Badland Mentality vs. Fertile-Land Mentality

[NanoByte]

A thread for the Chinese-vs.-Native-American-cultural-progress crowd?:

(Caveat: The following has not been certified 100% politically correct.)

Having evolved in the savannahs and rain forests of somewhat central Africa (right?), one might say that Homo sapiens sapiens is, given a choice, not a desert rat. But man hangs out in competing tribes, and some of the members of these don't fit in so well with the others, so they have to form their own less competitive tribes, which then get forced into the left-over lands of this globe. Usually, the behaviors of those of the favored lands and those driven onto the rocks and sands tend to exhibit rather radically different deportments, yet, comparison of the results of this alienation don't seem to correlate over different continents of our globe. Excluding the ferocities of inter-"horde" wars, am I wrong in seeing a pattern, in Eurasia and North Africa, where those forced into the deserts and other less desirable lands have taken up, over most of their years of existence, very raw social interactions compared to their cousins in green pastures; while in North America, the inhabitants of the abundant forests and plains seem to have become far more harsh on each other than have those in the continent's arid lands.

Ray (His father was monophonic and his mother was quadriphonic, but he turned out to be just another stereo type.)

[DougC]

- - - It seems like maybe that's backwards; if there's less resources, then I'd expect more fighting over those resources. The people in higher-resource areas would have less reason to attack each other. Not that that would stop them, Native American, Chinese or whatever.
- - - One aspect of sociology/archaeology I find interesting is what I call the "bullseye effect"; that whenever a great monument is built, usually the society that built it is destroyed or dispersed within a few hundred years. The temple or city that they spent so much effort in building, ends up being abandoned and left to decay. Not every ancient site in the world today is the result of these circumstances (for instance, many Central American native cultures escaped it because they were disturbed by European explorers before they had a chance to disperse) but over all of the world it has occurred with surprising regularity. - MC

[NanoByte]

I guess, when you say "that's backwards", you're referring to the scenario I claim for North America. I agree, that seems backwards to me. Like, where the Lakota, of the plains, say, were fierce, while the Hopi were pacific.

But I painted the opposite, and we would think more likely, scenario in the case of the Old World, where, say, Berbers have been raw and, say, some parts of Europe, at times, benign.

I'm nowise near an historian, but I don't dig your "bull's-eye effect". It seems roughly to me that the ramp up to the point of shooting their wad by a society has usually been about as long as the ramp down. You can't count an initial long low plain of a society's existence as part of the up ramp, and how many societies (however, you break them down) lasted longer than a "few hundered years" either side of their peaks?

Ray (over the hill, with the vines creeping up)

[Commander Fortune]

This actually makes sense to me.

More cooperation is required for maximum benefit from limited resources especially for those whose lifestyle revolves around a small family group or clan.

[Commander Fortune]

It is too damn hot to be especially feirce in the desert, anyhow.

[Jois]

Nanobyte: I'm not sure I get this-

Africa
Eurasia
those in more desirable lands = more warlike
those in less desirable lands = less warlike


America
those in more desirable lands = less warlike
those in less desirable lands = more warlike

Is this right?

Can you give examples?

And I'm uncertain about this: "But man hangs out in competing tribes, and some of the members of these don't fit in so well with the others, so they have to form their own less competitive tribes, which then get forced into the left-over lands of this globe"

Does this mean that less and less competitive peoples moved further and further out of Africa and into the unknown - across deserts and mountins and eventually to Asia.

That these poor uncompetitive sorts went over the straights into America then east, south-east and south?

I would have thought the most competitve sorts would have been the ones to leave home and set out for parts unknown.




------------------
Oh, I'm gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

[NanoByte]

Jois:

Africa, Eurasia: those in more desirable lands = more warlike; those in less desirable lands = less warlike.
America: those in more desirable lands = less warlike; those in less desirable lands = more warlike.

Well, somewhat, but I was trying to restrict the rowdy conflict to the lowest-social-level interactions, i.e., within the family or against the guy in the same block, or at least the same settlement -- rather anarchic or ruthless within his own little tribe or extended tribe. I don't think you pick up much of the differential pattern if you include warfare in general. Obviously, those not strong at war and not highly isolated didn't likely survive much.

Quoting me: "But man hangs out in competing tribes, and some of the members of these don't fit in so well with the others, so they have to form their own less competitive tribes, which then get forced into the left-over lands of this globe"

Does this mean that less and less competitive peoples moved further and further out of
Africa and into the unknown - across deserts and mountins and eventually to Asia.

