July 2, 2011
I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. --Thomas Jefferson

"Whatever it is, I want them to teach me." VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

EXPLORE, LINK TV, Mar. 31, 2011

Happiness is more generally and equally diffus'd among Savages than in civilized societies. No European who has tasted savage life can afterwards bear to live in our societies. --Benjamin Franklin, 1770 [1] 8 A NEW CHAPTER, Images of native America in the writings of Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine
      Stay calm," I told myself. I remembered what a man I respected, a tribal leader of the local Ojibwe, had said when asked about Indian time. "You know what Indian time means?" he had responded in a session with local college students. "It means, 'When I'm damn good and ready.'"
      The old man was operating on Indian time. I was still operating on a clock and a paycheck. --Kent Nerburn, Neither Wolf nor Dog -- On Forgotten Roads With an Indian Elder, (Novato, CA: New World Library 2002) p. 26
For your own health and well-being . And if you don't feel that urge, maybe you're not libertarian. Yet. -->

"You have an unshakable meaning in a small group that you can't duplicate in society." VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

Bill Maher's Real Time, May 14, 2010

Mary Rowlandson was taken captive [by "indians"]...she rather shrewdly negotiated with her captors, bartered using her knitting needles to get food and ultimately to win their approbation, and named her own ransom. And this is not that unusual. ...about a third of female captives actually chose to stay with their Indian captors, preferred the Indian life. --Author and Social Critic Susan Faludi on "The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America", Democracy NOW!, Thursday, October 4th, 2007

The more I consider the condition of the white men, the more fixed becomes my opinion that, instead of gaining, they have lost much by subjecting themselves to what they call the laws and regulations of civilized societies. --Tomochichi, Creek Chief

[CAPTION]
[SOURCE]

These small local groups ["bands" and "tribes"] had no leaders with any real authority; in contrast to the societies of their [sixteenth century] discoverers, every individual seemed to come and go just as he or she pleased." (Boehm 1999 30,31) Reprise:
The advantage our ancestors had was that, since they didn't have the coercive Authoritarian paradigm available to them except sparingly during emergencies, they nearly always had to do things the co-operative way. There simply wasn't a viable Authoritarian (capital A) alternative. As a result, they regularly reaped the 5x co-operative advantage which Bob Waldrop observed and Axelrod's simulations support. --Chapter 16, Ancestral Democracy & Pizza Politics
And remember, since no one could tell anyone else what to do, they couldn't do modern hierarchical persistent leadership. So anytime they worked together, they had to co-Operate. Distributed information resulting in distributed decision-making resulting in variety and co-Operation. Except during "emergencies" and a few other situations, this was the main everyday mode in which our ancestors lived. And, thus, it's this mode of interaction our instincts and drives were -- and are -- designed for. Chapter 15, How They Got Things Done
Too many white people I know ...try to "become" Indians or, at least, try to become one with the Indian experience. ... This is exactly what Dan and Grover and all the others would never let me do. They reamined resolutely and unashamedly themselves, and demanded that I do the same. ...They refused to let me slip into glib generalizations that would mute their individuality. I was asked to recognize their common Indianness, but was constantly reminded that this did not mean I could invest them with a common identity that would reduce them to collective objects... --Kent Nerburn, Neither Wolf nor Dog, New World Library, 2002 ^^w$
~"We are all individuals here. ... We're wary of writers; they come and observe, take careful notes but their articles misrepresent us anyway. ... I know it sounds like a contradiction but while we're all individuals here, in what we do, we're also as one." --Peter Godwin of Bruderhof, April 2003

The Sari (Africa) VClip 1

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

Going Tribal, The Discovery Channel

Congress has to operate informally, according to [Rep. Barney] Frank, [(D-MA)] with the kinds of networks and personality politics that work in high school, because Congress has no clear power hierarchy. Leaders lack the corporate executive's power to give commands or to hire and fire. ..."Nobody in the House of Representatives can give any other member an order. The speaker is more influential than a new Republican from Texas, but he can't order anybody to do anything. Nobody can fire anybody. So what that means is that you become influential by persuading people, being likable, and having other people respect you but not resent you." [2] -Hedrick Smith, The Power Game (New York: Ballantine Books 1988), p 53 & 54

Read says that groups are delighted to have the aggressive man as a warrior, for he fights well and commands well in battle. However:

the precipitate, compulsive individual may be a constant source of irritation or disruption in his own group, where the use of force or the threat to use force is proscribed under the ideal of group consensus. In other words, it seems that the character structure of the really "big" or "strong" man is not fitted for the subtleties of generalized authority. Among other things, successful leadership requires a fine feeling for the opinions of others. I think we might also say that it necessitates some detachment, the ability to see many different points of view at the same time, or, if you like, a breadth of vision and a degree of self-control (Read 1959:435) (Boehm 1999:111) [italics emphasis added]

^^w^^w^^w^^wTruth should be the cornerstone of life. It was the philosophy of not only non-violents, but of life itself. -DN!, September 8, 2006, 11:45:43 + ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^wNon-violence is our nature. The fact that we have to learn the arts of killing in military academies proves this. -DN!, September 8, 2006, 11:46:59 This is a key to answering the questions raised at the end of Chapter 11, An Instinct(s) for Freedom, particularly, what could be more important than "physical strength, dominance, and warfare?" And, in contrast, why was alpha- dominance apparently detrimental? While in war emergencies, such a "precipitate, compulsive individual" would be valuable because "he fights well and commands well in battle," over-all day-to-day co-operation was clearly more important.

And here's a hint (but just a hint -- follow the footnote) as to how this balancing act all worked in wider social practice - - -

The educated Indian who continues to practice tribal ways and who is not overtly aggressive in seeking elective or appointive office may come to exercise great influence over others. In this case, he assumes the advisory role which is consistent with the status of the leader in Indian tradition. The so-called "full bloods" on many reservations commonly rely upon one or more such persons for advice on matters which they do not fully understand. White men sometimes play a similar role through showing respect for tribal traditions and giving counsel only when called upon. [4] -ibid.James E. Officer [italics emphasis added]
People [native Americans] who do not vote for an issue -- whether they abstain or vote against it -- often resent having to abide by it and insist that they should not be affected by the final decision since they did not themselves affirm it. A number of Indian groups -- such as the Hopis here in the Southwest -- are still divided over the issue of their constitution, those who voted against it or who did not participate in the constitutional election, insisting that they should not be bound by the vote of the others. -James E. Officer, Journal of American Indian Education, Volume 3 Number 1, October 1963, INFORMAL POWER STRUCTURES WITHIN, INDIAN COMMUNITIES
... Male hunters are still competing for females, as partners in both marriage and adultery, and some will do better than others. Females also compete for breeding partners (see Shostak 1981). Egalitarianism does not wholly eliminate this type of competition, for occasional polygyny is prevalent (Kelly 1995), but a single alpha-bully no longer has the chance to monopolize many of the females. -Christopher Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1999) p. 217
In many forager groups, ethnographic reports suggest a fairly smooth political equilibrium over a typical field stay of one or two years. There may be tensions about sharing, and a few interpersonal quarrels, but basically no one tries seriously to bully anyone else, nor does anyone try to extend into manipulative power the respect and influence associated with being a successful hunter. {Yet such short-term reports can be misleading. Over time, much forager conflict is between men, over women, resulting in a high per-capita rate of homicides (see Knauft 1991). .... } (Boehm 1999:44)

Drowned_Out_04_A.mpg

<GN_leisure_GoingTribal_061210.mpg>

Going Native: What Was Small-Group Ancestral Living Like?


The SUBTOPICS:

[ABSOLUTELY MUST INCLUDE "ESKIMO" A 1933 MOVIE BY PETER FREUCHEN A DANISH EXPLORER WHO LIVED WITH THE ESKIMOS. USES NATIVE CAST MOSTLY AND HE PRETTY CLEARLY UNDERSTANDS TRIBALS. DOES NOT SHOW PALE-FACE IN GOOD LIGHT, THOUGH DOES SHOW HIM "TRULY."]

Human nature
Nasty, brutish, and short?
Leaders vs. Rulers
Not Lying
Education
Ancestral Banking and Community
Experts
Pirates
Ambiance and The Results


"Going native" is a phrase passed on to us from 1800's America and before. It has lost some of it's history. As it turns out, many "pale face" -- including a surprising number of women -- would leave their communities to join native American tribes. Such an emmigration is anything but trivial. Why would they do that?

Human nature

One of the most damaging -- and incorrect -- notions foisted on us by western culture is that tribes (and by extension, we urban literates) are inherently warlike and savage. The exact opposite is true. However there is a caveat: Once aroused, tribes operated with Bob Waldrop's 5x co-operative advantage in "warfare" as well as in other things. Once the members of a tribe finally realized the dangers pale-face posed his tribe and family, just as you would defend your family, they indeed appropriately became what, to the invading whiteman, must have seemed very savage. And, of course, they also had the subdued if chronic problem of their own hierarchists.

