Avatar

[bush_cheney2004]

So you are quoting from one book from 1996 as an example of "complete history?" Come on now, who are you trying to fool? You need to be a little more "complete" than that.

If you want a complete history, you will never find one. Ever heard of an "oral history" ?

Nevertheless, Keeley's examples are second hand reports of inferences that are based on an intperpretation of evidence that is formed through a particular worldview. Does Keeley also speculate about the possibility that the village suffered a major outbreak of a deadly epidemic disease and to contain the disease it was burned to the ground and the deceased were placed in a mass grave after some unknown morturary ritual?

Bullshit...stop making excuses for the obvious...from Mohawk to Maya. Pre-Columbian cultures and interactions were just as complex and violent as ours, with fierce competition for resources and bloody religious practices.

Probably not eh? Because that wouldn't fit his theory of violence among 'before civilized' peoples. Some of the memorable quotes from that passage are "seems" and "appear" and "if so." These are hardly the words of a "complete history" and more than slightly dishonest.

Bullshit²

[bush_cheney2004]

Absurd, Dick. People are not flocking to this movie because they think its message will save the world. They're flocking to this movie to see COOL SH*T in 3D.

...some are getting ill from the experience...fun!

If an anti-corporate message was all it took to get liberals to spend money, I think "Capitalism: A Love Story" might have grossed more.

Michael Moore is not living on food stamps just yet.

[Michael Hardner]

So how did you get the "more unpredictable and unmitigated" from the above passage when the violence in the New Guinea Highlands appears to be arranged and regulated according to custom and culture? Did you mean to use the words 'predictable' and 'mitigated' instead and it was just a typo?

It was more from my memory of passages from the book, which didn't provide the same amount of detail, but spoke generally of vendettas that would come up.

there is no evidence of the scale of violence in North America as associated with that of a similar population in Europe.

Yes, that is a restatement of what I said.

Perhaps you might want to expand your reading material a little more.

You know me, I'm always looking to learn.

Here's what I'm saying:

1) Tribal life included more violence than we experience today.

2) There's no evidence that any culture has more violent tendencies, however it stands to reason that an objective system of justice mitigates disputes, and reduces the opportunities for vendetta, revenge killings and cycle of violent.

Now... wiki me ! Change my mind...

[bush_cheney2004]

Here's what I'm saying:

1) Tribal life included more violence than we experience today.

2) There's no evidence that any culture has more violent tendencies, however it stands to reason that an objective system of justice mitigates disputes, and reduces the opportunities for vendetta, revenge killings and cycle of violent.

Yep...quite reasonable assertions given what we know (and don't know). For some reason, it is very important for some people to reduce Mesoamerican and later cultures to a monolithic model of peace and harmony, when nothing could be further from the truth. To do so is insulting to the oral histories and rich (sometimes bloody) dynamics of such cultures in the Americas. It's a pathetic effort to demonize Europe or modernity for a very narrow agenda.

[Michael Hardner]

Yep...quite reasonable assertions given what we know (and don't know). For some reason, it is very important for some people to reduce Mesoamerican and later cultures to a monolithic model of peace and harmony, when nothing could be further from the truth. To do so is insulting to the oral histories and rich (sometimes bloody) dynamics of such cultures in the Americas. It's a pathetic effort to demonize Europe or modernity for a very narrow agenda.

It's a tricky thing to say that tribal life vs post-industrial life is "better or worse" compares apples and oranges, and it wrong to do on a number of levels, yet we can all see the value of agreed-upon systems to address justice.

And, yes, there are always those who want to demonize the familiar demons - corporations, white people, religion and the like.

[ToadBrother]

I can get CGI in a video game, wherein the poor physics, shading, textures, and scale are to be forgiven. The best laugh (as noted by August1991) is the huge corporate windfall from all the rubes who think the "beautiful message" will save the world.

That's like saying "I can make movies on my cellphone..."

Either you didn't see the same movie I did, or you're blind, either physically or because you don't want to open your eyes. Screw the story line (which wasn't exactly anything special anyways). Even the motion capture technology is light years ahead of anything done before. Look at, say, Polar Express from just three or four years ago and look at Avatar. It's a whole different ballgame.

