Talk:Cargo cult

Justin Kunimune (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Your original version The term originally described cults where followers imitated the actions of military personnel, like flag-raising, marching and drilling, in the belief that it would bring them shipments of Western goods or money (the "cargo").} was incorrect. The book chapter "The Birth of the Cargo Cult" freely accessible on JSTOR gives a good introduction to how the term was coined. Norris Mervyn Bird's original 1945 Pacific Island Monthly letter (which is extensively quoted in the book chapter) does not mention imitating actions of Western colonists as a central element of cargo cults, though believing that ancestors were responsible for the creation of cargo is clearly mentioned. German missionary Georg Höltker, writing a year later in 1946, gives the following definition of "cargo cult" (as quoted in The Birth of the Cargo Cult):

This movement is usually set going by the ecstatic dream of a native "prophet." He claims that some ancestors appeared to him and commanded him to announce the coming of the "golden age." Everyone is supposed to trust his promises as an essential condition of accumulating wealth without much effort. All natives, he promises, will be like their white masters, dressed in European clothes, living in concrete palaces, etc.... All white men, missionaries and government officials will be expelled. Strong sexual tendencies, convulsions, hallucinations and fits are the usual outward signs of being obsessed by the spirit of an ancestor.

Here, we see that cargo isn't explicitly mentioned at all, and that prophetic figures spouting apocalyptic millenarianism are instead the central element of the definition. In summary, the idea that "imitating military/colonist actions" was central to the original definition of "cargo cult" is unfounded.

That said, your new version is better, and I am somewhat open to it. The problem is that trying to rigorously define "cargo cult" is like trying to wrestle with a greased piglet, it's inherently slippery. If we're taking the "original definition" of Cargo cult to be Bird's 1945 letter, then it's not clear that "cataclysm" is the appropriate word given that he doesn't mention this. I think something like The term originally described religious movements that foretold followers would imminently receive an abundance of (often Western) food and goods (the "cargo") brought by their ancestors. would be acceptable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

My perspective is that the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph is already somewhat WP:UNDUE relative to prominence in the body of this article and relative to the sources. It's a strange undermine of the article, in my view. "Here's an article about cargo cults but keep in mind that some people think this didn't really happen" (or some other, vaguer, criticism than "didn't really happen"). I also don't think it's supported by the cited source. In earlier versions of the lead the 2nd paragraph had "cargo cult" in scare quotes as well. I just don't think it makes sense to veer around between describing cargo cults and hyper-critical discussion of "so-called "cargo cults" (if they even occurred)".

Anyway, on your specific proposed edit, I might suggest reducing the repetition between these two parts: religious movements that fortold an imminent cataclysm in which followers would receive an abundance of food and goods and movements typically (but not universally) including features such as: charismatic prophet figures foretelling the end of the world and/or a coming utopia for followers (a worldview known as millenarianism);, predictions by these prophets of the return of dead ancestors or other powerful beings bringing the cargo.

I like how in your version you wrote the belief that ancestral spirits were responsible for the creation of the cargo, that's more clear compared to the current often under the belief that ancestral spirits were responsible for their creation 👍

My main issue would be that I don't think it's good to increase the prominence of that last sentence. The sentence doesn't really make sense in the first place. What does it mean to challenge the suitability of the term for the movements associated with it? It seems circular to me: "We don't think those movements you call 'cargo cults' were really cargo cults"? This doesn't make sense unless you have some kind of definition of cargo cult that you think didn't really happen. But that definition is left unsaid / implied in the criticism. In my opinion it's shoddy writing, it would be better to say what specific attribute of cargo cults is actually disputed by modern anthropologists. But I don't think the cited sources actually really do this, at most they support the idea that certain parts of the pattern were more or less common (e.g. worshipping ancestors was near-universal, praying for cargo was near-universal. However imitating the colonists was indeed common, but, not anywhere near as universal as the earlier attributes).

Like, to be clear, I would LOVE to be able to write in this article a clear statement to disambiguate the situation, something like: It's a common misconception that cargo cults usually built mock airplanes; actually that only happened one time across hundreds of cargo cults but sadly this is WP:SYNTH and we don't have a WP:RS that clearly says that.