No, that's a different, earlier trip. I suspect you could conclude that those who ran off to parts other than Africa, and became more adapted to those parts, were originally the less competitive within the African environment -- but then more competitive in general after evolving in those away parts, out of necessity for more sophisticated shelters, etc., to the ability of better controlling their environment in any locale. However, that's a different can of worms, or a can of different worms.

That these poor uncompetitive sorts went over the straights into America then east, south-east and south?

Yeah, the gays went over the straights. You're putting me into a strait jacket. Try switching those two words.

No, my hallucination here doesn't have to do with getting from the Old World to the New, only to do with the appearance of opposition in character-distinction alignment, in the two worlds (after they became populated for some time), in respect to, in each case, whichever of a provident or improvident environment they could secure, relative to their continent-cohabitant buddies, in the particular longitudinal hemisphere they were in.

I would have thought the most competitve sorts would have been the ones to leave home and set out for parts unknown.

Not at the stage of securing good land where they first existed. Once having a secure base, that could well be true (though, in the Chinese-vs.-Amerind thread it was pointed out that the Chinese tended collectively not to be of a geographically exploring nature). The more competitive ones would've agressed to hold the good ground, and upon meeting resistance from the less competitive, booted them out to whatever less desirable lands should be handy.

I gave examples in my second post here. It would seem that the "civilizations" of the Arab and Central Asian areas were and still are pretty raw, while the natives in North America's desert areas were and are quite socialized. It seemed strange to me that there would be this discrepancy, but I don't know that the data one could find on this subject wouldn't be pretty full of holes, and the thesis have to be worded in a rather gerrymandered way.

Ray (Don't correct me politically.)

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Let's recap--The OP can be summarized as follows: when a society developes in a resource-poor environment, does this environment promote extreme conflict or extreme cooperation & socialization?

Is this the point you were trying to resolve, Nanobyte?

------------------
With magic, you can turn a frog into a prince. With science, you can turn a frog into a Ph.D, and you still have the frog you started with.

[Jois]

I think I'd have to agree that, "... the thesis have to be worded in a rather gerrymandered way."

------------------
Oh, I'm gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

[AHunter3]

Up until around 10,000 years ago, our species was doing the hunter-gatherer thing pretty much universally, and we were not very competitive or aggressive doing it.

It was probably in [b]confined[/i] areas of abundant fertility that were surrounded by hostile desert that we ended up fighting over resources, because in those places you couldn't simply pick up and wander on over the horizon to where there were fewer people but still plenty to eat. Example: the mesopotamian fertile crescent.



------------------
Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post

[trouts1]

NanoByte

I get the drift but:

Having evolved in the savannahs and rain forests of somewhat central Africa (right?),one might say that Homo sapiens sapiens

sapiens sapiens emerged at the Holocene Epoch or 11,000 years ago. There are many theories showing "foundational" development in Central North Eastern Africa, South Africa and Asia but not for sapiens sapiens = ss a newbe.

AHunter3

Up until around 10,000 years ago, our species was doing the hunter-gatherer thing pretty much universally, and we were not very competitive or aggressive doing it.

I agree with this view but cannot support it.
Early Humanoids are more involved with fighting the rain and cold than each other.

Toynbee defines a more complex idea of "response to challenges". For example: the challenge to Germany (Atilla) to Rome, Rome (J. Caeser) to Gaul. Persia (Darius/Xerxes) to Greece. None of which are really about the need to get more resources. Although you may have excluded the "inter-horde wars".

Earlier than roughly 5000 years ago there is not a whole lot of evidence for who did what on a small group level.

pointed out that the Chinese tended collectively not to be of a geographically
exploring nature

Depends on the period. At one point they had the largest fleet in the world.

Quite a few early burials (5000-2000) have accompanying knives, swords and spears but there is no suggestion of use.

I have seen a few common burials where the nature of the bones suggest some sort of larger conflict say involving 10 to 200 people but those are infrequent. There are also rare incidences of burials where an arrow point was found between a rib case etc.

[Jois]

Nanobyte, Trouts1, and AHunter3 and others,

While you consider this thread, please also consider why these ancient peoples moved.

Nanobyte said: "But man hangs out in competing tribes, and some of the members of
these don't fit in so well with the others, so they have to form their own less
competitive tribes, which then get forced into the left-over lands of this globe."

Is it simply that primates, Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens sapiens just didn't fit inso well with others and moved east and west all over Europe and Asia?

I'm pretty sure that in America the people started out following migrating animals and eventually left what must have been great circles made by buffalo or deer or elk.

But what made them move all over Europe and Asia?



