So, I saw The Eagle

[Theorist]

Good movie. But pretty sad. I don't know human history very well, but damn. All it is, is war. I mean in the movie I couldn't even decide if I wanted the Seal People or Romans to win in the end. I've just spent my whole weekend thinking about how our history is nothing but war. Just one damn bloody time-line.

I mean the movie was 120 A.D., and even back then the "bigger" humans beat up the "little" humans. The tribes may have held the Romans back for a little while, but they never win in the end.

And when I was watching this movie I was thinking "Damn, so early A.D.'s, humans swept war across Europe. During this time, there were Native American and African tribes living "peaceful" (somewhat at least) lives. Then later in history, Humans moved on to Africa, South and North America, and Asia."

Every damn time. The "Bigger" more industrialized/advanced nation wins out. Our entire history has been killing each other. Why? We are pathetic. Killing each other for things like glory, honor, our "rights", freedom, oil, whatever, you can probably name a bunch of things. I'm sick of it. I'm ashamed. If some other alien race came to Earth, I think they'd leave pretty quickly after reading one of our history books.

I can't really explain how sad I am at our history. Humans spread across the world, killing each other, always under some great name, names like glory, honor, rome, freedom etc., but it's still killing.

I don't know human history well, like I said, but 2000 years of this BS is too much. I'm gonna do every damn thing in my power to stop it. I'm gonna start with peace, and end with peace.

[Ashen Key]

Few things I should mention.

a) Europeans are not the root cause of war for the entirety of the human race.
b) related to the above - in most, if not all, hunter-gatherer societies, warfare is constant. The death-toll sits about about 30% of the adult male population. This is also replicated in groups who farm, but in other ways are close to hunter-gatherers - like the Yanomami in the Amazon.
c) related to the ABOVE, that deathrate is the same for chimpanzees.
d) I've read that if we applied that deathrate - caused by lowkey, yet constant, warfare - to the twentieth century, we'd have a death toll of 2 billion.

and

e) humans are actually far more peaceful now than we were (depressing as this may seem).

This doesn't mean that war doesn't suck, that we shouldn't try and keep the peace. But, uh. Yeah. Europe is not the cause of everyone's problems. And might I suggest actually looking at the history of the other continents before declaring them peaceful?

One final thing, I'm sure it's just a typo, but:

Originally Posted by Theorist

Then later in history, Humans moved on to Africa, South and North America, and Asia."

I'm not sure what you mean there (presumably Europeans), but, uh, humans originally came from Africa.

[Tsyal Makto]

The Yanomami are actually a bit of an exception. In most cases endemic warfare was nothing more than a low-scale ritual, with minimal death. At least, that's how things were in most of North America and Africa (the kingdoms don't count).

The Arab World has played a big part in destroying tribal societies, as well. Muslim imperialism is the reason Darfur is in such a state of conflict today. Before the arrival of the Arabs, Darfurians had a thriving society.

[Tsyal Makto]

The Yanomami are actually a bit of an exception. In most cases endemic warfare was nothing more than a low-scale ritual, with minimal death. At least, that's how things were in most of North America and Africa (the kingdoms don't count).

The Arab World has played a big part in destroying tribal societies, as well. Muslim imperialism is the reason Darfur is in such a state of conflict today. Before the arrival of the Arabs, Darfurians had a thriving society.

I might expand this post a bit more later. Thom Hartmann wrote some good stuff on this issue.

[rapunzel77]

I saw the Eagle as well and I thought it was beautifully shot and the music was good but that is where it ends. The "history" in it was very inaccurate. By 120 AD, Britain was largely Romanized. No one really knows what happened to the 9th legion. They did become a legend though. As for as how the picts (Seal People) were depicted, I have no idea what they were thinking. What they were wearing did not match what many of the Picts were wearing at that time.

As for as Europeans constantly fighting each other but African tribes, et al didn't..that isn't true at all. There was constant warfare in those regions of the world just as there is today. Most tribal groups did not live peacefully together. This is also true in the Americas as well. I would suggest reading up on Roman British history as well as history of tribal groups in Africa and the Americas . Please don't take anything you see in a movie as historically true. Oftentimes it isn't.

[Ashen Key]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

The Yanomami are actually a bit of an exception. In most cases endemic warfare was nothing more than a low-scale ritual, with minimal death. At least, that's how things were in most of North America and Africa (the kingdoms don't count).

Correction: The Yanamai are only an exception because they are well known. The same figures and types of warfare is found in the archeological evidence, and in numerous studies done on tribal societies - including the foraging !Kung San, Inuit and Australian aboriginies, and then the tribal farmers of the Yanomami and the pig-and-yam cultivating societies of New Guinea. Yes, not many people are killed per raid, but the raiding is constant, and usually the only time prisoners are taken is to kill them later.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

The Arab World has played a big part in destroying tribal societies, as well. Muslim imperialism is the reason Darfur is in such a state of conflict today. Before the arrival of the Arabs, Darfurians had a thriving society.

