Anarchist Discussion Forums

by **Guest** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 11:18 am

Its me, Gods one and only son here, again. Sorry for the anonymous post, since I do not have access to my password right now.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>What utter bullshit. 'Africa has had no empires other than Eygpt' Here is instant proof otherwise,<hr></blockquote>I NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. Look, you can't read. Just admit it. Its even worse when you try to, as you find completely nonexistant meanings in peoples words. I said black culture made very few intellectual contributions to humanity. That is true. FYI, empires do NOT equal intellectual contributions.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>E.g.If you remember your films, 'El Cid' is the struggle to remove the Moors from Spain- Moors being northern african black followers of Islam. In fact, the Moors held a large part of Spain until the 14th century, when El Cid and others threw them out, and sadly got rid of a lot of their progressive social structures (tolerance of Jews is one).<hr></blockquote>The moors were not black, and even if they were, their culture was essentially a product of nonblack semetic and arabic societies.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>Gods_Demise, you're a sad individual. The reason 'Black Africa' is in the shit is because of Colonialism. If you had read any history, its patently obvious- the same argument can be applied to central america, yet I don't see you applying it. The tin-pot dictators who followed merely inherited power structures created by the Europeans. If you don't know the history, for instance, of the Rwandan genocide (two ethnically 'different' tribes: one raised above the other by the Colonialists and dubious 'they're whiter than thou' race indexing) then I suggest you do some reading.<hr></blockquote>It is certainly true that white imperialism played a large part in the current sad & pathetic state of black Africa, but it is far from the sole perpetrator. No, black, African culture is the reason that blacks cannot handle civilization. Notice that white imperialism also victimized other nations; Ireland for instance. Yet it isn't a third world hellhole. Even latin america, which surprise surprise adopted the white culture of spaniards, is as a whole quite a bit more fair and better off than black Africa. Why else do you think Brazil has the best porn and the hottest chicks with dicks?<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>As for the cannibalism, actually it has only just resurfaced in Africa, in the Congo region. Pygmies are being hunted for meat by rebel forces because their livers supposedly have magical properties. If you knew anything about the Congo problem, its to do with mobile phones, hardly a 'black africa' resource problem. (see www.corporatewatch.org, Independent, Telegraph, Times) In fact, if you knew anything about cannibalism in humans, hunter-gathering saw the end of utilitarian cannibalism, and cannibalism after that period (40,000 yrs ago) was largely cerimonial and linked to religious/war practises.<hr></blockquote>So? What is your point? I never denied this.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>On the slavery issue, if its not fucking obvious enough, GD, by the 15th Century, most of the world did not practise slavery- the then current European system was fuedalism, and Islamic culture was having a renaissance. The fact that white Europeans re-embraced slavery, when it was not a part of their culture, is the whole point. Pointing to the Roman or Greek Empire, or Eygytians is pathetically ahistoric.<hr></blockquote>White Europeans re-embraced slavery because they re-embraced imperialism. Slavery, overall, is simply an inefficient method of controlling the masses in a Feudal/Manorial society as existed in medieval Europe. Imperialism, on the other hand, goes hand in hand with slavery. Islamic societies permitted slavery well into the times when whites did. Look, for example, at how it was in nineteenth century Morocco: http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycoop.org/journals/ahr/105.1/br_174.html Decline in popularity of slavery among islamic societies was primarily due to a decline in imperialism. Notice I said "Decline" not "abolition", as slavery is still practiced in Islamic society to this very day. Additionally, Islam was also enslaving people back in medieval times when white culture wasn't doing that anywhere near as much. and slavery still was common place elsewhere in the world, everywhere from the Aztecs to the Chinese. Blacks themselves still enslaved each other in Africa before whites enslaved them. The fact is that white civilization put forth the most legitimate, successful effort at abolitionism ever known for better reasons than any other society.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>On the subject of 'black culture' being 'unable to resist' the superior white civilisation whilst the 'Asian cultures could' is also typically (for you) ahistoric and pathetic.<hr></blockquote>Typical illiteracy from you; I NEVER SAID THAT, so whatever argument you base upon it is an invalid strawman of what I was arguing for. I said they are unable to resist modern economic imperialism by the west because their culture sucks. That is true.