Poplatch, USA; M. Bradfield

POTLATCH, U.S.A. t'! marcelineBraJfielJ CUSTOMS OF EXOTIC PEOPLES often strike us as strange. Imbued as we are with our own culture, it is difficult for us to visualize the significance of foreign practices to the group who hold them quite natural. This frequently re sults in our standing off uncomprehendingly and won dering to ourselves, "Now, why on earth would anyone want to do a thing like that?" As an illustration, let us examine a ceremony of the Tlingit and Kwakiutl Indians, which was called the potlatch. The aboriginals of the Pacific Northwest were a hunting-gathering group united by linguistic similar ity and clanship relations. They fished for salmon each spring, drying the catch to last till next season. Game animals were plentiful, and life was not an uninterrupted battle for survival. Indeed, there remained time for blanket-weaving, fur-dressing, carving, and the making of copper shields in surplus quantities. One might sup pose that the Kwakiutls and Tlingits would have used this surplus wealth to create more wealth or leisure for Marceline Bradfield, a Registered Nurse, housewife, mother of three children, landlady, and small investor, also finds time to pur sue graduate studies in Cultural Geography at Los Angeles State College.

413 414 MARCELINE BRADFIELD themselves by trading with neighboring tribes. However, such was not the case. They created the abundance merely to destroy it or give it away! The key to the Kwaki utl-Tlingi t cuI ture was prestige and social position. The clans expended great amounts of time and energy in amassing stores of weal th and food. Rivalry between clans and heads of clans was acute. At a certain appointed time a chief would invite an other head of a clan to a potlatch. For a chief to refuse the invitation would have meant ridicule and loss of rank. The host presented the guests, the entire visiting clan, with great gifts of food and goods to humiliate them-the more extravagant the gifts, the more mordant the shame. Huge piles of blankets were burned one at a time. Pelt after pelt of furs were added to the flames. Vast sheaves of cedar bark were rendered to ashes. Stack upon stack of copper shields were shattered to the ground.

The only recourse open to the vanquished guests was to return the invitation and outdo the giving and the de struction by the former host. It does not require much thought to realize that, con sidering the bounty of nature was a rather fixed quan tity, someone was bound to bankrupt his entire clan sooner or later, and, unable to give away more, go down in utter degradation. "Now, why on earth would anyone want to do a thing like that?" Let us substitute more familiar terminology and tech niques for Kwakiutl-Tlingit, and re-examine the de scription: POTLATCH, U.S.A. 415 A ceremony of the Americans is called the give-away. The inhabitants of the U.S.A. are a highly-developed in dustrial society united by linguistic similarity and broad cultural ties. Both industry and agriculture are highly productive, so that life is not an uninterrupted battle for survival. Indeed, there remains time for production of farm produce, consumer goods, and luxury items in surplus quantities. One might suppose that the Americans would use this surplus wealth to create more wealth and leisure for themselves by trading with neighboring na tions. Such is, in part, the case, but they also create the abundance merely to destroy it or give it away!

World-wide Give-away The key to the American culture is prestige and social position. The nation expends great amounts of time and energy in amassing stores of wealth and food. Rivalry between America and its allies on the one hand, and a Sino-Soviet group of allies on the other, is acute. At various times a chief of state from still another group of nations, known as underdeveloped nations, figuratively invites both rival groups to a give-away. For either to refuse the invitation would mean ridicule and loss of rank. The difference between potlatch and give-away now becomes apparent: the "host" now becomes the recipient, while the "guests" each vie for the honor of presenting him with the most extravagant gifts. The Western clan presents the "host" with great gifts of food, money, and 416 MARCELINE BRADFIELD goods to humiliate the Eurasian clan-the more lavish the gift, the more mordant the shame. Huge piles of grain are allowed to rot one at a time. Ton after ton of butter is added to the decay. Vast sheaves of banknotes are poured down bottomless abysses of foreign aid. Stack upon stack of foreign loans is allowed to lapse. The Eu rasian group gives the appearance of lavishing its aid upon the underdeveloped clan, too. Actually, the Soviets never really release their presents, but hold strings to them, concealed or unconcealed. Morever, the Eastern clan has not been so well blessed by a propitious com bination of geographic, demographic, and historical fac tors as to have superabundant goods and food. They do not, therefore, practice destruction of the fruits of their own labor. On the contrary, they are concerned with in creasing the weal th of their own economic system.

Creating Enemies When one give-away is completed (though there really is no one give-away-only an unending series), the "guests" do not return the invitations to the "host." They have only to progress down a revolving list of pro spective "hosts," each time each "guest" trying to out prestige the other by winning favor from the "host" and humiliation for the rival. It never seems to dawn on the Western clan that their give-away often backfires, win ning favor for the rival and humiliation for the "host." For, although the recipient himself requested aid, he suf fers excruciating embarrassment from having accepted POTLATCH, U.S.A. 417 harity. Nothing wears so thin, so fast, as gratitude thafed by pride. Thus, the American clan, intending to elcourage friendship with the underdeveloped nations, Sf cceeds merely in creating enmity. It does not require much thought to realize that, con sidering the bounty of economics is a rather fixed quan tity, one chief is bound to bankrupt his entire clan SO,1)uer or later, and, unable to give away more, go down in utter degradation-especially when the rival chief is holding out half the deck up his sleeve in the game.

"Now, why on earth would anyone want to do a thing like that?" Greatness Through Abundance The Tlingits and Kwakiutls would understand: the man who makes beggars of himself and all his people is the greatest chief of all. The validity of this cultural concept is proven by the great renown which these In dians achieved. Hardly anyone outside of academic an thropology has ever heard of them! The .great nations of history did not succeed to that greatness by distributing their wealth or charring it to clouds of dust and smoke. Their greatness came from the ability to accumulate wealth. Any renowned empire -Inca, Egyptian, or Roman-became great by gathering up-hoarding if you will-wealth. This fact was not lost upon our forefathers. They fought and struggled and saved painstakingly for wealth. And they built up a great nation.

418 MARCELINE BRADFIELD Nor has this theory been lost upon the leaders of the Soviet Union and Communist China. They, too, are fully aware that they must amass capital goods before they can reach and surpass us. That is the reason they keep tight rein on their "foreign aid," and why they en courage our big give-aways. They hope we will pass them -going in the wrong direction! It is frequently next to impossible to detach ourselves from our own culture long enough to evaluate it ob jectively. But comparison of our theories and practices with those of others can serve to clarify persistently foggy perspectives. Or is it still obscure that we are abandon ing our former ideals of greatness through abundance, and embracing the ridiculous practice of winning great ness by losing everything.