Violence; does it work?

[Touchstone]

If violence was completely innate, we would not have wholly peaceful societies in existence.

http://peacefulsocieties.org/Society/Nubians.html

Do you not even read the stuff you cite?

"Nubians don't reveal serious problems to outsiders, particularly to authorities such as the Egyptian police, since their best chance for survival as a village is to be ignored by the authorities. A safety valve that has released tensions has been the fact that many men could go off to a big city, usually Cairo, to work and find release for their energies, free of the traditional, conservative restrictions of the village environment. "

That they "don't reveal" serious problems means that they do have serious problems.

That they need a safety valve means that their "peaceful society" is non-sustainable in it's own right.

ie. your reference supports exactly the opposite of what you claim it supports.

[billy]

i agree that in a erfect world cow would eat grass and listen to music while chewing the cud but truth is....we have to pay for it. i don't eat veal because oof the way they're treated but chickens in factory hutches....it doesn't seem as bad when i eat an egg. or a chicken for that matter. how they were reared doesn't and won't enter my head, if it does i'll still eat it. but a calf... its pretty weird isn't it.

And actually if you look at history people were relatively peaceful before agriculture/civilization, and in many places of the world where tribes still live people still are peaceful compared to our bigger societies. Battles happened when food was scarce and people needed more territory. We became more violent as we became more civillized for a variety of reasons.

before agriculture people had lots of land, enough that they didn't have to fight for space. (you said so yourself) now we have how many more people vying for our air? that said, i doubt the woolly mammoth would agree with you that they were peaceful. they were also more cannibals back then as well. tribes seldom entertained encroachment of territory and would savagely oppose such things. the killing of heirs was ripe.. as was the killing of those who threatened leadership. then we were wolf packs.

[Leanne]

And actually if you look at history people were relatively peaceful before agriculture/civilization, and in many places of the world where tribes still live people still are peaceful compared to our bigger societies. Battles happened when food was scarce and people needed more territory. We became more violent as we became more civillized for a variety of reasons.

Oh please. There is NO evidence to support any argument that agriculture or "civilisation" caused or even escalated human tendencies toward violence. On the contrary, there is a good deal of archaeological/anthropological evidence to indicate that humans have been violent since they first walked upright and probably before -- including your "peaceful" Nubians. According to Keeley's "War Before Civilization", over half the Nubians found buried in a cemetery from 12000 years ago had died of violence. Remains found of prehistoric people of all continents show signs of violent behaviour -- some rituals, some massacres, some just the result of a fight.

That there is an "outlet" to "let off steam" indicates, as Touchstone says, that there is a need for such a thing -- which says rather clearly that "peace" is less a natural state than one engineered through behaviour control and ostracism.

I tend to take any site that quotes Quakers as their main authorities with a few grains of salt.

[billy]

lets also consider how much violence was utilised in controlling a race in a such a fashion.

back in the day before agriculture, if 100 people were killed it would represent a noticeable part of the population. so if 100 people were killed a year back then it would be a more violent society than 1,000,000 a year dying in our times.

[Universalchild]

The site contains more examples then just nubians. I won't pretend to be a genuine anthropologist, just a hobby researcher, so I can't say I have studied each one extensively, but there are many examples there to look at, some of them which are more well known. I have many books I wish I could share but unfortunately we are debating via the internet. I will post a good book worth reading on the subject. But regardless, you can't deny there are peaceful groups living in the world, that is factual - my previous example of the Jains is a perfect example, as they practice non-violence the extent where they sweep the ground in front of them to avoid killing insects. But I'm sorry I just disagree. I am on the side of believing early man was peaceful. Not like a jain in the way of not hurting anything, but that they did not fight unless they actually had to, for instance disputes over territory or food. External stimulus for violence. It's not about being totally non-violent, it's just the level of violence.