[ToadBrother]

Yep...quite reasonable assertions given what we know (and don't know). For some reason, it is very important for some people to reduce Mesoamerican and later cultures to a monolithic model of peace and harmony, when nothing could be further from the truth. To do so is insulting to the oral histories and rich (sometimes bloody) dynamics of such cultures in the Americas. It's a pathetic effort to demonize Europe or modernity for a very narrow agenda.

It's not so much demonizing modernity or Europe, but a demonstration that our high ideals didn't always apply and still don't apply. If there were a country on Earth that had some sort of unobtainium, and they didn't want to sell it, you can be damned sure, one way or the other, the powers that be would get at it. That is human nature.

But the treatment of the Incas, in particular, was horrific. Unlike the Aztecs, where there was support from neighboring Indian populations, the Pizarros basically lied their way in, made any promise they could, betrayed the Inca at every opportunity, and for no other particular reason than to seize as much gold as they could get their hands on. Pizarro should be as reviled as Hitler.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's a tricky thing to say that tribal life vs post-industrial life is "better or worse" compares apples and oranges, and it wrong to do on a number of levels, yet we can all see the value of agreed-upon systems to address justice.

OK...but there really is no need to judge either out of the context that created such cultural behaviors. At a minimun, the facts that can be gathered based on physical evidence should rise above such silly moral judgement(s).

[ToadBrother]

OK...but there really is no need to judge either out of the context that created such cultural behaviors. At a minimun, the facts that can be gathered based on physical evidence should rise above such silly moral judgement(s).

Well, we're too far down the road to do anything about the past. The question is, if confronted with a similar situation in the future, what would we do?

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, we're too far down the road to do anything about the past. The question is, if confronted with a similar situation in the future, what would we do?

Simple....we would kill each other. Anybody who believes otherwise is very naive.

[bush_cheney2004]

...But the treatment of the Incas, in particular, was horrific. Unlike the Aztecs, where there was support from neighboring Indian populations, the Pizarros basically lied their way in, made any promise they could, betrayed the Inca at every opportunity, and for no other particular reason than to seize as much gold as they could get their hands on. Pizarro should be as reviled as Hitler.

So what? We still had a "Hitler" centuries later....and he wanted art and gold as well. Hell, modern governments are still "lying" to indigenous people around the world.

[blueblood]

Absurd, Dick. People are not flocking to this movie because they think its message will save the world. They're flocking to this movie to see COOL SH*T in 3D.

Your half right, it's cool sh*t in 3D directed by James Cameron. I see this film as being marketed as both a "visual epic" and "a James Cameron film"

I don't know if people would want to see "Capitalism a love story" in 3D, just because its not cool in this day and age. Which I think is too bad, but I am just one person.

What I would pay to see is Michael Moore and Kevin O'Leary debate capitalism and socialism in a movie shot in 3D. That would be epic.

[GostHacked]

So what? We still had a "Hitler" centuries later....and he wanted art and gold as well. Hell, modern governments are still "lying" to indigenous people around the world.

Well, at least you understand the basic premise of the movie.

[Shwa]

If you want a complete history, you will never find one. Ever heard of an "oral history"?

The "complete history" was your phrase not mine. Let me refresh:

...please update this story to include the complete history of pre-Columbian American invasions, greed, slavery, human sacrifice, etc.

Maybe you ought to be more careful with your words. Or think before you write. Or both.

I am very aware of indigenous oral history and the remarkable fact is that throughout the huge body of indigenous myth there is very little evidence of the sort of violence and mayhem that was customary in "Pre-Columbian" Europe which is evidenced by several sources of study including libraries of written texts.

Bullshit...stop making excuses for the obvious...from Mohawk to Maya. Pre-Columbian cultures and interactions were just as complex and violent as ours, with fierce competition for resources and bloody religious practices.

Not even close - even with your meagre evidence. There were wars and conflicts for sure, but nothing on the scale that Europeans waged on each other. Heck, there isn't any evidence of anything close to what they did to each other during the various religious Inquisitions. Which is interesting since the contemporaries of that time ascribed the same savage behavior to some of the unfriendly indigenous people they met in the new world. What a coincidence.

Bullshit2

Now you are just whining.

