Hey fam. Recently, I wrote a paper where I compared agricultural policies in 19th century India and Canada (sounds boring as hell to most people, I know) but hear me out. The plains tribes were considered lazy and incapable of farming by Europeans. They were thought to be completely uninterested in agriculture. And it is true that they traditionally hunted bison, however, in the 1850s the bison were nearly extinct and they knew they would have to turn to farming to survive. But the Canadian government did not grant them suitable equipment to farm and forced them on reserves, often on land that was not suitable to farm. In 19th century Punjab, many tribes that traditionally herded cattle were deemed criminal tribes by the British (including the sansi and pakhiwara people) and they were forced to take up farming on agricultural settlements but of course there was not actually enough land to sustain the people in these camps. Anyway, it shouldn't be taken for granted that both Punjab and Saskatchewan are "breadbasket" regions now.
So what does this random info have to do with "Utopia" by Thomas More? Utopia was written in the 16th century long before any of that stuff happened. But there are many parts in the book that reflect the belief that land is not being used property if it is not being used for agriculture. Consequently, people who do not farm are considered backwards or savage.
In the section titled "of their living and mutual conversation together,” the very cool traveller Raphael Hythloday who is big-brained and knows Ancient Greek tells us that each farm/family in Utopia can have a limited number of children. If you have more children than that, a neighouring farm with fewer children may adopt some. There are many cities in utopia, so if all the farms in a city are full, the next city can take them. And when all the cities are full, extremely bonkers stuff happens. I thought this was crazy. They will take over a nearby land and try to assimilate the people under their laws. Now read this:
"But if the inhabitants of that land will not dwell with them to be ordered by their laws, then they drive them out of their bounds which they have limited and appointed out for themselves, and if they resist and rebel, then they make war against them.”
They regard it as unjust that someone occupies land that they do not farm while others go hungry because they have no land to till, basically.
"For they count this the most just cause of war, when any people holdeth a piece of ground void and vacant to no good or profitable use, keeping others from the use and possession it which of notwithstanding by the laws of nature ought thereof to be nourished and relieved.”
That's bonkers right? Don't you guys think that’s bonkers? This is what some people may use as a moral justification for colonialism if they are thinking a little beyond the idea of "might makes right.” I don't think colonialism can be morally justified and I am very against its but I find it fascinating to study these kinds of arguments.
There is more. In the section called "Of warfare," hythloday gives us some reasons for when he thinks war is justified and based. These include defending yourself, defending your bros and liberating someone from a tyrant. But the utopians also recruit people from a different culture to be soldiers. They do not think there is anything wrong with this. The people are called the Zapoletes. Here are some descriptions of them:
• "they be hideous, savage and fierce, dwelling in the wild woods"
• "occupying no husbandry nor tillage of the ground.”
• "given unto no goodness, but only to the breeding and bringing up of cattle. The most part of their living is by hunting and stealing”
• “they be born only to war”
• "they maintain their life by seeking their death"
This literally sounds like how the British viewed the tribes of Punjab, down to thinking it was wrong for them to herd cattle instead of farm and thinking they were prone to stealing.
All the points about utopian society are in the second book of utopia. The first is about problems in England. Hythloday complains about rich noblemen who take up so much land for their sheep that commoners are left with no land to farm. This is of course a theme that is revisited in the second book.
The last thing I’m going to say even though I took way more notes and have way more stuff to yap about is that I still liked this book. I know I approached it with the aim of understanding ideologies that were used to justify colonialism (by the way, Raphael is fictional but it is said he sailed with Amerigo Vespucci!!!) but I do think it is important for people to read it for philosophical reasons and appreciate the good parts. I would be willing to hear a generous reading, and I also think it would be cool for someone to compare this to Plato’s republic.
Also, I am going through a phase right now. it is basically an early modern Utopian phase. Cavendish's “the blazing world" or Francis bacon’s new Atlantis is probably next. Or montaigne’s of cannibals. I have read the Tempest already and I have been obsessed with Gonzalo's idea of the commonwealth. Stay tuned for whatever happens to me as a result of this phase.