More studies & articles around aggression in early man-

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...021406.php

http://rense.com/general35/peaceful.htm

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/11...627770.php

More on peaceful societies -

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Keeping-Peace-Co...0415947618

@billy

The reason veal exists is really because we have a surplus of calves due to dairy farming. But veal is a really horrible meat, the calves are treated so badly because they are so small it is easy to pack them in crates like sardines. And to be honest as much as I hate it, beef farming is a more pressing concern then chicken farming. Chicken farming does much less damage to the environment. If people ate less red meat and more chicken it would make a difference.

I also don't think killing for food makes you an aggressive person. Just a hungry one. I'm not saying early man was pacifistic, but there is plenty of evidence supporting the claim that they were "peaceful" meaning they were not violent for it's own sake. Keep in mind man did not even *have* territory for a long period of time, people used to be nomadic. And there is a lot of evidence that neanderthals ate humans but there is hardly any evidence that early humans ate each other. Early societies were more cannibalistic, but it wasn't like they just cut each other up like animals, it was normally a fallen friend or family member getting roasted, or an enemy in battle. So it depends on what time period you're looking it. I'm talking 6000 years ago or more, not 2000.

[billy]

we're discussing violence in all it's forms so killing a cow chicken etc is a violent act how can it not be.
i'm sure if the 1st humans had nukes and could use them, they would i'd say 6000 year ago we would have been pretty barbaric. the Sumerian while smart weren't exactly friendly, they ruled with a strong hand, they were clever and lets face it the clever people are the ones who do most of the violence.

[Universalchild]

Neither peacefulness or pacifist means non-violent, so it depends on how you look at it. Being a peaceful persons means you are not inclined to cause disagreement or strife. So a peaceful community is one that does not actively seek to cause upset. Pacifism is mainly a rejection of war, but may include total non-violence. So people can still kill for food and be considered peaceful/pacifistic.

But asides from the links about early man I posted, there isn't much else I can say on the matter, as I have no time machine with which to go back and observe man myself. I'm inclined to believe we were probably not aggressive because we just didn't have many reasons to be and we had some degree of rationality to process this.

[billy]

i'd say taking the life of an animal by any means is a violent, act. to say otherwise intimates that it''s okay to not only slaughter,, but mistreat them at the same time. if you commit an act of violence you can't then claim to be non-violent i agree.

ghandhi promoted the action without violence he was a pacifist who epitomised non violence. but his cry fro inaction cause more violence that could e measured

[Universalchild]

His cry for inaction caused more violence then it prevented? When? Please do give me more information on this, I haven't heard of it before.

Don't get me wrong, I've heard the stories about his homophobia/racism/whatever so I don't think he is an idol or anything but not that he actually caused violence.

[billy]

Over 80,000 Indians were jailed as a result of the Salt Satyagraha aka the salt march, here's a snippet;

Over 80,000 Indians were jailed as a result of the Salt Satyagraha.[5] However, it failed to result in major concessions from the British.[6]

The Salt Satyagraha campaign was based upon Gandhi's principles of nonviolent protest called satyagraha, which he loosely translated as "truth-force."[7] Literally, it is formed from the Sanskrit words satya, "truth", and agraha, "asking for." In early 1930 the Indian National Congress chose satyagraha as their main tactic for winning Indian independence from British rule and appointed Gandhi to organize the campaign. Gandhi chose the 1882 British Salt Act as the first target of satyagraha. The Salt March to Dandi, and the beating by British police of hundreds of non violent protesters in Dharasana, which received worldwide news coverage, demonstrated the effective use of civil disobedience as a technique for fighting social and political injustice.

being non violent does not mean you don't create an atmosphere where violence abounds. gandhi didn't give a toss about his followers. the pain they went through; not because he was a great man but because they were poor. thousands of his followers died. needlessly in many cases.

the empire was already crumbling, if he'd have wait ten years, 80, 000 wouldn't have been beaten and jailed, hundreds wouldn't have been killed....and don't think for one second that many of the 80,000 didn't fight back when they were beaten. this was just one instance, there were more. his followers were mainly peasants and farmers without land. many committed acts of violence such as robbery etc just in order to survive, it was easier to for them to follow gandhi than eke out a living on the land.