of how the transformation took place and what it could entail for the naked ape when he adopted this hunting lifestyle. Of course, Desmond Morris explains it much better and in detail so go read the book. I am touching upon a few ideas that interested me to keep the write up short.
Rearing
Since the infant had to live with the mother for much longer, specific responses e.g. the smile, crying etc. were developed which was an equivalent of the clinging of the infant monkey to the mother. It is all a part of the security that the infant feels when the mother hugs him. An interesting observation made by him is about the nervous tick movements that we make in difficult situations or the rhythms that are a part of ancient or tribal music (e.g. drum beats) all link back to the heart beat that are so comforting, they transport us back to the time when we were in our mother’s womb and her big heart was thumping away above us (picture a speaker rocking from side to side before making a big speech, someone drumming fingers on a table etc.).
Feeding
This is the most interesting part. We all learnt to eat twice or thrice a day i.e. spaced out meals like the carnivore way. We also had to go around hunting for it i.e. the concept of working for a meal was imbibed into us. However, a closer look at us shows that we have not let go of the primate way – we do tend to munch through the day and most of that munching is of sweet stuff – chocolates, ice creams. What is this sweet tooth? It is the ancient primate urge that came from a diet of fruits. We also like to eat our food warm – some say this is a take from the carnivore habit where the prey is still warm when killed but Desmond says this may be because cooking and heating brings out more flavors from the food which we prefer because of our primate days.
Comfort
Have you noticed the monkeys sitting in a row once behind other grooming each other’s fur? That is the way of comforting the other and giving a sense of security and belongingness in the group. The naked ape equivalent of this is parties where a lot of social grooming happens, the end of the spectrum is us going to the doctor for minor ailments like cold, cough etc. and feeling better in a couple of days. It has been observed that people with anxiety, nervousness, and social fitment problems tend to catch more of these afflictions than happier people. This falling ill could be an extension of the need for comfort (which the doctor provides).
God
I would end this long discourse from an idea that is mentioned passing in the book but made a lot of sense. Morris asks about the concept of religion and why it has such a deep hold on us. The theory emanates out of our primate days when we were part of a group with hierarchies and a leader at the top who was the supreme leader. This was the most powerful ape that made all the decisions and we had to bow before him. We also could leave our cares to this ape. From time to time, this ape would be challenged and replaced but the seat remained. In our minds, this ancient urge to have a power above us who takes care of us, is omnipotent, omnipresent is quite strong and that is why we invented god. The next best thing to this was the king who sometimes claimed to be god. As everyone knows, religion is a structure built around God.
To end:
This is a very fleeting glimpse of the book and the ideas therein are Desmond Morris’s. The human being has developed out of a complex mix of circumstances and survival need into the formidable machine that it is. The book will answer a few questions from a zoological perspective of this supreme animal at the same time entertain you. Go read it; it will only expand your horizon.
Best of Wide Angle series follows
I started writing this chain of mails every week inside the Infosys which became quite famous. Reproducing some of them here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
