Org Mobile Site
Thread: Violence
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Both Milgram and the Stanley prison experiment produced a state I would deem "permanent war", as would their inspiration, the concentration camp guards.
Or if you want an example from anthropology, the Yanomamo tribe fits the bill.
I heard the phrase "permanent war" but the title of this thread doesn't mention Isreal or Palestine.Both Milgram and the Stanley prison experiment produced a state I would deem "permanent war", as would their inspiration, the concentration camp guards.
Or if you want an example from anthropology, the Yanomamo tribe fits the bill.
huehuehuehuehuehuehuhe
Originally Posted by :
Or if you want an example from anthropology, the Yanomamo tribe fits the bill.
We're going to have to be careful if we'd like to avoid equivocating on "war" here...Or if you want an example from anthropology, the Yanomamo tribe fits the bill.
Ritualized tribal combat is not something I can consider "war", just as I can not consider these tribes to be organized into competing "states".
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
And if you go down that part, how can you then explains different levels of violence/aggression in different societies, or differences in one society in different times?
Ok outside factors, you got meAnd if you go down that part, how can you then explains different levels of violence/aggression in different societies, or differences in one society in different times?
Uhm...
Why is statehood a requirement for war?
Why is statehood a requirement for war?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Uhm...
Why is statehood a requirement for war?
I think the answer is already in what Monty said, "I can not consider these tribes to be organized into competing "states"."Uhm...
Why is statehood a requirement for war?
Would you consider a gunfight between two rival families to be war?
Not quite what I meant: to call it "war" because men are attacking each other with tools (i.e. weaponry) is like calling these tribes 'states' because they have minimal leadership structures.
War manifests when there is armed conflict over some objective to be attained; ritualized battle for manhood rites and even more-or-less recreation is not really the same.
War manifests when there is armed conflict over some objective to be attained; ritualized battle for manhood rites and even more-or-less recreation is not really the same.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Uhm...
Why is statehood a requirement for war?
And than you ruin consesus on me being daft. Of course it isUhm...
Why is statehood a requirement for war?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Why is statehood a requirement for war?
I suppose it depends on your definitions.Why is statehood a requirement for war?
merriam-webster.com:
Originally Posted by :
... conflict between states or nations
oxforddictionaries.com:... conflict between states or nations
Originally Posted by :
... armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country
and by contrast, wiktionary.org:... armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country
Originally Posted by :
Organized, large-scale, armed conflict between countries or between national, ethnic, or other sizeable groups
I also suppose you're welcome to forge your own definition, of course!Organized, large-scale, armed conflict between countries or between national, ethnic, or other sizeable groups
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Uhm...
Why is statehood a requirement for war?
Gasp!Uhm...
Why is statehood a requirement for war?
Otherwise its just murder!
Ritualized battle between small tribes is not war - that much is clear.
A migrating tribe skirmishes with another as it attempts to drive it out of its territory. War.
200 men get together to meet a similar number of men on the usual clearing in the woods and fight it out until one side runs home with its tail between its legs, just because that's what they'd been doing for centuries. Not war.
The feud of the Hatfields and the McCoys. Not war.
Two city-states send out armies to fight over a dispute in boundaries on farmland within the valley which they share. War.
Two city-states send out armies to fight because it's been the tradition since before the city-states were established. Not war.
The Crips and the Bloods periodically organize bands to raid each other's territory. Not war.
***
Cartels vs. the Mexican state. War.
Cartels vs. each other. War.
Al Qaeda vs. the United States. Not war.
Taliban vs. the United States. War.
Working definition of war:
1. Involves continual armed conflict between at least two forces within a bounded temporal frame.
2. Involves a political and/or economic goal.
3. The forces involved must have comparable martial capacities.
3.a. c.f. Al Qaeda vs. US not being war.
3.c. Internal discord within a state or community becomes a civil war once some threshold is breached by those opposing the authority.
4. Some absolute numerical threshold for the most numerous party
4.a. A village-state (if such a small community could ever conceivably be called a state) assembling 50 men to attack another village-state in order to steal its golden idol is not war.
