|
The Mountain People | 
 enlarge | Author: Colin M. Turnbull
Publisher: Touchstone
Category: Book
List Price: $21.95
Buy Used: $1.87
You Save: $20.08 (91%)
New (28) Used (71) Collectible (3) from $1.87
Rating:  19 reviews
Sales Rank: 198931
Media: Paperback
Pages: 320
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.5
Dimensions (in): 8.2 x 5.8 x 0.8
ISBN: 0671640984
Dewey Decimal Number: 306.089965
EAN: 9780671640989
ASIN: 0671640984
Publication Date: July 2, 1987
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Clean, nice condition. Expedited orders placed before 3 PM EST ship the SAME DAY. Automatic Upgrade to Priority Mail shipping on U.S. orders over $40. Multiple books ordered from Look at a Book in a single checkout will help you reach the $40 threshold for your free Priority Mail Upgrade! Satisfaction Guaranteed!
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
In 'The Mountain People', Colin M. Turnbull, the celebrated author of the classic 'The Forest People', describes the dehumanization of the Ik, African tribesmen who in less than three generations have deteriorated from being once-prosperous hunters to scattered bands of hostile, starving people whose only goal is individual survival.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 14 more reviews...
 SOBERING & FRIGHTENING & SAD June 22, 2008
James B. Johnson (HUDSON, FL United States)
People become animals when society forces them to survive like animals in a hostile environment.
Turnbull is correct that the West is becoming what the Ik's became. And what they became are the worst sort of anarchists and survival of the meanest.
A CHILLING NARRATIVE December 29, 2006
Josef K
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
Colin Turnbull's "Mountain People" is a chilling narrative of cultural disintegration, the account of a once proud tribe of hunter-gatherers forced off their hunting grounds by misguided government policies. Turnbull only came into contact with the Ik long after the catastrophe had happened, and he only saw them at their worse. It is possible that what he saw affected his sanity. His recommendations at the end of the book are draconian at best, fascist at worse. There are parallels with Swift's "Modest Proposal" and Kurtz in Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" with his cry of "Exterminate all the brutes." Like Hunter K. Thompson in his Hells Angels book Turnbull got too close to his subject for his own good and suffered the consequence. Nonetheless, this is a powerful and courageous book and I can't agree with those who castigate the author as hypocritical or racist. For another side of Colin Turnbull I would recommend "The Forest People," a beautiful and deeply moving account of the Pygmies of the Congo Rain Forest written years before Turnbull's encounter with the Ik. Turnbull clearly loves the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and knows what a travesty any attempt to "civilize" these people is. Certainly the history of the Native Americans in our own country is full of examples of the same phenomenon.
The Most Important Book Ever Written About Human Nature In the 20th Century September 22, 2005
Justin M. Teerlinck
29 out of 30 found this review helpful
This anthropological classic is important on a number of levels. Leading by example, Turnbull provides a lesson for anthropology students about the bravery required to embraces one's biases, instead of just pretending they do not exist. On a deeper level, he chronicles the disintegration of a culture through starvation to reveal the human nature that underlies all cultures. He describes, through the story of one people, what all people are capable of in dire circumstances.
Many people would prefer to read ethnographic accounts where the anthropologist sugar coats their real opinions. Indeed, this is what the scientific community expects. In many cases, the ethnographic writer poisons their own writing that comes out of bad experiences by superimposing a fase, insincere gloss of respect and understanding on top of a culture that they clearly feel superior to.
Turnbull does not feel superior to the Ik, but he is bluntly honest with himself and his readers about his pessimistic outlook and his view that the remainder of the Ik culture should be disbanded. Readers have complained about Turnbull's "bias" when in fact they simply disagree with the conclusions he reached. Many readers' complaints betray vast ignorance about ethnographic fieldwork, anthropological research methods and accuse the author of hypocricy while practicing it themselves.
Indeed, some people imply that Turbull led a cushy life among the Ik because he eat (in private, hiding in his Land Rover) while the Ik starved for two years. What an evil, greedy man, say the critics. Why didn't he do something? Well, he DID do something. He brought their plight to the attention of the world. What was he supposed to do, starve to death along with them? That would have been a futile, empty gesture that served no one and nothing except the ego gratification of one person. Instead, he spent two long, lonely years living among and trying desperately to understand people who were dying, and who constantly attempted to manipulate him and kill him. In one instance, they attempted to push him off of a cliff. In many other instances, they laughed mercilessly when he seriously injured himself. They let lions take their children away to be eaten. No sane human being could ever realistically come to a pleasant, poltically correct middle ground of love and admiration under these circumstances. The fact that Turnbull did not shamelessly kow tow to these sorts of empty headed demands makes his account of the Ik one of the most authentic, humane ethnographies ever written. Just in case anyone thinks Colin Turnbull is incapable of admiring or respecting another culture, read The Forest People and then judge.
