Humanity and the Impact of History in Anthropology: The Interconnectedness of History and Anthropology, and its Role in Colonization.

 

Humanity and the Impact of History in Anthropology: The Interconnectedness of History and Anthropology, and its Role in Colonization.

Would Anthropology even exist if Europe hadn’t colonized part of the world? To answer that question, it’s needed to look to History itself, analyzing the evolution of humanity and how we wrote and kept records of it. To understand history is the first step in comprehending anthropology as a discipline, to understand the way it appeared and how society first applied and what we expected out of that.

To study history is to understand how human society wrote their own actions and consequences. To study anthropology is to understand which society and why they took those actions and their implications collectively. It is extremely important to highlight concepts that will be framing this research, from; how society was built, to what is in fact history, and to what extent, different humans have different cultures, that shape differently their own history. It may be observed that if not through colonization, there wouldn’t be slavery, and even other races wouldn’t be considered different, and only versions of oneself, increasing the tolerance and respect of humanity.

To research the conditions in which Anthropology existed, and how it correlated to history itself, field research was done on the Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology, at Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States. The exhibitions visited were: “All The World is Here”, “Encounters in the Americas”, “Hall of the North American Indian”, and “Muchos Méxicos”. Those exhibits were chosen to take a closer look on the history told of colonized people, as well as the history of Anthropology itself.

In addition to this field research, an interview was made with a Historian, Ligia Fornazieri, Master of Social History by Unicamp in Brazil. The focus was around understanding History as a discipline and as movement, and how it impacted and was impacted human behavior, and eventually the rise of Anthropology. The initial topic was to ask the question “would anthropology exist without history?”. As well as to get a in depth perspective from a historian, several authors were observed as part of the research, as Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict, Edward Said, and Eric Hobsbawm, authors which own writings gave enough material and resources to better position and comprehend the disciplines, defining anthropology, bringing notions of culture and concepts build by occident, as well as reviewing history and its development.

Opening with History

“All human beings are conscious of the past (...) by virtue of living with people older than themselves.” On this statement, Eric Hobsbawm, European historian, makes it clear that people become aware of the past by sharing it to others, passing down events that took at a different time than the one they currently share with younger generations. Similarly, future generations, will only be aware of the past by living with the older generation, and eventually learn and hear from the past. Past that is, according to Hobsbawm, defined as “clearly is and must be a particular selection from the infinity of what is remembered or capable of being remembered.”

It is part of the human nature to gather, and in this gathering, there’s sharing. To share makes us more human, learning the same behavior that previous generations have learned, to survive initially and essentially. One important aspect to learn is to share what specific actions have brought specific consequences, and by doing so, one builds new behavior, by example and reference.

One thing is clear, humans have always been telling stories, and those stories became history. “Ever since humans are humans, they’ talk about their history. It’s part of human formation. There’s clear growth and learnings as history is told.” – According to Ligia – “This is inherent to human and social behavior. A clear example is how Greeks wrote on the Iliad, about Troy, to teach and learn about mistakes.”

More important than defining what is History, is to define what history is to humans and their societies and what anthropology is to history? History can be seen as a tool we have been using not simply to keep records as a huge catalog folder of events, but to learnings from specific people, in specific times, that on the collectively mind of a civilization is worth telling, to be either avoided, or repeated. History can be used to shape the future, depending on who tells and who listens.

Is Colonize to Survive?

The reason why is so important to understand history itself is to guard it properly in its place, removing the judgment of moral from it. One clear example is how history tells, and to some extent, accepts colonization as part of the evolution and development of human society. When there’s colonization, there’s not simply a war, there’s dominance, there’s appropriation, there’s imposition. To colonize is to explore and exploit, removing other’s own behaviors and history, in benefit of one’s own.