Since we've been severly propagandized in the notion of tribes being warlike, here is a bit of antidote:

This example from the [Vienna Natural History] Museum ...implies that warfare and social violence is a relatively recent invention by our species, of only around 6000 years duration. It also implies that we have become so accustomed to warfare and violence as the "norm" that we have difficulty even conceptualizing there might be, or might have been in our most ancient past, another mode of social existence free of the horrors of warfare and all but the most uncommon examples of interpersonal violence. This point of view, however unrecognized or unpopular, has much evidence to support it." --James DeMeo, Ph.D., Appendix B, Update on Saharasia, New Findings Since the First Printing*
Speaking in terms of evolution, we find that war is not a permanent institution of mankind. ... The chaotic brawls, the internecine fighting of the lowest savages have nothing in common with the institution of war. --Polish-born anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski, Harvard, September 17, 1936 [5]
Desmond Morris, in his fascinating book Manwatching, for example, shows that the instinctive fighting style of human beings seems to be rather carefully optimized to keep us from injuring one another. Films of street scuffles show that "instinctive" fighting consists largely of shoving and overhand blows to the head/shoulders/ribcage area. --Eric S. Raymond, The Myth of Man the Killer

Pakistani police slap protesters into police van VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

from Democracy NOW!, Nov. 14, 2007

It is remarkably difficult to seriously injure a human being this way; the preferred target areas are mostly bone, and the instinctive striking style delivers rather little force for given effort. It is enlightening to compare this fumbling behavior to the focussed soft-tissue strike of a martial artist, who (having learned to override instinct) can easily kill with one blow. --Eric S. Raymond, The Myth of Man the Killer
New England's first Indian war, the Pequot War of 1636-37, provides a case study of the intensified warfare Europeans brought to America. Allied with the Narragansetts, traditional enemies of the Pequots, the colonists attacked at dawn. ... The slaughter shocked the Narragansetts, who had wanted merely to subjugate the Pequots, not exterminate them. The Narragansetts reproached the English for their style of warfare, crying, "It is naught, it is naught, because it is too furious, and slays too many men." In turn, Capt. John Underhill scoffed, saying that the Narragansett style of fighting was "more for pastime, than to conquer and subdue enemies." Underhill's analysis of the role of warfare in Narragansett society was correct, and might accurately be applied to other tribes as well. Through the centuries, whites frequently accused their Native allies of not fighting hard enough. --James W. Loewen, LIES MY TEACHER TOLD ME, (New York, NY: Touchstone 1996), p. 118
Throughout human history, when humans fight each other, there is a lot of posturing. Adversaries make loud noises and puff themselves up, trying to daunt the enemy. There is a lot of fleeing and submission. Ancient battles were nothing more than great shoving matches. It was not until one side turned and ran that most of the killing happened, and most of that was stabbing people in the back. All of the ancient military historians report that the vast majority of killing happened in pursuit when one side was fleeing. --Lt. Col. David Grossman (Ret), author of "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" and currently Professor of Military Science at Arkansas State U.
Grossman reviews extensive military data showing that until recently most soldiers refused to kill and most did not ever fire their rifles in combat. ... Grossman quotes from the book "War" by Gwynne Dyer: "There is such a thing as a 'natural soldier'; the kind who derives his greatest satisfaction from male companionship, from excitement, and from the conquering of physical obstacles. ... But armies are not full of such men. They are so rare that they form only a modest fraction even of small professional armies, mostly congregating in the commando-type special forces. In large conscript armies they virtually disappear beneath the weight of numbers of more ordinary men. --Killology page3.html
Mr. [Bertie] Felstead was among the troops [during WWI] who ignored orders by temporarily stopping the slaughter and holding the impromptu football game, sharing cigarettes and singing carols on Christmas Day 1915. Army generals had allowed a festive truce the previous year but ordered soldiers not to "consort with the enemy" again. Mr Felstead, a private in The Royal Welch Fusiliers, was one of the few who ignored the orders [in order] to take part in a second 'free-for-all' Christmas Day football game... ttp://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_360270.html> --Last WWI Christmas Truce Veteran Dies, www.ananova.com,Thursday 26th July 2001

And another clue from the same film linked above:

The Brotherhood of Soldiers
"The idea is that soldiers will fight with skill and agression to defend their brother soldiers, and thus the state."
The Aztec strategy of war was based on the capture of prisoners by individual warriors, not on working as a group to kill the enemy in battle. By the time the Aztecs came to recognize what warfare meant in European terms, it was too late. - wikipedia on "Aztecs"

And how about that blood-thirsty Sioux war chief, Crazy Horse - - -

It was observed of him that when he pursued the enemy into their stronghold, as he was wont to do, he often refrained from killing, and simply struck them with a switch, showing that he did not fear their weapons nor care to waste his upon them. Crazy Horse/Tashunkewitko , Oglala

Shucks, not even a gosh durned shoving match. Of course, there was his warlike attitude - - -

...we preferred hunting to a life of idleness on our reservations. At times we did not get enough to eat and we were not allowed to hunt. All we wanted was peace and to be left alone. Soldiers came and destroyed our villages. Then Long Hair (Custer) came...They say we massacred him, but he would have done the same to us. Our first impulse was to escape but we were so hemmed in we had to fight. - Crazy Horse/Tashunkewitko, ibid.
The Tora Bora soldiers were exultant. They had fought off a Janjaweed and government force, and the next operation, they insisted, would be even more spectacular. ... "The battle was over there, and it was a big battle," said the commander, waving his arm across the fields and wadis.      "We fought the military and the Janjaweed. They were many times our size, but they did not have our bravery and skills with weapons. They are good at killing women and children, but they cannot fight men like us." ... The "battle" appeared to have really been little more than a skirmish. The Tora Bora had suffered few casualties; one man had a wounded leg where a bullet had passed through without hitting any bones, and another had dislocated his shoulder swinging a heavy machine-gun too enthusiastically. It is doubtful that the enemy had fared any worse. ... The Tora Bora fighters take care to look tough. They have Rambo headbands and wraparound sunglasses, bandoliers of cartridges slung across naked chests. They carry an assortment of light weaponry - semi-automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, an old flame thrower which appeared not to work, and a machine-gun. Tora Bora army strikes back at the Janjaweed, By Kim Sengupta in Hijer, Darfur, 16 August 2004

\The War That Made America\Fear_of_indians_not _justified_French_ransom_captives_for_slaves.VOB

So, while tribes can indeed be very warlike when aroused -- and dangerous like irritated bees -- the people from most tribes are, especially compared to modern "civilized" man, inherently peaceful.

--Christmas truce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia + --File:Christmas Truce 1914.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |cm: Non-leadership in Bayda, Libya |fn:

ANJALI KAMAT: What's special about Bayda is that the residents there say that it's the very first city in Libya's east that broke free of Gaddafi's 42 years of authoritarian rule.... Al Bayda was the site of very fierce battles exactly a week ago. And I visited the main hospital in the city.... .

Many of the patients that I spoke to talked about... Tunisia and Egypt.... And they talked about going out in largely peaceful protests. They were armed only with stones and rocks, and they were met with very heavy machine-gun fire.

They were fired upon by Gaddafi's security forces as well as mercenaries. And some of these mercenaries were captured by citizen groups in Al Bayda. And we talked to some of the hospital staff, as well as patients, about these mercenaries. They uniformly said that all of the mercenaries were foreigners, were not Libyans, but what we heard from some of the doctors and nurses was that some of the mercenaries had admitted to the doctors that they had been paid quite well by Muammar Gaddafi in order to come and attack protesters in Al Bayda.

You know, everywhere we went in Al Bayda, it's quite remarkable to see all of the public institutions are guarded now by civilians. The traffic-there's no traffic police, so there's groups of young men directing traffic. The banks opened for the first time today in a few cities in the east, and all the banks are being guarded and operated by groups of civilians, taking control and making sure that there's no looting.

We saw signs in different places saying, "Protect Libya. Don't loot. Don't damage anything. We want a country that's not going to be ripped apart by sectarianism, by tribalism. We're going to stand together as Libyans."... .

Some of the doctors we met, we asked them, you know, what it is that they want from the international community at this point. And, you know, I think they were all very hesitant to make any sort of call for international intervention, quite aware of the history of international intervention in the region and quite wary of it.... But, you know, one of the doctors we spoke to said, "In the end, we want Libya to be freed by the Libyans themselves. We don't want outside help. We just need to make sure that this kind of carnage doesn't continue.... --Thousands Feared Dead in Gaddafi's Crackdown on Libyan Uprising |cm: Non-leadership in Wisconsin |fn:

UNIDENTIFIED: We've had a lot of support from the Madison community, around the state, as well as around the country. These bagels are actually donated by an organization in New York.... .

HARRIET BLAIR ROWAN: We also have a list of all the places that food has come from. One of the ones that I think is most interesting, Malawi, from Haiti, from Cairo, Egypt.

MIKE BURKE: Now, you're saying that people in Egypt have donated food for the people here in Madison?

HARRIET BLAIR ROWAN: Yeah, apparently, which is wonderful. I mean, I think that most people here agree that the people of Egypt really inspired people here.... people here have been inspired by that, to really see that a group of people without any official leadership can really get together and do something. And I mean, here, you know, there's the different unions, so each-people who are affiliated with the unions have their own leadership, but there's really not like one leader for the movement. And I think that that's one of the things that makes it really cool.

MIKE BURKE: And what keeps you going?

HARRIET BLAIR ROWAN: Just the people, talking to people and seeing how amazing everything is and how people are working together. This is-I keep saying this is the coolest thing I've ever been a part of, and people continuously tell me the same thing, like, "This is the most amazing thing I've ever been a part of." And people really feel empowered individually to accomplish things, to do things. They see something that's not being done, and they do it. And that's really cool... --Wisconsin's Uprising: A Guided Tour of the 11-Day Protest Encampment Inside the State Capitol in Madison HN: MS: REV: AHDAF SOUEIF: I'm just completely overwhelmed. And I was just trying to try to, you know, write my copy for tomorrow's article, but I just-I can hardly breathe. You know, you can hear all the joy cries. The phones just won't stop ringing, people just saying congratulations. You know what I first thought? I thought, I have seen two women in Tahrir Square sort of fully pregnant and waiting to deliver, and they've been saying, you know, "When it comes, when it comes, and I will call my daughter 'Liberty.'" And my first thought was that they can now have their babies. Oh, boy, you know, I mean, it's not over. We have to be careful. We have to really sort of, you know-the work begins now... AHDAF SOUEIF: Yeah. No, it was amazing. It was an amazing night. I mean, it was an amazing 18 days. And then it was an amazing night. And what really also stays with me is that there were three very specific chants that went up immediately. And the first one was "Lift your head up high. You're Egyptian." And the second one was "Everyone who loves Egypt, come and help build Egypt." And the third was "We'll get married, we'll have kids." And that just sort of-you know, the aims of the people.

AHDAF SOUEIF:... Well, you know, I think that what happened-and this isn't just me, because at one point, you know, you start thinking that maybe you were having visions or you were, you know-but everybody who talks about it talks in the same terms, that it was: people were rediscovering themselves and each other. It was as though everybody had been locked in solitary in a small little dark box, you know, and told to be afraid of everything else and sort of rattled from time to time. And you'd opened the box and stepped out and found that everything was great. You know, there was light. There were other people.

And what happened was that almost overnight a civic space was created in Tahrir Square that was the ideal space, that one imagined, that everybody imagined, how the country should be or how any country should be. People were kind of like really careful of each other. People were overly courteous. People were picking up rubbish. People were bringing things to offer. It very soon became that you didn't go to Tahrir without something to offer, whether it was cookies, whether it was your effort, whether it was water, whether it was medicines for the field hospitals. In other words, everybody was finding the best in themselves and putting it forward. And that was just incredible...