------------------
Oh, I'm gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

[Jois]

Okay, Nanobyte, see what you think of this - as my eye doctor says, "Better or Worse?"

"A region's enviornment proves to be an influencing factor that limits or channels the practical stratigies available to every culture that evolves within it."

Followed by an example which I omit.

Then in brackets:

"(The culture-area idea has also been abused. Occasionally enviormental has been erroneously interpreted as a determining factor that predestines the ultimate development of local cultures. In fact, the extent to which any culture becomes complex, warlike, artistic or sedentary, or achieves any other qualitative character has little to do with the enviornment. People can develop variously "creative" or predatory or any other kind of societies anywhere.)"

Well, better? or worse?

Oh, I forgot:
"The Smithsonian Book of North American Indians Before the Coming of the Europeans";
Philip Kopper P 80. c 1986, Smithsonian Institution, pub. Smithsonian Books
-----------------
I came, I saw, and I proofread, but I'm still not sure.

[NanoByte]

BDCofT:

Yes, basically. Then, I was trying to claim the extreme-conflict case in the marginal lands of the Near East and North Africa but the extreme-cooperation case in the marginal lands of the U. S. Southwest. However, I was rather nebulous about the time frames or relative stages of development involved and whether they are/were cotemporaneous, how specific a geographic location was indicated, and what the appropriate elements of conflict and of cooperation really were.

Jois:

I think I'd have to agree that, "... the thesis have to be worded in a rather gerrymandered way."

Yeah, my view of psychology, sociology and history is that, depending on your personal slant, and defining your terms around corners, you can make a credible claim for just about anything. . .because it's all inherently subjectively based.

AHunter3:

It was probably in [b]confined[/i] areas of abundant fertility that were surrounded by hostile desert that we ended up fighting over resources, because in those places you couldn't simply pick up and wander on over the horizon to where there were fewer people but still plenty to eat. Example: the mesopotamian fertile crescent.

Maybe at first, but when the A males managed to run the show for significant periods, in such as the Crescent, lopping of heads in order to do so, you gradually got a "civilization" locally, but still some rugged robber barons could manage to survive on the margins of it, possibly pillaging it from time to time, and thus, in those desert areas, the citizens remained much less benign, didn't they. No historian I.

trouts1:

So you're saying that, by the time Hs got promoted to Hss, he existed over most of the Old World, at least? So maybe some of him was, by then, a little bit accommodated to deserts (You used to hear that the epicanthic fold was due to the Gobi Desert.), but I still say that, in general, he was no desert rat, because he still was, despite maybe a more blown-up brain, basically still an Hs from those non-desert places in Africa. (Maybe the Australian aborigines were nearly desert rats.)

Early Humanoids are more involved with fighting the rain and cold than each other.

I agree, plus dealing with other animals.

Challenges between hordes is a different and later-stage issue, I'd say, since I was accenting an earlier stage in the process of civilization, and also, just the intra-horde or even intra-tribal relationships.

Earlier than roughly 5000 years ago there is not a whole lot of evidence for who did what on a small group level.

Yeah, guess they hadn't yet invented the secretary or the diary by that time. Even when they got to those cuneiform tablets, they had lotsa trouble stuffing the latter in their end-table drawers.

Jois again:

My discussion was definitely not centered on why mankind wandered all over the earth; it simply centered on differences in those who more or less cooperated and continued to hang out on good ground vs. those who wouldn't play their game quite right, and upon whom the former then managed to gang up on and force out into bad ground, e.g., bandit tribes of Afghanistan. But then, I noted that the Hopi, Zuñi, etc. in the U.S. live very cooperatively on marginal land, while Plains Indians, e.g., got very rowdy amongst themselves, as well as between tribes.

As far as the impetus to wander over the next mountain range, clearly all of the forces of adventure, exhaustion of provisions, natural disasters, invasion of neighbors, factionalization, etc. led to such, at different times and in different places.

And yes, I'm glad you finally remembered to tell me where you quoted all that from, because I was not ready to believe that your eye doctor came up with all that. So, I guess the Smithsonian contradicts itself.

Your quote of it: "In fact, the extent to which any culture becomes complex, warlike, artistic or sedentary, or achieves any other qualitative character has little to do with the enviornment. People can develop variously 'creative' or predatory or any other kind of societies anywhere."

This sort of wipes out Darwin, doesn't it? They can do such "anywhere" under only the some improbable right circumstances. . .which redefines "anywhere".

Ray (Smithsonians belong in an institution. . .but don't tell my brother-in-law who has retired to volunteer there, in the old-car department.)