4.b. A marauding band of rogues sacking a medieval village is not a war.
5. If between two or more states, a formal declaration of such a state between two or more states by one of them.
5.a. Andorra vs. Kosovo, and even with no fighting whatsoever, will be considered a war.
And many more specifiers to be added, but this is a solid core I think.
Originally Posted by ACIN:
I think the answer is already in what Monty said, "I can not consider these tribes to be organized into competing "states"."
Would you consider a gunfight between two rival families to be war?
The second line is good, but let's get deeper if we really want to quibble about this, and we'll sort out whether the examples I present are tendentious and what-not:I think the answer is already in what Monty said, "I can not consider these tribes to be organized into competing "states"."
Would you consider a gunfight between two rival families to be war?
A migrating tribe skirmishes with another as it attempts to drive it out of its territory. War.
200 men get together to meet a similar number of men on the usual clearing in the woods and fight it out until one side runs home with its tail between its legs, just because that's what they'd been doing for centuries. Not war.
The feud of the Hatfields and the McCoys. Not war.
Two city-states send out armies to fight over a dispute in boundaries on farmland within the valley which they share. War.
Two city-states send out armies to fight because it's been the tradition since before the city-states were established. Not war.
The Crips and the Bloods periodically organize bands to raid each other's territory. Not war.
***
Cartels vs. the Mexican state. War.
Cartels vs. each other. War.
Al Qaeda vs. the United States. Not war.
Taliban vs. the United States. War.
Working definition of war:
1. Involves continual armed conflict between at least two forces within a bounded temporal frame.
2. Involves a political and/or economic goal.
3. The forces involved must have comparable martial capacities.
3.a. c.f. Al Qaeda vs. US not being war.
3.c. Internal discord within a state or community becomes a civil war once some threshold is breached by those opposing the authority.
4. Some absolute numerical threshold for the most numerous party
4.a. A village-state (if such a small community could ever conceivably be called a state) assembling 50 men to attack another village-state in order to steal its golden idol is not war.
4.b. A marauding band of rogues sacking a medieval village is not a war.
5. If between two or more states, a formal declaration of such a state between two or more states by one of them.
5.a. Andorra vs. Kosovo, and even with no fighting whatsoever, will be considered a war.
And many more specifiers to be added, but this is a solid core I think.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
I think the answer is already in what Monty said, "I can not consider these tribes to be organized into competing "states"."
Would you consider a gunfight between two rival families to be war?
Apart from the scale of it, I don't see much difference.I think the answer is already in what Monty said, "I can not consider these tribes to be organized into competing "states"."
Would you consider a gunfight between two rival families to be war?
Neither do anthropologists, btw.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Not quite what I meant: to call it "war" because men are attacking each other with tools (i.e. weaponry) is like calling these tribes 'states' because they have minimal leadership structures.
War manifests when there is armed conflict over some objective to be attained; ritualized battle for manhood rites and even more-or-less recreation is not really the same.
While one of the combat forms of the Yanomamo(the dualing) is ritualized(like the gun duel is), their other forms, like ambushes, is not.Not quite what I meant: to call it "war" because men are attacking each other with tools (i.e. weaponry) is like calling these tribes 'states' because they have minimal leadership structures.
War manifests when there is armed conflict over some objective to be attained; ritualized battle for manhood rites and even more-or-less recreation is not really the same.
And the object of it all is the most common one of all: resources.
Originally Posted by :
And the object of it all is the most common one of all: resources.
The New Guinean tribes I have read of engaged in ritualized meeting and battle, and then just left for their homes once it was through.And the object of it all is the most common one of all: resources.
But of course my working definition accounts for the rest.
Ever seen 7 Samurai/Magnificent Seven? Not war.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
The New Guinean tribes I have read of engaged in ritualized meeting and battle, and then just left for their homes once it was through.
You're on the wrong continent...The New Guinean tribes I have read of engaged in ritualized meeting and battle, and then just left for their homes once it was through.
I don't have much interest in discussing the meanings of terms, however. I leave that to the language teachers...
