A story and a question. by Fremdfirma

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Got anything more recent? Maybe in the last 2000 years?"

If we're talking 'human nature' it doesn't matter how old the example. It's all evolutionarily driven 'human nature' - right ? I mean, if you're going to look to social Darwinism, chimpanzees and baboons for why we are they way we are, mebee a 2000 yr old human example isn't so far off the mark.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 10:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
You may build a barrow or a pyramid to bury a dead high king but what made him a king? Why could he command even in death the resources necessary for such an elaborate burial? Was he king because he knew something that others didn't --- I once read a theory that Pharaohs came about because they possessed skills in purifying metals--- was he king because his god said so? Did he win the job through combat? Did he take the job though force?
In the end, once you get past the 100-or-so people that can effectively interact face to face, all authority rests on force. If a city or nations-state has no soldiers or police (people who are legally armed and organized to a degree greater than the average citizen) there is no way an authority can enforce its will when it diverges form the populaces'.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

I half agree. Laws can only work if they can be enforced and in the face of someone not cooperating the only effective response is going to be use of force. I'm not entirely sure that means that someone has to be excessively armed to make that happen.

EVERY society no matter how liberal or enlightened has was of enforcing its rules, hell every parent enforces rules on their children. Now what form that enforcement takes or how far it goes may vary but if your argument is that any time someone makes you do something you dont want to do then you're opressed, well even folks in family group hunter-gather societies are oppressed to some degree.

In any case you seem to have missed the point. Once a group gets above a certain size, maybe even smaller than 100 people you would see an accepted authority. If Umbutu is head hunter and has the best track record finding and killing game then chances are he will be leading your hunting party because you dont want to go home empty handed. No matter what YOU may think he's doing wrong chances are you would let him lead. If you didn't, if you did something against his orders and that cost your tribe a deer you can bet there would be social and maybe physical outcomes.

I'm not questioning that there will be an authority, because any group of any size develops one, what I am asking specifically is why time after time in lots of places under lots of systems we end up with a "strong man" leader and an aristocracy that supports him? You seem to equate that with the practical application of force, that in some way that goes hand in hand with standing armies, big city walls etc etc which is why you keep banging on about your wall less city. But truth is you have no idea how authority was derived or applied in that place. There must have been an authority of some kind to allow the building of something so large to a unified vision. If you transgressed from that authority what happened to you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 10:20 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

This is a true story.

People I knew grew up in an agrarian and isolated European peasant community - which was small, interdependent and far away from any kind of government - much like Frem's example. There was one guy in the village who was big, selfish, and violent. Everyone avoided him if at all possible. No one challenged him individually, and as a group they didn't get together to do anything about him.

For one thing they were all busy doing the things necessary to keep alive day to day and year to year - draw water, prepare meals, maintain bees, chop wood, plant and harvest grains and seeds, herd geese, slop pigs, repair dwellings and tools and the infinitude of tasks. For another, any kind of challenge was risky. Like the example of a break-in - if you challenge the person you might be safe, but if you run away you will be safe. And frankly everyone was too valuable to risk ending up dead, or permamently disabled, or recovering for months.

If he had happened to get some henchmen or been able to team up with another natural-born goon, the violent dude could have set up for himself a very nice extortion racket. B/c after a time, he WOULD have been too powerful to challenge.

It's not that specialization leads to hierarchy, any more than lack of specialization nullifies inter-group warfare. What happens is, if you have a natural bully and there is no structure for him to get a hold of, when he dies, so does his influence.

But if there is the capability of forming structures or one exists already AND people don't deal with that person as a group, there is a chance he will either take over or create a structure that will live on after him. And you get hierarchies and the structures to maintain them - a religion (the sun won't come back unless I sacrifice the beating heart of a victim !), an ethic (as with the emperor, so with the heavens), or an economy (economic greed is good !), or some combination.

Now either the answer is to live without power structures, or to understand how we humans interact in groups and to develop systems that deal with our outliers. Even if all that it means is that that person has to move on - and without extracting stuff from other people.

And hey - if baboons are able to keep a peaceable culture, why should we be any less capable ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 1:46 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer: Mohnejo-Daro's "citadel" contained, according to archaeological finds, an elaborate bath, a granary, and two halls of assembly Wow, it's just bristling with weapons, isn't it?

The citadel is seperate from the towers and fortifications. See the map on the linked page.

Quote:
The civilization in that area lasted over 1000 years.

And then disappeared, leaving no history.