[Jois]

Nanobyte: Tell me the name of your brother and I'll tattle! The Smithonian is to be worshiped in awe on bended (not straight) knees.

The first part of the Smithsonian/eye doctor quote lets you know that people who live next to the beach in Florida do not sew seal skins together to make warmclothing for icy winters - and the people who live in Kansas do not make ocean going vessels for weekend trips.

That other quote says that enviorment is not
a determining factor that predestines the
ultimate development of local cultures. In fact, the extent to which any culture becomes complex, warlike, artistic or sedentary, or achieves any other qualitative character has little to do with the enviornment. Gee, I did practically quoted it.

And is this quote from you an admission of belief in Social Darwinism? "This sort of wipes out Darwin, doesn't it?"

http://flowerkitty.tripod.com/smile/alien.gif

[Ike Witt]

trouts1 wrote

sapiens sapiens emerged at the Holocene Epoch or 11,000 years ago. There are many theories showing "foundational" development in Central North Eastern Africa, South Africa and Asia but not for sapiens sapiens = ss a newbe.

Do you have a cite for the 11,000bp date? The latestdate that I have ever heard for the emergence of our species is 30,000bp. Also, what are you getting at with that second sentence? I couldn't follow its gist at all.

------------------
If I was discussing Lucy Lawless but I wrote Lucy Topless, would that be a Freudian typo?

[Jois]

Nanobyte, I can't find any Lakoda or Lakoda of the Plains. I think they have all moved with the Lakers a while back.
</br> The Plains Indians were not always the horse riding, raiding party, "BBQ the neighbors" kind of people from the movies. Most were semi nomadic and partially agricultural until the Spanish lost track of their horses and THEN: there went the neighborhood. And then they did all that stuff except "BBQ the neighbors."

So they might not be a good example for this discussion. They might be fierce because they had to break all those horses and not because they lived in the "abundant forests" and plains.

------------------
Oh, I'm gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

[Jois]

This double posting is just a pain in the neck to me. I've been having the same problem because the board does not take me back to the thread showing my posting. It just isn't re-loading, you and I, have to press reload before you re-post. Something new that just happened in the past couple of days. The moderators used to delete double posts and maybe they will start doing it again.

------------------
Oh, I'm gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

[Ike Witt]

trouts1 said

sapiens sapiens emerged at the Holocene Epoch or 11,000 years ago. There are many theories showing "foundational" development in Central North Eastern Africa, South Africa and Asia but not for sapiens sapiens = ss a newbe.

Got any cites for the date of 11,000 bp? The latest date that I have ever heard for the emergance of our species is 30,000 bp. And what exactly is meant by the second sentence? I can't follow the gist of it at all.

------------------
If I was discussing Lucy Lawless but I wrote Lucy Topless, would that be a Freudian typo?

[NanoByte]

Jois:

Environment is environment. Whaddaya mean that SI stuff isn't self-contradictive?

Social Darwinism? Why not. Of course, anything "social" isn't really science.

That's 'Lakota', not 'Lakoda'!:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...3976/Hawk.html

The way they state it here: ". . .the Lakota established dominance versus other tribes in their new home. . ."

Ray

------------------
"The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." -- Steven Weinberg, Physicist

[NanoByte]

I better correct a response to a question of Jois I made in my last post. I was forgetting that the term 'Social Darwinism' was used by some neo-Eugenicists. My original statement that brought on this query, of course, had nothing to do with this, and my affirmative answer to Jois' question as to my acceptance of Social Darwinism, in the sense of this definition:

"Another such view is "Social Darwinism", which holds that social policy should allow the weak and unfit to fail and die, and that this is not only good policy but morally right."

, stated at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/social.html

, did definitely not represent what I was thinking of at the time I typed it. I have total distaste for any such active philosophy; I thought I was merely stating that, yes, I felt human behaviors, expressed either objectively or subjectively, certainly obeying the Darwinian notion of having the greatest survival value in cases where they appeared to accomplish what seemed to be their ends, i.e., the notion of Dawkins' 'memes'. But I noted that I didn't credit such thinking, as to subjectively described behaviors, as being scientific. Actually, as far as I'm concerned, all Darwinian thought pretty much begs the question, if you take it very far; but that which is objectively described satisfies an immediate scientific need. The idea that individuals or groups can decide, in even a subjective pseudo-scientific sense, at any point, what complex human behavior is on the right track, in the long run universally/globally and should take action accordingly doesn't compute in my mind, in association with any scientific context.