Originally Posted by :
You're on the wrong continent...
The specific tribe doesn't matter, we're speaking categorically.You're on the wrong continent...
Originally Posted by :
I don't have much interest in discussing the meanings of terms, however.
Communication is constraint. If you are not constrained in your grammar, you can not communicate.I don't have much interest in discussing the meanings of terms, however.
bug dab jowq of he give to
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
The specific tribe doesn't matter, we're speaking categorically.
Communication is constraint. If you are not constrained in your grammar, you can not communicate.
bug dab jowq of he give to
That does not apply to sociological terms, since each person will inevitably have their own definition of terms, and even the "official" definition is not one, but many for each term.The specific tribe doesn't matter, we're speaking categorically.
Communication is constraint. If you are not constrained in your grammar, you can not communicate.
bug dab jowq of he give to
As long as one explains what is meant by the term used, I'd say it's okay. I believe I have done so in my replies to you.
And the specific tribe does matter, since there's an ocean of difference between New Guinean islanders and Amazonian hunters.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
And if you go down that part, how can you then explains different levels of violence/aggression in different societies, or differences in one society in different times?
Well I simply can't, back at ya, why does violence exist on all levels of societyAnd if you go down that part, how can you then explains different levels of violence/aggression in different societies, or differences in one society in different times?
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Well I simply can't, back at ya, why does violence exist on all levels of society
I'm not that interested in existence, I'm more interested in variations. In order to explain the variations we see between classes, cultures, and so on, I believe we have to look for outside factors, not biology.Well I simply can't, back at ya, why does violence exist on all levels of society
A note: when I say "outside factors", what I'm actually referring to is the norwegian term "rammefaktorer". My translation may be lacking, but you seem to get my meaning nonetheless. Directly translated I guess it would be "framework factors" or something.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
I'm not that interested in existence, I'm more interested in variations. In order to explain the variations we see between classes, cultures, and so on, I believe we have to look for outside factors, not biology.
A note: when I say "outside factors", what I'm actually referring to is the norwegian term "rammefaktorer". My translation may be lacking, but you seem to get my meaning nonetheless. Directly translated I guess it would be "framework factors" or something.
I get it. It's more of a nature vs nurture thing in the end, nurture is the framework. It's an endless chicken&egg theoryI'm not that interested in existence, I'm more interested in variations. In order to explain the variations we see between classes, cultures, and so on, I believe we have to look for outside factors, not biology.
A note: when I say "outside factors", what I'm actually referring to is the norwegian term "rammefaktorer". My translation may be lacking, but you seem to get my meaning nonetheless. Directly translated I guess it would be "framework factors" or something.
Originally Posted by :
And the specific tribe does matter, since there's an ocean of difference between New Guinean islanders and Amazonian hunters.
The point being that we're referring to a particular sort of lifestyle...And the specific tribe does matter, since there's an ocean of difference between New Guinean islanders and Amazonian hunters.
Originally Posted by :
As long as one explains what is meant by the term used, I'd say it's okay. I believe I have done so in my replies to you.
Of course, I'm not obliged to take your definitions for granted.As long as one explains what is meant by the term used, I'd say it's okay. I believe I have done so in my replies to you.
Anyway, you might as well use the entire world instead of a single tribe; after all, has there ever been even a second i n the past 10,000 years where (taking a very loose definition of war) not one human was seeking to inflict harm upon another?
To say that war by any definition is continual is a truism.
To say that war by any definition is continuous develops a fabulous image of humans who devote every instant of their conscious existences to fighting or hating some enemy.
Either way, "endless war" is a phrase fit for the gutter.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
I get it. It's more of a nature vs nurture thing in the end, nurture is the framework. It's an endless chicken&egg theory
Of course, "nature" and "nurture" are one and the same, so trying to set them in opposition to each other is a rather fruitless endeavor.I get it. It's more of a nature vs nurture thing in the end, nurture is the framework. It's an endless chicken&egg theory
The "outside factors" and "frameworks" now spoken of arise as a direct result of human biology, and any effects they have, whether direct or indirect, are effects on (biomechanical) humans.