Quote:
My point was that you can find cooperative civilizations at ANY stage of development. AFA more recent examples Sweden (which has jails without locked doors) and other nations in the region come pretty close.

Sweden also has police and an army. Someone collects taxes there, and I'd bet enforces the collection pretty well.

If totally cooperative societies worked, there'd be some more around now. There aren't. Sure, some are more cooperative than others, but none get by without armed law enforcement and a government that uses it to enforce its laws.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 1:56 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oh I get your point ! Millions of years of human history and fine examples of war-free cultures that lasted millenia aren't real examples ! B/c, you know, they just weren't 'human' enough to be real examples of human nature !

***************************************************************
You sling quite some crock.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 3:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And then disappeared, leaving no history.

That’s Signym’s biggest problem. The Harapan civilization appears to have been a peaceful one, but it’s also largely pre-historical. We haven’t even managed to decipher their script or even identify it as Dravidian or Sanskirt, so we have little idea of what wars are in their history. The Harapan civilization was mostly urban and so rigidly organized that it’s unlikely that that a strong central government did not exist. There is evidence for this government, as the temple of Mohenjo-Daro was probably the administrative center. Archeology as also identified copper spearheads. They did have a religion, and archeology has identify religious artifacts and symbols that suggest a form of proto-Shakti or proto-Shiva. In fact one of the first occurrences of the Swastika was found in Mohenjo-Daro. So while the Harapan people have been unusually peaceful, though it’s difficult to know if that’s true or not, it is certainly not true that they lacked a religion or a government. The more likely scenario is that the cites of the Harapan culture were organized around a powerful central aristocracy ruled by a god-king or a priest-king, much like the ancient cities of Sumer.

I also remember reading somewhere that cu war axes similar to those used in Egypt were uncovered in some of the Harapan cities.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 7:14 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Millions of years of human history and fine examples of war-free cultures that lasted millenia aren't real examples ! B/c, you know, they just weren't 'human' enough to be real examples of human nature !

Just wrong on so many levels.

1. There ain't no "millions of years of human history". There ain't even millions of years of humans. Just the last 200,000 or so.

2. Even with the 200,000 years of humans, there ain't much history back past 3,000 BC.

3. There's not enough information about the Indus Valley civilization of Mohenjo-Daro and its sister cities to determine if it was "war-free" or not. Most sources note that it had towers and fortifications designed for defense, so war was probably not unknown. If SignyM, or yourself, has any compelling evidence about this, please provide citations.

4. Even if Mohenjo-Daro were 'war-free', it still must have had some sort of government willing and able to enforce building codes, rules of sanitation, storage of food in central grainaries, etc.

I suspect that when societies reached a certain size and level of technological sophistication things got too complicated for everything to function efficiently by just group cooperation, since everyone couldn't know all that was going on and still get their own work done. Someone, and not necessarily the bullies and sociopaths, was either chosen for or took leadership and demonstrated the ability to make things run more smoothly and efficiently; by the simplest standard, that their communities thrived when others did not.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 11:33 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Just wrong on so many levels.

1. There ain't no "millions of years of human history". There ain't even millions of years of humans. Just the last 200,000 or so.

So then millions of years of evolution had no effect ? PPhhhtt ? Just a vacuum ? Just wondering 'cause that's so silly, it can't possibly be what you mean.

2. Even with the 200,000 years of humans, there ain't much history back past 3,000 BC.

Oh dear. No skeletons, no serpent stone, no spear-tip offerings. No necklaces, bones, graves. No footprints. Oh WAIT ! THAT'S where you got the 200,000 year figure isn't it ? From the footprints. Weird how you know about that and then say - there just isn't any history before 3,000 BC.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 12:11 AM

I think you're splitting hairs a little. According to dictionary.com the word "history" has 10 distinct meanings of which the one being used is

"2. a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle: a history of France; a medical history of the patient."

If I dig up a spear, I don't have a "History" I have an artifact. I can tell nothing at all about it other than those facts presented by it's construction and the context in which I find it. I can attempt to construct a theory based on the facts discovered but I can't actually know that I'm correct. Now when you have writing, then you potentially can construct a "history" because if you can read the language then the people tell you about themselves. For example if someone writes that 2000 cats were sacrificed at the temple then you know the cat mummies you may have found were probably the result of those sacrifices and not offerings made to the temple or the remains of dead mousers. It is a fact not a supposition.