People who chide Turnbull for not "doing enough" do not understand that anthropologists are not U.N. aid workers. Anthropologists enter the field to do their best to learn from and understand another culture--not save it, destroy it or alter it in any fundamental way. If anthropologists intentionally set about doing any of those things, then they have ceased to perform real ethnographic fieldwork. Instead, once the anthropological mission is over, then the anthropologist can become an activist and aid worker on behalf of the culture that hosted them--and most do. The humanitarian credentials and compassionate intensions of most anthropologists are perpetually debased but those who make judgements based on ignorance, past stereotypes, and a desire to hurl cheap shots based on the state of the discipline fifty or more years ago. Granted there are still jerks and racists in the profession, but I haven't met any (after five years of being taught by anthropologists) and nobody I know who actually knows an anthropologist can say anything bad about any specific individual--even ardent critics of the disicipline. I think its finally time to put to rest the tiresome notion that most anthropologists are unfeeling representatives of cultural imperialism. Maybe a few are, but most are not.
As for the complaints about the last chapter in Turnbull's book, people are free to agree or disagree with his admittedly controversial conclusions about what ought to be done with the Ik, long term. I think his intension there was to begin an honest debate, not close the door on the subject. I have to wonder if the people who think Turnbull was suggesting destroying the Ik culture read the rest of the book. If you believe his observation, then it appears that there was nothing left of Ik culture. He suggested relocating individual people in an effort to save their lives even though their culture was lost. I don't think the Ik would have minded that, although a fair criticism is that Turnbull does not spend much time speculating about what they would want for themselves. But thats the whole point. The culture disintigrated to the point where there was no "they" anymore, just a bunch of individuals fighting against each other.
As for Turnbull's "bias" in the last chapter of the book, well...what do you expect from an essay that concludes and summarizes? Thats exactly what he does and he does it well, after demonstrating ample professional restraint in his observations throughout the rest of the book. I think people dislike the fact that Turnbull displays opinions that are not couched in the irrelevent, luke warm, uninsightful, psuedo-intellectual clap trap of conventional social scientific writing. The important thing is that Turnbull offers an intelligent, well-reasoned defense for his opinions and he clearly differentiates his opinions from his observations. So tell me then, where is the bias? If people disagree with Turnbull's conclusions thats okay but if they feel he never should have drawn any conclusions I would ask what the point was of doing the fieldwork in the first place if he wasn't supposed to think about it and have insights? Furthermore, Turnbull did something not even a tenth of a percent of Americans and Europeans will ever do in their lives: he spent two years living among, witnessing and trying to understand the experiences of starving, dying people. That alone is an act of bravery. Turnbull earned the right the come to any conclusions he made about the Ik more than any of us have earned the right to negatively judge him. Therefore, let any further disagreements proceed on intellectual grounds alone, and wisely leave character attacks out of the equasion.
This is a truly superior, thought provoking book that haunts me and resonantes with me years after reading it. Read it even if you think you will disagree.
A must read for conservationists. September 8, 2005
A conservation biologist (California)
5 out of 6 found this review helpful
In exposing the Ik situation Colin Turnbull documented the impacts of land use decisions on people who are left out of the decision making. To those of us who support conservation efforts it is an ethical touchstone.
I read this book and wept. It provides, through an on site, in depth study of the Ik, one of the clearest definitions of being human that I have ever read. It is horrible, beautiful and very frightening. It describes how fragile humanity is among human beings. It made me face that we are collectively responsible for maintaining the social contexts for being good people.
 Author's thesis as disturbing as the events described October 23, 2003
13 out of 16 found this review helpful
I'm surprised that the other reviews haven't been more critical of this book. Yes, it is captivating, the sort of book that engrosses you and that you can't wait to pick up again to continue reading. But its worth mentioning that in the end the author, an accomplished anthropologist, concludes that these Mountain People are worthless and should be forcibly disintegrated as a society. He finds them to have become basically inhuman, not as caring as animals, and recommends that the government launch a military style operation to forcibly remove them far away so that they can't return to their lands. And to break them into small groups of 10 or so individuals and purposely break up the family groupings and deposit them among people of other cultures (in Uganda), so that they will lose their language and culture and finally cease to exist. Since the government didn't like this idea, he hopes that the people's sheer isolation will cause them to die out forever.Now, its worth reading the book to see how someone can come to these conclusions, and he's got a decent argument. I don't disbelieve what the author saw, and I've spent years working in Africa myself. I know that people can be treacherous and deceitful, and had to accept that their moral system was not my own. I'm glad that Turnbull exposes just how nasty and awful to each other people can be. This is normally glossed, painted and plastered over when people write about Africa, and its refreshing to see someone really give an non-romanticized account of day to day life. But the author constantly passed judgements on the people in this book, something I try hard not to do because its important to see out of the boundaries of one's own cultural beliefs. What happened to scientific impartiality, and how can an anthropologist be so ready to judge this odd culture and deem them absolutely worthless and in need of anihilation? The conclusions voiced in the final chapter made me reexamine the views expressed throughout the book, and wonder about bias. The society and humanity of the Ik disintegrated as they were pushed into starvation, in large part because their traditional hunting grounds were turned into a national park and they were shut out. I'm not sure why the anthropologist didn't recommend (since the government asked) that they be given some limited subsistence hunting rights, or be integrated into the tourism economy, so that they would regain food security and possibly start changing for the better. In the end the most puzzling thing was the author's unhidden hostility toward the Ik--who do sound horrible, but this is no impartial anthropological work. It made me wonder about background and personal biases or agenda of Turnbull, who grew up and began his career in the days of colonialism.
|
|
|
SEO and Marketing TipsBETA RELEASE | |