One can not hope to explain or predict the flow of ocean currents by studying raindrops or clouds.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
The point being that we're referring to a particular sort of lifestyle...
The amazonians have about as much in common with the Swedes as they have with the Guineans, hence my objection.The point being that we're referring to a particular sort of lifestyle...
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Of course, I'm not obliged to take your definitions for granted.
Anyway, you might as well use the entire world instead of a single tribe; after all, has there ever been even a second i n the past 10,000 years where (taking a very loose definition of war) not one human was seeking to inflict harm upon another?
To say that war by any definition is continual is a truism.
To say that war by any definition is continuous develops a fabulous image of humans who devote every instant of their conscious existences to fighting or hating some enemy.
Either way, "endless war" is a phrase fit for the gutter.
This has nothing to do with any of what I have said.Of course, I'm not obliged to take your definitions for granted.
Anyway, you might as well use the entire world instead of a single tribe; after all, has there ever been even a second i n the past 10,000 years where (taking a very loose definition of war) not one human was seeking to inflict harm upon another?
To say that war by any definition is continual is a truism.
To say that war by any definition is continuous develops a fabulous image of humans who devote every instant of their conscious existences to fighting or hating some enemy.
Either way, "endless war" is a phrase fit for the gutter.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Of course, "nature" and "nurture" are one and the same, so trying to set them in opposition to each other is a rather fruitless endeavor.
The "outside factors" and "frameworks" now spoken of arise as a direct result of human biology, and any effects they have, whether direct or indirect, are effects on (biomechanical) humans.
One can not hope to explain or predict the flow of ocean currents by studying raindrops or clouds.
"Now spoken of"...? I used "outside factors" in my very first post in this thread. In fact, it's the starting point of my argument here. Methinks you've come into this thread a little late....Of course, "nature" and "nurture" are one and the same, so trying to set them in opposition to each other is a rather fruitless endeavor.
The "outside factors" and "frameworks" now spoken of arise as a direct result of human biology, and any effects they have, whether direct or indirect, are effects on (biomechanical) humans.
One can not hope to explain or predict the flow of ocean currents by studying raindrops or clouds.
When the milk plus has set your rassoodocks on it, nothing beats some lashings of the old ultraviolence.
To be serious, violence is innate, but so is our desire to live as a social species. Experience shows that when the two come into conflict, it is our social aspect that tends to dominate.
Whether or not it is appropriate for society to take more artificial measures to suppress violence tendencies is a tricky one, and it's that debate I was hinting at with the first line of this post. Personally, I'm not very comfortable with it, and certainly not without an individual's consent.
To be serious, violence is innate, but so is our desire to live as a social species. Experience shows that when the two come into conflict, it is our social aspect that tends to dominate.
Whether or not it is appropriate for society to take more artificial measures to suppress violence tendencies is a tricky one, and it's that debate I was hinting at with the first line of this post. Personally, I'm not very comfortable with it, and certainly not without an individual's consent.
Violence is a natural part of us, so it is only natural that we try to understand it.
The "outside factors" HoreTore talks about is hogwash. There will ALWAYS be outside factors influencing ones behaviour.
With that said, I think we as a society glorify violence a bit too much.
The "outside factors" HoreTore talks about is hogwash. There will ALWAYS be outside factors influencing ones behaviour.
With that said, I think we as a society glorify violence a bit too much.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
There will ALWAYS be outside factors influencing ones behaviour.
Uhm......There will ALWAYS be outside factors influencing ones behaviour.
That's my argument, yes.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Uhm......
That's my argument, yes.
So why bother bringing it up? Uhm......
That's my argument, yes.
TO ALL: I actually think we would have a better society at large, if we were more loose on violence. In essence, more REAL blood and death, less Hollywood script.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
So why bother bringing it up?
Sometimes I forget that the entire world turned to marxism last year....So why bother bringing it up?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Sometimes I forget that the entire world turned to marxism last year....
You really ought not try hard to be daft.Sometimes I forget that the entire world turned to marxism last year....