Secondly, I would take issue with framing it as an article about "the term" cargo cults. The term originally described religious movements that ... is just a bit too far towards WP:ISATERMFOR, how about we instead write something much more straightforward, like just Cargo cults were religious movements that ... It's a difficult balance where on the one hand the article is supposed to be about the phenomenon and not about the term, but on the other hand it's hard to simply write a useful and accessible article without veering into a meta description of "cargo cult"-the-term. So it's WP:ISATERMFOR versus WP:IAR I suppose.

Other than those tweaks (slight repetition, increases prominence of dubious sentence, writes about the term rather than the thing) I think it's totally reasonable to rewrite the lead along the lines of what you have here 👍 Leijurv (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Thank you both for the feedback. I think Hemiauchenia's suggestion to remove "cataclysm" from the second sentence makes sense, and it reduces the repetition that Leijurv mentioned.

As for the last sentence from paragraph 2, it seems to me (based on the sources currently cited in the article) that a lot of current scholarship focuses on deconstructing the term, so I think it's worth mentioning that in the first paragraph. But you're right that, as it's written, it's very vague. What if we shorten and reword it to more specifically critique the breadth and pejorative connotation of the term (those seem to be the two main concerns Lindstrom mentions)? There's room to give more specificity in the body as well, but that can come later.

I'm amenable to Leijurv's removal of "the term" as well, but I know that declaring a definition too forcefully has been a contentious point here in the past. Personally I think it's reasonable to spend some time discussing the term itself since a lot of the sources, as well as sections 1 and 6 of the article, are about the term. The main point I wanted to communicate is that that was the original definition but not all movements now called cargo cults fit it exactly. Maybe The first documented cargo cults were ... would do that more directly?

What do you think of this version?

Cargo cults were spiritual and political movements that arose among indigenous Melanesians following Western colonisation of the region in the late 19th century. The first documented cargo cults were religious movements that fortold followers would imminently receive an abundance of (often Western) food and goods (the "cargo") brought by their ancestors.^{[1] :11[2] :83,90[3]} The term has been applied to a wide diveristy of movements typically (but not universally) including features such as: charismatic prophet figures foretelling a coming cataclysm and/or utopia for followers (a worldview known as millenarianism);^{[4] [2]} predictions by these prophets of the return of dead ancestors or other powerful beings bringing the cargo;^[1] the belief that ancestral spirits were responsible for the creation of the cargo;^[4] and the instruction by these prophets to followers to fulfill the prophecy by either reviving ancestral traditions or adopting new rituals, such as ecstatic dancing or imitating the actions of colonists and military personnel, like flag-raising, marching and drilling.^[4] Use of the term has begun to decay in anthropological scholarship on the basis that it bundles together too wide a diversity of movements^[4] and is too pejorative.^[5]

Anthropologists have described cargo cults as rooted in pre-existing aspects of Melanesian society, as a reaction to colonial oppression and inequality disrupting traditional village life, or both.^{[2] :85[4]} Groups labeled as cargo cults were subject to a considerable number of anthropological publications from the late 1940s to the 1960s. After Melanesian countries gained political independence, few new groups matching the term have emerged since the 1970s, with some surviving cargo cult groups transitioning into indigenous churches and political movements.^[4] The term has largely fallen out of favour and is now seldom used among anthropologists, though its use as a metaphor (in the sense of engaging in ritual action to obtain material goods) is widespread outside of anthropology in popular commentary and critique,^[6] based on stereotypes of cargo cultists as "primitive and confused people who use irrational means to pursue rational ends".^[7]

Justin Kunimune (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Sure, I would agree that the sources do support 1. the idea that cargo cults were very diverse in beliefs and practices 2. the idea that modern anthropologists avoid using the term directly due to its connotations being negative. Putting it in the very first paragraph, well, I don't love it, but assuming you two both agree, it's a reasonable compromise and I appreciate the edit.