For most of the 200,000 years there is no written record. We have artifacts and places which have been interpreted by archeologists, these interpretations could be correct or they could be wrong. For example you dig up a guy who has been buried with armour. Now maybe he was a great warrior and these were the tools of his trade? Maybe he made armour for a living and this was the fruit of his handywork included to show his skill to the gods? Maybe he is a sacrifice given armour so he can defend the community in the spirit world? Perhaps he was a politician wrapping himself in the mantle of the warrior to gain favour in the afterlife?

From the physical evidence we have no way of knowing absolutely, best we can do is to come up with a theory that reflects the observed facts. Archeology is one of those fields where interpretations are made and revised very frequently as new evidence is amassed and analyzed. Pre history, is just that, a period where interpretation is relied upon because there are little or no surviving written records that explain what was actually going on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 12:15 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And maybe that translation is bogus.

Just look at all the drama over tanslating the new testament - and many of those languages have been in continuous existance since the writings.

Writings are as much an artifact as anything else.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 12:22 AM

It’s more then just splitting hairs. Rue is confusing prehistory with history.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 12:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And maybe that translation is bogus.

Just look at all the drama over tanslating the new testament - and many of those languages have been in continuous existance since the writings.

Writings are as much an artifact as anything else.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

People don't necessarily agree on the interpretation of things in living memory. Was JFK shot by a lone nutjob or as part of an elaborate conspiracy? You can find proponents of both theories even though they are mutually exclusive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 12:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Rue is confusing prehistory with history."

No, Finn is. He cleary has an interpretation of Mohenjo Daro as 'history' though no one can actually read the writings. So, is it 'history' or 'prehistory' ? And if it fits into 'history' as he thinks it does, then why not other archeological finds where people have left their symbols behind that we simply can't read ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 1:01 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fletch

Writings are weird. Just b/c something is written doesn't mean it's 'history'. Do we assume that Jesus was really taken up into heaven ? Do we think that a ancient braggart's claim to be ruler of the world is accurate ? And then there's the translation bit.

Personally, I think 'history' needs at least as much interpretation as artifacts.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 4:47 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So then millions of years of evolution had no effect ? PPhhhtt ? Just a vacuum ? Just wondering 'cause that's so silly, it can't possibly be what you mean.

Millions of years of evolution shows that most pack animals, and many herd animals, have dominant leaders who maintain their leadership, breeding rights, etc., by force. Sure you wanta go there?

Still looking for any evidence you have of a 'war-free' Indus Valley civilization.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 5:02 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And maybe that translation is bogus.

In this case, definition #7 of bogus - That with which Rue does not agree.

As you know perfectly well, but are trying to dance around, properly conducted historical research doesn't rely on any one item, be it text or artifact. It uses many items in correlation to validate and verify the recorded information. Then it's generally peer-reviewed to allow criticism.

BTW, still waiting for cites on that war-free Indus Valley civilization. That's where this digression on history began, and seems like you'd want to get back to the topic.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 6:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Rue is confusing prehistory with history."

No, Finn is. He cleary has an interpretation of Mohenjo Daro as 'history' though no one can actually read the writings. So, is it 'history' or 'prehistory' ? And if it fits into 'history' as he thinks it does, then why not other archeological finds where people have left their symbols behind that we simply can't read ?

Actually Finn quite clearly argued that it was prehistory.

Previously posted by Finn (like just a few posts up)

“The Harapan civilization appears to have been a peaceful one, but it’s also largely pre-historical. We haven’t even managed to decipher their script or even identify it as Dravidian or Sanskirt, so we have little idea of what wars are in their history.“

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 6:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch

Writings are weird. Just b/c something is written doesn't mean it's 'history'. Do we assume that Jesus was really taken up into heaven ? Do we think that a ancient braggart's claim to be ruler of the world is accurate ? And then there's the translation bit.

Personally, I think 'history' needs at least as much interpretation as artifacts.

Yes, it does. It doesn’t change the fact that history is defined on the written word, therefore anything prior to written text is prehistory, not history. We draw a distinction between artifacts from which we assume everything from the archeology (or much of what you‘re talking about is anthropological or paleontological) , and one in which we actually have meaningful references from the people who left the artifacts. One we refer to as prehistory, the other - history.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 6:21 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer,

"Millions of years of evolution shows that most pack animals, and many herd animals, have dominant leaders who maintain their leadership, breeding rights, etc., by force. Sure you wanta go there?"

Oh yeah ! Let's talk about giraffes and horses ! After all, they clearly have a lot more to say about human behavior than humans, chimps, bonobos or gorillas !

