If you want to make a pre-Columbian example it could be the cities of Tenochtitlan (Mexico City), or Cahokia. Tribes will do as well, they are simpler versions of this. Europeans arrived in North America and met the Iroquois Confederacy. In fact the Confederacy allowed peace among the Iroquois.
These are tribes, or in the case of the Mexicans, a civilization. Not hunter gatherer bands.
Meanwhile out west or near the arctic were hunter-gatherer bands. They were not making continual war. They were hunter-gatherer bands and not tribal.
> Hunter-Gatherers had concepts of land ownership, if another tried to hunt on your tribes land there was conflict.
You're saying hunter gatherer bands are tribes which is contradictory. Migratory hunter-gatherer bands max out at 50 people. They migrated there was no land which was "theirs", this is the point.
Tribes were hundreds of people, often had class systems within them, often had surplus and farmed. So yes, tribal farmers had conflict but they were not hunter gatherer bands.
>Naturuk therefore challenges our views about what the causes of conflict are. It is possible that human prehistoric societies simply responded antagonistically to chance encounters with another group. But this is not what seems to have happened at Nataruk. The group which attacked was carrying weapons that would not normally be carried while hunting and fishing. In addition, the lesions show that clubs of at least two sizes were used, making it likely that more than one of the attackers were carrying them.
>All three involved projectiles, one of the hallmarks of inter-group conflict. Two of the projectiles found embedded in the bones at Nataruk and in two of the other cases were made of obsidian. This tells us that such attacks happened multiple times, and were part of the life of the hunter-gatherer communities at the time.
>In this study, Standen and colleagues examined signs of violent trauma on the remains of 288 adult individuals from funerary sites across the Atacama Desert coast, dating from 10,000 years ago to 1450 AD. The researchers also analyzed patterns in weaponry and in artistic depictions of combat during this time. They found that rates of violence were surprisingly static over time, though there was a notable increase in lethal violence during the Formative Period starting around 1000 BC, a trend also found in similar studies of the Andean region. Data from strontium isotopes indicate that this interpersonal violence was occurring between local groups, not between local and foreign populations.
> I concluded that most recent foraging groups were likely to have at least occasionally participated in lethal intergroup violence. I used this evidence alongside several other lines of evidence, such as archaeological remains, the behavior of other species, and predictions from behavioral ecology, to argue that at least occasional intergroup violence extended well into the Pleistocene.
>Progression in science typically requires agreement on a shared empirical reality. Once we identify well-supported empirical findings, we then make inferences about how these findings relate to hypotheses about behavior we cannot directly assess, such as the role of war or cooperation in human evolution (Table 1). Much of the current stasis on the role of intergroup violence in human evolution is due to a failure to agree on the nature of mobile forager intergroup relationships with minimal colonial/state influence or impact from agriculturalist neighbors. If we cannot reasonably agree on whether ethnographically recent mobile foragers sometimes killed members of other groups as part of or supported by a coalition, then we cannot begin to reach a consensus on what those relationships may tell us about warfare in human evolution.
Like when the Zionists with European and US help cut off food from entering Gaza for a few months last year? That is modern society.
Give me an idyllic migration through bountiful pastures 20,000 years ago any day. Many hunter-gatherers work less than 40 hours a week, less than a worker in our modern society, who did not get laid off in past years as so many on this board were.
The original affluent society as it has been called.
Some el nino, volcano or other cause drought in entire region may have wiped out entire communities. 20k years ago was also much more colder with ie massive glaciers ie in much of central Europe.
Every hunt was fight for life and survival, any injury could be fatal and treatment was practically non existent, broken foot was almost sute death sentence. Winter (and each one was harsh) was barely survived in bitter 24/7 cold and a lot of starvation outside of tropical regions.
You have no actual clue nor imagination with your first world whining about toils of office work which you can easily abandon and not be dead with your family within 2 weeks. You can definitely do better than that.
Not really. From the time of the cave paintings at Lubang Serij Saleh 40,000 years ago, as well as 10,000 years before that, up to the beginning of the Neolithic revolution 10,000 years ago, all evidence is humans lived rather peacefully. As is evidenced also by similar remaining bands over the past centuries until now. The Neolithic revolution and rise of surplus, class societies, warrior castes and such was the beginning of such things. And that only spread over the entire globe over the past 600 years.
How does this jive with the inland Papuan tribes in Papua New Guinea?
They were quite isolated and from what I read they can be just as violent (of course, not on the scale of mechanized slaughter by moderns)
The smallest definition of a tribe is usually 500 people. They can be 10 tines that size. Tribes did not exist until about 10,000 years ago. They were preceded by hunter-gatherer bands.
The inland Papuan group most associated with violence are the Enga, but they are not migratory hunter-gatheree bands. They are farmers who grow sweet potatoes and raise pigs.
