So, I saw The Eagle

[Ashen Key]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

I thought war-like hunter-gatherers was the general belief of the status quo...? I mean, remember how much flak Avatar got?

From where I'm sitting, peace-like hunter-gatherers and tribal people is the status quo. And Avatar got flak because the Na'vi look (and the deleted scenes strengthen this impression, because helLO buffalo hunt) like they are cobbled together from all the iconic images indigenous peoples around the world, but particularly the Native Americans, and then they had to have the white guy who is now the most SUPER SPECIAL NA'VI EVER (thanks to being Toruk Makto) be the one to unite them. I didn't see anyone objecting to the fact that they went to war, except as a more general meta-musing on why war is popular in movies. (And before anyone jumps on me for the above, I'm just summarizing the number one complaint about the movie that I've read in all the articles and essays on Avatar that I have read).

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

I'm getting contradictions here. Your anthropology studies are saying that they were more warlike, mine are saying that they tended to be more peaceful. What's going on?

The joys of anthropology! *beams* This is why I heart science and history, I really do.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

People like Lawrence Keleey and Stepen Pinker have evidence of savagery, while people like Thom Hartmann or some of the authors cited in the article have evidence of relative peace/civility. (Which is what I mean by revisionism. There's two completely different explanations of the lives of HGs, both widely accepted, something is up on somebody's side. Or maybe I'm just picking up on some false dichotomy that isn't there, IDK. Either way, that's not really the main issue here). *sigh* The age old anthropological debate continues...

I've never heard of Stephen Pinker. I'm referencing Charles Man, Nicholas Wade - and the latter references Napoleon Chagnon, Richard Wrangham, Dale Patterson, and Lawrence H. Keeley, among others (the former does cite people, but I don't have 1491: The Americas Before Columbus on hand to check his references). Also, non-peaceful - to me - makes more sense, in that we evolved to be in hunter-gatherer tribes, and just look at the war-like behaviour of our closest relative (and also genetics, because the best fighters in both humanity and chimps tend/tended to have the most offspring, and more progeny is the name of Nature's game).

No, the main issue was the Europe and 'civilization' was being blamed as the cause for war, with the implication that war only seemed to happen in the last two thousands years...which is blatantly incorrect. THAT was my main complaint. Then we all got distracted.