OR - we could talk about HUMAN evolution and history on the off chance it might be relevant.

Take your pick - let me know.

"BTW, still waiting for cites on that war-free Indus Valley civilization. That's where this digression on history began, and seems like you'd want to get back to the topic."

Dude - not my topic. I'm all for discussing human evolution.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 6:21 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I posted this on my MySpace page, hope it helps......

There comes a time in every country's existence where change is necessary. When the powers that be have gotten TOO power-full and the normal citizens have become weak and drunk on self-indulgence. This time, unfortunately, is now, in our homeland.

I never thought I would say this about my country, my home, America. I never wanted to. I always hoped I wouldn't have to. This is America, after all, the land of the free and home of the brave. We beat the Nazis and Communism. We walked on the moon. We've fought injustice and evil in every part of the world.

In fact, when it comes to the fight against the darkness, we are almost always the first into the battle. And we don't quit. We fight until the job is done. Our country men have had a backbone of steel and iron since we first started calling ourselves Americans.

When our country's founders built the outline for a government, it was on the basis that it would be for the people and by the people. Not the rich, not the political, not the religious, but THE PEOPLE. It would be a land with LIMITED government, and the people would, in general, govern themselves. What a brave, new, novel idea! A revolutionary idea! Let the common man, govern himself!

In a word, this new way of governing would grant the common man FREEDOM.

But, little by little, those ideals were withered away. Our leaders became less and less. The laws became more and more. The people grew away from the belief that they were in charge of their own lives. Our citizens began to believe that others were in charge of their happiness and prosperity.

We are told that if we fail and fall into darkness, it isn't our fault. It's our parents fault, or the governments. It's that race's fault, or your poor biology. You may even have repressed memories that cause you to act evil. You may have post-partum depression. In point of fact, according to what we are told, we are never to blame for the things we do. (But we are made to pay for the evil we visit….unless you are rich enough to get out of it)

We are told to put all our faith in the governing bodies and corporations. We are never to rely on ourselves for anything. Protect ourselves? (That's what the police are for). We buy too much home and can't afford it? (Let the government bail you out). Don't want to raise your children? (Give them to the school teachers and day care). Refuse to learn English? (Bilingual classes) Can't make the grades? (Lower the standards)

And the worst part is that so many believe it. They fall for it. I guess I can understand why. It's easy, and who wants to do things that are hard?

Why learn English? Why try for good grades? Why be careful with your money? Why raise your kids' right? Why try, when you are told its ok to be so irresponsible? Let the government and the corporations take care of you. They can tell you what to do, what to buy, what to think, how to act and what's ok to say.

This, my fellow countrymen and women, has a word. SLAVERY.

You think political correctness is right? The Nazis were the first to develop this ideology in an attempt to control what the people thought.

You think its ok to have cameras on every corner? SpeedPass for every highway? Paper money being taken less and less? Cell phone monitoring? The websites you view are tracked. The books you buy and borrow are tracked. The articles you read and write are watched. Your social security number is followed. It's all done so that it is easier to control and contain you.

The chains are no longer made of steel. They are now made of paper and electronic pulses.

Our so called leaders know this. They want this. It's all the better to have complete control. We act as if with the coming election, everything will change and a "new day" will come. Guess what? It's not going to happen. Every single candidate, EVERY SINGLE ONE, will push for more power.

More taxes to take your money, more laws to hold you back, more monitoring.

The next step is to take your weapons from you. They may have made it almost impossible to raise a revolutionary force, but they have not been able to keep the guns out of ordinary citizens' hands.

They've made it so that everyone who buys a gun, legally, will be monitored. They've made laws so that you can't carry them with you anywhere. But, they have not been able to completely outlaw them.

However, that's what's coming next. It doesn't help that evil animals like the D.C. and V.T. snipers are out there. The powers-that-be may use them as an excuse. But the truth is they want you to be even less of a threat. They can monitor everything you do, but they can't prevent you from randomly acting crazy.

Think about it. If guns were outlawed, who are the ONLY people who would have them? The police, the military, criminals, and the few true patriots who might rise up in challenge. A law such as this would make it that much easier to stamp out the last two. All the easier to have total control over the population.

Well, my fellow Americans, I do not hold to this. I cannot allow us to continue to be crushed and broken. I cannot allow us to continue to be monitored and controlled. I cannot let the powers-that-be continue turning us into slaves.

I intend to misbehave.