And also, we've kind of dreaded-I mean, the common wisdom was that when it came, it would be such an eruption it would be sort of mobs and masses, and it would be violent and destructive, and there would be a lot of anger in it... --Novelist Ahdaf Soueif on Egypt's Revolution: "People Were Rediscovering Themselves" Disaster research sortta thing

|cm:HN: People behave nicely during emergency |fn: [00:04:29min CLIP 22]

HN: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w People don't panic. That's just in the movies. -MSNBC, March 18, 2011, 23:25:17 [GET THIS]

It caused the earth to spin a little faster. -MSNBC, March 18, 2011, 23:26:25

HN: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w People band together even with complete strangers. -MSCNBC, March 18, 2011, 23:27:10 + HN: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w People keep on with their regular lives. That's what people do in emergencies. -MSCNBC, March 18, 2011, 23:28:01 [GET THIS] or with one less clip, <> -MSCNBC, March 18, 2011, 23:29:36 |cm:HN: Folks leave taxi & help others |fn: [00:04:13min CLIP 25] [10:50 delay]

HN: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w People desert taxi to find high ground as the tsunami hits. They help folks stranded in a tree, on car, etc. -MSCNBC, March 19, 2011, 08:50:55 [GoT THIS] <O:\Users\Public\RawClips\HN_JTD_'First_responders'_folks_save_each_other_MSNBC110319.mpg>

<> -MSCNBC, March 19, 2011, 08:55:07

Minik, The Lost Eskimo Also on PROGRAM DVD, March 23 --> April 2. Size of group was about 240 and so many people in one place (NYC) amazed him, etc.
CAG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w U.S. throwing money at Haiti won't do any good because the Haitian government is corrupt. How do you deal with that? -This Week, SUNDAYS, January 17, 2010, 10:08:14
+
HN: WWWH: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w US military will be securing warehouses, etc. There were reports of horrendous violence. A cop trying to arrest a looter was killed. -This Week, SUNDAYS, January 17, 2010, 10:15:16 + This violence makes it difficult to support the government of Haiti. -This Week, SUNDAYS, January 17, 2010, 10:16:29
+
SO: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Lessons from Katrina: People want to help. We want to help with rebuilding. The main lesson is, people want to help. -Ex-president GW Bush, Face the Nation, SUNDAYS, January 17, 2010, 10:43:36
+
HN: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w People are remarkably calm despite the horrific stituation they're in. -Bob Schieffer, Face the Nation, SUNDAYS, January 17, 2010, 10:51:12
+
HN: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w What made this week was Bush and Clinton getting together without any political one-upsman ship. No one wants their kids to grow up to be politicos anymore. Despite this, Americans opened their wallets and helped, like they did for 911 and despite the fact we're in the middle of an emergency of our own. -Bob Schieffer Commentary, Face the Nation, SUNDAYS, January 17, 2010, 10:56:34
+
OK SO: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Lessons from Katrina: People want to help. We want to help with rebuilding. The main lesson is, people want to help. -Ex-president GW Bush, Face the Nation, SUNDAYS, January 17, 2010, 10:43:36

SEE: < |cm:How US troops undermine spontaneous order in Haiti>

According to the U.S. military general in charge, he's been told that the violence is less than in normal times in Haiti. The problem is at the distribution points [THERE IS AN AUDIO RECORDING (POOR QUALITY) OF THE WHOLE INTERVIEW. THERE SHOULD BE A VIDEO CLIP OF THE LAST PART OF THE REPORT] --Lester Holt, reporting from Haiti, CNBC, January 19, 2010, 06:29:43 HAVE RECORDING OF AUDIO ONLY HERE: [A FOLLOW UP CLIP MENTIONS IN PASSING THAT THINGS ARE CALM. ALSO THAT VEGTABLES ARE SHOWING UP IN THE MARKET PLACE THOUGH THE BANKING SYSTEM HAS BEEN DECIMATED SO IT MIGHT NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE] -January 19, 2010, 06:35:37 ]

Nasty, brutish, and short?

According to philosopher Thomas Hobbs,

Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; ... where every man is enemy to every man... In such condition ... which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, CHAPTER XIII OF THE NATURAL CONDITION OF MANKIND AS CONCERNING THEIR FELICITY AND MISERY

Fairly clearly, Mr. Hobbs had hierarchist tendencies. Now here's a bit of antidote - - -

[PETER FARB]

The Original Affluent Society
{Are twentieth century hunter-gatherers really worse off than farmers? }Scattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of socalled primitive people, like the Kalahari Bushmen, continue to support themselves that way [by hunting and gathering]. It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only twelve to nineteen hours for one group of Bushmen, fourteen hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania. One Bushman, when asked why he hadn't emulated neighboring tribes by adopting agriculture, replied, "Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?"
+
One straightforward example of what paleopathologists have learned from skeletons concerns historical changes in height. Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show that the average height of hunter-gatherers toward the end of the ice ages was a generous 5'9" for men, 5'5" for women. With the adoption of agriculture, height crashed, and by 3000 B.C. had reached a low of 5'3" for men ,5' for women. By classical times heights were very slowly on the rise again, but modern Greeks and Turks have still not regained the average height of their distant ancestors.
+ ...
One straightforward example of what paleopathologists have learned from skeletons concerns historical changes in height. Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show that the average height of hunter-gatherers toward the end of the ice ages was a generous 5'9" for men, 5'5" for women. With the adoption of agriculture, height crashed, and by 3000 B.C. had reached a low of 5'3" for men ,5' for women. By classical times heights were very slowly on the rise again, but modern Greeks and Turks have still not regained the average height of their distant ancestors.
+ ...
At Dickson Mounds, located near the confluence of the Spoon and lllinois rivers, archaeologists have excavated some 800 skeletons that paint a picture of the health changes that occurred when a hunter-gatherer culture gave way to intensive maize farming around A.D. 1150....Compared to the huntergatherers who preceded them, the farmers had a nearly fifty percent increase in enamel defects indicative of malnutrition, a fourfold increase in iron-deficiency anemia (evidenced by a bone condition called porotic hyperostosis), a threefold rise in bone lesions reflecting infectious disease in general, and an increase in degenerative conditions of the spine, probably reflecting a lot of hard physical labor. "Life expectancy at birth in the preagricultural community was about twenty-six years," says Armelagos, "but in the postagricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive."
+
Besides malnutrition, starvation, and epidemic diseases, farming helped bring another curse upon humanity: deep class divisions. Hunter-gatherers have little or no stored food, and no concentrated food sources, like an orchard or a herd of cows: they live off the wild plants and animals they obtain each day. Therefore, there can be no kings, no class of social parasites who grow fat on food seized from others. Only in a farming population could a healthy, nonproducing elite set itself above the disease-ridden masses. Skeletons from Greek tombs at Mycenae c.1500 B.C. suggest that royals enjoyed a better diet than commoners, since the royal skeletons were two or three inches taller and had better teeth (on average, one instead of six cavities or missing teeth). Among Chilean mummies from c. A.D. 1000, the elite were distinguished not only by ornaments and gold hair clips but also by a fourfold lower rate of bone lesions caused by disease.
+
Similar contrasts in nutrition and health persist on a global scale today. To people in rich countries like the U.S., it sounds ridiculous to extol the virtues of hunting and gathering. But Americans are an elite, dependent on oil and minerals that must often be imported from countries with poorer health and nutrition. If one could choose between being a peasant farmer in Ethiopia or a Bushman gatherer in the Kalahari, which do you think would be the better choice?
+ ...
Thus with the advent of agriculture an elite became better off but most people became worse off. Instead of swallowing the progressivist party line that we chose agriculture because it was good for us, we must ask how we got trapped by it despite its pitfalls.
+
One answer boils down to the adage "Might makes right." Farming could support many more people than hunting, albeit with a poorer quality of life. (Population densities of hunter gatherers are rarely over one person per ten square miles, while farmers average 100 time that.) Partly, this is because a field planted entirely in edible crops lets one feed far more mouths than a forest with scattered edible plants. Partly, too, it's because nomadic hunter-gatherers have to keep their children spaced at four-year intervals by extended nursing and other means, since a mother must carry her toddler until it's old enough to keep up with the adults. Because farm women don't have that burden, they can and often do bear a child every two years.
+
As population densities of hunter-gatherers slowly rose at the end of the ice ages, bands had to choose between feeding more mouths by taking the first steps toward agriculture, or else finding ways to limit growth. Some bands chose the former solution, unable to anticipate the evils of farming, and seduced by the transient abundance they enjoyed until population growth caught up with increased food production. Such bands outbred and then drove off or killed the bands that chose to remain hunter-gatherers, because a hundred malnourished farmers can still outfight one healthy hunter. It's not that hunter-gatherers abandoned their life style, but that those sensible enough not to abandon it were forced out of all areas except the ones farmer didn't want.
+
...Archaeologists studying the rise of farming have reconstructed a crucial stage at which we made the worst mistake in human history. Forced to choose between limiting population or trying to increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny.
+
Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and longest lasting lifestyle in human history. In contrast, we're still struggling with the mess into which agriculture has tumbled us, and it's unclear whether we can solve it. Suppose that an archaeologist who had visited us from outer space where trying to explain human history to his fellow spacelings. He might illustrate the results of his digs by a twenty-four hour clock on which one hour represents 100,000 years of real past time. It the history of the human race began at midnight, then we would now be almost at the end of our first day. We lived as hunter-gatherers for nearly the whole of that day,from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally, at 11:54 p.m., we adopted agriculture. As our second midnight approaches, will the plight of famine-stricken peasants gradually spread to engulf us all? Or will we somehow achieve those seductive blessings that we imagine behind agriculture's glittering facade and that have so far eluded us? "The Worst Mistake In The History Of The Human Race," Jared Diamond, Prof. UCLA School of Medicine Discover-May 1987, pp. 64-66
|cm: "The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster" |fn:HN: disaster sociology The Extraordinary>

{ANJALI KAMAT: We're joined now from Santa Fe, New Mexico by author, historian and activist Rebecca Solnit. Her latest book examines Katrina and other disasters; it's called A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster. ...

}REBECCA SOLNIT: ... One of the tragedies of New Orleans is that, because of the stereotypes that turn into rumors, that turn into media reports, people believed that ordinary human beings were savages and were behaving barbarically. The truth of the matter is, even inside the Convention Center, even in the worst places, people were taking care of each other. ...

