Guns,guns, and more Guns

[Fergie 307]

Exactly the opposite.
The world-dominating success of homo sapiens is based on cooperation and co-existence - deeply entrenched natural traits.

I have to say history doesn't support your view at all. Throughout the history of mankind strong groups have forcibly taken whatever they wanted from weaker groups. Look at the history of any of the ancient empires, the behaviour of the Spanish and Portuguese in South America, ourselves all over the world. The crusades, the list goes on and on. Every major civilisation has made extensive use of their fellow humans as slaves. And there have been wars going on somewhere virtually continuously for as far back as you like to go. Sadly we are unfortunately a nasty argumentative and selfish species.

 

[Daniel2]

I have to say history doesn't support your view at all. Throughout the history of mankind strong groups have forcibly taken whatever they wanted from weaker groups. Look at the history of any of the ancient empires, the behaviour of the Spanish and Portuguese in South America, ourselves all over the world. The crusades, the list goes on and on. Every major civilisation has made extensive use of their fellow humans as slaves. And there have been wars going on somewhere virtually continuously for as far back as you like to go. Sadly we are unfortunately a nasty argumentative and selfish species.

How can someone say they are not like this, without sounding argumentative ?

 

[sploo]

I have to say history doesn't support your view at all. Throughout the history of mankind strong groups have forcibly taken whatever they wanted from weaker groups. Look at the history of any of the ancient empires, the behaviour of the Spanish and Portuguese in South America, ourselves all over the world. The crusades, the list goes on and on. Every major civilisation has made extensive use of their fellow humans as slaves. And there have been wars going on somewhere virtually continuously for as far back as you like to go. Sadly we are unfortunately a nasty argumentative and selfish species.

I don't think your comment above is completely incompatible with Jacob's point that "The cynics, misanthropes, xenophobes, racists, mysogynists, psychopaths, power/wealth hungry, lethal weapon obsessives, otherwise antisocial and deranged, have a huge disproportionately disruptive effect compared to their numbers."

The vast majority of people would much rather just get on with their lives in (relative) peace; but throughout history there always been those that tell us to fear and hate "them" - leading to conquest, war, and persecution.

 

[selectortone]

I have to say history doesn't support your view at all. Throughout the history of mankind strong groups have forcibly taken whatever they wanted from weaker groups. Look at the history of any of the ancient empires, the behaviour of the Spanish and Portuguese in South America, ourselves all over the world. The crusades, the list goes on and on. Every major civilisation has made extensive use of their fellow humans as slaves. And there have been wars going on somewhere virtually continuously for as far back as you like to go. Sadly we are unfortunately a nasty argumentative and selfish species.

It's tribalism, be it about race, religion, politics, gangs or whatever. It's been here forever.

 

[Spectric]

The world-dominating success of homo sapiens is based on cooperation and co-existence - deeply entrenched natural traits

If that was the case then why two world wars, and so many others. It is because domination came about through conquering and occupying lands, the Roman empire was not through narrative and the American Indians did not willingly allow all the foreign unwanted to occupy their lands, humans are an aggressive form of bacteria that runs wild and destroys all in it's path and often for no other reason than wants.

 

[sploo]

If that was the case then why two world wars, and so many others.

WWI was a complex set of political events, with tensions between various European powers; but one major claimed factor was the German royal's envy of the British Empire.

WWII was the result of a post-WWI German depression being used by a small number as an excuse to persecute a section of their population, and stir up war.

In both cases, still compatible with the idea that it's a small number of people that are ultimately responsible for taking the masses into conflict.

 

[Jacob]

If that was the case then why two world wars,

Because as I said, the crazies have more power and influence. What really drove the crazies mad was pacifism and resistance. When WW1 troops had temporary Christmas cease fires this caused deep ructions and the establishment thought they were losing their grip.

It is because domination came about through conquering and occupying lands,

Largely a worthless enterprise - the British Empire was reckoned to be non profitable, except for the military and transport industries supporting it. Other nations traded without invading or destroying local economies.

the Roman empire was not through narrative

Actually there was a touch of sense about the Roman empire which probably perpetuated it - 212AD they granted Roman citizenship to all (except women, slaves etc) . But the world would still have been better off without it.