Who's with me?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 6:29 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn, Finn, Finn

According to Geezer, history goes back 5000 years. "2. Even with the 200,000 years of humans, there ain't much history back past 3,000 BC."

Now "Mohenjo Daro was built around 2600 BC." You know how to count backwards when you do BC, right ? That means MJ was 400 years within Geezer's timeframe for 'history'.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 6:53 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm all for discussing human evolution.

Then we're back to my point that there ain't no 'millions of years' of human evolution.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 6:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If totally cooperative societies worked, there'd be some more around now. There aren't. Sure, some are more cooperative than others, but none get by without armed law enforcement and a government that uses it to enforce its laws.

Not at all true. There are several current societies that get along quite well w/o them including the !kung!, the Tarahumara, and the Mosuo. If I were an ethnographer I could prolly come up with more examples. AFA Sweden is concerned, I didn't say they were a perfect example, I said they came close. Sweden incarcerates about 70 people per 100,000, the United States about 700.
www.newint.org/features/2006/10/01/social-model/

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 6:56 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

AAAARRRGGGGHHHHHH Im hoping this doesnt descend into a debate on whether evolution is real or not......I can't take that today.....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 7:02 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer

So you also wouldn't be able to discuss the millions of years of whale evolution b/c all those fossils along the line weren't modern whales ?

OK, go ahead, look like a stupid kindergartener having a tantrum.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 7:02 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, Finn, Finn

According to Geezer, history goes back 5000 years. "2. Even with the 200,000 years of humans, there ain't much history back past 3,000 BC."

Now "Mohenjo Daro was built around 2600 BC." You know how to count backwards when you do BC, right ? That means MJ was 400 years within Geezer's timeframe for 'history'.

If recorded history (As Fletch noted, the type of history I was referring to) started the exact same time in all locations, this might be a valid argument.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 7:05 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer

So cool, that's really keeping it on topic, which I'm sure you intend !

So when we speak of 'human history' we can only speak of actual written records b/c there just is no historical past with them ! And when we speak of human evolution we can only speak of modern humans - which means today's humans btw not those from 200,000 years ago. Since humans are evolving faster and more divergently than ever, so those humans from 200,000 years ago - with big teeth and unadapted to seasonal dark, grains and milk - are only 'proto humans'. And not part of 'human evolution' as you claim.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 7:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Mohenjo_Daro was built around 2600 BC and persisted until about 1700 BC, so by Geezer's own definition of "history" it falls squarely within that time frame. Though there was clearly a language, it has yet to be deciphered. So by Finn's definition of "history" this is a "historical" site.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 7:11 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think the debate is descending into wrongness here.

What people are saying, and I think we can all agree, is this:

The amount of certainty we can have about ancient civilizations diminishes dramatically at the point that we can no longer read their writings or those of their contemporaries.

When we have artifacts, we can make educated guesses about a culture.

However, when we have writings, we can tell for certain what a people said about themselves and their contemporaries.

This is the reason why 'written history' or 'recorded history' is valued more highly for its informative nature than artifacts of history where there is no writing.

Without writing, context, meaning, and use of artifacts is assumed, sometimes wrongly. This can be true even with writing, but it is especially true without it.

So, there's no need to debate the nature of history or evolution, or further distance yourselves from the actual topic being discussed.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 7:15 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not at all true. There are several current societies that get along quite well w/o them including the !kung!, the Tarahumara, and the Mosuo.

Which sorta proves my point. Once you get beyond the nomadic, small-tribal, subsistance lifestyle, the no force concept sorta goes away. Also note that the Mosuo, per Wiki, do enforce execution as a penalty for rape, so seems like they use force occasionally.

Quote:
AFA Sweden is concerned, I didn't say they were a perfect example, I said they came close.

If Sweden is as close as you can get to a society which does not impose laws by force, you're pretty far off your goal.

p.s.
I would suggest that the societies you noted above wouldn't still be in existence if not for the national governments in whose countries they live.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 7:22 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

AnthonyT

I disagree. "What people say about themselves" isn't history. Just like "what we say about ourselves" isn't fact.

If you were to read at some point in the future what the US says about itself - and would bother to engrave in some large stone format - what would it say ? - best economic system ever ! never a problem that won't work out right in the end ! most enlightened ! Do YOU believe that ? Should some future archeologist believe that ?

Writings are anything but fact, and therefore anything but history. Once you get past the dictionary (and translation is the trickiest step) they need a LOT of interpretation. Other symbols (that are beyond use-defined) are the same way. How do you interpret the cave paintings ? The Ayers Rock glyphs ? Necklaces with skeletons ? These too, just like writing, are abstract 'symbols' that need interpretation.