AMY GOODMAN: You put this in a very big context, from the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco to the 1917 explosion that tore up Halifax, Nova Scotia, to the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, to Katrina. Talk about the similarities you saw, the individual heroes and heroines and the institutional crimes ... .

REBECCA SOLNIT: ... a lot of my work has been based on the field of disaster sociology, which emerged after the World War II, when the US government decided it wanted to know how human beings would behave in the aftermath of an all-out nuclear war. The assumption, as it often is, is that we would become childlike and sheepish and panic and be helpless, or that we'd become sort of venal and savage and barbaric. And the disaster scholars started to look at this and eventually dismantled almost every stereotype we have and found that people are actually ... resourceful, altruistic, brave, innovative and often oddly joyful, because a lot of the alienation and isolation of everyday life is removed.

What you also see is that because the authorities think that we're monsters, they themselves panic and become the monsters in disaster. Some of the sociologists ... call this "elite panic," ... the sense that things are out of control; we have to get them back in control, whether that means shooting civilians suspected of stealing things, whether that means focusing on control and weapons as a response, rather than on help and support or just letting people do what they already are doing magnificently. And so, it really upends not only the sense of what happens in disaster, ... it upends our sense of human nature. --A Paradise Built in Hell: Rebecca Solnit on "The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster"

The hunter-gatherer life-style VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

Going Tribal, December, 2006

-Men were all captains, women were all sailors (wouldn't stand in church) -Pizza politics (co-operation) -Karl Hess in Boston (fixing equipment with syndicalists was happiest time in his life) -The native women selling fruit along the empty highway in Morocco.

-How do you get independent people to come and go together. Voluntary democracy.

Chiefs don't own your property or control your life.

^^w The Amish standard of honesty as related to me by Flinter when working on his barn with an Amish team: {PREAMBLE: The English lie."} There aren't more than 50 people living within ten miles of here. They looked at each other, rolling their eyes slightly. The leader said, "We personally know of at least 100 people living within ten miles of here ourselves."

The following anacdote was told me by [^^wFlinter]:

[WHOLE THING PROBABLY USED IN "GOING NATIVE"]I've been working with a local Amish crew that I hired to rebuild a barn. There are four men in the crew and I've been working right along with them. I've been observing them carefully, and as far as I can tell, there's no one leader and none of them is "in charge." I've noticed several things. When we reach a difficult part of the job, I suddenly find myself alone and the four men are off on the side, talking things over. One guy seems to be the most knowledgable and most likely to know what to do, but everyone who has an idea or seems to know what's going on gets listened to. After the conference, they come back with a new game plan.
+
[USED IN "LIARS AS LEADERS," "THE MONEY PERVERSION"] These Amish seem to have a different standard of truth than we do. I've heard them say to each other and to me several times, "The English lie." The Amish or "Pennsylvania Dutch" are really the "Pennsylvania Deutsch" -- which actually translates "Pennsylvania Germans," misunderstood by our early American ancestors as "Dutch." "Deutsch" comes from "Deutschland" as in "Germany." By "English," then, the Amish mean "English speakers," in this case, us "Americans." I didn't understand at first what they meant by, "The English lie," so I asked them. They gave me an example. Another "English" resident told them that the valley where we all live was very sparsely populated and for illustration, suggested that less than 50 people must live within five miles of here. At the mere mention of this, the four Amish looked at each other out of the corners of their eyes. "We personally know of at least 100 people living within five miles of here ourselves," explained one of them. Then I got what they meant. I began to realize just how sloppy we "English" have gotten with the truth. -John {^^wFlinter}, ~2003
NEW COMMENTS Added May 27, 2005: When you are with them and another "English" would tell them something, they would constantly make eye contact. A lot of non verbal communications takes place between these folks. I know them much better now, of course. Interestingly, I find myself being very careful before I speak to them and to think about what I am about to say. Unless we are kidding around, we do a lot of that now. They appreciate you thinking before you talk, if not joking around.

Ancestral Banking and Community

As we know from Chapter 22, just like us taking turns buying drinks at the bar, our ancestors' little accounter kept track, very subliminally, of who's done what for who. Here's a discussion I had via Skype with Flinter, who, as you know, is a non-Amish part of an informal Amish "community." The exchange fairly clearly reveals the nature of the relationships that evolve, even as a result of such basic and subliminal debit/credit trades as reciprocal bar tabs. And there's a lot more to this than usually meets the eye. Perhaps you'll recognize some of this from your own experience?

Flinter: not to limit to amish but yes, they are far more economical including bartering ...

lrw: How does their barger work??? (How do they keep track of who owes who what?)

lrw: Ah, that's "barter" not "barger" (blush)

Flinter: they are very good at "keeping track" tho not as an accountant would view it today, ivan helped me mount the 6 way blade on betsy in return, i said i'd grade around his barn

lrw: So you made an "on the spot" one time deal - - - and you're a temporary debtor - - -

lrw: How'd you all decide on the basis of the trade - - - mount blade for grading??

Flinter: yeah, an ob but a friendly one based upon trust and a valued relationship

lrw: What was it based on? I mean, what "units" of trade (unofficial of course, perhaps you didn't even think of it consciously) - - -

Flinter: my back is acting up i needed the blade mounted & it is one big hunk of metal it'd take him weeks to grade by horse and hand ...

lrw: So underneath it's a "less misery for time" trade??

lrw: Specially interested in the "time" dimension.

Flinter: there is a certain ambiguity, i agree more like a lubricant tho the more u do, the more lubricated the relationship becomes make sense?

lrw: Yep.

Flinter: and the more economic calculation evaporates from the thot process

lrw: Hmmmmmm - - -

Flinter: ... and becomes just sharing

lrw: intuition tells me that be important!!

lrw: but dangerous.

Flinter: not if you accept risk

lrw: Implies accepted group members sortta gradually get "blank check" on each other. Syndicalism

Flinter: oh no, now i'll be thinking all day about what the ?* "syndicalism" is :^)

Flinter: no one ever gets a blank check

Flinter: btw, we are dancing near the reasons i claim all "Free" markets are local

So, if this is indeed a reasonable description of how relationships evolve in small groups, you can see how trade, moderated by our little accounter, serves as a "lubricant" and to cement -- or "bond" -- small groups together. And how the little accounter, subliminal in most cases, keeps things balanced and the group protected from "free riders."

The use of the word "bond" above is quite appropriate in this context. And, not surprisingly, extends into formal trade in a big way as we'll see. As in U.S. Treasury Bond, corporate bond, etc..

In a sense, your small face-to-face group operates as an informal bank. You invest your knowledge time and expertise informally into the group and make withdrawls when you need them. An extension of this informal "banking" arrangement also gives older folks, who have raised families and helped others over decades, a "retirement fund" of sorts.

Experts

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. --Buddha
--Why Experts Get It Wrong - James Warren - National - The Atlantic
< |cm: Liberation or Mind Control?> above for when child raising is the beginning of "helplessness," depending on other people instead as result of "experts" raising kids vs. "care taker" moms.

[WHOLE SECTION IN Nassim Nicholas Taleb's "The Black Swan" on the failure of experts even to be correct. Starting on pg 145]

[MUST SEE: INCLUDES: 50% of scientific papers are wrong, publication bias, perception & measurement bias, etc.]

SEE < |cm: Leaders vs. Rulers> |cm: Prof. Roenton & exfoliation |fn:

Let's see if I can help you get a bit of perspective on "Authority," Greg. As my favorite geology prof, Professor Roenton, helped me.

"I have a PhD so you must respect my opinion on everything," he told us young and impressionable students.

Then he pointed out that he got his PhD on the exfoliation of rock, that is, on how and why outside layers of rock flake off from water and alternate heat and cold. He said that when he gave his opinion on that very narrow subject, we should take his word for it, but even in this, his area of expertise, he was probably out of date.

He said that when he went to parties and was introduced as "Doctor Roenton," people would start asking him what they should do for their arthirits and insomnia. Further, he pointed out, had they asked him his opinion on most other topics, even geological topics, he wasn't too much more informed than most of us. Except in the few topics he had a strong interest in. Baseball, in his case.

And he warned us that the tendency to take people seriously simply because of their credentials was very wide-spread and ill-advised for the reasons he had just made clear. And to discount people because they lacked credentials was also often counterproductive. He could recite stats on the Chicago Cubs back something like 30 years, as he proved, but had no baseball credentials at all.

Which reminded me of my pre-med days with fellow students, who I am quite sure, are still PRACTICING medicine. And almost certainly killing folks.

Thank you Prof. Roenten! That was the most important lesson I ever received from formal education. Maybe that will help you too, G. SPECIALISTS AREN'T QUALIFIED TO RUN SOCIETY AND WOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM RUNNING THINGS BY NATIVE AMERICANS. -from a Flinter link June 2003] A NATIVE AMERICAN WORLDVIEW, by Paula Underwood Spencer }{ ^^w

      "From an Indian perspective, the "priesthood" nature of Western science is anathema. My own tradition disbelieves in "experts." "That which enables, disables also" means that a physicist will fail in understanding in many other areas, precisely because of the amount of time she/he spends on physics and therefore not on other things. Such people are not considered "experts," but "those extensively informed on part of the whole". They are listened to not on a priesthood basis, but on the basis of their having information others may not yet have--just as vice versa.
+
      The search for greater wholeness--which has no room for "expertise"--is unending!
+
      Any highly trained person will of course have a particular view--and therefore has a special responsibility to listen before speaking in any discussion of what the people may choose to do. Any person in a group who gets out of touch with his, with her community, is separated therefrom. Although I don't think there is the same negative connotation as there is in English, a shaman out of touch with her, with his community takes on aspects of the wizard--an isolated person who can inadvertently or on purpose do things that are harmful to the community. The process of Western "expertise" would be seen as a process of encouraging people to be isolated from the rest of their community in some way. A NATIVE AMERICAN WORLDVIEW, by Paula Underwood Spencer {extracted from }
}
[MAY GO BETTER IN "The State vs. Change" OR "The Case Against Government" OR "Memetic Machines" (OR "Why Not Trade?")] "...everything is too important ever to be entrusted to professional experts, because every organization of such professionals and every established social organization becomes a vested-interest institution more concerned with its efforts to maintain itself or advance its own interests than to achieve the purpose that society expects it to achieve." - Connected Historian Carroll Quigley, ex- president William Jefferson Clinton's mentor

[THERE'S A WHOLE SECTION WITH QUOTES AND STUFF IN KeepNote MAIN NOTES EXPERTS & CONSENSUS. The list below as of -March 1, 2011, 09:20:45 ]

- Half of scientific papers are proven to be wrong there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true

The most dangerous person on earth is the arrogant intellectual who lacks the humility necessary to see that society needs no masters and cannot be planned from the top down. --Friedrich von Hayek

- Bill Bryson and examples of incorrect "consensus" - - - "luminiferous aether" for example

- Michael Crichton on "consensus science."