For The first documented cargo cults were, thanks I think that's better. For The term has been applied to, I don't love it. I would say that section 1 of the article talks about definitions a lot, for sure, but largely the content is describing / characterizing the phenomenon itself. Section 6, as a metaphor, is certainly talking about "cargo cult" the term, I'd agree there no doubt. My point for section 1 is that, with the exception of the Vailala Madness comparison, you could rewrite it to not be about terms or definitions but rather characterizations and frequent attributes. For example The term "cargo cult" first appeared in print -> Cargo cults were first described in print, Peter Lawrence described the term as follows -> Peter Lawrence described the phenomenon as follows, etc. Whereas in Section 6 we aren't talking at all about what happened in Melanesia, rather we are talking on a meta level about how people apply "cargo cult" as a metaphor. Anyway, my point is that, when you read the cited sources, e.g. the fourth source as described in the body Martha Macintyre gave the following elements as what she considered characteristic of cargo cults, the sources are describing what kinds of things usually happened in cargo cults, not talking about the term. Let me give you an example: The Lindstrom source says 'Cargo cult' quickly spread through Australian academia and beyond as anthropologists and journalists borrowed the term to label almost any sort of organised ... This is definitely talking about the term, and if we had more sources like this, I'd support your phrasing, because it would accurately describe a term being used overly broadly. But most of the sources don't take that perspective. Rather, they are more "mundane" and less "meta", which I think is aligned with the current phrasing Typically (but not universally) cargo cults included

While we're here, so to speak, how about also changing in the late 19th century to in the early 20th century? The cargo cults that are discussed in the sources are overwhelmingly in the 1900s, and the ones in the 1800s are rare, so if I had to pick a single timeframe as a "headliner" for the article I'd certainly pick 1900s. Or maybe some phrasing in between like:the region in the 19th and 20th centuries. I don't feel strongly though, the phrasing isn't really wrong it just a bit misleading, makes the reader think this largely happened in the 1800s.

Small tweaks: fortold -> foretold, diveristy -> diversity, begun to decay -> begun to decline or just declined

Thanks! Leijurv (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

You make a good point about section 1. It's phrased in a very is-a-term-for way, but I see what you mean that it and most of the sources are still really about the concept. What about something more like Cargo cults have a wide diversity of beliefs and practices, but typically ..., then? And thanks for catching those typos.

@Hemiauchenia, what do you think of this version (citations omitted)?

Cargo cults were spiritual and political movements that arose among indigenous Melanesians following Western colonisation of the region in the early 20th century. The first documented cargo cults were religious movements that foretold followers would imminently receive an abundance of (often Western) food and goods (the "cargo") brought by their ancestors. Cargo cults have a wide diversity of beliefs and practices, but typically (though not universally) include: charismatic prophet figures foretelling a coming cataclysm or utopia for followers (a worldview known as millenarianism); predictions by these prophets of the return of dead ancestors or other powerful beings bringing the cargo; the belief that ancestral spirits were responsible for the creation of the cargo; and the instruction by these prophets to followers to fulfill the prophecy by either reviving ancestral traditions or adopting new rituals, such as ecstatic dancing or imitating the actions of colonists and military personnel, like flag-raising, marching and drilling. Use of the term has declined in anthropological scholarship on the basis that it bundles together too wide a diversity of movements and is too pejorative.

Anthropologists have described cargo cults as rooted in pre-existing aspects of Melanesian society, as a reaction to colonial oppression and inequality disrupting traditional village life, or both. Groups labeled as cargo cults were subject to a considerable number of anthropological publications from the late 1940s to the 1960s. After Melanesian countries gained political independence, few new groups matching the term have emerged since the 1970s, with some surviving cargo cult groups transitioning into indigenous churches and political movements. The term has largely fallen out of favour and is now seldom used among anthropologists, though its use as a metaphor (in the sense of engaging in ritual action to obtain material goods) is widespread outside of anthropology in popular commentary and critique, based on stereotypes of cargo cultists as "primitive and confused people who use irrational means to pursue rational ends".

Justin Kunimune (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Looks great to me 👍 Leijurv (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and add it to the article, then. You two should feel free to make further edits, but I'm satisfied with this. Justin Kunimune (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC) Reply