Simple useful artifacts are actually the easiest to interpret.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 7:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Let's look again at Mohenjo_daro, since the discussion has gone pretty far off-track as to whether or not it was "historical" (in other words had written records) "advanced" or "cooperative". Just pulling this abbreviated description:

Quote:
Mohenjo-daro was a city of the Indus Valley Civilization built around 2600 BC..

is the largest of Indus Valley

contemporaneous with ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations.

most likely the administrative center of the ancient Indus Valley Civilization.

the most developed and advanced city in South Asia

Indus Civilization settlements spread as far south as the Arabian Sea coast of India, as far west as the Iranian border, and as far north as the Himalayas.

some archaeologists opine that the Indus Civilization may have had a population of well over five million.

The language of the Indus Civilization has yet to be deciphered

has a planned layout based on a grid of streets, which were laid out in perfect patterns.

probably had around 35,000 residents.

The buildings of the city were particularly advanced, with structures constructed of same-sized sun dried bricks of baked mud and burned wood.

The public buildings of these cities also suggest a high degree of social organization.

the great granary at Mohenjo-daro is designed with bays to receive carts delivering crops from the countryside, and there are ducts for air to circulate beneath the stored grain to dry it.

a building similarly civic in nature - a great public bath, with steps down to a brick-lined pool in a colonnaded courtyard The elaborate bath area was very well built, with a layer of natural tar to keep it from leaking, and in the center was the pool.

urban plan included the world's first urban sanitation systems.

waste water was directed to covered drains, which lined the major streets.

It also had a building with an underground furnace (hypocaust), possibly for heated bathing.

{u]lacking city walls... Both Harappa and Mohenjo-daro share relatively the same architectural layout, and were generally not heavily fortified

from the identical city layouts of all Indus sites, that there was some kind of political or administrative centrality

the "Citadel" is known to have the public bath, a large residential structure designed to house 5,000 citizens and two large assembly halls.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 7:34 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM

I'm not in the MJ discussion. I'm waiting for Geezer to decide if the chain of creatures up to today is 'human evolution' and whether he wants to discuss it, or would he rather talk about horse behavior and it's relevance to human behavior.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 7:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Mohenjo_Daro was built around 2600 BC and persisted until about 1700 BC, so by Geezer's own definition of "history" it falls squarely within that time frame. Though there was clearly a language, it has yet to be deciphered. So by Finn's definition of "history" this is a "historical" site.

Yes. It can be considered historic. Much as, in the figurative sense, we can give a rough date c.3000BC to when “history” begins, because roughly speaking this is when the written language, in general, began to appear. These are all valid points. But this doesn’t mean that every culture in the last 5000 years is historic. In fact, Celtic and Germanic cultures did not become historic until about the start of the post-classical period, which was only around 1500-1800 years ago. Many Native American cultures were prehistoric right up until the last few hundred years. The Harapan culture did have a written language, so technically we could call them historic, but we can’t decipher it and there’s little direct association with other cultures to draw upon. So in practical terms, Mohenjo Daro is essentially prehistoric.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 7:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, Finn, Finn

According to Geezer, history goes back 5000 years. "2. Even with the 200,000 years of humans, there ain't much history back past 3,000 BC."

Now "Mohenjo Daro was built around 2600 BC." You know how to count backwards when you do BC, right ? That means MJ was 400 years within Geezer's timeframe for 'history'.

Actually, you’re misinterpreting what Geezer said. He said that there isn’t “much history back past 3,000 BC,” which is a factual statement. There isn’t. That doesn’t actually mean that the history of every culture began at 3000BC. This issue of deciphering the Harapan script is far more crucial to when history begins for the Harapan culture then the date at which written language developed in Mesopotamia or Egypt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 8:04 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

While WE think they are 'prehistorical' 'cause we can't read their writing, they certainly were not incapable.

Obviously the presence of writing means organization and the ability to create a uniform and extended 'script' for a society. As a literate society they were definitely different from any pre-literate society we think of as 'prehistorical'. Perhaps that's the better definition. They aren't preliterate, which is what people think of when they think of 'prehistorical'.

***************************************************************
But please - carry on the MJ discussion w/out me. It'll go faster and better that way. I'm just waiting for Geezer to decide if he wants to get into human evolution.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 8:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, but one big turning point of ANY civilization is the creation of a written language. To call the Indus civilization "prehistoric" calls up an image of barbarians in animal pelts living in wattle huts. We shouldn't mistake our ignorance for theirs.