[bush_cheney2004]

The "complete history" was your phrase not mine. Let me refresh:

Correct...and you provided nothing in that regard.

I am very aware of indigenous oral history and the remarkable fact is that throughout the huge body of indigenous myth there is very little evidence of the sort of violence and mayhem that was customary in "Pre-Columbian" Europe which is evidenced by several sources of study including libraries of written texts.

So if it's not recorded it didn't happen, right...brilliant!

Not even close - even with your meagre evidence. There were wars and conflicts for sure, but nothing on the scale that Europeans waged on each other. Heck, there isn't any evidence of anything close to what they did to each other during the various religious Inquisitions. Which is interesting since the contemporaries of that time ascribed the same savage behavior to some of the unfriendly indigenous people they met in the new world. What a coincidence.

That's because it was....thank you for shooting yourself in the foot. Ouch!

Now you are just whining.

No, I am going to rip out the beating heart of a senior citizen and eat it for lunch instead.

[Shwa]

Correct...and you provided nothing in that regard.

Incorrect. You (not so) artfully dodged a question about interpretations of archaeological evidence. The onus is on you and all you have is one-liners. How convenient for you. But good for me.

So if it's not recorded it didn't happen, right...brilliant!

You are the one that raised the concept of evidence through oral history. I know enough about indigenous oral texts to realize that the evidence of the scale savagry known to Europeans was unknown in the indigenous oral texts that have survived to modern times. This doesn't mean it didn't or couldn't have happened, just that from what we know, there is no comprehensive evidence of it happening in pre-columbian times. Combined with scant anthropological evidence - which is always open to interpretation - there is nothing to indicate that the indigenous people in North America experienced anything like the violence that was prevalent in Europe.

That's because it was....thank you for shooting yourself in the foot. Ouch!

So you must suffer from premature articulation. I already asked you a question about culturally centric interpretations of archaeological data which you conveniently stepped around. I extended that into the early historical records composed by the conteporaries of the culture of the religious Inquisitions in Europe? Did you miss that? Or conveniently step around it again. Inelegant and dishonest. Ouch.

No, I am going to rip out the beating heart of a senior citizen and eat it for lunch instead.

That would make sense given your lack of debating skills. Probably easier on your conscience too.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Shwa

[bush_cheney2004]

Incorrect. You (not so) artfully dodged a question about interpretations of archaeological evidence. The onus is on you and all you have is one-liners. How convenient for you. But good for me.

Nonsense...I provided one of many references from an expert in the field...you provided...bullpuckey about a mass grave with skulls that miraculously "scalped" themselves.

Combined with scant anthropological evidence - which is always open to interpretation - there is nothing to indicate that the indigenous people in North America experienced anything like the violence that was prevalent in Europe.

In other words, you don't know and reject the published conclusions of those far more knowledgeable than you....natch.

So you must suffer from premature articulation. I already asked you a question about culturally centric interpretations of archaeological data which you conveniently stepped around. I extended that into the early historical records composed by the conteporaries of the culture of the religious Inquisitions in Europe? Did you miss that? Or conveniently step around it again. Inelegant and dishonest. Ouch.

Completely consistent with cultures throughout history...you are not scoring any logical points. For some reason, you think this a pissing contest over body counts when it's not. Oh.....those bad bad white people!

That would make sense given your lack of debating skills. Probably easier on your conscience too.

But I am only following the history of the Maya or Inca. LOL!

Edited January 14, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Shwa]

1) Tribal life included more violence than we experience today.

2) There's no evidence that any culture has more violent tendencies, however it stands to reason that an objective system of justice mitigates disputes, and reduces the opportunities for vendetta, revenge killings and cycle of violent.

1. Too many dependencies. For instance, who is "we" and what "tribal life" are we talking about? How do we fairly measure violence, and according to what cultural standard?

2. How does one measure 'violent tendencies?" By the amount of wars, death counts, crime statistics? By the requirement for justice systems as institutions? How about the level of militarization?

I think the Greeks wrote about the violent tendencies of the Spartan culture. There might have been some corroboration from the Spartans themselves. There is plenty of evidence to show that the Hun "culture" had far more "violent tendencies" than some of the pastoral peoples they vanquished and some of their other enemies who were alive long enough to write about them. And the culture of Nazi Germany during the 1930s & early 1940's were shown to have more violent tendencies towards the mainly peaceful Jews. And the objective justice system of Argentine wasn't really all that effective during the Dirty War.