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>The only difference between Africa and America here is that WWI & II happened- the Empire building of the European powers collapsed as internal rivalries created economic destruction for the powers involved in the two world wars. This is the important bit, GD, so pay attention. The UK, once owner of a third of the world, simply couldn't afford the empire politically, militarily and sociologically- see immigrant population drives in the 1950's, 60's and 70's; the others were even less able to hold onto their colonial assets, and often abandoned them entirely (the British Empire at least tried to institute the Commonwealth). The S/C Americas never had this problem since they were turned into client states. (see South/Central American history 1950's onwards- you may remember such highlights as Pinoche and Columbia etc) When the European powers left, often asset-stripping the countries as they left (notoriously the Belgians) they left cultures that had been colonies for hundreds of years with massive internal power gaps. Not surprisingly, the West then made sure they sold lots of guns to the people who wanted to fill them- in any society (see the comparable rise of the Mafia in Russia) this is usually defined by the scum. Hardly a solely 'black africa' issue.<hr></blockquote>Oh it is definately confined to black Africa far more than others. Black Africa was fucked over by European powers after it left simply because black African culture was to weak, substandard and stupid in comparison to mount much of a defense. the culture of blacks in most former European colonies of their lands in Africa was one of tribalism. Tribes fought with each other frequently, over things like power. It had little organizational structure when compared with those of, say, the spaniard-cultured latin Americans, or the European cultured Irish. Simply put; there were massive power gaps in black Africa because their culture was already screwed up in the first place, as it was so primitive that little else mattered other than power.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>As for the reason why 'white culture' (i.e. European powers circa 15th century) became so over-powering and technologically advanced, is that paradoxically they actually were not. Asian cultures had developed gunpowder much earlier, and Islamic science had gone through a renaissance before Christian science. The real problem was both the onset of the protestant schism with the reformation, the resultant militarisation of Europe into religious lines, and the need for 'prestige projects' outside the European sphere, that had, after the debacle of the 30 years war, cast warfare as politically dubious (see Holy Roman Empire, dissolution of etc). Coupled with this was the prohibitive expense of military action, and the rise of the merchant class over the old Monarchy. Not only was there a drive to conquer foreign lands (as annexing a common Catholic or Protestant nation was frowned upon, although see trade wars between the English/Dutch and French/Spanish) but also a need for each religion to gather more converts. Thus the spread of colonialism was a two pronged attack, with religion and economics at its centre. With these two rather negative driving goals, and the period of unrest in Europe at the time, it is hardly surprising that technology was 'hyper-driven' into something far greater than other civilisations. Basically, Europe splintered in religious terms, and then exported that splintering effect as far as it could and as brutally as it could. The period can be roughly divided into the pre and post Napoleonic eras- after Napoleon, the rise of Nationalism and the unification of Italy and Germany gave a much more 'defined' national boundary, and drove out-right conquest out of Europe until WWI (by this I mean, attempts to take a whole country over). None of this is leftist, it all comes from rather good historians. You know, the type who write fact, not fiction...<hr></blockquote>I fail to see what relevance this has since I never denied these facts. I simply said that black culture was/is inferior to white culture. I do not deny that fact. Just as I do not deny the fact that white culture now and for the past several hundred years has been superior to all others - it has been the most advanced and morally enlightened. I'm not concerned with motives and morals, but with actions and results. Those are the facts.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>'Black Africa'- spoken like a true ignorant savage.<hr></blockquote>Let's see..."Black", as in the common terms for members of the African Geographical Race. "Africa", as in the continent. "Black Africa", as in the portions of Africa dominated by blacks. How is that ignorant and savage?<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>Your logic is flawed,<hr></blockquote>Nope. So far it is as flawless as they come. What is logically flawed is your leftist efforts to equate the most advanced culture in the world--white culture--as being at best equal, though in your mind probably a lot worse since its so much more "evil and racist", to a culture like that of black Africans which for the most part is only a few generations removed from living in trees.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>your 'history' ahistoric<hr></blockquote>Your gross misrepresentations of what I've said about history are certainly ahistoric. But I never said them myself, and they exist only in your mind, which is either too stupid to read the words I've so plainly written or too dishonest to admit that they make sense and do not deserve to be twisted and lied about, as you've done with them.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>and your grasp of current interconnecting world practises is just sad.<hr></blockquote>Its sad that you think stating obvious facts about the current world is sad. Here is a fact: black Africa overall SUCKS. It is the most poverty stricken, miserable, chaotic, violent, primitive, fucked up place in the world. White society, on the other hand, is at the top of its game when compared with every other civilization. In general, every other race has been able to make themselves much better off even after being heavily victimized by whites. But blacks have not. They suck at it. If you disagree, then feel free to move out of the evils of white culture and go with your wonderful, perfect brothers-under-the-skin in a black nation.