.... humans are an aggressive form of bacteria that runs wild and destroys all in it's path and often for no other reason than wants.

Not all humans! A very large percentage (I'd guess 99% to 99.99%) wish only to get on with their lives and have no inclination to exploit or destroy the lives and livelihoods of others.

 

[J-G]

...throughout history there always been those that tell us to fear and hate "them"...

Never better summed up than by Oscar Hammerstein II in South Pacific - - - "You've Got to Be Carefully Taught" - - - "... before you are 6 or 7 or 8, to hate all the people your relatives hate, you've got to be carefully taught! "

 

[Jacob]

WWI was a complex set of political events, with tensions between various European powers; but one major claimed factor was the German royal's envy of the British Empire.

It was ordinary people cajoled into fighting for Imperial interests. Defending trade contracts and colonialism, not "the nation" or against impending invasion or anything remotely glorious or valuable to those who did the fighting.

WWII was the result of a post-WWI German depression being used by a small number as an excuse to persecute a section of their population, and stir up war.

In both cases, still compatible with the idea that it's a small number of people that are ultimately responsible for taking the masses into conflict.

 

[Fergie 307]

Because as I said, the crazies have more power and influence. What really drove the crazies mad was pacifism and resistance. When WW1 troops had temporary Christmas cease fires this caused deep ructions and the establishment thought they were losing their grip.Largely a worthless enterprise - the British Empire was reckoned to be non profitable, except for the military and transport industries supporting it. Other nations traded without invading or destroying local economies.Actually there was a touch of sense about the Roman empire which probably perpetuated it - 212AD they granted Roman citizenship to all (except women, slaves etc) . But the world would still have been better off without it.Not all humans! A very large percentage (I'd guess 99% to 99.99%) wish only to get on with their lives and have no inclination to exploit or destroy the lives and livelihoods of others.

And the emperor who introduced this was one of the most despotic nut cases ever, which is saying something when you are talking about Roman emperors. When his father died he murdered his own brother, and his entire family, to ensure his succession. Far from being an altruistic measure the extension of citizenship was to raise more taxes to finance the numerous wars he was engaged in, either to brutally suppress revolts amongst those who weren't too keen on being under Roman rule, or to further expand the empire. He was eventually assassinated by his own bodyguard. Do please learn something about history before spouting this sort of drivel.. And in relation to your last point, your quoted percentage might also refer to the numbers of people who are happy to flock to cheap clothing stores to buy their £2 tee shirts etc, and don't give a damn for the exploitation of the people, often children, who work in sweat shops for pence a day making them.

 

[Fergie 307]

It was ordinary people cajoled into fighting for Imperial interests. Defending trade contracts and colonialism, not "the nation" or against impending invasion or anything remotely glorious or valuable to those who did the fighting.

Again Jacob, you need to learn your history. Prior to the first world war Germany had started numerous other wars with France, Denmark and so on. All aimed at expanding German influence, and all enthusiastically supported by the vast majority of her population, as we're both the first and second world wars, at least until the tide turned against them. Very little cajoling required. And not just in Germany. If you think of the holocaust, people often choose to forget that anti semitism was rife throughout most of europe. You only have to look at the shameful enthusiasm most countries had for complying with the Nazis instructions to round up and ship out their Jewish opulations. Sure you can argue that they weren't aware they were going to be murdered, but they certainly didn't think they were off to Butlins. The vast majority of the populations of most imperial powers were enthusiastic supporters of empire. Just as the majority in the fledgling United States were all for expansion at the expense of the native Americans, you could go on and on. So this idea that everyone just wants to get on with every one else, and have to be whipped up by some few nasty people in order to do bad things is absolute tosh.

 

[Jacob]

...... Do please learn something about history

I think you should. I was reading Mary Beard on the subject. JA Hobson on Imperialism is also essential reading

.......... the numbers of people who are happy to flock to cheap clothing stores to buy their £2 tee shirts etc, and don't give a damn for the exploitation of the people, often children, who work in sweat shops for pence a day making them.

