The
Yanomamo people are generally closely related to others in their tribe. If they
lose someone in their tribe, it effects them deeply. They are then expected to
take revenge on the tribe they believe caused the death of their kinsmen. If
they don't take revenge, then the whole tribe is seen as weak and is often
raided more often by other tribes who take their resources. In Western
cultures, we typically don't or aren't expected to take blood revenge. Instead,
Western cultures tend to rely on the legal system, like police officers who
arrest the individual(s) who killed someone, the lawyers who prosecute them,
and the prison system that houses convicted murderers.
For the
Yaanomamo people, revenge killings often happen shortly after the loss of one
of their kinsmen. A group of men will get together and go to the village of the
offending tribe, often a 4-5 day walk from their own village. Despite the fact
that the individual tribesmen will build effigies of the person from the
offending tribe that they want to kill, they often kill the first man they come
across from the offending tribe, then retreat as quickly as they can back to
their own village before the victim is discovered by his own tribe.
Those
who become unokais tend to be more powerful in the Yanomamo tribes. They tend
to be seen as strong individuals who tend to get more wives and more power. The
unokais who have killed the most tend to become tribal leaders with big
families. And unokais tend to have more wives than non-unokais, thus producing
more offspring and having larger families. And the bigger your immediate
family, the more resources you are able to obtain. Even young male children are
encouraged to be more aggressive.
The
Yanomamo people can become leaders of a tribe if they take part in many revenge
killings. Socially, this is seen as a sign of strength, thus making the man who
takes revenge more often than others is respected by his tribesmen. And since
most people in a tribe are closely related, in general, any lose of one
particular person can be felt by the tribe as a whole. Thus the leaders tend to
determine if a raid will happen. And the stronger you are perceived to be, the
more successful you are generally going to be, attracting more wives to
yourself than someone who never goes on raids or takes part in blood revenge.
If laws
are not created to protect citizens against being killed, then it seems killing
becomes an acceptable means of revenge, despite the fact that killing is wrong
(and perhaps, in some cases, despite the fact that there's no proof). In the
Yanomamo culture, it doesn't even seem like revenge is exacted on the
perpetrator of the crime, but rather on the tribe who harbors the perpetrator
of the crime. It seems that killing is more random and revenge is taken out on
whoever the revenging party comes across first. This is not protecting the
innocent from the dangers associated with murder as a crime.
In general, good post and good coverage of all points.
ReplyDeleteIn your last paragraph, I'm not sure you addressed the question at hand. Do we have laws against behaviors no one should want to do? Or do we have laws to protect against behaviors similar to those seen in the Yanomamo, which are more instinctual and do provide a benefit to those who take part in them?
Whoops, my last paragraph didn't really answer the question at all. I believe that laws in our society were created in reaction to someone having perpetrated a crime that no one should want to do. I think laws against murdering someone were enacted not because people don't want to murder, but because we believe murder is wrong despite people's actions.
DeleteThe first thing I thought of when I read your last paragraph is how our government assumes someone is innocent until proven guilty. And clearly the Yanomano culture does not view only the person who did the killing as guilty, but instead puts the "bad deed" on everyone who is associated with him. This also makes me think of the scene in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace where Anakin goes and kills a whole tribe of Sand People because of what they had done to his mother. Obviously the women and children had nothing to do with the capture of his mother and yet he killed them because of their association.
ReplyDeleteI was also thinking when reading your post how we think people are innocent until proven guilty. When in fact things can be laid out red handed that people are guilty but yet until a group of people and a judge say guilty they are not. I think that making any one associated with the person that did a crime is a bad person is wrong. I think just because one person does something does not mean that anyone who is close to them has anything to do with it.
ReplyDelete