by **Guest** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:44 pm

[color=purple]I do not have access to my password so 'the master race' is not possessed of much of a capacity for memory? interesting. [color=purple] The moors were not black, and even if they were, their culture was essentially a product of nonblack semetic and arabic societies. the moors were black. what colour is "nonblack" i wonder? [color=purple]latin america, which surprise surprise adopted the white culture of spaniards that IS suprising, as i've seen no evidence to back up your claim. what is not suprising is that you draw your conclusions on a culture based on it's internet porn presence. [color=purple]Islam was also enslaving people back in medieval times when white culture wasn't doing that anywhere near as much. what you would call "white culture" was too wrapped up in it's crusades, killing and being killed by the (black) moors. interesting technology footnote: when your precious (white) knights embarked on their crusades, the best thing they had in the way of siege engines was the catapult. but suprise suprise, the (black) moors had already developed something capable of much longer of range, and greater devastation - the trebuchet. additional...europeans: square sails, and sweeps for when the wind wasn't blowing more or less directly the way they wanted to go...moors: lateen (triangular) sails, which allowed sailing more (dare i say moor) close-hauled to the wind, and sweeps for when there was no wind. [color=purple]Tribes fought with each other frequently, over things like power. i can't see as 'white culture' is any different from what you describe. perhaps you think there were no wars fought anywhere but africa? what d'ya think george bush is about? ever heard of PNAC? [color=purple]white culture now and for the past several hundred years has been superior to all others - it has been the most advanced and morally enlightened. morality...coming from you. what a laugh. [color=purple]I'm not concerned with motives and morals but you just said... [color=purple]..."Black", as in the common terms for members of the African Geographical Race. what is a "geographical race"? [color=purple]a culture like that of black Africans which for the most part is only a few generations removed from living in trees. a few generations? i'm guessing you use old testament time, like adam...who was supposedly 900 years old, give or take. [color=purple] Your gross misrepresentations of what I've said about history are certainly ahistoric. But I never said them myself, and they exist only in your mind, it doesn't do alot for your case of 'white' mental prowess to behave as if this were a verbal discussion where you might could get away with saying "I never said that!" no...your words have been neatly archived in textual form - AS YOU WROTE THEM. perhaps you shouldn't have written them if you were afraid they'd come back and bite you in the ass. [color=purple]Here is a fact: black Africa overall SUCKS. It is the most poverty stricken, miserable, chaotic, violent, primitive, fucked up place in the world. White society, on the other hand, is at the top of its game when compared with every other civilization. here is a fact: i think you must know that on reading your first contribution to this thread, my initial reaction was that i'd like to throttle you. it was such an overpowering desire, i was unable to generate any sort of textual response to your bullshit. i'm somewhat ashamed to say the desire has not subsided very much, but logic has taken hold and i realize you do far more damage to your ludicrous position by being free to spout it out to anyone who'll listen. distance is helpful. should we ever happen to meet, though - 'whiteman' to 'whiteman', i could not guarantee logic would win the day.

