Hello folks,
I've been gone for awhile, but could keep out of this :twisted: . I would say that the vast majority of socialogists, historians and archeologists all agree that a civilization that is united, homogenous and internaly stable and peaceful usualy stagnates. Sure there are exceptions (with humans there always are) but the VAST majority of civilizations that have advanced human knowledge were aggressive, imperialistic or fiercely mercantile. Some to the point of self destruction (the Mayans). Those that achieved complete stability (the Chinese after the rise of the Ming Dynasty) either stagnate or even retreat (The Ming Chinese turned their backs on a host of technologies they inherited or invented from the mechanical clock to deep water sailing ships). More importantly, it's not just who comes up with something, but who uses it to it's full potential. Often for this you need incentive. No higher incentive than saving you own kneck and stepping on the other guy before he steps on yours.
Example. Nearly all historians agree that while the bulk of Europes technology may have come from elsewhere, only Europe actually expanded, improved them and used them fully. China had the printing press but for 500 years afterwords 90% of the population was illiterate and still was into the 20th century. Within a few generations of Gutenberg's invention (much of the concept was Chinese, but much of the mechanical side was all his) much of the upper and middle classes (estimated by some as being 50%, I agree with others it was closer to 40%) were literate as were many craftsmen. This created a ever spiraling spreading of knowledge and invention fuelled by profit and war (in other words, competition) that led Europe to dominate the world in less than 200 years. If one nation in Europe didn't keep up with the Jones', the Jones' would conquer you. To pay for that army and promote trade you needed money, that meant more innovation. And thus it goes. Is it fair? Hell no, but as my Grandpa used to say: the First Rule of Life is "LIFE ISN'T FAIR!" Learning that boy will save you a host of disapointment." I also think it's good to point out that the bulk of us here live very safe lives in areas of the world shielded for "tooth and claw" as Kipling put it. It's easy to preach "competition bad, cooperation good," but it's rarely, if ever, as simple as that.
By the way, having lived cheek to jowl with a Mohawk, two Navajo (sons and grandsons of Marines) and a "full blood Mescarelo Apache" (as he always proudly acclaimed. The Navajos hated him), I can tell you this: they found the whole white man-guilt trip-noble savage-idealization of them a real hoot. As Frank (the Mohawk) put it once after a watching of "Last of the Mohicans": "We would have done to you whjat you did to us if the tables had been turned. Hell, we used to be friggen CANNIBALS man! It's what Mohawk means dude. Count yoursevles lucky you had smallpox, otherwise...." He then drew his finger across his thoat. He regreted the Iroquois got their empire just when the French-Indian Wars ended and made the Iroquois diplomatic methods useless. He also said the women had less power than many think. The False Face Societies were the real power in the end, and they were all male (think of them as the Freemasons). Plus men had final say on war and diplomacy, and from 1700 on the Nations were at war near constantly. Building a empire he added with a smile.
Buck and Henry, the two Navajo (Buck was his nickname. He brought home a deer a day for a week and got it. He finally admited he pulled it off by hanging around a salt lick! I never did get his first name, he never used it.) frankly admited that AIM promoted such BS becuase it was good propaganda and got their own people believing it. They point out that the "Nav Res." included all their ancestoral land and the "Great Ecologicaly Wise" indians has turned into a dust bowl by overgrazing and farming. Both activities they've been doing for centuries by the way, not just "White Man" stuff. On the other hand, they were a nation that did in fact get royally screwed over for no good reason. However, the guy that led the screwing, Kit Carson (and over his protests I might add, and they pointed out) interceded after the Civil War and god the Navajo their land back, and then some, as well as aid in rebuilding their flocks, orchards and fields.
Bage, our resident Apache and fight promoter (that man could start more bar brawls than anyone, including me, and that takes skill) summed up the Apache Wars succintly: "We was fighting for our God given right to war, rape, pillage, plunder, slave trade and rustle just as we always had." Sure they hunted and grew some crops, but it was never enough so they used the Pueblo Indians, and later the Mexicans as "cattle" to exploit as they saw fit. They raided, sold women (sometimes to the same villages they raided, Mexicans to Indians, Indians to Mexicans. Bage thought that hilarious, so did we.) and generaly took what they wanted. When the Whites showed up and said they couldn't raid across the border at will, and that killing Mexicans (at least without permission) was bad, the Apache got REAL pissed and did what they did best: Killed the enemy. To Bage it was as simple as that. Basicly his people were desert pirates, proud of it and defended their way of life, and lost. It didn't help that every Apache band would often kill another Apache on sight. He also laughed at movies that showed Apache charging into battle on horseback. He told us that to an Apache a horse was animal you could ride into the ground and then eat. No apache road into battle, he creeped. Charging was for idiots. He was our point man alot of the time. Not because he was the best at snooping and pooping (the best snooper, quiet wise, of the platoon was a dude from the ghettos of Atlanta!) but because he had the right brains for it. Bage never even THOUGHT about getting into a fight in the field: just getting in, finding the enemy, getting the intelligence, and getting out and taking as long as it needed. Charging was for idiots, especially when a knife in the ribs suited better.
Frankly, he would have liked the REH Picts. By the way, Bage is short for Bagely. He HATED his name :twisted:.
Point is, their is no such thing as a utopian society, there is always a snake in Eden and "Noble Savages" in ANY form never existd. Celts hunted heads, Vikings cut open chests, Aztecs sacrifced thousands a week on holidays, Incas put small children atop mountains, Shaka impaled thousands, Muslims conquered millions, Ghengis Khan killed millions, and we all know what Europeans did. I'n not exscusing ANY of this, but rather pointing out no one has a monopoly on violence or the lack of it. Rather, as many Historians now believe, a lack of violence shows a lack of opportunity or a VERY thin population (don't like you neighbor, then just move on). The more disparate groups you crowd together the more endemic violence you get, and the more violent the culture becomes. Europe was nothing special there.
To answer a question, I have not and will not use the last name of ANYONE I served with. Many are still in and often deployed and I'm sure you can understand my caution.
BTW Raven, sorry for my absence. I've been both out of town and busy with family matters. Not to mention I cought a nasty bug that laid me out for THREE FREAKIN WEEKS :shock: ! I'm back. I'll review our last couple of posts and answer you enquiries. Sorry again.[/b]