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." --Michael Crichton

- The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

- My essay, "The Way of Science"

- Title: Why "Scientific Consensus" Fails to Persuade Subtitle: Individuals with competing cultural values disagree about what most scientists believe URL: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=117697&org=NSF&from=news

--Voices from the "One Nation Working Together" Rally for Jobs and Justice

For all our revolutionary heritage, Americans in general seem to have this odd, misplaced, unblinking, and often unconscious respect for credentialed authority, apparently thinking that credentials and expertise somehow cleanse people from the baser parts of human nature like self-willed agendas, petty backbiting, authoritarian behavior, the brazen seeking of power, a cultic mentality, etc....  --Michael Miles  Education ... has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading. - G. M. Trevelyan [MIGHT INTEGRATE THIS IN THIS AREA: --Noreena Hertz: How to use experts -- and when not to | Video on TED.com 0:18:19 ]

Remember, the Ark was built by amatures, the Titanic was built by experts. --Marian Wright Edelman, founder and president of the Children's Defense Fund --Voices from the "One Nation Working Together" Rally for Jobs and Justice

For a long time, for instance, classical Athens distributed its most responsible public positions by lottery: army generalships, water supply, everything. The implications are awesome -- trust in everyone's competence was assumed; it was their version of universal driving. Professionals existed but did not make key decisions; they were only technicians, never well regarded because prevailing opinion held that technicians had enslaved their own minds. --The Way It Used To Be by John Taylor Gatto

--Bentham wager Eldon - Google Search

--"Lord Eldon" wager - Google Search
Pirates Peter Leeson had a thing for pirates -- and researched them thoroughly. They had quite a libertarian -- and civilized -- society. READ UP ON THEM!

Ambiance and The Results

--INFOLEAKS: Hopi Way of Life on Verge of Being Lost

The subliminal context in small groups sharing knowledge must have been, "You are expected, for the good of all of us, to share your knowledge, ESPECIALLY since you, like the rest of us, have a unique position." Independent people expected this as a subliminal matter of course. Today the underlying assumption is just the opposite: Don't dare express your opinion if it is different than the perceived consensus, which really means, different from what we think the "leaders" want. -lrw, November 13, 2007, 11:55:37

[11:41:47 AM] flinter1 says: the policy of exterminating native americans & totally destroying their culture ... happened because the egalitarian nature of the indians, was such a HUGE threats to the vertical they (the indians) had to go, if they did not, the verticals were doomed & the vert's knew it

[11:42:57 AM] Rick White says: I think you're right. Just had a conversation with a local firefighter/welfare HLS certified guy about how things work with FEMA, etc. [Refrigerator guy from Allison II]

[11:44:06 AM] Rick White says: Compared to how Amish (your narrative on barn crew) work. Clearly "crosstraining" is a poor attemtp by the verts to emulate co-operation as done by Amish - - - and, I STRONGLY suspect, tribes, etc.

[11:45:12 AM] Rick White says: AND the ambience amounts to waiting to be told by an "Authority" what to do vs. figuring it out with input from the rest of the folks involved. Ultimate "cross training."

[11:46:15 AM] flinter1 says: i am constantly in awe of the built-in anarchy in the amish view of life [11:46:45 AM] flinter1 says: yet, the are extremely productive & partnering on large projects amazing

[11:47:40 AM] Rick White says: NOT amazing!!! How we are designed!!!!!!!!!! [11:47:53 AM] flinter1 says: :)

There's the practical difference and the psychological difference and they feed on each other. To even begin to get a feel for this, you have to see the contrast to the modern situation.

The Amish raise their kids as per:

... Annette Hamilton [6] is an anthropologist ...what she does is to examine carefully the patterns of parenting and learning among a group of people who until recently lived as gatherer-hunters. ...Hamilton draws conclusions. She notes that while, for Europeans, the needs of the child are determined by "experts," in Aboriginal society "the role of the caretaker is to pay attention to the overt demands of the infant.... The infant cries, the caretaker feeds. When it is old enough, it grabs the breast or the food for itself. If it does not grab for it, it does not want it.... The Aboriginal model trusts the child's knowledge of its own states, both physical and emotional. When a three-year-old is tired someone will carry it. No one says 'Three-year-olds are old enough to walk.' In fact, no one makes generalizations about children at all. Each child is treated solely on the merits of its actual concrete situation at that moment." This sort of treatment tends to produce confident, secure, self-motivated adults. In contrast, according to Hamilton,
... A sense of helplessness seems to be a feature characterising much of the modern world's literature and life. ...infants, biologically much the same as infants 50,000 years ago, have increasingly been handled in less and less 'natural' ways, and as adults have come to feel less and less powerful in themselves.... Liberation or Mind Control?*, , *By Richard Heinberg* {EXTRACTED from: }

So, at least according to Hamilton, children in hunter-gatherer societies allow -- in fact, expect -- people from childhood on -- to know what they need and, by extension, what's best for them -- and how to take care of themselves, including knowing when they need assistance. They don't usually need "Authorities" -- not even parents -- to tell them what to do, not even when they're babies.

And, according to Hamilton at least, the result is "confident, secure, self-motivated adults." By contrast, we "moderns" tend to produce adults who "have come to feel less and less powerful in themselves."

Of course guidance from those who know more is important, else we'd be like other animals -- but without the genetic behavior specifications built-in at birth. And we'd all have to reinvent the wheel from birth on. And our species would not have survived.

So learning, powered by "curiosity" is natural and probably built in, and we naturally want to learn from those who know. But not be force fed. Else we'd lose our independence. So the balance is reflected in the native american practice of allowing a great deal of autonomy to their kids, and even letting them do things that we "moderns" would consider dangerous{ in their growth to adulthood}. [FIND REFERENCE. BOHEM??]

Thus the whole ambiance of a tribal group -- or others raised in this way -- is at base completely different than those raised as most of us "moderns" were, where outside influences are more important and we aren't allowed to follow our own internal motivations. They're sacrificed to the bell, the clock, the work day, etc. [GATTO HERE?]

Modern "schools" tell you what you have to learn, when you have to learn it, how to learn it, and don't admit you've learned it till you pass their tests and they tell you you've learned it. In other words, the traditions of modern schooling have taken complete control of what you learn away from you and put it in other hands. This is a tremendous coup. And loss. AND mistake. [I LEARNED PHYSICS WHEN I TAUGHT IT, NOT WHEN I "LEARNED" IT, DESPITE ALL THE TESTS I PASSED. DITTO MY EDUCATION CLASSES.]

[SOMEWHERE HERE THIS MUST BE MOVED TO "COMPARISONS" WITH REFERENCES BACK TO HERE] The ultimate result is the way modern groups, such as FEMA, try to operate as hierarchies. As compared to how, say, the Amish operate.

The assumption has become that unless someone is "certified" they can't do anything. And conversely, if someone IS certified, they can not only do it, but do it better. This has, in modern cultures, become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once people come to believe this -- or are hammered into believing it by impediments to learning -- they stop trying to learn on their own. They give up control to "Authorities." [SKIPPY FINDING WAYS TO SNEAK INTO HIGH SCHOOL SHOP] This leads to "standardization" -- but eliminates or seriously handicaps innovation and improvement. Only the people who are "certified" try to do that job. Others don't try to learn it. If the certified person is missing or has a bad day, there is no fall back. AND, rather than taking the initiative, they wait for someone to tell them what to do.

At the psychological level this indeed produces people who "have come to feel less and less powerful in themselves" -- to the detriment of us all. At the organizational level, we end up with this, remember:

Pecking-orders foster foot dragging after Katrina VClip 5

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

DemocracyNOW!, October 24, 2005

AND at the societal level with this:

Conventionalism. By conventionalism, the third defining element of the rightwing authoritarian, I don't just mean do you put your socks on before your shoes, and I don't just mean following the norms and customs that you like. I mean believing that everybody should have to follow the norms and customs that your authorities have decreed. Authoritarians get a lot of their ideas about how people ought to act from their religion, and as we'll see in chapter 4 they tend to belong to fundamentalist religions that make it crystal clear what they consider correct and what they consider wrong. For example these churches strongly advocate a traditional family structure of father-as-head, mother as subservient to her husband and caretaker of the husband's begotten, and kids as subservient, period. The authoritarian followers who fill a lot of the pews in these churches strongly agree. And they want everybody's family to be like that. (A word of advice, guys: check with your wives first.) The Authoritarians,

"How else could it be?" I hear you thinking. [WHEN I HELPED THE AMISH PUT UP THEIR WINDMILL]

I wish I could just straight-out write this section, but it's not going to be that easy. See, I know from my own reactions, you will simply tune me out after the first few paragraphs because you will find what I'm writing extremely hard to believe. Remember your reaction to the notion our ancestral groups had no permanent leaders or "chiefs." It's our modern, Western, media-ized world view, embedded deeply into our "operating systems." We know, for example, that folks that wear headdresses, have bones in their noses, etc. are "primitive" and have nothing to teach us. Etc.

So before I proceed, I've got to prepare things a bit -- because as usual, there's an "urban literate" "dramatic imperative" bias built into the way we look at small groups:

Schneider ...He points out that while concern over hierarchy and egalitarianism is prevasive in the social sciences, the focus usually is on explaining the origins of extremely hierarchical states--whereas "egalitarian systems have been considered to be somewhat primitive, an early, inferior condition of human development" (Schneider 1979:212). (Boehm 1999:105)
^^w
While the Federal Government in the 1880s and 1890s could not have predicted all the ways in which its policies would affect traditional patterns of Indian organization, there is little doubt today that it was the intention to destroy the most conspicuous of these patterns. Commissioner of Indian Affairs Morgan in 1890 remarked that "the settled policy of the Government (is) to break up reservations, destroy tribal relations, settle Indians upon their own homesteads, incorporate them into the national life, and deal with them not as nations or tribes or bands, but as individual citizens." Journal of American Indian Education, Volume 3 Number 1, October 1963, INFORMAL POWER STRUCTURES WITHIN, INDIAN COMMUNITIES, James E. Officer

The "Indian Schools" in Canada (tape on file??) that beat and programmed tribal behavior out of Canadian Indians.