For example, I don't think I can call on a Social Darwinism religion to make a claim that mountain bikers destroying the trails on Mt. Tamalpais (across the Gate from SF) is a practice that, if allowed to continue, will lead to the extinction of the human race (even though I hike there and am a member of Sierra Club). Certainly, the human race, as we know, is what it is, in good part, and maybe only exists because members of it did a lot of things that presently seem very nasty. 'Nastiness' is a subjective concept, anyhow, which is to be abhored by science per se, in my view.

But I understand Darwinism has even marched further these days, to the point of annoying some hardnosed scientists, when it claims that even science itself is not a given reality, but rather a mere evolution of historical accidents -- one that appears to work fairly well, but really only one model (or more than one) out of an infinity of such that could've evolved and worked just as well or better. For example, the physicist, Steven Weinberg, seems to be bothered by this notion.

Ray (Just ain't no terra firma nowhere to plant my feet on these days.)

------------------
"The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." -- Steven Weinberg, Physicist

[NanoByte]

I should've included my comments above, against active Social Darwinism, that I don't believe in any so-called "natural laws" of sociality. There are obviously different probabilities of viability for different sorts of interactions, but as far as nature could care, a species could conceivably squeeze through dire straits (and, yes, Jois, we're mainly talking about straights, here ), perhaps, in some cases, by serving up its families' odd-number offspring at Thanksgiving Dinner and baying at the moon from the tops of poplar trees. Since I don't even discount that phlogiston or ether are less "real", in some absolute sense, than atoms and electromagnetic energy -- its just that modeling around other concepts arrived at much more elegant results, given how thinking in physics had evolved -- I wouldn't be apt to find anything acceptable in interventionist Social Darwinism. I see science as properly applied, only where there is some agreement based on existing, non-scientifically derived ethical stances, in only the short terms of projected event schedules -- in those cases in which it supports an outcome favorable within those stances.

Ray

[Johnny L.A.]

A long time ago I heard a story that desert-dwellers (the story too place in the Sahara) would offer aid to their enemies when the enemy was in need. The idea was that the desert was a foe to all and that one must help even an enemy against the desert.

With the conflicts in the Middle East, I've lost the idealistic view that story once instilled in me.

Whatever.

This is just off the top of my head, so please don't flame me too hard. Assume an environment, a wood for example, that provided a good living to one tribe. If two tribes were competing for the same resources, the more war-like tribe (i.e., the one that demonstrates the moste prowess in warfare) would likely drive the less-warlike tribe out of the area. The less-warlike tribe would be forced to eke out an existence in a less-favourable land, leaving less time to train for an assault against their richer neighbours.

On the other hand, people living on marginal lands may become used to hardship and thus be "tougher" than the soft-living warriors. In this case, the poorer people would potentially be more war-like. Of course if they seized the rich lands and drove the others out, then we'd be back where we started.

[Jois]

Hi Johnny L.A., This isn't a "real flame" group here, you're safe.

I like this part:"On the other hand, people living on marginal lands may become used to hardship and thus be "tougher" than the soft-living warriors. In this case, the poorer people would potentially be more war-like. Of course if they seized the rich lands and drove the others out, then we'd be back where we started."

I don't know how hard a "hardship living" might have been in the Plains - instead of getting "tougher" and more warlike, the ousted peoples might become weaker for the lack of good food and the time involved in increasing the numbers of the tribe.

Some of the photos I've been looking at in my Indian books show a couple of white women and children - the children taken into the tribe to replace lost members.

To me that means somebody in charge thinks their population numbers aren't regenerating very quickly. (Of course, this custom of taking children and sometimes women from the losing side is as old as time.)

Nanobyte has paraded out these Lakodas/Lakotas http://flowerkitty.tripod.com/smile/rainbow.gif http://flowerkitty.tripod.com/smile/rainbow.gif http://flowerkitty.tripod.com/smile/rainbow.gif [IMG]h ttp://flowerkitty.tripod.com/smile/rainbow.gif[/IMG] before us again, both or either would just be called Sioux in my books. And don't they fall into that group of Indians who changed their whole way of life because of the Spanish horses? And whatever or however they changed probably had more to do with horses, the French and other intruders?

Nearly anything about the early Americas' population and way of life has to be a guess, smallpox wiped out 70-90% of the Indians with which it made contact. That had to change the way the people lived and behaved.

------------------
Oh, I'm gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

[Jois]

And could you, please, re-state this"

" I see science as properly applied, only where there is some agreement based on
existing, non-scientifically derived ethical stances, in only the short terms of
projected event schedules -- in those cases in which it supports an outcome
favorable within those stances.

The rest I may understand.




------------------
Oh, I'm gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.