I think they do give a damn. They have been doing for along time - throughout history in fact. You need to read about the Labour movement, you are very out of touch. One book which puts a lot of things in context is Beacon Press: The Many-Headed Hydra. It's a very pacy read too

So this idea that everyone just wants to get on with every one else, and have to be whipped up by some few nasty people in order to do bad things is absolute tosh.

A childish simplification but yes broadly the picture!
If you want to know a little about the enthusiasm of the Americans try A People's History of the United States - Wikipedia
Already mentioned Humankind: A Hopeful History by Rutger Bregman review – a tribute to our better nature is an easy read too.
Hope that helps.

 

[Lons]

Fergie 307
And in relation to your last point, your quoted percentage might also refer to the numbers of people who are happy to flock to cheap clothing stores to buy their £2 tee shirts etc, and don't give a damn for the exploitation of the people, often children, who work in sweat shops for pence a day making them.

I think they do give a damn. They have been doing for along time - throughout history in fact. You need to read about the Labour movement, you are very out of touch.

Interesting that the die hard Labour areas is where shops like Sports Direct, well known for very cheap far east production as well as zero hour contracts and below minimum wage is the go to shop for the locals. Just saying! Everything for a quid does extremely well also but their suppliers pay top dollar of course.

 

[Fergie 307]

I don't think your comment above is completely incompatible with Jacob's point that "The cynics, misanthropes, xenophobes, racists, mysogynists, psychopaths, power/wealth hungry, lethal weapon obsessives, otherwise antisocial and deranged, have a huge disproportionately disruptive effect compared to their numbers."

The vast majority of people would much rather just get on with their lives in (relative) peace; but throughout history there always been those that tell us to fear and hate "them" - leading to conquest, war, and persecution.

I think that the reality is that throughout human history people have cooperated, and got along very nicely, with others who look and think the same way they do. People who look and think differently, whether because of race, religion or whatever are often viewed as being inferior. These people can therefore be treated in ways that would be quite unacceptable within their own peer group, because their rights and feelings are regarded as unimportant in comparison to those of ones own group. The vigour with which this attitude is pursued varies between indifference to the rights of the supposedly inferior group, all the way up to and including the desire to destroy them entirely, hence the holocaust or the sort of ethnic cleansing and genocide we have seen all over the world. It also applies to the dreadful treatment meted out to do many indigenous people, whether it be aborigines in Australia, Native Americans or the numerous tribes in places like Brazil. Very often colonists either chose to deliberately wipe out the indigenous population, or were completely indifferent to their fate, so long as their own aspirations were met. And it continues to this day in places like China, Myanmar and elsewhere. So the idea that our basic nature as a species is to be kind and respectful.of others is, I'm very sorry to say, idealistic nonsense.

 

[Jacob]

I think that the reality is that throughout human history people have cooperated, and got along very nicely, with others who look and think the same way they do. People who look and think differently, whether because of race, religion or whatever are often viewed as being inferior. These people can therefore be treated in ways that would be quite unacceptable within their own peer group, because their rights and feelings are regarded as unimportant in comparison to those of ones own group. The vigour with which this attitude is pursued varies between indifference to the rights of the supposedly inferior group, all the way up to and including the desire to destroy them entirely, hence the holocaust or the sort of ethnic cleansing and genocide we have seen all over the world. It also applies to the dreadful treatment meted out to do many indigenous people, whether it be aborigines in Australia, Native Americans or the numerous tribes in places like Brazil. Very often colonists either chose to deliberately wipe out the indigenous population, or were completely indifferent to their fate, so long as their own aspirations were met. And it continues to this day in places like China, Myanmar and elsewhere. So the idea that our basic nature as a species is to be kind and respectful.of others is, I'm very sorry to say, idealistic nonsense.

As I said - do a bit of reading.
If you want to know about the background of "People who look and think differently, whether because of race, religion or whatever are often viewed as being inferior." you could watch the series or read the book: Black and British: A Forgotten History
The aforementioned Beacon Press: The Many-Headed Hydra. is brilliant in how it links colonialism, slavery, land clearances, the cotton trade, the conditions of the working class, etc

 

[Fergie 307]

I think you should. I was reading Mary Beard on the subject. JA Hobson on Imperialism is also essential readingI think they do give a damn. They have been doing for along time - throughout history in fact. You need to read about the Labour movement, you are very out of touch. One book which puts a lot of things in context is Beacon Press: The Many-Headed Hydra. It's a very pacy read too
A childish simplification but yes broadly the picture!
If you want to know a little about the enthusiasm of the Americans try A People's History of the United States - Wikipedia
Already mentioned Humankind: A Hopeful History by Rutger Bregman review – a tribute to our better nature is an easy read too.
Hope that helps.