It may be black and white for you, but all I can achieve is grey.

[Michael Hardner]

1. Too many dependencies. For instance, who is "we" and what "tribal life" are we talking about? How do we fairly measure violence, and according to what cultural standard?

We inhabitants of the 21st century in the "western" world, generally speaking. Diamond's book, now that I remember, included an account of a tribal member speaking of all the members of their family that were killed in clashes.

There's no objective way to measure this, but with 2) you may agree that if "we" invented a system of justice, it must have been done to address a particular problem with individually-managed justice, right ? Or, if it came up by accident, then it must have been successful versus the alternative, because it persisted ?

2. How does one measure 'violent tendencies?" By the amount of wars, death counts, crime statistics? By the requirement for justice systems as institutions? How about the level of militarization?

Well, you're right that this is a problem - and comparing cultures as I said comparing cultures on this basis is difficult. For example, how do you reconcile tribal violence against the constant threat of nuclear war ? You can't - it's an apples-and-oranges comparison.

I think the Greeks wrote about the violent tendencies of the Spartan culture. There might have been some corroboration from the Spartans themselves. There is plenty of evidence to show that the Hun "culture" had far more "violent tendencies" than some of the pastoral peoples they vanquished and some of their other enemies who were alive long enough to write about them. And the culture of Nazi Germany during the 1930s & early 1940's were shown to have more violent tendencies towards the mainly peaceful Jews. And the objective justice system of Argentine wasn't really all that effective during the Dirty War.

It may be black and white for you, but all I can achieve is grey.

There are certainly plenty of grey areas, which is why I'm trying to not judge cultures, and say that one way of life is "better" than another or such nonsense. Tribal society, for example, included a great connection to the land and to other people.

Maybe YOU can help me here: how would you characterize that aspect of western society (i.e. the addition of justice systems) over what was there before and how would you describe the ancient ways in the context of tribal people ?

It's tricky. I've tried and you still see grey areas. I don't think you disagree with me that systems of justice provide more stability in day-to-day living. So you try.

[Shwa]

Nonsense...I provided one of many references from an expert in the field...you provided...bullpuckey about a mass grave with skulls that miraculously "scalped" themselves.

The question still stands whenever you feel capable of the attempt to answer it. Fact is, there are countless burials in mounds all throughout the Missouri, Mississippi and Ohio valleys where the remains include defleshing marks on the bones, including the skull. Some of these mounds contain dozens of burials. Some of these mounds even have pit burials. The excavations of these mounds - and hundreds of similar burials, like the Huron ossuary pits - were completed by teams of experts in the field who agree about that these defleshing marks are attributed to customary mortuary modification. Or did you not know that because it wasn't contained in Keeley's book?

In other words, you don't know and reject the published conclusions of those far more knowledgeable than you....natch.

That whooshing sound you heard was my point sailing far over your head. The oral record does not corroborate with your assertion of the level of violence you ascribe to pre-Columbian indigenous people. There, is that a little easier for you to understand?

Completely consistent with cultures throughout history...you are not scoring any logical points. For some reason, you think this a pissing contest over body counts when it's not. Oh.....those bad bad white people!

No, for some reason you think this is a pissing contest over body counts. You are, afterall, the one that posted about the body counts to make your point. Let me refresh your memory:

...archaeologists found a mass grave containing the remains of more than 500 men, women, and children...

and finally,

But I am only following the history of the Maya or Inca. LOL!

And all I am following is the history of your postings in this thread.

[kimmy]

...some are getting ill from the experience...fun!

Oh? what happened? Some epileptic person had a seizure? Some weak-ass kid puked up her pop-corn?

Michael Moore is not living on food stamps just yet.

From the shape of him, it appears he's eating pretty well. However, the grosses of his movies (with the notable exception of Fahrenheit 9/11) are "modest", to put it politely.

You can't really get rich by appealing to a far-left audience. That's because the far-left are either miserly cheap, or just plain broke.