In any case, simple weapons have been excavated from Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, but no armories or walls or indications of battles or armies. They worshiped a Mother Goddess and a God (possibly) but there is no evidence that they sacrificed to them. The mechanisms of brute-force or religious oppression don't seem to be present, so perhaps cooperation was obtained by a comfortable life for all.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 8:27 AM

You are both missing the point. Nobody is saying that having writing makes culture X better than culture Y. What they are saying is that because of writing (if we can read it) we know more about culture X than we could about culture Y. This is true even if we don't trust the absolute accuracy of the writings themselves. If a giant statue has the words "Ishma Tep ruler of the world had me made" carved on it, then we know that someone called Ishma Tep had enough resources to have a huge statue made, even if we doubt that he actually did rule the world. If we know from other sources that there was a ruler called Ishma Tep that maybe invaded a neighbour, well that helps verify those other sources.

Siggy has made an interpretation of an historic site for which we have no written history. When Geezer asked for an example within the last 2000 years (ie one where a written history might exist that would be more reliable than just Siggy's interpreation) he was told this was unimportant.

It is not unimportant. We have no idea what was actually going on in the civilisation Siggy is interpreting, as such any interpretation even one made in good faith could be bogus. A cite has been asked for to give an example of a society from a period where there would be written sources.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 10:38 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Let's look again at Mohenjo_daro, since the discussion has gone pretty far off-track as to whether or not it was "historical" (in other words had written records) "advanced" or "cooperative".

Okay. Back to your original statement.

"There were several large societies.... the five cities including Mohenjo-Daro comes to mind first... without apparent religion or military force. Their ruins didn't have temples, ramparts, armories, weapons, statues, slums, or- curiously- cemeteries."

I've seen several descriptions of weapons found at the site. Here's one. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-3648(1966)28:2/3%3C211:WOWITS%3E
2.0.CO;2-C

Lack of city walls does not equate to lack of war. Consider the Maya and Inca whose cities had no walls. Also note that Mohenjo-Daro is sited on an elevation perfect for defense. http://picasaweb.google.com/Ali.S.Ishaq/Mohenjodaro/photo#508003973574
3879586

Googling 'Mohenjodaro religion' gets many competing theories; proto-Buddist, proto-Hindu, Earth-Mother, etc. Nothing specific, but no indication that there was no religion. Same debate about temples, but no conclusions.

If you have a specific citation for the 'no religion, no military force, no weapons' bits, I'd be glad to look at it.

A city population of 35,000, and a civilization of up to 5 million, with uniform and enforced building codes, sanitation, measurement, food collection and storage, indicates someone was providing law and regulation and enforcing compliance.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 12:19 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I did more googling and changed my statement to say that there were weapons but no armories. No depiction of wars (like the Greeks) or victim sacrifice (like the Mayans). No apparent temples, no big statues.

Some houses were bigger than others, but even the worst house had two rooms. Strangely, all of the bricks in both MD and Harappa were the same size.... clearly they had a system of weights and measures. Mohenjo-Daro was rebuilt at least seven times- possibly after serious flooding... right on top of the old site. The elevation of "the Citadel" could be a safe haven from serious flooding.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 12:48 PM

FREMDFIRMA

"Who's with me?"

I can name a buncha folk here who would be, but yanno... you oughta think about Ron Paul, dude.

Gee, he wants them to READ the fekkin bills before they sign em, well duh - what kinda criminal negligence does it take to NOT do that ?

http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron-paul-congress-should-be-
allowed-to.html

And he has spoken the deepest of blasphemies to the status quo - he told Israel they can get by on their own money for once instead of all of ours... guess HE won't be getting the nod and the soft money tidal wave from AIPAC, eh?

And didn't they get accused of.. yanno, SPYING ON US - damn, anyone else did that we'd be at war with em.

But yeah, that foreign aid ? hell no, not NOwhere till our OWN people have enough food, shelter and necessary resources, you know ?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml? itemNo=942091&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1

I swear, he might LOOK like he's gonna dry up and blow away any minute, but that dude has balls of Neutronium or something...

To utter such sentiment in the faces of the PNAC/Clean Break/NeoCon/Likud cabal would be the kiss of death for most folk.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 1:31 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I did more googling and changed my statement to say that there were weapons but no armories. No depiction of wars (like the Greeks) or victim sacrifice (like the Mayans). No apparent temples, no big statues.