by **Yuda** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:48 pm

and just to think I was just going to call him an ignorant wanker but seemed to have summed it up nicely

by **Steppenwolf** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 6:59 pm

I'm going to do this, becuase, quite frankly, you're so arrogant and ill-informed that your airs and graces of intellectual superiority make me ashamed to be 'white'. Watch out, you're about to be trashed. [color=green]I NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. Look, you can't read. Just admit it. Its even worse when you try to, as you find completely nonexistant meanings in peoples words. I said black culture made very few intellectual contributions to humanity. That is true. FYI, empires do NOT equal intellectual contributions. But you did say: [color=red]"many other cultral achievements" were not developed by black culture, indeed, black culture rarely even made use of the wheel, and even to this day still practices canibalism to some degree. FYI, idiot, Empires are not built on magical lines where basic infrastructure, writing, trade and science are not involved. They simply cannot function without them: thus the 'birth' of Science in Greece, Babylon, Eygpt, Nubia, Axum, Aztec etc. It is simple inference to take a single look at my sources and say to yourself 'well, gee wizz, I guess all those engineering projects they accomplished DID use the wheel, mathamatics, stone cutting, and many other skills.' Your claim: Black culture, before white intervention, was [color=red]'a couple of generations from the trees. You are incorrect, and I have provided evidence that you are.You seem to have some stone-set notion that no Black Empire had beaurocracy or monument building. Go read the links. [color=green]The moors were not black, and even if they were, their culture was essentially a product of nonblack semetic and arabic societies. Yes, the Moors were black. If you didn't read or understand the links, the one I labelled 'influence of Islam on Africa' lists the progress of Islam, and interactions with pre-existing African Empires. It also notes the first great slavery drive (from Islam) and the trade roots between the Middle East and Africa, accross the Saharra. Go fucking read it, ignoramous. [color=green]It is certainly true that white imperialism played a large part in the current sad & pathetic state of black Africa, but it is far from the sole perpetrator. No, black, African culture is the reason that blacks cannot handle civilization. Despite your ignorance in using the term 'civilisation' to denote Western Capitalism here, you are still incorrect. Do you have any idea of the history of these four things in post-colonial Africa: US/USSR sponsered interventions; current debt figures for African nations; corporate political and economic bribery and control and lastly arms sales to Africa per annum? If you don't, I can provide them. To argue that Africa has been left alone in some kind of vacuum is simply insane. Your point would only hold if this were so: in fact, the West has, and does, constantly meddle in Africa and has created a place where it not Africans, really control the problems faced. I can provide your ignorance with more facts, but you don't seem to like them. [color=green]Notice that white imperialism also victimized other nations; Attempting to patronise someone when they've already pointed to client states in the S/C Americas is a little stupid. [color=green]Ireland for instance. Yet it isn't a third world hellhole. Northern Ireland is hardly a fun place to live though. Actually the 'Colonialism' put in place in Ireland has a totally different history to that of Africa, and is related to Religion, not economics. Ireland had very few exports (apart from people) that were of any use. In fact, Ireland was never Colonised, apart from the two separate settlements of Protestant Christians. The first was peaceful, and did not threaten the Irish. The second, lead by Cromwell, was violent, and created the current troubles. The rule of Ireland sprang from Cromwell's conquest, and wasn't Colonialism- it had more to do with the comparable conquest of Wales and Scotland than Africa. So, Ireland isn't a very good example to use. [color=green]Even latin america, which surprise surprise adopted the white culture of spaniards, is as a whole quite a bit more fair and better off than black Africa. Why else do you think Brazil has the best porn and the hottest chicks with dicks? In one fell swoop you have not only shown your ignorance of S/C America, but your blatant racism. It didn't 'adopt' European culture, it was usurped by it. Again do you know anything about the creation of Client states in this part of the world, the economic controls placed in the hands of an