-k

[Shwa]

Maybe YOU can help me here: how would you characterize that aspect of western society (i.e. the addition of justice systems) over what was there before and how would you describe the ancient ways in the context of tribal people ?

I get the sense that you are coming at this from a Leviathan point where indigenous North American tribal culture = man-vs-man in the wilds and life was nasty, brutish and short. That never appeared to be the case for any length of time on a consistent basis. That was just Hobbes poli-sci thought experiment. It is interesting that this view persists. It is also interesting that the notion of the 'noble savage' and the over-the-top idyllic myths surrounding the 'noble savage of the forest' were all European inventions and that this view persists in popular culture today despite the evidence to the contrary. I guess the proof is Avatar isn't it?

The difficulty in making comparisons with what we have now and what came before is the lack of available information from before. Even in tribal and chieftan Europe. Not to mention the system by which we try and classify the 'evolution' of social man and then make these classifications universal. Add to the fact that 'history is written by the victors' and you get a situation where one aspect is touted as superior or more 'civilized' than the same aspect within the cultures of past peoples.

I don't think tribal life was nasty, brutish and short; nor do I believe it was some lost Utopia. I would imagine that tribal people in Europe had community type justice systems, or cooperative justice systems if you prefer. I also believe that those ancient European tribal communities were regulated by custom far more than today and this could have resulted in less outbursts of violence of the types we know today. When we say tribal today that suggests a level of egalitarianism which was modified by degrees when economic specialization formed into social hierarchies and then into chiefdoms where justice was likely less cooperative and more at the whim of the chief or special advisors. I believe these types of chiefdoms were the ones that were overrun by the Roman legions.

So what is better? That is where the grey area comes into play and not because of some flight of fancy from a romanticising of the past. I happen to believe that indeed we are forming into a global village where some social aspects resemble those we might attribute to tribal cultures. I am sure you are well aware of this view in culture media. If this is true, then do we continue on with the monolithic view of justice or do we allow the various moieties (as opposed to nations, states or provinces) to determine what is right for them?

In Canada, we can see how "our" justice "system" is already being modified by "traditional" indigenous tribal concepts where the responsibility for some aspects of justice is being left to the community to administer. Whether we agree that this is good or not, or good at this time or not is beside the point, it is fascinating to see that it is happening.

[wyly]

The question still stands whenever you feel capable of the attempt to answer it. Fact is, there are countless burials in mounds all throughout the Missouri, Mississippi and Ohio valleys where the remains include defleshing marks on the bones, including the skull. Some of these mounds contain dozens of burials. Some of these mounds even have pit burials. The excavations of these mounds - and hundreds of similar burials, like the Huron ossuary pits - were completed by teams of experts in the field who agree about that these defleshing marks are attributed to customary mortuary modification. Or did you not know that because it wasn't contained in Keeley's book?

any time there is defleshing there is debate whether it is a mortuary right or canabalism(or both) and the Hurons did engage in that practise as well...

[Shwa]

any time there is defleshing there is debate whether it is a mortuary right or canabalism(or both) and the Hurons did engage in that practise as well...

Yep. Which goes to show that there could be many causes to consider and that educated guesses or speculative generalizations about culture groups shouldn't be confused with proven fact.

[Michael Hardner]

... chiefdoms where justice was likely less cooperative and more at the whim of the chief or special advisors. I believe these types of chiefdoms were the ones that were overrun by the Roman legions.

Mesopotamia had a written code. Maybe Europe of that era did too.

So what is better? That is where the grey area comes into play and not because of some flight of fancy from a romanticising of the past. I happen to believe that indeed we are forming into a global village where some social aspects resemble those we might attribute to tribal cultures. I am sure you are well aware of this view in culture media. If this is true, then do we continue on with the monolithic view of justice or do we allow the various moieties (as opposed to nations, states or provinces) to determine what is right for them?

In Canada, we can see how "our" justice "system" is already being modified by "traditional" indigenous tribal concepts where the responsibility for some aspects of justice is being left to the community to administer. Whether we agree that this is good or not, or good at this time or not is beside the point, it is fascinating to see that it is happening.

That is fascinating and I'm surprised by your answer. Can you provide examples of community-administered justice ? I'm assuming you mean that the community has more leeway in deciding the punishment than in the past ?