Some houses were bigger than others, but even the worst house had two rooms. Strangely, all of the bricks in both MD and Harappa were the same size.... clearly they had a system of weights and measures. Mohenjo-Daro was rebuilt at least seven times- possibly after serious flooding... right on top of the old site. The elevation of "the Citadel" could be a safe haven from serious flooding.

All this is a possible interpretation of the site, along with several possibilities, but there's still no compelling evidence that there was no government enforcing laws and codes. The very existence of a multi-city system of uniform weights and measures, and uniform building and sanitation codes, argues for a method of creating, implementing, and enforcing these uniform standards.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 1:57 PM

Haven't read all the responses but if someone comes onto my property to take money or possessions by force, and is not empowered by the goverment to do so, I will defend myself in any way I feel necessary.

Talk is just that. Sticks and stones. One can talk and yell and scream until they turn blue in the face. When one takes out a weapon to threaten me or mine with harm, I will do what it takes to defend myself. If that 'means' is to shoot to kill, then I will do it.

The oath of the President of the United States does not just apply to that office.

"A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 2:11 PM

Wow, this is a huge thread! I'm sure in my effort to scan it all relatively quick, I'll miss something I'm sure I wanted to respond to, but, I'm at work, and really shouldn't even be reading this in the first place:)

>Yep, that's about it - cigarette taxes have gotten to the point of ludicrousness, a mistake that, thanks to the lessons of prohibition, they did not make with alcohol, you see.

I'm a non-smoker and am hugely offended by being forced to be subjected to second hand smoke. Living in CA has sheltered me a bit from that. When I go back east to visit family, I'm easily disgusted by the way smokers treat those who do not want to be subjected to the harmful smoke.

That said . . .

>AND those tax bumps were supposed to go into healthcare, but they didn't

That I would have a huge problem with. If it was said that the increased money would be put into a specific location and it wasn't, there should be more of a public outcry, especially if that money is going into already deep pockets.

But as for the cost of something that is recreational? You either chose to pay it to continue with the habit you enjoy, or not. Someone above said something to the effect of. . . so long as its only harming yourself and not others, and you keep your bills from whatever health problems you have because of it, to yourself, I don't care what you put into your body:)

"A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 2:16 PM

>What if the government levied heavy taxes against (insert your recreation of choice here)?

When they do that to a recreation that isn't harmful to others, (like second hand smoke) perhaps you may have my sympathy.

"A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 2:36 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Well Leia, some folk are just rude, I know it's not the same healthwise as some idiot in front of you at the grocery checkout blabbering away on a call phone - although behind the wheel of his SUV, now that's potentially health threatening, I give you, but still it's a matter of lack of respect or politeness, and should be addressed accordingly outside of the issue of smoking in general.

As a general rule I try not to subject others to it who do not want to be, my home in fact has a smoking area (my office, fully ventilated) because smoke tends to STICK to things, and I really like our wallpaper and carpet, which over time would have to be replaced if I could even find those colors and styles again, you see.

My cab is company property, so it's their decision, the fleet cabs are nonsmoking, and for luxury car services we have a smoking and nonsmoking car, so it's customer choice there.

Even outdoors I try to do so away from folk and upwind if possible, so not everyone's an arse about it, but yeah, some people are, and some are just boneheaded, as for the latter, one can always try tactful diplomacy.

Oh, and kids are a total no-go with me, any child too young to effectively make such a decision (imop 14-16ish) comes near me and imma not smoke around em, even if the parent smokes - I'm kinda hardline on childrens rights even if society isn't, and keen on bending society to someday accept that they're human beings too, even before those "magic numbers" that force us to legally accept them as such.

Then again, I had a guy at six flags come 40 YARDS out in the parking lot, upwind, to give me a rather nasty diatribe about it and demand that I quit entire - that kinda thing gets a little OLD after a while, you know ?

Person to Person, it's not really an issue that a little mutual respect cannot solve - but when folks get the Government involved as a brute force bludgeon in an attempt to make my lifestyle choices and decisions for me, I get pretty cranky about it, is all.

When a PERSON says to me "dude, your foggin me out here" or "man, if I wanted to smoke, I'd have bought a pack myself." (I have strange friends) I got no issue, I can always smoke one later, yanno ?

But when they go to the Gov as a hammer to force me, then I gotta problem.

Hope you understand that.

-Frem
Wow, talk about prophetic...
Lawsuit Filed Over Bottled Water Tax
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22510714/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 2:50 PM