Elite or even that S/C America is currently going through melt-down? I guess you missed current world events in Bolivia. [color=green]White Europeans re-embraced slavery because they re-embraced imperialism. [color=red]This is false. Go look at the timelines of Slavery and Colonial Imperialism. As I noted, the latter follows the former. Imperialism didn't really occur until post-Napolean, whereas economic freebooting and other things did. See next informative correction. [color=green]Slavery, overall, is simply an inefficient method of controlling the masses in a Feudal/Manorial society as existed in medieval Europe. Actually, this is also [color=red]completely incorrect. For such an arrogant man, your ignorance is all the more sweet to those who actually learn. The birth of fuedalism, and decline of slavery in the West were totally different issues, at totally different times. The Germanic cultures, that were the actual precursor to fuedalism (Anglo-Saxons, Danes, etc) [color=red]never had a history of slavery, and the tribal laws of obligation and respect allowed only 'bonded' labour- in payment of debts or crime, a person could be held bonded until service was deemed rendered. Slavery, on the other hand, died out in Rome largely after the third slave revolt- Spartacus. It was phased out because of a lot of reasons, two main ones being lack of new slaves (no more conquests were possible) and fear of slave revolts. This was replaced by freedmen holding land where they tithed a third of their produce to land-owners. This issue is further complicated by the institution of tithes to both Kings and Church under Fuedalism, but suffice to say slavery isn't 'merely' an inefficient way of control, it is [color=red]actually an economic principle at heart. I can discuss this further, if you want/need (hah! of course you need it, but I doubt you have the humility to accept it) [color=green]Imperialism, on the other hand, goes hand in hand with slavery. Actually, only pre- 18th century Imperialism does. The modern Imperialism was driven by other concerns, and at its heart had the same kind of ignorant snobbery you hold. A clear example of this is the British Empire, that made all citizens under its control 'Citizens of the British Empire' with rights, at least on paper. [color=green]Islamic societies permitted slavery well into the times when whites did. Look, for example, at how it was in nineteenth century Morocco I never argued against this. After all, if you had read the site I initially provided, it clearly outlines the progression of the Islamic Slave trade. [color=green]Decline in popularity of slavery among islamic societies was primarily due to a decline in imperialism. Actually, I think it was more to do other things, but this is going to take all day if I have to combat your every mistake. [color=green]Notice I said "Decline" not "abolition", as slavery is still practiced in Islamic society to this very day. Where? Honest question- I know about certain 'black market' (not colour, illegal) slavery, notably the Eastern European sex slavery market, the American illegal immigrant economic slavery (which exists), the Chinese immigrant economic slavery (which exists) and various African ones (largely to Europe and the Middle East) but am baffled at your reference to an Islamic state sanctioning slavery (however badly women are treated). Please inform me where this is so. [color=green]Additionally, Islam was also enslaving people back in medieval times when white culture wasn't doing that anywhere near as much. Yes, I agree- it got to Africa first. [color=green]and slavery still was common place elsewhere in the world, everywhere from the Aztecs to the Chinese. The Aztec Empire was destroyed by the late 1490's. You really need to start putting some dates around here. You're jumping all over the place. Also, provide examples/dates of Chinese slavery, please. Since the Chinese had had almost 2000 more years of Empire, I am confused at which point in its progression you are pointing to. [color=green]Blacks themselves still enslaved each other in Africa before whites enslaved them. Yes, but not for the same reasons, nor in the same way. 