In H.G. Wells' "War of the Worlds," the Martians invading Earth were laid-low and defeated by our microbes. The same thing, but in reverse, happened with the native American population. That is, the Europeans invaded North America and the indigenous inhabitants were defeated, not by the skill and military superiority of the Europeans, but by the virulence of European germs.

As civilization has advanced, the pack-bond (the tribe, the extended family) has been broken. This is the root of the widely diagnosed "anomie" or "alienation" or "existential anguish" about which so many social critics have written so eloquently. What has happened is that the conditioning of the bio-survival bond to the gene-pool has been replaced by a conditioning of bio-survival drives to hook onto the peculiar tickets which we call "money". Concretely, a modern man or woman doesn't look for bio-survival security in the gene-pool, the pack, the extended family. Bio-survival depends on getting the tickets. "You can't live without money," as the Living Theatre troop used to cry out in anguish. http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:pC-ruaQiHeUC:www.tpdada.art. pl/wabik/books/RAWilson- Prometheus.pdf+%22Robert+Ardrey%22+%22dom inance+signals%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 {EXTRACTED from: -May 14, 2003, 17:01:18} !! - HN - REAL Human Nature After Disasters!!!!!!!.TXt> ALSO Disaster Research Center

THIS ARTICLE SAYS THAT MOST PEOPLE NOW DON'T BELIEVE THE TRUCES ACTUALLY HAPPENED!!! THIS IS THE ANGLE TO BEGIN WITH -- THAT THERE'S DEVELOPED A COMPLETE DISTRUST OF HUMAN NATURE.

First of all, we already know we have many misconceptions about small groups and tribes. Perhaps the most telling for our purposes here is "the fallacy of the chief" -- something we all strongly believed turned out to be completely incorrect. We also know that even our most sophisticated observers failed to take the notion of property -- and so trade and enterprise -- into account during their small-group observations. Given these sorts of mistakes and modern biases, perhaps there are more where these came from.

There are two major sources to our urban literate biases: The first we can call the "history is written by the victors" bias, the second I call "media's dramatic imperative." There are of course, others. The first is pretty self-explanatory. What I mean by "media's dramatic imperative" is that in order to keep customers, media (Newspapers, movies, TV news, etc.) must give us drama. That is, it is "imperative" for their economic survival -- for their bottom line -- for media to give us "drama." The result is we media-users subliminally begin to believe, just as we staunchly believe the "fallacy of the chief," that things are literally and regularly as violent and dramatic as what we see on TV and in the movies. This includes what we come to believe about small ancestral groups -- because they didn't get to write much history -- and we see them conjured up quite often for TV and the movies, so we get both the "dramatic imperative" and the "history is written by the victors" effect too. The question here is, "How often and over what sorts of issues was the type of social control described by Jefferson and this clip exercized in small groups?

Much of the investment involves gossiping, and as a general phenomenon gossiping brings individual reproductive benefits through rewarding social interaction (Dunbar 1994) and through exchange of information about subsistence. In terms of physical risk, stress, extra energy expended, and time subtracted from the subsistence quest, little further investment is required if active sanctioning merely involves offering criticism, engaging in ridicule, or establishing some social distance. Most social control is accomplished in this way, and the psychological stress is likely to be far greater for the deviant than for those who exert the pressure. (Boehm 1999:214)
--Psst Human Brain Is Wired For Gossip : NPR

Officer?: Indians allow their children to engage in dangerous activities so they learn to decide for themselves -- and probably to learn to ask for and listen to advice from "elders" and others -- and to NOT give advice until it's solicited. War Wimps?

But "war wimps?" Really?

Tribes compared to hunter gatherers:

[SOME USED BELOW IN "Wars and Rumors of Wars"]... both types of society [chimpanzees and mobile hunter gatherers] seem to refrain from all-out intensive warfare, in which all the males of two groups are willing to have it out and mutually inflict massive casualties (see Manson and Wrangham 1991; Boehm 1992). Further, both foragers and chimpanzees fail to temporarily combine their territorial groups in order to defend against or attack other such "confederations" (Boehm 1992).
      The vast majority of tribesmen do engage in intergroup hostilities, but these activities often defy precise description. They may be divided roughly into feuding, radiing, and intensive warfare (Boehm 1986). Their feuding is reminiscent of the revenge killings discussed for foragers, while their raiding is reminiscent of chimpanzee actions on patrol, which can include cooption of females from a neighboring group, killing its males one or two at a time, or moving briefly into enemy territory to utilize natural resources (Goodall 1986). [p. 91]       Intensive warfare is the distinct province of tribesmen, and warlike tribes also form coalitions to balance power. In this context Durkheim (1933) coined the term "segmental societies." He took care to specify that each segment was egalitarian internally and that the segments also were equal politicallly. Thus, when two or more tribes came together for the purpose of uniting against a common enemy, one member of the coalition could not dominate another. In my terminology, each local group can be considered a corporate "main political actor," one that gives up none of its essential political autonomy by agreeing to a cooperative endeavor. (Boehm 1999[p. 91 & 92])

Native Americans could be fierce, but not as persistently fierce as we've been led to believe by media's "dramatic imperative."

Read says that groups are delighted to have the aggressive man as a warrior, for he fights well and commands well in battle. However:
the precipitate, compulsive individual may be a constant source of irritation or disruption in his own group, where the use of force or the threat to use force is proscribed under the ideal of group consensus. In other words, it seems that the character structure of the really "big" or "strong" man is not fitted for the subtleties of generalized authority. Among other things, successful leadership requires a fine feeling for the opinions of others. I think we might also say that it necessitates some detachment, the ability to see many different points of view at the same time, or, if you like, a breadth of vision and a degree of self-control (Read 1959:435) (Boehm 1999:111) [italics emphasis added]
Tribesmen, for my purposes, are nonliterate people who have domesticated plants op animals' have an egalitarian ethos' live in small, locally autonomous social groups; and refuse to permit strong authority to develop in the context of everyday group leadership. They are prone to raiding, feuding, and territorial warfare, and they often play "balance of power" games by forming intertribal coalitions (Boehm1994a). But in theory a tribe could be entirely peaceful. (Boehm 1999:90)

Remember, you're risking the lives of your friends and neighbors, not to mention -- Uncle Joe, Cousin Luke -- and these days aunt Marge, etc.

American "indians" had an unwarranted reputation for cruelty and violence, created in our minds largely by entertainment's "dramatic imperative" [7] -- and pre-emptive history from the powers-that-be of the era. {^^w Get reference from "Lies My Teacher Told Me."} Less biased research shows something else: Compared to the white man, indians were war wimps:

New England's first Indian war, the Pequot War of 1636-37, provides a case study of the intensified warfare Europeans brought to America. Allied with the Narragansetts, traditional enemies of the Pequots, the colonists attacked at dawn. ... The slaughter shocked the Narragansetts, who had wanted merely to subjugate the Pequots, not exterminate them. The Narragansetts reproached the English for their style of warfare, crying, "It is naught, it is naught, because it is too furious, and slays too many men." In turn, Capt. John Underhill scoffed, saying that the Narragansett style of fighting was "more for pastime, than to conquer and subdue enemies." Underhill's analysis of the role of warfare in Narragansett society was correct, and might accurately be applied to other tribes as well. Through the centuries, whites frequently accused their Native allies of not fighting hard enough. -James W. Loewen, LIES MY TEACHER TOLD ME, (New York, NY: Touchstone 1996), p. 118

Here's another example:

The Aztec strategy of war was based on the capture of prisoners by individual warriors, not on working as a group to kill the enemy in battle. By the time the Aztecs came to recognize what warfare meant in European terms, it was too late. - Aztec

And here's a suggestive example of what today's analogs of Capt. John Underhill would undoubtedly scoff at as {semi-tribal }"war-wimps" - - -

The Tora Bora soldiers were exultant. They had fought off a Janjaweed and government force, and the next operation, they insisted, would be even more spectacular. ... "The battle was over there, and it was a big battle," said the commander, waving his arm across the fields and wadis.      "We fought the military and the Janjaweed. They were many times our size, but they did not have our bravery and skills with weapons. They are good at killing women and children, but they cannot fight men like us." ... The "battle" appeared to have really been little more than a skirmish. The Tora Bora had suffered few casualties; one man had a wounded leg where a bullet had passed through without hitting any bones, and another had dislocated his shoulder swinging a heavy machine-gun too enthusiastically. It is doubtful that the enemy had fared any worse. ... The Tora Bora fighters take care to look tough. They have Rambo headbands and wraparound sunglasses, bandoliers of cartridges slung across naked chests. They carry an assortment of light weaponry - semi-automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, an old flame thrower which appeared not to work, and a machine-gun. Tora Bora army strikes back at the Janjaweed, By Kim Sengupta in Hijer, Darfur, 16 August 2004

Following the disastrous Ticonderoga campaign in 1758, the English general James Wolfe wrote in vehemence and despair that "the Americans are in general the dirtiest, most contemptible cowardly dogs, that you can conceive. There is no depending upon them in action. They…desert by battalions, officers and all." Other officials and observers remarked wonderingly of the individualistic spirit of the militiamen: "Almost every man his own master and a general." With the militia officers democratically elected by their men, "the notion of liberty so generally prevails, that they are impatient under all kind of superiority and authority."
+
Moreover, the Americans added a new concept to the age-old European peasant and yeoman practice of desertion: the assassination of officers who would not cooperate. Trading With the Enemy: An American Tradition by Murray N. Rothbard