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Working definition of war:
1. Involves continual armed conflict between at least two forces within a bounded temporal frame.
2. Involves a political and/or economic goal.
3. The forces involved must have comparable martial capacities.
3.a. c.f. Al Qaeda vs. US not being war.
3.c. Internal discord within a state or community becomes a civil war once some threshold is breached by those opposing the authority.
4. Some absolute numerical threshold for the most numerous party
4.a. A village-state (if such a small community could ever conceivably be called a state) assembling 50 men to attack another village-state in order to steal its golden idol is not war.
4.b. A marauding band of rogues sacking a medieval village is not a war.
5. If between two or more states, a formal declaration of such a state between two or more states by one of them.
5.a. Andorra vs. Kosovo, and even with no fighting whatsoever, will be considered a war.
And many more specifiers to be added, but this is a solid core I think.
I have trouble with points 3-5.Working definition of war:
1. Involves continual armed conflict between at least two forces within a bounded temporal frame.
2. Involves a political and/or economic goal.
3. The forces involved must have comparable martial capacities.
3.a. c.f. Al Qaeda vs. US not being war.
3.c. Internal discord within a state or community becomes a civil war once some threshold is breached by those opposing the authority.
4. Some absolute numerical threshold for the most numerous party
4.a. A village-state (if such a small community could ever conceivably be called a state) assembling 50 men to attack another village-state in order to steal its golden idol is not war.
4.b. A marauding band of rogues sacking a medieval village is not a war.
5. If between two or more states, a formal declaration of such a state between two or more states by one of them.
5.a. Andorra vs. Kosovo, and even with no fighting whatsoever, will be considered a war.
And many more specifiers to be added, but this is a solid core I think.
I do not believe that disparity of forces is valid in denying the label "war." The conquest of Luxembourg in 1914, The conquest of Denmark in 1940, The conflict against the Nez Perce: All of these feature a gross disparity of forces, but I don't think you can legitimately label them as anything aside from an act of war.
I think I get what you are driving at in terms of the size factor, but any number of the wars of antiquity -- notably in the fertile crescent -- did not involve polities that were terrifically larger.
The Cold War between the West and the CCCP; the US conflict with France in the late 1790s; The invasion of Russia in 1918....I don't know that formal declarations are so much of a much requirement. Perhaps as a "last choice if none of the others are present."
States and Governments deal in violence. We learn from the best. And of course the Fourth Estate reports on it as it fits whatever agenda they are pushing for today
Originally Posted by :
The conquest of Luxembourg in 1914, The conquest of Denmark in 1940
If there is a formal declaration of war by one or more states upon one or more states, then that must be considered a war. "If" - so not rendered as a prerequisite.The conquest of Luxembourg in 1914, The conquest of Denmark in 1940
Originally Posted by :
Nez Perce
Well, I didn't set out to derive a definitive ratio. It lies somewhere below the Indian Wars, but above, say the Waco Raid.Nez Perce
Originally Posted by :
I think I get what you are driving at in terms of the size factor, but any number of the wars of antiquity -- notably in the fertile crescent -- did not involve polities that were terrifically larger.
The point being that there must be a cut-off somewhere, or else two 'lone-wolves' clashing over a fruit tree would constitute a war by the rest of the definition.I think I get what you are driving at in terms of the size factor, but any number of the wars of antiquity -- notably in the fertile crescent -- did not involve polities that were terrifically larger.
War is a legal fiction; thus why I said w/o the state it is simply murder.
War may even be waged against an abstraction: drugs, terror, poverty, ideas, religion. To migrate from simple "murder on the behalf of others" it requires the legal-fiction/legitimacy which the state provides.
MRD points to the role of the 4th estate: the legal-fiction is clothed in the appropriate attire and paraded before the public; propaganda is a tool of violence.
War may even be waged against an abstraction: drugs, terror, poverty, ideas, religion. To migrate from simple "murder on the behalf of others" it requires the legal-fiction/legitimacy which the state provides.
MRD points to the role of the 4th estate: the legal-fiction is clothed in the appropriate attire and paraded before the public; propaganda is a tool of violence.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO