Every economics textbook says the same thing: Money was invented to
replace onerous and complicated barter systems—to relieve ancient people
from having to haul their goods to market. The problem with this
version of history? There’s not a shred of evidence to support it.
Here
anthropologist David Graeber presents a stunning reversal of
conventional wisdom. He shows that for more than 5,000 years, since the
beginnings of the first agrarian empires, humans have used elaborate
credit systems to buy and sell goods—that is, long before the invention
of coins or cash. It is in this era, Graeber argues, that we also first
encounter a society divided into debtors and creditors.
Graeber
shows that arguments about debt and debt forgiveness have been at the
center of political debates from Italy to China, as well as sparking
innumerable insurrections. He also brilliantly demonstrates that the
language of the ancient works of law and religion (words like “guilt,”
“sin,” and “redemption”) derive in large part from ancient debates about
debt, and shape even our most basic ideas of right and wrong. We are
still fighting these battles today without knowing it.
Debt: The First 5,000 Years is
a fascinating chronicle of this little known history—as well as how it
has defined human history, and what it means for the credit crisis of
the present day and the future of our economy.
The powerful and hard-hitting documentary, American
Holocaust, is quite possibly the only film that reveals the link between
the Nazi holocaust, which claimed at least 6 million Jews, and the
American Holocaust which claimed, according to conservative estimates,
19 million Indigenous People.
It is seldom noted anywhere in fact, be it in textbooks or on the
internet, that Hitler studied America’s “Indian policy”, and used it as a
model for what he termed “the final solution.”
He wasn’t the only one either. It’s not explicitly mentioned in the
film, but it’s well known that members of the National Party government
in South Africa studied “the American approach” before they introduced
the system of racial apartheid, which lasted from 1948 to 1994. Other
fascist regimes, for instance, in South and Central America, studied the
same policy.
Noted even less frequently, Canada’s “Aboriginal policy” was also
closely examined for its psychological properties. America always took
the more ‘wide-open’ approach, for example, by decimating the Buffalo to
get rid of a primary food source, by introducing pox blankets, and by
giving $1 rewards to settlers in return for scalps of Indigenous Men,
women, and children, among many, many other horrendous acts. Canada, on
the other hand, was more bureaucratic about it. They used what I like to
call “the gentleman’s touch”, because instead of extinguishment, Canada
sought to “remove the Indian from the Man” and the Women and the Child,
through a long-term, and very specific program of internal breakdown
and replacement - call it “assimilation”. America had it’s own
assimilation program, but Canada was far more technical about it.
Perhaps these points would have been more closely examined in American
Holocaust if the film had been completed. The film’s director, Joanelle Romero, says she’s been turned down from all sources of funding since
she began putting it together in 1995.
Perhaps it’s just not “good business” to invest in something that tells
so much truth? In any event, Romero produced a shortened, 29-minute
version of the film in 2001, with the hope of encouraging new funders so
she could complete American Holocaust. Eight years on, Romero is still
looking for funds.
American Holocaust may never become the 90-minute documentary Romero
hoped to create, to help expose the most substantial act of genocide
that the world has ever seen… one that continues even as you read these
words. - John Ahni Schertow
Sam HamiltonIf
you live in NYC and have to look at Jeff Koons works everywhere then
this is the natural conclusion you might draw. I would hesitate to say
that's a bit blinkered though. I think it's possible, if not pretty
vital for artists to called themselves artists
while not wanting to be lap dogs for the 1%. if we let them those fucks
will gobble up everything they can at which point there'll be nothing
left. I would suggest to the author that they move out of of New York
cause there are still plenty of people making art, making communities,
making friends and contributing to a mutually inclusive society rather
than the horrors they're describing. it's like food... if your eating
shit, don't blame food, blame your dietary choices.
Wells TaoIt's
a nice metaphor, art as food but I guess for me that idea misses the
reality I'm interested in. But to continue with the metaphor, organic
food from NZ, ever bought that in NY? Good idea, great infrastructure,
good for everyone, but who can afford
it? Now move out of NY live say, Nelson NZ, who can afford local
organic food? Me? Nope. (yes we grow our own, but did I make my point?)
The sacrifice it takes for a non 1 percenter to 'eat well' has me asking
why continue the delusion thinking you can compete with "those fucks
will gobble up everything". Other wise aren't you just working to keep
their franchise sign "art" / "organic food" above your labor?
Sam Hamiltonnot
that I disagree with much of the article - there's alot of things wrong
that desperately need addressing - school art programs, equal
representation of woman in art museums; totally %100 with that of
course.
Sam HamiltonI
was in NYC last november for work and was using the opportunity to
figure out whether I wanted to move there and I quickly decided that
that was a bad idea - for numerous reasons - but idea i developed from
that time that I'd like to maybe think about more is the idea of artists boycotting entire cities. If
you ask me, I think that city is totally dead. it's no longer actually
generating any culture itself but imports it, relying on a steady stream
of young enthusiastic kids from smaller towns who've got youthful drive
to move to a bugger city in search of bigger opportunities who move
there, work to hard to actually grow and develop and form any cultural
social fabric, burn out and move away.
Wells Taoyeah
I think the reasons people moved to big cities have been nulled perhaps
by the internet, but as factories, they continue to drag net fresh meat
to feed to the surviving mechanisms. It's still a podium and while it
may not have the grass roots it will
always be able to sell the dream of it's existence... meanwhile, during
that cycle of delusion small town life goes missing, leadership not
developed exploitation given another layer of insulation.
