Alright, I took some time to think about this thread before coming back to reply.
RE: Wade, I did not say that he was an unintelligent man, nor that his work was invalid. However, anthropology is still not his field... he does an admirable job of synthesizing a lot of different ideas in one place, definitely. But as with many journalists (and even Jared Diamond, who commits grave errors in pulling everything into his "grand narrative," most notably in
Collapse), we still have to be cautious of what his "big picture" is... and whether or not that is scientifically sound. I just have my doubts, that's all... I'd like to see more of his work before I go accepting ALL of what he writes as being true.
As for the Yanomami, I don't know what we're arguing about there. We both agree that they're one of the most well-known violent people groups in the world. You want me to give more evidence to refute a position that you already agree with?... I'm confused.
Now, as to your approach:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by highthief
The approach I endorse, to come back to your question, is that people whose ancestry is attached to advanced nation states have indeed evolved to become more cooperative, to be able to deal with more complex societies, laws and day to day living. Those who in our deep past could not handle living in close proximity to their fellows got banished or killed or were generally less successful in propagating their lines. Whereas the people able to adapt peacefully to complex social rules generally propogated and delivered their genetic predispositions for advanced social intelligence to their progeny. Just as we have deliberately domesticated wolves and turned them into dogs, and aurochs and turned them into cows, so have we domesticated ourselves (albeit not deliberately) with a resultant genetic shift in our society.
|
Okay. What I hear you saying is that you think individuals living in advanced nation states and complex societies are,
by sole virtue of being born into those societies, more peaceful and "domesticated." Is that right? And conversely, you believe that any individual born into a "hunter-gatherer" society, whether yesterday or thousands of years ago, will be innately more violent and prone to killing and injuring other people. Am I following you?
So it doesn't matter what kind of human being you are... it only matters what kind of society you are born into, right? So those groups of Kenyans massacring each other over the weekend?... violent because they were not born into an advanced nation state, and for no other reason. They'll never stop being violent. And those 400-500 murders that take place each year in Philly, New York, etc... violent because... they were born into an advanced nation state?... The people who were violent and dangerous during Hurricane Katrina, getting in fights over food and water... hunter gatherers? Oh wait, they were born into a civilized society, so I thought they were supposed to be more cooperative and domesticated?
See, this is the flaw that I see in your thinking. I do not argue with the theories of *general* human social evolution... yes, with the agricultural and industrial revolutions, we've had to come up with more laws and ways of preventing and resolving conflicts with each other, especially in densely inhabited urban environments and large, possibly unwieldy populations that are sharing limited resources. Fine and well.
But what I don't agree with is the extension of that general theory, into individual behaviors... to explain why entire societies are violent, TODAY, not in our deep history. To say that certain groups are violent because it's "in their nature," not because of their external circumstances, socio-economic status, etc. Perhaps I have misunderstood you, up until this point... feel free to let me know. But what I hear you saying is that hunter-gathering individuals, now in the 21st century, are INNATELY more violent than industrialized individuals, who are all peace-loving folk. And that just doesn't make sense.
I guess I just don't see how you can disagree with the idea that
we are all capable of being violent assholes, given a particular set of circumstances and pressures. That just seems like common sense to me. But what you seem to be saying is that no, violence is only explainable by what kind of society you were born into, not by other circumstances such as marked difference in socio-economic status, inequal distribution of wealth (which, by god, still happens in advanced nation-states!!! Say it ain't so.), etc.
Am I misunderstanding your point? Please let me know. Frankly, if we are just miscommunicating about a common point, I'd rather be done with this seemingly pointless thread.