...yes, because the Middle East never had any wars before the arrival of a single religion in the 600s. No empires, no civilizations marking their mark, no tribal societies with frequent fighting even though humans have been living there for 50,000 years and is known as the cradle of civilization. No tribes or clans still living as they always have done, just now Muslim. And also, that comment on Darfur is misleading - as far as I can tell, it has been stable and unstable for a very long time. Like most places.

[Theorist]

Originally Posted by Ashen Key

Few things I should mention.

a) Europeans are not the root cause of war for the entirety of the human race.
b) related to the above - in most, if not all, hunter-gatherer societies, warfare is constant. The death-toll sits about about 30% of the adult male population. This is also replicated in groups who farm, but in other ways are close to hunter-gatherers - like the Yanomami in the Amazon.
c) related to the ABOVE, that deathrate is the same for chimpanzees.
d) I've read that if we applied that deathrate - caused by lowkey, yet constant, warfare - to the twentieth century, we'd have a death toll of 2 billion.

and

e) humans are actually far more peaceful now than we were (depressing as this may seem).

This doesn't mean that war doesn't suck, that we shouldn't try and keep the peace. But, uh. Yeah. Europe is not the cause of everyone's problems. And might I suggest actually looking at the history of the other continents before declaring them peaceful?

One final thing, I'm sure it's just a typo, but:



I'm not sure what you mean there (presumably Europeans), but, uh, humans originally came from Africa.

Just to clarify, yes by a map's standard I did mean Europeans, but I think countries are complete BS, so I just said Humans, because we are all Humans. But, that's another story/argument for a different thread.

A. Well, Europeans are kinda the root cause of Large Scale Warfare involving the take over and destruction of near entire portions of Continents. Yes, small tribes fought across the world, but it wasn't as destructive (when all things are taken into consideration, such as the tolls on the land etc.) as European wars.
Small conflicts between groups of people might have been happening for a long time, but Europeans definately started large scale warfare.
During WWI/WWII era, much of Africa was also industrialized by European countries, and kinda F'd them up pretty bad doing that. We pretty much disregarded their cultures and customs.

B. Again, a 30% death rate doesn't mean as much as numbers when looking at Human death. To me, in my opinion at least, the number of people lost is more devastating, because when I think about the families of those people who die, the number seems more important to me. Like WWII. I thought about all those people, all the people who lost loved ones. I got through the thoughts of what it must have been like for 4 people, and I was already crying, trying to imagine what it would be like.

C. Again, chimpanzees isn't the same amount of numbers. While still sad, Early European wars caused a larger devastation.

D. I honestly don't understand. Sorry, feel like an idiot, but I'm not entirely sure to what you're referring to.

E. I guess it depends on what you're looking at, some parts of humanity are very mean. Like after factoring emotional bullying, just the general road rage stuff, how pissed people get about politics, there's a lot of rage build up, but I guess this depends on how you look at peace, and what you define it as.

Just one-uh say one more thing. I know there's like Samalian (sp?) pirates who kill American vacationers. And that a lot of people in Africa are pretty pissed at America/Europe. But if you look at it from their point, we can be seen in a very bad light. Thousands of Africans die of starvation each day. Thousands also die from AIDs. We have the money and technology to research cures for AIDs, and we have thousands of people become obese/over weight each day. So, while they are starving and dieing, (in their eyes it can easily be seen this way) Americans are getting fat, and going to Africa for pleasure vacations. Now, if I were a Healthy African, and all my friends and family were dieing, and these rich Americans are over weight, and vacationing in my homeland, I could be convinced to become a pirate fairly easily, and see these Americans as evil, and to fight them.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Ashen Key

Correction: The Yanamai are only an exception because they are well known. The same figures and types of warfare is found in the archeological evidence, and in numerous studies done on tribal societies - including the foraging !Kung San, Inuit and Australian aboriginies, and then the tribal farmers of the Yanomami and the pig-and-yam cultivating societies of New Guinea. Yes, not many people are killed per raid, but the raiding is constant, and usually the only time prisoners are taken is to kill them later.

If that's the case, then all modern humanity has done is reverse the trend. We've gone from frequent conflict - low casualty warfare, to less frequent - high casualty warefare.

Though I think we're not discussing the same group. You're talking about agriculturalist groups, I'm talking about hunter-gatherer groups. Yes, agriculture made people more war-like, due to the need to acquire land for cultivation. Nomadic tendencies of hunter-gatherers reduced the possibility of squabbling over land.

http://news.infoshop.org/article.php...90623174612635

Originally Posted by Ashen Key

...yes, because the Middle East never had any wars before the arrival of a single religion in the 600s. No empires, no civilizations marking their mark, no tribal societies with frequent fighting even though humans have been living there for 50,000 years and is known as the cradle of civilization. No tribes or clans still living as they always have done, just now Muslim. And also, that comment on Darfur is misleading - as far as I can tell, it has been stable and unstable for a very long time. Like most places.

Better than it's doing now. I forgot exactly what Thom Hartmann said, but I'll see if I can track down another copy of Threshold on the net.

[Ashen Key]

Originally Posted by Theorist

Small conflicts between groups of people might have been happening for a long time, but Europeans definately started large scale warfare.

