Lincoln didn't say it; D. Russell

ROUSAS J. RUSHDOONY INCREASINGLY, modern man has come to believe that he faces a serious problem in the near future because of the socalled popula tion explosion. The world, he is told, is running out of room and out of food for man, and, as a re sult, drastic measures may be nec essary in order to prevent dis aster. Before the question, "Does the world face overpopulation?" can be answered, another question must be faced: "What is overpop ulation ?" Perhaps the best answer to this latter question is that overpopu lation is an imbalance between the number of people living and their food supply, which results in hun ger and even famine because the available production of food can' not match the population's needs. In terms of this definition, it must be recognized that the world has had the problem of overpopulation several hundred times at least, and probably almost con sistently during much of its his tory. This ancient problem of overpopulation can best be under stood by a few illustrations, and first of all, its history in North America. North America had a continuing problem of overpopu lation before the coming of the white man. The Indian population was small, perhaps at most 250, 000 to 300,000, and perhaps even less than half that number. Nev ertheless, overpopulation was a continual problem, and it led to hunger, famine, and cannibalism.

The very word "cannibal" comes from the Americas. It is derived from the Spanish Canibales, which came from the Carib calina, galibi, literally, strong men, i.e., those , who practiced it. Both among the tribes contacted by Columbus and in the areas now a part of the United States, cannibalism was 1970 WHAT IS OVERPOPULATION? 99 fairly prevalent. Its purpose was certainly often religious and magi cal, but it was also clearly econ omical as well, often dictated by the shortage of food. Among some tribes, its magical use continued into the nineteenth century: From time immemorial the Skidi Pawnees had offered a human sacri fice to the morning star each spring in order to insure the success of their crops of corn, beans, and pumpkins. The victim was always a prisoner of war, and usually a pure young wom an. She was treated kindly by her captors and kept in ignorance of her fate until the morning she was led, painted from head to foot in sacred red and black colors, to a scaffold in the center of the village, tied to the crossbars, and, just as the morning star appeared in the sky, killed by a medicine arrow shot through her heart.!

This is clearly a case of human sacrifice; human sacrifice was often accompanied by a ritual act of cannibalism. But there also ex isted extensive cannibalism as a remedy for hunger. Indian canni balism is very little reported or studied. Older Indians who re called it were unwilling to discuss readily a subject which brought much disrepute to them. Modern writers, prone to a romantic view 1 John C. Ewers, Artists of the Old West. (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1965), p. 48. of the Indians, tend to mention it only in' passing and then to justify it by unfavorable references to cruelty in Western civilization. 2 Most general works give us only a brief, passing reference to such facts as this, concerning a South American people: "Some of the many bands of Tupian people bred their women to captives of war and raised the resultant children like veal calves for butchering."3 In most cases, however, cannibal ism for economic reasons was a last resort, although not an un common last resort.

Hungry Hunters Why were the Indians hungry, when they had the wealth of the Americas at their disposal? The answer is that their food supply was severely limited. A few ani mals, like the passenger pigeon, were seasonally plentiful, but they were not always available. Before the white man brought the horse and the gun to the Indians, buffalo were much more difficult to hunt, and smaller game was normally depended on. In forested areas, game was scarce. Living off the land is a poor way to live and 2 Oliver La Farge, A Pictorial History of the American Indian (New York: Crown Publishers, 1957), p. 56. 3 William Brandon, with Alvin M. J 0 sephy, Jr., The American Heritage Book of Indians (New York: American Her itage Publishing Co., 1961), p. 56.

100 THE FREEMAN February makes only a marginal and pre carious existence possible.' It was rarely done by white men.· The fur trappers went into the wilderness with food and equipment as their capital: a grubstake made survival possible. Settlers moved out in large groups, with at least two years' income as capital, to clear, plant, and develop the soil. As the settlers developed the soil, the nearby game increased, because the food supply increased. Game drew close to settlements and mul tiplied, and Indians drew close to settlers to get the game as well as the settlers' produce and animals. The coming of the white man in creased the food supply, because the white man developed the earth. 4 Here is the key to the problem. The total Indian population in North America was not greater than many an average-sized American city, and yet the Indi4 See James C. Malin, The Grassland of North America: Prolomena to Its His tory, pp. 138-140, Lawrence, Kansas, 1947; and Malin, "The Grassland of North America: its Occupancy and the Challenge of Continuous Reappraisals,"

p. 10, Background Paper No. 19, prepared for the Wenner-Gren Foundation Inter national Symposium, "Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth," Prince ton Inn, Princeton, New Jersey, June 16-22, 1955. See also Marquis de Chastel lex, Travels in North America in the Years 1780, 1781, and 1782, vol. I, p. 79f., Chapel Hill: University of North Caro lina Press, 1963. ans were unable to produce enough food to avoid famine. Some coun ties in California today produce more food than perhaps the In dians of North, South, and Central America ever saw in a year. For hunting tribes, famine was a nor mal thing. From the Abnaki of Maine through the Micmac of Nova Scotia and the Montagnais and Naskapi of Quebec and Labrador, hunger was increas ingly a part of life and legend, in di rect proportion as farming dwindled and hunting became the only gainful occupation. Even in a country teem ing, as the saying goes, with game, the chase is bound to be a shaky pro vider, there being nothing stable about a supply of wild meat. 5 Agriculture, then, was a preven tative to famine, but it was not a certain preventative. Repeatedly, the farming peoples of Europe have undergone famine. Thus, in England alone, during the thir teenth century, hunger and fam ine struck in 1203, 1209, 1224, 1235, 1239, 1243, 1257, 1258, 1271, 1286, 1289, 1294, 1295, and 1298.

In 1258, for example, it was re ported that the poor ate the bark of trees, and horseflesh, and that 20,000 starved in London, which was the report also for 1235. In 1239, we are told that people ate their children, and 1286, a 23 years' famine began, with the 5 Brandon, Ope cit., p. 175.

1970 WHAT IS OVERPOPULATION? 101 years cited above being simply the severest years. 6 The Plymouth colony in New England faced famine immedi ately as a result of its farming. The cause for this is stated can didly by Bradford: it was the so cialistic system of farming which created the famine: At length, after much debate of things, the Govr (with the advice of the cheefest among them) gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne particuler, and in that regard trust to them selves; in all other things to goe on in the generall way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcell of land, ac cording to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no devission for in heritance) , and ranged all boys and youths under some famillie. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted then other waise would have bene by any means the Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into the feild, and tooke their little-ones with 6 E. Parmalee Prentice, Hunger and History, the Influence of Hunger on Hu man History (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, 1951), p. 6f. See also Prentice, Farming for Famine (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran, 1936), p. 7f. Prentice's data comes from Cornelius Walford, The Famines of the World: Past and Present, March 19, 1878, Journal of the Royal Sta tistical Society, vol. 41, p. 433; vol. 42, p.79.

them to set corne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and oppression. The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos and other ancients, applauded by some of later times; - that the tak ing away of propertie and bringing in communitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and florish ing; as if they were wiser than God. For this communitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much con fusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte. 7 The problem at Plymouth Plan tation was thus a restrictive form of farming, one imposed from London, which undercut initiative and production. Basic to sound farming, therefore, is freedom from statist controls. As Montes quieu observed, "Countries are not cultivated in proportion to their fertility, but to their liberty."8 Famine Was Normal Not nature but man is the ma jor cause of famine. Natural dis asters such as storms, droughts, 7 William T. Davis, editor, Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation, 1606 1646 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1908), p. 146f.

8 Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, Bk. xviii, ch. 3.