So Jacob enlighten me as to which of the things I said were historically inaccurate? The very good Mary Beard rightly considers a number of possible motivations for the idea of universal citezenship, you simply choose the quote the one that suits your argument. The fact is that this idea came about at the same time as the imperial purse was under great strain owing to the numerous wars and insurrection being fought. A sudden great expansion in citizenship resulted in a massive expansion in tax revenue. Given the absence of any evidence of altruism in anything else he got up to I can't really see the justification for looking for it here.
I don't dispute what you say about the Labour movement, however that's not entirely the point.
Why is it that companies making goods by these methods thrive, if we are so concerned. Or why we still rear chickens in barbaric conditions. The answer is simply because most people care more about being able to buy a cheap chicken or T shirt than they do about the consequences. Out of sight out of mind, one of the most damaging attitudes of all in many ways.

 

[Fergie 307]

As I said - do a bit of reading.
If you want to know about the background of "People who look and think differently, whether because of race, religion or whatever are often viewed as being inferior." you could watch the series or read the book: Black and British: A Forgotten History
The aforementioned Beacon Press: The Many-Headed Hydra. is brilliant in how it links colonialism, slavery, land clearances, the cotton trade, the conditions of the working class, etc

Jacob you make my point for me. How can you read about slavery and conclude that the essence of human nature is for us to be kind to one another??

 

[sploo]

I think that the reality is that throughout human history people have cooperated, and got along very nicely, with others who look and think the same way they do. People who look and think differently, whether because of race, religion or whatever are often viewed as being inferior. These people can therefore be treated in ways that would be quite unacceptable within their own peer group, because their rights and feelings are regarded as unimportant in comparison to those of ones own group. The vigour with which this attitude is pursued varies between indifference to the rights of the supposedly inferior group, all the way up to and including the desire to destroy them entirely, hence the holocaust or the sort of ethnic cleansing and genocide we have seen all over the world. It also applies to the dreadful treatment meted out to do many indigenous people, whether it be aborigines in Australia, Native Americans or the numerous tribes in places like Brazil. Very often colonists either chose to deliberately wipe out the indigenous population, or were completely indifferent to their fate, so long as their own aspirations were met. And it continues to this day in places like China, Myanmar and elsewhere. So the idea that our basic nature as a species is to be kind and respectful.of others is, I'm very sorry to say, idealistic nonsense.

I think that's sometimes described as "othering". Dehumanising groups different to our own makes it much easier to convince "the people" that those others don't matter.

I am as grumpy a git as the best of them (and frankly a downright misanthrope), but I'm not so negative about the basic nature of people. Generally I don't believe that people desire conflict; it's mostly down to the poisonous voices in our societies that tell us to fear and hate.

 

[Fergie 307]

Regarding the history of the Labour movement, again there are some interesting points. Were those behind early worker protection measures such as The Cotton Mills Act in the early nineteenth century, equally vociferous in calling for protection for the slaves who picked the stuff in the first place..er, no. They were interested in improving conditions or their own people, but never uttered a peep regarding slavery. It was left to others to take up that cause.

 

[Fergie 307]

I think that's sometimes described as "othering". Dehumanising groups different to our own makes it much easier to convince "the people" that those others don't matter.

I am as grumpy a git as the best of them (and frankly a downright misanthrope), but I'm not so negative about the basic nature of people. Generally I don't believe that people desire conflict; it's mostly down to the poisonous voices in our societies that tell us to fear and hate.

Oh I agree, and I am very pleased that most people of my acquaintance are perfectly pleasant. Unfortunately I think that an Alien civilisation looking at our history in its entirety would be hard pressed to escape the conclusion that, as a species, we are an argumentative and violent lot. If we could determine how people who, as individuals, are perfectly reasonable can collectively do such awful things to one another the world would be a much better place.