+
The Aztec Empire is not completely analogous to the empires of European history. Like most European empires, it was ethnically very diverse, but unlike most European empires, it was more a system of tribute than a single system of government. Arnold Toynbee in War and Civilisation analogizes it to the Assyrian Empire in this respect.
+
The most important official of Tenochtitlán government is often called The Aztec Emperor. The general Nahuatl title for such a position, huey tlatoque, translates roughly as "Great Chief"; the Tlatoque were an upper class. The huey tlatoque of the Aztecs was also known as the tlatoani ("Speaker") or huey tlatoani ("Great Speaker"). This office gradually took on more power with the rise of Tenochtitlán, and by the time of Auitzotl "Emperor" is an appropriate analogy; like in the Holy Roman Empire, the title was not hereditary.
+
Most of the Aztec empire was forged by one man, Tlacaelel (Nahuatl for "manly heart"). Although he was offered the opportunity to be tlatoani, he preferred to stay behind the throne. Nephew of tlatoani Itzcóatl, and brother of Chimalpopoca and Motecuhzoma I Ilhuicamina, his title was "Cichuacoatl" (in honor of the goddess, roughly "counsellor"), but as reported in the Ramirez Codex, "what Tlacaellel ordered, was as soon done". He gave the Aztec government a new structure, he ordered the burning of most Aztec books, (his explanation being was they were full of lies) so he could rewrite their history. As well, Tlacaelel reformed Aztec religion, by putting the tribal god Huitzilopochtli at the same level as the old nahuas gods, Tlaloc, Tezcatlipoca, and Quetzalcoatl. Tlacalel thus created an historic concience for the Aztecs. He also created the institution of ritual war (the flower wars) as a way to have trained warriors, and created the necessity of constant sacrifices to keep the Sun moving. Some writers believe upper classes were aware of this forgery, which would explain the later actions of Moctezuma when he met Hernán Cort s (a.k.a. Cortez). But eventually this institution helped to cause the fall of the Aztec empire. The people of Tlaxcalla were spared conquest, at the price of participating in the flower wars. When Cortez came to know this, he approached them and they became his allies. The Tlaxcaltec provided thousands of men to support the few hundred Spaniards. The Aztec strategy of war was based on the capture of prisoners by individual warriors, not on working as a group to kill the enemy in battle. By the time the Aztecs came to recognize what warfare meant in European terms, it was too late. - Aztec

========= And despite modern influences, our peaceable nature largely persists today. Here's a more current example from the NATO bombings of Kosovo:

ABC reporters record that their first impressions are of the quiet, rather than the roar of anger you might expect [from the crowds of displaced Kosovar Albanians.] "There is no talk of revenge, and these people are incredibly gentle." -ABC This Week, 4 Apr 1999, 11:57:36 AM EST

Perhaps in some cases, people are even too peaceable. It may have been this perception which led Thomas Jefferson to pen:

... all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. -Declaration of Independence

-Crazy Horse raiding the fort but not killing anyone

-Shoving matches

Throughout human history, when humans fight each other, there is a lot of posturing. Adversaries make loud noises and puff themselves up, trying to daunt the enemy. There is a lot of fleeing and submission. Ancient battles were nothing more than great shoving matches. It was not until one side turned and ran that most of the killing happened, and most of that was stabbing people in the back. All of the ancient military historians report that the vast majority of killing happened in pursuit when one side was fleeing. Excerpts from http://impactnet.org/killology.htm By Lt. Col. David Grossman (Ret.)

SEE/GET "Breaking Bows and Arrows" April 6, 2004, Aftermath of a bloody civil war in Papua New Guinea. Written and directed by Liz Thompson.-LINK TV, August 20, 2004, 12:57:04 [THIS SHOULD BE RECORDED ON TAPE]

Remember though, our subconsconscious notions about how fierce these folks were is almost certainly incorrect and/or distorted, espceially by media's "dramatic imperative," etc. Remember, just for example, the "fallacy of the chief." Clearly similar flagrant misconceptions are not only possible, but even likely.

And not only in theory could a tribe be peaceful -- remember the Iroquois Confederation. ^^wWe will discover (or already know) that native Americans were "war wimps" compared to the white man

But even in ancestral groups -- and certainly in the period after The Great Transition, sometimes things went wrong. Remember, we have that instinct for revenge -- and don't mess with our women! And besides that, even our ancestors sometimes got territorial about their hunting grounds.

So sometimes "goodwill toward men" gave way to other {more immediate }concerns -- and we ended up with the Montagues vs. the Capulets and the Hatfields vs. the McCoys. And war.

While it doesn't usually go this far, it's clear that under the "right" conditions -- as exist particularly in warfare -- just as in the introductory clips to this chapter, men will die and sometimes even kill for their comrades. I suspect but don't have any research to back me that such "sacrifices" would usually be restricted to situations when the {trade }expectation would at least be me for more than one of my comrades. That would be the only equation that makes evolutionary sense. [8]

Of course, such patterns aren't necessarily fool-proof. For example there was the dueling problem that cropped up on occasion. At various periods in history dueling became so much the style that large numbers of men were being killed in duels, obviously with little or no gain and much detriment to the society as a whole. |cm: Leaders vs. Rulers |fn: Kent Nerburn

Leaders vs. Rulers

      Dan was thinking hard. I could see him mouthing words low under his breath. Then he spoke.

      "I want you to understand this, Nerburn. I don't think you've got it figured out. Sitting Bull was a leader. He was a real chief. People followed him because he was great. He never won any election or was appointed by any government official. That's not how you get to be a leader."

      "You're saying the policemen didn't have any real authority."

      "That's right. They were policemen because the government told them they were. Gave them uniforms and a job. It didn't have anything to do with the old way, where it was an honor you earned."

      "Unfortunately, that's the way the white system works," I said, though not with conviction.

      "It doesn't work too damn well, " he responded. "At least for Indian people. We had a system that worked, then the white man came along with his elections and laws and now we've got one that doesn't. They should have left us alone."

      "So why doesn't it work?" I asked. I was curious to hear Dan's ides on government.

      "Aw, it's too complicated to explain," he said. "You've got to know too much about the old days."

      "No. Try me," I said. "I'm interested."

      He heaved a weary sigh and held his two hands up like a man comparing the weights of two different objects.

      "There are leaders and there are rulers. We Indians are used to leaders. When our leaders don't lead, we walk away from them. When they lead well, we stay with them.

      "White people never understood this. Your system makes people rulers by law, even if they are not leaders. We have had to accept your way, because you made us Indians make constitutions and form governments. But we don't like it and we don't think it is right.

      "How can a calendar tell us how long a person is a leader? That's crazy. A leader is a leader as long as the people believe in him and as long as he is the best person to lead us. You can only lead as long as the people will follow.

      "In the past when we needed a warrior we made a warrior our leader. But when the war was over and we needed a healer to lead us, he became our leader. Or maybe we needed a great speaker or a deep thinker.

      "The warrior knew his time had passed and he didn't pretend to be our leader beyond the time he was needed. He was proud to serve his people and he knew when it was time to step aside. If he won't step aside, people will just walk away from him. He cannot make himself a leader except by leading people in the way they want to be lead. --Kent Nerburn, Neither Wolf nor Dog -- On Forgotten Roads With an Indian Elder, (Novato, CA: New World Library 2002) p. 199

Not Lying

|cm:"white lies" in small groups via. Flinter |fn:Recommends book, "Neither Wolf nor Dog" by Kent Nerburn

[7/19/2009 8:13:44 PM] Rick White: FF, do the Amish tell white lies? [6:42:59 AM] fflinny: (sun) [8:52:48 AM] fflinny: hey, skype lives [8:53:05 AM] Rick White: Indeed it do! [8:53:07 AM] fflinny: amish... sure [8:53:25 AM] Rick White: Example?? [8:54:32 AM] fflinny: hired ivan to manage the farm while i was working he pretended he understood the principles of grass farming & bought into it had to fire him no intention of following thru

[8:55:15 AM] fflinny: important to remember amish are individuals like the rest ofus

[8:56:31 AM] Rick White: I'm interested in the extent of lying small-group cultures will tolerate - - -

[8:57:02 AM] Rick White: If you'd been another Amish, would Ivan have operated the same??

[8:57:07 AM] Rick White: In your opinion - - -

[8:58:14 AM] fflinny: i think the amish have different rules of behavior when it comes to us "english" internally, they are very careful my impression [8:58:50 AM] fflinny: yep [8:59:31 AM] fflinny: jo hanging out w the fish folks :O [9:00:04 AM] Rick White: Based on your previous example, we "english" are totally truth depraved. [9:00:36 AM] Rick White: I wouldn't have even known without your Amish example. [9:00:47 AM] fflinny: been thinking about the gfr "group" wondering what or if there is an optimume size for such internet groups i think we get a bit tired of each other sometimes we know where each stands pretty much [9:02:01 AM] fflinny: the book "neither wolf or dog" about native americans has a good discussion about how the english speaking folk use language as a weapon from an old indian [9:02:16 AM] Rick White: Now trying to get guage on how much lying small face-to-face ancestral groups had going on. According to Barbie, many Native American languages didn't even have a word for "lie." We of course, have Cheney et. al. - - - (puke) [9:03:36 AM] fflinny: barbie right that was the "big disconnect" the indians had in "understanding" white man lying is so ingrained for us, we don't even see it anymore indians couldn't grok this [9:05:05 AM] fflinny: Kent Nerburn was the author might be worth ur time to get a copy at the library [9:05:38 AM] Rick White: Thanks as usual!! [9:06:37 AM] Rick White: Been thinking of inviting a couple of other people to join GFrs - - - Ben & Syl Olson who used to farm in Iowa and were on LP NatCom when I was - - - [9:06:55 AM] Rick White: Don't know if they'll be interested, but they might be. [9:07:09 AM] fflinny: discussion starts on page 156 i have it dog eared [9:07:38 AM] Rick White: Any way to scan it and maybe paste it here?? [9:07:45 AM] fflinny: might breath some life into the group [9:08:21 AM] fflinny: no scanner might type it, if'n i get a rainy day [9:10:08 AM] Rick White: Would GREATLY appreciate that!! This pale-face lying thing is WAY out of control - - - and nobody even seems to question it, let alone gauge the degree to which the culture has descended. [9:11:05 AM] fflinny: i'll see what i kin do, no promises tho :( [9:11:06 AM] Rick White: There's not even a yardstick to begin to measure it!! [9:13:50 AM] fflinny: rappoport on obama http://www.nomorefakenews.com/archives/archiveview.php?key=3591

Education

Schooling: Liberation or Mind Control? c:\USR\Rattler & Rick\HOME SCHOOLING\! Schooling Liberation or Mind Control!!!!!!!.TXt

