Since the earliest times the way of communicating has been gestural and verbal. If there was only a way of communicating gestural, we do not know it, nor are we able to describe the transition from gestural to oral communication. For example, the chin of the Neanderthal man was not suitable for articulating words as we do, yet no one could argue that he did not speak.
The language of gestures may appear more primitive than that of the word because with it you cannot express very sophisticated abstract concepts, but this does not mean that for centuries and centuries human beings have expressed themselves only by gestures. Moreover, if the use of the word had been consequential to that of the gesture, we would only speak today. Instead we know that a gesture is sometimes much more eloquent than a thousand words.
Furthermore, it is all to be shown that the enormous use of abstract concepts that we do today with words is in itself an indication of humanity’s progress. The word removed the immediacy of the gesture, making human relationships more fragile (because they are more convoluted). So much so that to recover simplicity and spontaneity young people devote a lot to music. Probably the same overestimation of the word, compared to the gesture, was a consequence of the loss of naturalness in human life.
In the most remote antiquity the first ways of communicating that we know were the following: tracing marks on the ground, making particular knots with bark reduced to twine (quipu writing system), drawing graffiti on cave walls, using the tam-tam or other natural means (shell trumpets, animal horns, smoke signals …) or artificial means (pimples, drums, gongs …).
The sound was heard and retransmitted from one point to another in the area. Many of these ways of communicating still exist today; others have been transformed only in forms (see eg graffiti).
The aim was simply to give information and news on the various events of the day, but also to be able to work together or to transmit the knowledge learned, or even to more easily master the object represented (in the Jewish myth of creation is found this is when Adam decides to name all the animals). Over time, for these purposes, it will be added that of being able to deceive the enemy tribe or an individual of the same tribe.
What always amazed the white man, when he came into contact with the primitive tribes he tried to colonize, was not only the speed of their information, but also the fact that they were able to transmit quite complex concepts in relation to the simplicity of the means used.
On the Luzon island of the Philippines, for example, it was discovered that with some variation in human screams, a tribe of negritos could convey messages of this type: “Where are you?”, “What’s going on?”, “Of what do you need? “,” Come here “; “Be careful”, “You were good”, etc.
Where hostile tribes existed, communication could only be entrusted to wayfarers or messengers (spoken information). In the Gauls, in the time of Caesar, a decree forbade the wayfarer to tell what he had seen and heard in the countries he crossed, unless he was first consulted by the magistrate.
When the news was urgent, the messenger had to run, and if the path was very long, he had to use the horse. The postal service was born precisely with the use of the horse: the first regular service on a fixed route was that of 1691, between London and Dover. The post stations with the change of horses become a real news sorting center. The first English newspapers were born thanks to these stations.
Another way of transmitting the news, before modern technological means arose, was that of racing pigeons, whose great sense of orientation had been discovered. Short messages rolled up in a compass were tied to the pigeon’s paw, which traveled at a speed of 80 km / h. In 1835 Charles Havas, for his information agency, managed to cover the 380 km that separate Paris from London in 6-7 hours.
COMMUNICATION AND COMMUNICATION
We live in an age of great communication, yet this does not advance humanity as one should expect. More than anything else, communication serves to bribe the masses, to put consciences to sleep, to spread the liberal ideologies of economic potentates, certainly not to listen to the needs of the oppressed. It is a one-way communication, from the strongest to the weakest.
If we say that the weak “responds” when he gives answers that conform to our expectations, we must also ask ourselves if this attitude of ours is not “communication” but “propaganda”, that is, the monochordic diffusion of a single creed: that in the West it is the liberal one, which then is not so “liberal”, since every form of liberalism today is contradicted by the logic of monopoly (concentration of production and centralization of capital).
It is right to expect an answer in line with your expectations, but if this response is slow in coming, what should be the attitude? True democracy occurs not when “yes” is said but when “no” is said. The rate of democracy of any subject or entity can occur to the extent that it is capable of respecting the “no”. If the expectation is right, the answer will not be long in coming. But if you are late in coming, you have to ask yourself where you went wrong.
Our speaking (of us Westerners) is a repetition of empty words, which have no constructive meaning for the Third World. The same meanings that we Westerners give to fundamental questions of law, which in our opinion should guarantee democracy, appear, in the eyes of the oppressed peoples, as a completely formal thing and in open contradiction with real life.
The West is a mystifier of reality by virtue of swampy words, refined expressions of principle on respect for human, civil and political rights. The West does exactly the opposite of what it says.