http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/02/05/primitive-people-are-more-violent-than-civilized-people Comments On: Primitive People Are More Violent than Civilized People by Charles Mudede en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sat, 25 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sat, 25 May 2013 00:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by SIT (scout-in-training)]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:23:22 -0800 The Stranger
Your actual argument strikes me as quite a lot less intellectually rigorous than Weber's.

Not least because you refer to his conclusion as his premise.

Even more so, though, because you shy away from engaging with the concept of legitimate force, and thus the consequences of accepting only some forms of force as legitimate, or on the other hand rejecting any and all strictures of "legitimacy" on force, as excercised by any given entity at all.
Posted by robotslave]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:53:46 -0800 The Stranger Posted by I have always been... east coaster]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 19:39:00 -0800 The Stranger Posted by andiaoenpd]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 00:58:28 -0800 The Stranger
Why would you assume I'm incorrectly drawing on a thinker that I've in no way referenced? Oh right, because it's intellectually lazier than addressing the actual argument.
Posted by Tent_Liberation_Army]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:21:09 -0800 The Stranger Posted by peterga]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 00:41:28 -0800 The Stranger
Marxists always had a very poor understanding of anthropology (beginning with Karl Marx himself). Especially when it's contrary to their dogma.
Posted by sirkowski]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:05:11 -0800 The Stranger
You've misread your Max Weber; in his formulation, a monopoly on the legitimate* use of force is not something the state has, it's something the state is.

* radicals of all stripes tend to leave this word out when quoting the thing, for some reason.
Posted by robotslave]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 19:49:57 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Tent_Liberation_Army]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:30:55 -0800 The Stranger Posted by carsten coolage]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:01:29 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:05:01 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Tent_Liberation_Army]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:58:37 -0800 The Stranger
I think classifying violence by mere body count is misguided at best. What about mass incarceration and radical material inequality backed by force? How do these affect the quality of lives lived, and not just the length? These are harder things to measure than life expectancy, but need to be factored into the equation for any meaningful dialogue on violence.
Posted by Tent_Liberation_Army]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:56:34 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Sargon Bighorn]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 12:35:34 -0800 The Stranger Posted by skjaere]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 12:00:52 -0800 The Stranger
Q.E.D., Charles has green hair.
Posted by RonK, Seattle]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 11:55:44 -0800 The Stranger Posted by aureolaborealis]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 11:55:18 -0800 The Stranger
Are humans happier or otherwise better off in modern societies or in smaller groups? What are the implications of social dynamics that no longer resemble the arrangements in which humans involved? Given that all of our ancestors came from tribal societies, this about all humans, not particular races.

Most people have their own notions about these questions, with some seeing smaller communal societies as a more natural fit for humans, and others arguing that technology and education have had an elevating effect.

Your obsession with racism is itself a sad legacy of racism that continues to obscure your view of humans.
Posted by seandr]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 11:44:22 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 11:32:45 -0800 The Stranger
And @22, his conclusion that hunter-gatherer societies are on average, more violent than state societies is not based on his personal feelings about "social bonds"-indeed, Diamond repeatedly acknowledges and praises the social bonds of hunter-gatherer societies as superior to those prevalent in state societies. Rather, it is based on statistics from modern states and multiple studies of several disparate hunter-gatherer societies. Before you call someone "fucked up" for his evidence-based conclusions, maybe you should actually look at the evidence.
Posted by Marooner]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 11:28:32 -0800 The Stranger Posted by carnivorous chicken]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 11:19:05 -0800 The Stranger Posted by matt!]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 11:05:26 -0800 The Stranger Posted by nonotford]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:57:49 -0800 The Stranger
I would posit that "primitive" societies have much stronger social bonds than modern, industrial society. Families are multigenerationally integrated for survival, work, recreation and communication. This is, after all, where the oral tradition comes from.

The earliest hominids tended to live in nomadic bands of 25 or so, a type of bonding that survives in primitive societies of modern Homo sapiens sapiens, but where agriculture is possible, this is likely to have developed into somewhat larger villages. The culture and religion is likely to be quite elaborate, although the material goods to express them might be simple.

Primitive people are closer to each other, more involved in their own culture and cultural expression than we are, less isolated, and more interdependent. These are all things that tend to accompany more peaceful outcomes, not less.

We're the fucked up ones. The authors of that book, even more so.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:55:59 -0800 The Stranger Posted by PhD Student UIdaho]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:51:52 -0800 The Stranger