History tells of different civilizations, that are far older than Europe society that have had a series of advances in navigation, exploration, societal development, although had not executed colonization. “The idea of colonization is European. Indigenous people didn’t have that interest, Asian societies didn’t have the same notion of colonization. It’s part of the occidental civilization the idea of dominating and force its culture on others”, according to Ligia in interview. Could we conceive a world in which other civilization was a heavy colonizer, reshaping history and eventually anthropology?

If we look to Egypt, which its world-historical importance would take place, its own destiny was to be annexed to, Europe preferably, as described by Edward Said on his book Orientalism. This example not only shows the colonizing nature of Europe, but also, the way western history mainly tells this event. Egypt could as well, be able to conquer and colonize other lands and continents as much as the Ancient Europeans people. The fact that they haven’t, shows how was not part of their nature to do so. We see instead how Europe colonized it and often exhibit Egyptian’s artifacts, not as part of what they consider ordinary, but rather peculiar and exotic.

Looking specifically to the colonization of the Americas, we face similar scenario, where history shows, relatively advanced societies across what we now call Mesoamerica, that haven’t taken part in colonizing other people. Those societies had their own systems and customs, seen extremely different and unusual by Europeans when the Spaniards arrived to conquer, in search of wealth. There are cases in which the mission was to educate, and to present religion properly, showing the assumed correct god, all in European terms. There was no colonizing on the colonized terms.

Anthropology as Instrument

While History is inherent to human beings, as a need to understand itself as individuals, Anthropology is the discipline to study others and not oneself. It is important though to understand the terms in which Anthropology surfaced, with its origin in Europe. As defended by Franz Boas; in opposition that Anthropology is “often depicted as a collection of curious facts, telling about the peculiar appearance of exotic people and describing their strange customs and beliefs.” And instead, is “...a clear understanding of the principles of anthropology illuminates the social process of our own times and may show us, (...), what to do and what to avoid.” We bring it closer on how Anthropology is used, in addition to history, to teach about people and behaviors. The question is, which ones, and to teach what?

Although Boas, quite relevantly ponders on the Anthropology’s definition, is important to acknowledge and consider the aspects in which anthropology as discipline took into consideration the one and the others as subject of study. If we understand anthropology as the study of others, it might as well be considered that the reason on why the study of others became significant, was because there was another, in oppose to one. The only way to recognize the existence of others, is to get introduce to them. The interest of exploration was not to replicate for instance others’ learnings, but to enforce their own.

Ligia also stated that “Anthropology served as an instrument of colonization. Colonizers seeing native and different people and cultures, judged then as savages, and not civilized, according to their patterns of civilizations. In that context, anthropology might be as well, understood as a civilizing character.” What was considered civilized was only the Europeans standards, being everything else, religiously, customary, appearance wise, described as uncivilized people.

Colonialism was, in the name of bringing civilization and progress, to impose European culture in those different people. It might be as well considered that anthropology, was used to separate what was not equal, was not organized the same well European society was organized, and a mean to understand the differences, and not look for similarities. Putting societies as others, was a way also to justify doing to them, and to treat them not in the same way they would treat themselves. Finding means to justify their ends, and to outline institutionally the need of colonization. Nationalism is a concept that draws this line, and clearly puts people into different groups, by their linguistic and cultural characteristics, building the concept of differentiation, not only by the place they are born, but their customs and behavior.

Not Everything is Lost

Through those lenses, one may consider that Anthropology to a certain extent, more than a discipline to help one to understand others, to learn and grow, was the subtle way in which Europe could purposefully and peacefully present how exotic and peculiar other societies were, and why they needed the European advances, while making sure to collect whatever they were in need now. It’s clear that there’s no such thing as colonization in others perspective, unless being from Europe. They’ve institutionalized and made it a lifestyle, searching in other places and peoples, for products, and prizes.

What’s left then it’s the alternative of looking to the results of the history as it was and how anthropology also has constantly evolved with the history. History for the sake of history doesn’t exist. If humans don’t act, don’t change the status quo, there’s no history. There wouldn’t be different times, conditions, and circumstances. Humans act instinctively, to survive, and to give continuity to its own species. Although, as rational beings, we transform that in to live, and leave legacy, not only to exist, but to coexist and to build history. Ironically, coexist only among ones considered similar and equals, with same characteristics, same culture, and behavior.