[SPECIALISTS AREN'T QUALIFIED TO RUN SOCIETY AND WOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM RUNNING THINGS BY NATIVE AMERICANS. -from a Flinter link June 2003 & M. Freeman's education piece]

Stewart Emery is author of the book Actualizations: You Don't Have to Rehearse to Be Yourself. He says:
+
"In our society, when we talk about raising children, we are really talking about driving them crazy. What education is about is conditioning people to be irresponsible and stupid. It teaches them to be skillful technologists and useless people... At the end of the "educational" process we have become technically semi-competent human machines, and as creative human beings we have turned into morons."      
      "From an Indian perspective, the "priesthood" nature of Western science is anathema. My own tradition disbelieves in "experts." "That which enables, disables also" means that a physicist will fail in understanding in many other areas, precisely because of the amount of time she/he spends on physics and therefore not on other things. Such people are not considered "experts," but "those extensively informed on part of the whole". They are listened to not on a priesthood basis, but on the basis of their having information others may not yet have--just as vice versa.
+
      The search for greater wholeness--which has no room for "expertise"--is unending!
+
      Any highly trained person will of course have a particular view--and therefore has a special responsibility to listen before speaking in any discussion of what the people may choose to do. Any person in a group who gets out of touch with his, with her community, is separated therefrom. Although I don't think there is the same negative connotation as there is in English, a shaman out of touch with her, with his community takes on aspects of the wizard--an isolated person who can inadvertently or on purpose do things that are harmful to the community. The process of Western "expertise" would be seen as a process of encouraging people to be isolated from the rest of their community in some way. A NATIVE AMERICAN WORLDVIEW, by Paula Underwood Spencer
It wasn't Hobbs' All against all.

-INCLUDE KROPOTKIN'S STORY HERE -- EXPECTING HOBBS IN SIBERIA BUT FINDING CO-OPERATION INSTEAD.

You were free to do your own thing -- as long as it didn't impinge on others and you didn't try to tell others what to do.

ALSO FROM BOEHM FROM "The Tribal Ethos" HOW LEADERS STEPPING OVER THE LINE GET KILLED -- BY THEIR OWN FAMILIES. (Boehm 1999:110)

ALSO FROM THE SAME SECTION, HOW AGRESSIVE FOLKS WERE UNSUITABLE FOR LEADERSHIP.

      Sometime in the pioneer era, we fell victim to the belief that the prevailing pattern of political organization among all American Indians was hereditary dictatorship; in other words, that a ruler from a particular lineage exercised unlimited power over a group of obedient subjects. This stereotype may have derived from observation of a few such autocratic tribes as those powerful ones in the Central Valley of Mexico, in Peru, and in the Southeastern United States; or from our awareness of the fact that war and hunting parties-those which we most frequently encountered-were usually led by individuals who seemed to have a great deal of authority over their companions (see Note 1). In any event and for whatever reasons, it became a part of our conventional wisdom that every Indian tribe had to have a chief and that every chief had to be omnipotent among his fellow tribesmen. So ingrained is this belief that today the average tourist, when visiting an Indian reservation, is likely to ask "which one is the chief?" when introduced to a group of local residents. After several centuries of resisting the stereotype, many Indians capitulated to the extent of using the term "chief" to refer to almost everyone with any authority whatsoever (see Note 2). This attitude may have contributed to the now common expression "too many chiefs and not enough Indians."
      The Indian pattern of talking things over and striving for unanimous agreement is one which the outsider be he social worker, teacher, or Indian Bureau land operations officer must keep in mind. ... Indian parents often will not make decisions for their children until they have determined what the children want. Sometimes they will permit youngsters to do things which they know are not good for them simply because they believe in allowing children to make decisions for themselves. Journal of American Indian Education, Volume 3 Number 1, October 1963, INFORMAL POWER STRUCTURES WITHIN, INDIAN COMMUNITIES, James E. Officer Our ancestors lived together, no one tells anyone what to do, they're all self-confident (haven't been exposed to the chronic "cultural habit of summing these advantages in such a way as to 'establish an order of dominance and paramountcy'" and they haven't been subject to "one of the main political actors belittling, bullying, or otherwise trying to control him") they thus trade, cooperate, & pull together, especially during rough times. (As opposed to Hobbes' "life would be ugly, brutish, and short." ) ALSO refer back to "what makes them tick" for "non-persistent leadership, non-coercive "democracy," and genuine cooperation.

Even non-knowledge dependent species have evolved fail-safe instincts to prevent them from killing others of their own kind, and this shows up in "pulling punches" behavior, even during mating contests. Clearly a propensity to kill one's own kind would usually decrease the chances of such a species surviving since such a species would have one more (intimate) preditor to contend with. In addition to these usual reasons for not killing our own, our ancestors had further incentive to avoid killing each other; an ancestor may have been killing the very person who held the critical knowledge or information in his memes to later save not only the killer, but the whole group as well. I would suggest that ALL our common emotions are there for reasons rooted deeply in our ancestral groups. Loneliness, envy, etc. You can experience many of them today mainly through movies and fiction depicting harrowing circumstances - - because the circumstances don't often crop up in every-day life anymore. In the days of our ancestral groups, these circumstances must have been common enough to allow the process of evolution-through-natural-selection to choose them. That is, the conditions depicted in the best of those emotion-evoking movies and fiction books were almost certainly quite common to our ancestors.
The image of nature as a providing mother and the worship of this Great Goddess very likely influenced the development of Stone Age societies as agricultural `households.' Archaeologists James Mellaart and Marija Gimbutas, as well as the archaeological scholars Merlin Stone and Riane Eisler, have given us an image of such early civilizations, as exemplified by the well-preserved Neolithic town of Catal Huyuk in Turkey. People of such societies provided for themselves and one another by raising crops and keeping tamed animals.
Most striking in such well-planned and managed agricultural societies, with their large towns, agricultural technology, beautiful wall paintings, decorated pottery, sculpture and metal arts, is that unlike later cultures they show no evidence of fortification, warfare, conquest, slavery, or significant social inequality, judging by house size, burial customs, and so forth. This is taken to mean that men and women worked in partnership, and there is evidence at Catal Huyuk that those in need were provided for from public stores of food or from the goddess's temple gardens.
Such ancient societies seem to have practiced the kind of peaceful life with all people's needs met that our modern societies are still far from bringing about. The remains of cultures throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe, including pre-Minoan and Minoan Crete, show highly advanced societies, in which, as historian Riane Eisler puts it, "linking, not ranking" predominated. EARTHDANCE: Living Systems in Evolution, Elisabet Sahtouris, copyright 1999 by Elisabet Sahtouris, Worldviews from the Pleistocene to Plato

Isolation

SEE < name="modern_group_membership_quirks"> BELOW BEFORE WRITING THIS SECTION

THERE WERE NO STRANGERS AROUND. First of all, we'll begin talking about small hunter-forager groups before they became large enough to be tribes. None the less, many of the comments are valid for small tribes as well. This is important because it was during this period that our genetic nature developed and to which we are congentially suited For almost all of the time an archaic forager ancestor was alive, she never saw a stranger. Remember, for example, the human head-count after the eruption of the Toba "super-volcano" about 73,000 years ago is estimated to be less than 10,000. Some geneticists suggest there may have only been 30 breeding females left. Everyone in her life was or became known well face-to-face. And there were no houses or TVs and internet to take up her time or chronically distract her from her here-now, so she had almost constant face-to- face contact with her group-mates from dawn to dusk and even after. And they were always the same group-mates. There is almost no equivalent regular situation in today's world. An equivalent might be astronauts on an extended space mission -- or a submarine crew or a family perpetually "cocooning" -- and these days, before someone is admitted to such a restrictive environment, they undergo special testing to see if they can handle it. [POSSIBLY USED IN "Pseudo-groups"] By contrast, our progenitors grew up with distributed information leading to distributed decision-making as a way of life and so not only respected the opinions of others, when appropriate they regularly sought them out -- and readily shared their own. There was no established hierarchy and so anybody talked to anybody remember. They had instinctive confidence in the cooperative information exchange and behavior that resulted -- and unconsciously and naturally respected the instinctive communications patterns and habits that enabled it. And they shunned, ostracized, etc. those who tried to pre-empt those patterns in the pursuit of permanent leader-hood.

Since everyone had unique information and knowledge, it made perfect sense to include everyone in the group and to think several times before excluding, shunning, banishing, etc. anyone. And since "'nature' doesn't trust our memories or our persistence" remember, we almost certainly inherited cat-rubbing-like drives to make sure all this cooperative information sharing and behavior happens. (One indirect proof is that one of the essential goals of the military's "Basic Training" is to overcome these natural communications instincts, particularly the instinct for "anybody to talk to anybody" ("Permission to speak, sir") and to question orders and commands -- if that hasn't already been overcome by 12 years of government schooling.)

Since our ancestors automatically included everyone in the group and there were rarely any really serious "outies" in a face-to-face sense, they didn't need to regularly differentiate between outies and innies. And since they didn't have "the cultural habit of summing ... advantages ... to 'establish an order of dominance and paramountcy'," they didn't have hierarchy and competition staring them in the face twenty-four hours a day to intensify any divisions that did occur.


Summary


NOTES:

[1] "Benjamin Franklin's Marginalia, 1770," in Labaree, ed., Franklin Papers, Vol. 17, p. 381. return

[2] Barney Frank, interview with the author [Hedrick Smith], December 11, 1985 return

[3] "Benjamin Franklin's Marginalia, 1770," in Labaree, ed., Franklin Papers, Vol. 17, p. 381. return

[4] See A NATIVE AMERICAN WORLDVIEW, by Paula Underwood Spencer for a little different perspective on such specialists. return

[5] Of course, notice Malinowski unconsciously hierarchically places our ancestors well below him on the totem and further disses them when he refers to them as "lowest savages." return

[6] Nature and Nurture: Aboriginal Child-Rearing in North-Central Arnhem Land, by Annette Hamilton. (Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 1981), paperback. return

[7] See Rain, Kropotkin and Y2K -- Reel Human Nature for a development of this "dramatic imperative" theme. return

[8] BUT there may be advantage in convincing an opposing group that your band will try to kill indiscriminately if aroused. Like bees that die when they leave their stinger in you -- or suicide bombers. return


Total Contents
In Clips
Summaries
Appendices
L's Articles