It began simply as a reflection on original American Indian cultures. There are many aspects of their history and their old way of life that are impressive and relevant to bushcraft, and my thoughts process the other day was going over some of those 'old ways.' I live about ten minutes from an
epic memorial to the history of the land before my relatives got here. You can't drive very far through north Georgia without crossing over ridges, rivers, and roads named after old Cherokee words.
Frequently, the terms
bushcraft and
survival cross paths. There are some fine, legitimate differences that distinguish the two terms from each other, but being interested in both, I see a lot of common ground. Many bushcraft skills originated as means of survival. Many folks who are into survival are really practicing bushcraft until they are actually doing it to save their lives. The Cherokee were absolute experts on their environment here in this part of the southeast. They had succeeded in surviving to the point where their existence was not a pure quest for calories. They were able to pursue art, religion, education, medicine - marks of a developed culture. From my reading, I understand that they were not particularly violent. They did have conflicts with other surrounding tribes, and later with settlers, but they were not a raiding, warlike tribe.
It is my belief that most people are supportive of defensive warrior behavior. Like the Cherokee, nearly all of my friends support defending what belongs to you, whether it be property, possession, life, or family. Pretty standard stuff. That said, other tribes did not follow the Cherokee set of rules. Particularly the plains tribes engaged in frequent conflict for reasons that were logical, but not at all defensive. Their motivation was generally regarding territory, which allowed access to food and natural resources they needed. For a tribe to grow from dozens to hundreds, more resources needed to be immediately available to sustain a people with little trade ability. No one was giving those resources away, so they had to be taken.
Thinking beyond the Indians, you can see this model repeated over and over: Israelites, Greeks, Romans, Cossacks, Mongols, Vikings. In fact it seems few cultures were able to rise very far without walking over other people to get there.
So you have made it this far down my train of thought; we're getting to the point. Bushcraft aside, many folks who have an interest in survival find an interest in disaster preparedness, home defense, bugging out, urban or rural self reliance, and a very long list of other skills to prepare themselves for eventual societal collapse. After all, history tells us that societies don't last forever. Now, the actual point:
History and primitive people groups have repeatedly shown us that the warlike tribal model, while not inevitable, is an effective survival strategy. In it's simplest form, it multiplies the chances of surviving alone through defense and by pooling skills, labor, and resources. However, as I read, I rarely see people suggest that this [forming a group and taking what belongs to others by force when the time comes that you need it] is a morally allowable survival strategy. Why? Are we more moral now that people used to be?
I can see a few different reasons why this might not be a person's plan for survival:
- First, many people would have religious compunctions that would keep them from the behaviors that would go along with this. Interestingly, those restrictions should have also restrained the Spanish in South America during it's exploration, but failed to do so. Maybe the religious beliefs that had made sense in Spain no longer held their grip or seemed as important in the jungle on their own, where the rules were tribal rather than governmental.
- While they may not hold to a set of strict religious beliefs, many people also have a moral code that would also compel them not to harm others for their own survival.
- Some may simply not have thought of the option or possibility. If a collapse scenarios happens, history provides a pretty solid statement that gangs/tribes/clans will form.
So I am curious as to your thoughts. What would restrain you from 'going rogue' if the rules changed/disappeared all at once? What do you think makes this method of survival at another's expense wrong? Why have we as a general society rejected this philosophy when it was clearly acceptable, if not ideal, to most of our ancestors? If the country declined quickly and we were no longer all 'Americans,' but broke into local groups of 'North Texans' or 'South Oklahomans,' do you think this type of behavior would resurface?