It is a truism. The violent isolated ones around today are of course violent and isolated. The ones not predisposed towards violence and isolation have opened themselves up, and you might see them in documentary TV sharing food and song with the western hosts. They might even have cellphones and tshirts but still know how to chuck a spear and perform ancient ritual.
It depends on what you mean, as I did not argue that life for the average person in a traditional society was filled with violence.
What I argued is that whenever two competing groups came into contact, wanting the same land, the result was usually genocide (or one of the groups fled to another area, where they would have to fight those inhabitants), and as a result, when history records a new group "inhabiting" or "settling" a peace of land that is new to them, then that inhabitation is generally not peaceful, but genocidal in nature. Regardless of whether there is a written history to record the violence, we can have confidence that the violence did occur.
Now, given that modern humans have been around for 300,000 years at least (the date keeps being pushed back, since before the Moroccan discovery, it was thought to be 100,000 years), and have been swarming over the whole earth, that is a lot of violence and genocide, even though it was certainly possible to live a life of peace as well for a specific individual, since migrations weren't going on all the time in all places.
Skeletons from 100,000 years ago look similar to our own, and as you said, recent discoveries could push that back to 300,000 years ago.
There is little evidence of behavioral modernity - cave paintings, Venus figurines, hearths, burials etc. prior to 50,000 years ago. There is some evidence so the time could always be pushed back.
Farmers compete for land. Migratory hunter-gatherers are just passing through, so there is less competition for land. Also, bands usually mate with nearby bands, who are often more distant relatives.
There has not been much evidence of hunter-gatherer bands clashing violently then or even in modern times, including observations over past centuries. There is a plethora of evidence of post-neolithic farming and then industrial societies being this way.
Everything that I have read about hunter-gatherer and tribal societies is that there was a fairly high level of background violence. Here's one study [1]. Bret Devreaux has an article on how Native American-like societies had a lot of small raiding. (I think it is in his "That Dothraki Horde" series.) There are a lot of stories of missionaries narrowly avoiding getting killed by at the border of tribe they were going to, indicating an expectation of attack and shoot first ask questions later tactic. (Some missionaries did, in fact get killed, notably Elizabeth Eliot's first husband.)
Because 5 companies control 80% of movie box office in the US and that number is about to shrink to 4? Not only making the profits and doing massive layoffs, but deciding what content we can see?
When purchasing Paramount, David Ellison published a press release to the Jerusalem Press talking about how he supported the IDF financially. Actor Mark Ruffalo recently reminded people he said this, and Zionist organizations are denouncing him as an "anti-semite" for reminding people of this.
The CIA sent her to Europe to spy on progressive groups. She talked about it long ago. She says the CIA was progressive and liberal (her words. not mine).
She started her activism spying on European progressive groups for the CIA.
You take it for granted that she is the representative of the women of the world. Thus any critique of this woman the establishment foisted on us is misogynistic. We do not all take this for granted though.
Can you please transmute your frustration into thoughtful, interesting comments, rather than venting it into putdowns of others?
Since you're posting here, you're as much "the hackernews community" as the rest of us.
The intention of the site is clear: curious, substantive conversation (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). We know better than anyone how easy it is to get derailed from this, but really the best thing to do is to practice thoughtful conversation even when others are not.
> Loss of sovereignty' for some reason is perfectly fine for Iceland, Switzerland and Norway, but not UK or others wanting to leave.
Kind of rich to say after the "Labour" PM of the UK said he would not allow the six occupied counties of north Ireland have a border poll, reneging on the Good Friday Agreement.
She and/or you have a false conception of what a big five corporation is, or how it works. Yous probably also have a false conception of how relations of production under capitalism work as well. The man higher up the hierarchy at the FAANG has a better grasp of how these things work. Often, people don't realize their conceptions were wrong until they get let go.
That she worked tirelessly, was well liked does not matter. That in this short life we have, that she skipped vacations to devote more time to the company does not matter.
You said the person above her is not smart but he clearly is - he is higher up and survived and she is lower down and was cut.
Insofar as it being healthy for these companies for him to be there - him being there is in the nature of the corporation and perhaps its intrinsic infirmities, just as it is intrinsic to relations of production under capitalism.
One would hope that something as dramatic as not only him being over her, but him staying and her going would disabuse you of these notions. Especially the idea that she had sone kind of relationship within the corporation where working tirelessly and skipping vacations would engender any loyalty on the part of the corporation's higher managers and owners.
While this may make sense for the individual and their actions, I do not see how this is healthy or good for the organization. And, to my original question, I struggle to understand why organizations elevate those, or let those elevate, where the end goal is not to have a darwinistic corpus of staff, only interested in their own survival.
These are tribes, or in the case of the Mexicans, a civilization. Not hunter gatherer bands.
Meanwhile out west or near the arctic were hunter-gatherer bands. They were not making continual war. They were hunter-gatherer bands and not tribal.