...no, they didn't. Ever heard of the Persian Empire? Or Asoka (Indian emperor, this is pretty much what he conquered) Or all the wars in the Bible that happened before Europe was anything more than a bunch of clans?

B. As I said in my point D, if you apply tribal warfare loss per year to the twentieth century, we'd be looking at a wardead of 2 billion. We don't have that in the twentieth century.

C. PURE numbers? No, of course. But it's the same percentage, meaning it's built into our nature. Fight more, get more women, thus get more babies is pretty much the biological logic behind it.

I have no idea why you are bringing up Somalia for. Empires mess people up, yes. I'm...not arguing otherwise?

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Though I think we're not discussing the same group. You're talking about agriculturalist groups, I'm talking about hunter-gatherer groups. Yes, agriculture made people more war-like, due to the need to acquire land for cultivation. Nomadic tendencies of hunter-gatherers reduced the possibility of squabbling over land.

Actually, we ARE discussing the same group. The Yanomami practice slash-and-burn agriculture. They are just popular conceived of as being hunter-gatherers, for some bizare reason. Farming doesn't make people more warlike - we're pretty warlike already, and getting steadily more peaceful. Fighting = more women = more babies. It's only later that is turned into other concepts.

[Theorist]

A. No, actually I did not. Thank you for correcting me. Although I was meaning more 0A.D. to now, I see how that was probably not entirely clear. Like I said, I don't know our history too well, besides the evolutionary tract/ how we evolved etc, but I don't know our wars. I see now that I was clearly wrong. However, The ancient wars by non European Nations, such as the one you mentioned have not had as long lasting as effect, when compared to how many Nations Europe conquered and industrialized are in extremely poor states right now, and don't look to be receiving a lift out from the countries which conquered them. Anyway, I see your point, and concede that you were correct, I did not know about all these wars. I was just kinda pissed that our history is a freakin bloody timeline.

b. So do you mean applying the tribal death rate to the current world population? I feel as if that's a little too hypothetical, because that's increasing the tribal population by a massive amount, and it's kinda hard to predict what would happen to warfare death rates then if everyone was part of a small tribal group.

c. I brought up Somalia, because I was trying to argue that although there may be small scale wars still occuring in Africa, I find it somewhat hard to blame those wars on the Africans, because of the devastated state they were left in by European Nations.

hope that clarifies.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Ashen Key

Actually, we ARE discussing the same group. The Yanomami practice slash-and-burn agriculture. They are just popular conceived of as being hunter-gatherers, for some bizare reason. Farming doesn't make people more warlike - we're pretty warlike already, and getting steadily more peaceful. Fighting = more women = more babies. It's only later that is turned into other concepts.

My mistake on the Yanomami, I just learned they were ags, and forgot to mention it in my last post (whoops). I guess that explains why they appear to be a warlike "exception" among relatively peaceful 100% hunter-gatherer peoples. They aren't true HGs.

Actually, agriculture does make people more warlike. Did you read the article? The reasoning was basically that as people settled down permanently, and expanded, they began to require, and acquire, more and more land, thus leading to more conflict with sorrounding peoples. This, opposed to "true" hunter-gatherers, who don't have the same need for property, and thus do not need to fight for it. Plus, agriculture led to hierarchy, which led to empire, which led to imperalism, etc. True hunter-gathering socieites are egalitarian/democratic.

Fun fact, we are programmed for democracy. Despotism actually has very little role in the natural world/animal kingdom, pretty much just for mating. Everyday activities are all handled democraticly. My theory is that we began democratic in our hunter-gatherer roots, moved away from it with ag, and are now just getting back to it after the Enlightenment.

[Sothis]

Hunter-gatherers require land, too. Google "carrying capacity"... a given area of land cannot support an indefinite number of people hunting and gathering on it. So hunter-gatherers DO have a need for territory and would fight to protect it. It's the same reason that almost every single non-human predator is territorial as well.

I realize that hunter-gatherer societies might not have the same concept of personal ownership over land that agricultural societies do. But that doesn't mean they don't fight over it.

[Tsyal Makto]

Hence why I said "relatively."

Of course they fought, everything does, and always has, just not to the degree that the revisionist status quo thinks they did.

[Ashen Key]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Hence why I said "relatively."

Of course they fought, everything does, and always has, just not to the degree that the revisionist status quo thinks they did.

Given last I looked, the 'revisionist status quo'* is pretty firmly convinced that hunter-gatherers mostly lived in harmony...yeah, they didn't fight to the degree people think. They fought more. Despite what is popularly believed, social equality doesn't equal lasting past. Not when everyone is in loose clans without formal leaders.

*not that I'm sure what your point is by 'revisionist' - of COURSE people change theories when more evidence comes up and is accepted. It might take a few decades, or even a few centuries in the case of the Northern Native Americans and their population and land-management (i.e. - there were actually a lot of them, and yes, they managed the land instead of never changing it), but...that's what history DOES. Theories change.

[Tsyal Makto]

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

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? 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...