'Slavery' is both the same thing, and very different things at the same time. Greek slavery and Roman slavery were quite different, in some respects, and both were different to Modern Western slavery and Islamic slavery. Your simplistic use of the term doesn't mean the states are synonymous. I would much prefer to be a slave in Greece or Africa than in Europe/Middle East. [color=green]The fact is that white civilization put forth the most legitimate, successful effort at abolitionism ever known for better reasons than any other society. Rome had already got rid of slavery, in its own society. You're simply [color=red]WRONG. What you mean is 'white civilisation abolished modern white slavery'~ it didn't abolish any other form, nor could it. [color=green]Typical illiteracy from you; I NEVER SAID THAT, so whatever argument you base upon it is an invalid strawman of what I was arguing for. I said they are unable to resist modern economic imperialism by the west because their culture sucks. That is true Actually, their economics 'sucks' (like how old are you 'dude'?), mainly because they didn't have one after Colonialism. Or did you totally misunderstand the principle mode of economics under colonialism, which was the supplying of raw materials?? Go back and learn something about the economics of Colonialism and you might say something intelligent. [color=green]Oh it is definately confined to black Africa far more than others. Black Africa was fucked over by European powers after it left simply because black African culture was to weak, substandard and stupid in comparison to mount much of a defense. Or perhaps because there was no defense possible? Colonial powers structured the entire economic output of African states to the production of raw materials. Even after they left, they were still the only ones who were able to perchase said materials. Again, do you know nothing about current debt, current trade protection in the West or even the comparable state of S/C American countries?!!? [color=green]the culture of blacks in most former European colonies of their lands in Africa was one of tribalism. Tribes fought with each other frequently, over things like power. It had little organizational structure Actually, this is again [color=red]WRONG. Tribal groupings, and organisation was largely helped along and enforced by Colonial Powers (see Rwanda, you fucking idiot). For instance, the Zulu challenge to British rule was well organised (Roakes drift and the famous film are pretty much propoganda- the Zulu's has earlier massacred an army of 8,000) and the confederation of organised resistance was a prime target of Colonial powers. (See South Africa) [color=green]when compared with those of, say, the spaniard-cultured latin Americans, or the European cultured Irish. S/C America is still under the control of the USA, to a large degree. Or did you miss the whole fucking history of the past 50 years?!?? There has been massive upsets, massacres and bloodshed, largely because the US maintains an active interest in maintaining control of S/C America. Go read some facts. Ireland, which never had slavery, is a totally different issue, which as an ignorant American, you have obviously only learnt about from films. [color=green]Simply put; there were massive power gaps in black Africa because their culture was already screwed up in the first place, as it was so primitive that little else mattered other than power. GO.READ.SOMETHING. The gaps occurred because the infrastructure of power was organised solely for the benefit of the possesor states. India, which was under the British Empire, had a functioning beaurocracy, largely because of its size. In Africa, the various European powers had against 'tribal' and 'racial' lines (to counter your insistance on this issue) broken the country into arbitrary segments. The infrastructure to rule it was largely not needed as the chunks were kept to a basic economic outline. [color=green]I fail to see what relevance this has Unsurprising, given the sophistication of your world-view. [color=green]since I never denied these facts. I simply said that black culture was/is inferior to white culture. I do not deny that fact. Just as I do not deny the fact that white culture now and for the past several hundred years has been superior to all others - it has been the most advanced and morally enlightened. I'm not concerned with motives and morals, but with actions and results. Those are the facts. Morally enlightened? Hmm. Do you have any idea what the term means? [color=green]Let's see..."Black", as in the common terms for members of the African Geographical Race. "Africa", as in the continent. "Black Africa", as in the portions of Africa dominated by blacks. How is that ignorant and savage? You missed the obvious reference to the description White Colonialists used about Africa. Not surprising, since you share their ignorance, but nevermind. As for the rest of your response, it needs no commentary. 'Living in trees'. Yes, and I suppose you think black men all have 12" knobs and the chinese are the most racially developed. Simply put: You know nothing about the 'why' of Western Domination of the Globe, and nothing about the 'how' to solve it. You claim you're an anarchist, (to Morpheus: 'we're anarchists') yet have no inkling of the power structures or propoganda of the global Capitalist Elite. Fuck off and learn something.