Humans build their history through actions and consequences. Those ones are a reflex of their existence and their culture, as described by Ruth Benedict; “From the moment of his birth the customs into which he is born shape his experience and behaviour. By the time he can talk, he is a little creature of his culture....” The very aspects that build one’s society culture, are the aspects that drive historical changes. Big historical moments happen in the change of behavior, that change is motivated by people that being part of its own culture, or an outsider, looks to that and doesn’t agree, not acknowledging as the prevalence culture they want to see in the future.

Those historical changes, eventually change the way we perceive the past, building an intense, gigantic, and incredible circle that constantly spins and gives new perspective. Is that notion that Putnam and Boas vision on anthropology gives fuel, in a way that the discipline is not used to justify changes to another culture, but yes, to acknowledge the existence, and recognize the acceptance of innumerous customs, that were as written in history, seen as uncivilized, untolerable, and needed to be changed. The approach to which anthropology is then positioned, as way to not justify previous behaviors, now understood to be inadequate, is a lighthouse to guide the decolonization much needed in world’s societies.

It is difficult to respond how would something unfold if it wasn’t unfolded as it was. It’s a journey through a sea of realities and parallel alternatives that cannot exist in our reality. Each factor when looked individually to study its impact, cannot be removed to the circumstances in which those happened. It is possible to imagine adjusting and shape reality based on other possible outcomes, through different alternatives than the one known, to see if in fact there’s something potentially better out there.

On History itself, it’s hard to remove humans from the history and history from them. The count of time, brought systematically by different people, is human. Nature doesn’t count time and track history. They act by instinct and follow the direct impact of effects caused by time, such as seasons, and the very day and night effect by the orbit of Earth. The chronological recording of facts and events is how humanity build their history, filling it with stories, that intrinsically they share collectively. Would that history be any different, if human interest for other humans, didn’t exist? Is that interest truly about another human being, or about themselves? If telling our history shapes our behavior, what is our behavior if not the pure manifestation of reproducing similar or different actions, looking for the same or distinguished consequences? Would that be the very base in which Anthropology exists?

Against all odds, anthropology find its way, with an interesting perspective of understanding the other, quite differently than simply observing exotic and peculiar differences. Now it is a tool we can use to see not only why different people different behaviors have, but as well, why they have similar ones, and if it really matters though. Why humans want to study and understand the collective behavior of others different than themselves? Is it a search for justification to their actions? Is it an assurance of their own beliefs? Is hard not to see anthropology as this described civilizing tool, used by colonizers to justify their own actions in changing other societies’ behaviors, and unfortunately even deleting their culture in pro of a claimed civilized development. Ironically, we now use history and its sanctuaries, so called museums, to guard the reminiscent of unchangeable past, and inexistent reality, and future to former civilizations, civilized in their own ways.

In retrospect, would anthropology exist if Europe hadn’t colonized most nations of the world? In fact, might not even exist. Europeans wouldn’t look to native Americans, indigenous, Aztecs, Mayans for example and judge what they named exotic and peculiar, wanting to change those. There wouldn’t be this relatively interest and need to begin studying these different behaviors if there wasn’t as well this interest in eventually restructuring and judging those. People would be simply people, with different customs, and norms and organization, according to what their own history taught them, based on their own locales, geographies, climate, and environment. All those aspects shape our behavior as well, as much as history.

In conclusion, the outcome should be always aimed to be positive, and in understanding the reasons and motivations, we can look to history and apply the same rules of judgement, choosing to shape reality as possible in pro of humanity. Now the challenge is to look to Anthropology and to History, making sure to learn from the past, aiming to a better future, filled with not trying to understand different people and different culture, but to acknowledge and accept, learning from different stories as well. The question is, regardless of how Anthropology surfaced, is it being used properly?