Sam Hamiltoneventually
it'll become a dead, over priced museum of itself and young artists
will no longer want to live there - but how could that be expedited?
cities like NYC rely heavily on their cultural identity. the French of
on occasion done it right by having mass strikes in the performing arts
industry. It's a pipe dream, but I've love to see something similar
happen in the US - god knows NYC needs it bad.
Wells TaoI'm
pretty sure post Guillani, and the great clean out, NY has been just
that a museum. And yes museums our public institutions and what's left
of them are the place to stage protests. Occupy was the flash of
brilliance that is still growing. My instinct
though is saying let it be called art, by others, but don't your self
give your power back to that old deity. It's gone, the harness has
materialised and is found wanting.
Sam Hamiltonp.s.
are you following the socialist Occupy woman who's know rocking it in
the Seattle council?. some great things are happening in Washington
State at the moment - Seattle being the fasted growing city in the US
today makes it an interesting hotbed of politics to - incredible new
governance movements mixed with massive growing housing problems similar
to Auckland.
Sam Hamiltonas
for art; in the one hand I agree on just letting it go; if it becomes
so heavy with excess baggage that its beginning to slow down our
evolution into the future, then be rid of it. But theres another hand
that's saying something else, that's more ready
to put up a fight to protect what I think is important and truly
valuable about it. I don't know. The art world is of course going to be
full of shitty shitty shit, egos, money, bad politics and hierarchies;
but then speaking as someone who's made art and engaged with communities
around it for 15 years so, I can empirically say that that is only a
part of it, and a part that it's actually not that hard to navigate
around and avoid if you want to. If you want to interview dealers, look
at Jeff Koons work or sit in Bentlies sitting champagne and soak up all
the ugliness represented by arts sinister corners, the fine - but don't
go fucking everyone elses buzz who - although might at points be forced
to engage in capitalistic culture (which is pretty hard to avoid. just
buying a simple banana entails a horrific footprint in terms of societal
impact) but are otherwise not sitting in bentleys, not siting
champagne, not making jeff koon works but who are - excuse the
imperfections - working hard, figuring shit out, hanging out, thinking
and living. Allthough I'd love to sell some art and make some money so
that I don't have to deal with the ups and downs of being utterly broke,
scared and worried; I've only actually sold a single art work in the
last decade despite making alot of it. if I wanted to, i could have make
more commercially viable works, or spent more time pimping myself in
the scene, networking and commodifying my identity, but hey, that's not
why I like art and make it and struggle with it and fight for it.
Wells Taoi
think if you'v only sold one art work in a decade but "make a lot of
work" I think it would be a great idea to consider that what you've been
doing has left art. I'm at a similar point in someways, 'engaged with
communities around 'it' for 15 years' and
my thinking at the mo is, well looking at art, I keep wanting to get
paid for what I've been doing for free. By graduating from that master, I
still make in many ways the same work but don't look for pay off in the
same place. And that is significant. Shifts everything, capitalism or
no capitalism.
Sam Hamiltoni'm
a bit of the opposite mentality that having sold practically nothing
but having made alot of work that has been appreciated by people is a
stronger qualifier
Wells Tao"Allthough
I'd love to sell some art and make some money so that I don't have to
deal with the ups and downs of being utterly broke," - quote Sam Hamilton
Sam Hamiltonperhaps
what would have been better was to say I'd love to just get paid so i
can freely make my art without monetary constraints. I'd rather get paid
for simply being a breathing membe of society
Sam Hamiltonactually
I do say that alot in regards to conversations about potential future
economic models. particularly those that investigate the potential for
Basic Universal Wages
Wells TaoI
don't see how anyone gets to participate in art and not evoke the myths
that are tied to priveledge and power of the historical and
contemporary 1%. That will always continue and like capitalism is part
of the air we breathe. However, there is the opportunity of dropping off
the lanugage map, and creating new tangents. This doesn't happen when
'art' swallows all such activites under it's myth.
Sam Hamiltonthats
cool but I would perhaps say it would be resourcefully pretty intense
and monumentally adventurous to have to construct new languages every
time there is an attack on our existing one. saying that you cant see
how anyone can participate in art without
evoking the myths that are tied to the %1 etc sounds crazy if not super
unfair - try telling some kid that while their drawing a picture, or
someone enjoying a sunset.
Sam HamiltonI
agree language can be a force of conservative restriction upon any form
of growth that requires constant struggle - and definitely needs people
stepping beyond the boundaries of it's mapped terrain - but i see that
as expanding the map in order to obtain
a wider, and more thorough and knowledgeable picture of that language,
not a denial of it. jin the same way we record history, that map is not
fixed but pliable - fix it rather than discard it.
Wells TaoI
think art is unfair. It is brutal hierarchical, selfish etc.. and full
of beauty, the beautiful etc.. there's no fixing art, in my opinion,
it's not broke. Working better than ever. I love the hugeness and
popularity of the art world it is changing things.
There is also a huge return of the medievil like guilds and class
divisions that unsurprisingly are positioned to cap and drain potential.
It is this capture that I am attempting to articulate when I desire to
remove art from the top of the evolutionary triangle, and see it more of
in the middle, a pupae, neither a live or dead, it's very
transformation process caught determined by a system that as Greenberg
once famously put it, "repudiate(s) revolutionary as well as bourgeois
politics". There's no reason that 'art' can't be put to work for other
uses, as it sounds like you've been doing. Only I feel it is time that
this be called what it is, it is the art of something and no longer,
just art. Be it the art of propaganda as I identify with, under my new
title as a community conceptualist or some other invention, The point is
invention.
Wells Taoleaving
art is a lot like leaving NY. The reality wakes me up to the creative
task at hand. It's certainly not about fulfilling the outlines already
set