by **Man** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 5:01 am

Nicely done. I love the idea that GS puts forward: Islamic Culture was based on Semitic Culture. So is Western Culture. And what is your point? Everything is connected? There is only one origin my friend... What is Semitic Culture based on? And what colour were these people? How do you know what colour they were? And where did humanity arise from? And what is civilisation? And what is superior? And what is culture? And what is the point of what you are saying? All you say ends up in questions and more questions. You are building a pyramid of beleif in thin air. There are no foundations. There is only one true foundation. There is nothing of value in what you say God's Son. Nothing of value, nothing useful, nothing spiritually true. My turn to ask some questions: Are you free? Are you happy? Are you in denial? Are you scared? What is your purpose? Who are you?

by **disease_of_ease** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:53 pm

Tribes were developed for colonial administration and there is little evidence of "tribal warfare" prior to this. Prior to European colonialization much of southern Africa and Nigeria (the sections I'm most familiar with) were predominantly organized into family groups - like European clans - only since they're African they generally get organized into "tribes" since "clan" would denote something more positive. The wheel is hardly a milemarker of an advanced culture if such a culture has no use for it. The Maya and Inca, for instance, were far ahead of their time in math, astronomy and other aspects of civilization, but they had never had a wheel. Then again, why would they? Wheels are useless in jungles and mountains. Ah well, what use are facts to someone with some rightist, white supremacist agenda anyway?

by **Guest** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:19 pm

[color=purple]Tribes were developed for colonial administration and there is little evidence of "tribal warfare" prior to this. what of the battles between the Mthethwa and the Ndwandwe resulting in Ndwandwe dominance? what of the Zulu's huge militaristic expansion after they'd squashed the invading Ndwandwe? all this occured prior to 1824 - Zulu first contact with british colonialists. http://zululand.kzn.org.za/zululand/about/34.html having just watched a bit of anthropolgy educational tv on the south american Yanomamo, a stateless stone-age H/G society that has managed to remain in existance deep in the rainforest (though their numbers are now rapidly dwindling due to germs loggers are bringing in), i went hunting for some web material to augment the following statement: the Yanomamo were warring prior to contact with outsiders, colonialist or otherwise. on one of the site i came across: http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/discus/html/messages/62/73.html?970506661 i found comparative percentages of mortality due to warfare between non-state societies and state societies. as i contemplated the data, it occured to me that it was rather skewed, and so i wrote the following to the anthropology phd to whom it was attributed: Dr. Keeley: In the course of researching primitive h/g warring tendencies i came across a comparative chart attributed to you at: http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/discus/html/messages/62/73.html?970506661 For percentage of all deaths due to warfare, the Jivaro are shown with over 30%, whereas ancient Mexico shows approximately 5%. Though i am not a professional anthropologist or statistician, I have an idea that these percentages do not in any way prove that non-state societies are any more dangerous or brutal than state societies. Not that this was necessarily your intent - having not yet read your book on the subject, I haven't the background to make such a judgement. What I'm getting at is that though ancient Mexico has only the 5% mortality due to warfare, what of mortality due to state sanctioned sacrifices and executions? another chart located at the same web address compares male mortality rates. Again with the Jivaro at over 60% - 20th century U.S. & Europe with a paltry 2% or so. Even with state executions and shootouts with the police aside, what of mortality due to crime, industrial accidents, traffic accidents, drug overdoses, botched surgeries, heart attacks, lung cancer, etc. etc.? The sum of these far exceed mortality due to warfare in the 2oth century western world. As non-state primitive H/G societies do not experience any of that, aren't the comparative percentages rather skewed? I look forward to illumination, -raindog so DoE...you being an anthropology 'authority' of sorts...what you think?

by **Guest** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 2:16 am

Where do you get the energy? ::sigh:: Man. nice post

by **Guest** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 2:28 am

I doubt you could call all tribal societies 'non-state' societies... and think this Keeley is stretching his imagination a bit.

by **Man** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 4:34 am

? Je don't get it? Sigh? I just thought we should change tact with this one.

Anarchist Discussion Forums

The Global Privileges of Whiteness

Re: The Global Privileges of Whiteness

Re: The Global Privileges of Whiteness

Re: The Global Privileges of Whiteness

Re: The Global Privileges of Whiteness

Re: The Global Privileges of Whiteness

Re: The Global Privileges of Whiteness

Re: The Global Privileges of Whiteness

Re: The Global Privileges of Whiteness

Re: The Global Privileges of Whiteness

Re: The Global Privileges of Whiteness

Who is online