Re: chimpanzeehood and human nature
The gist of my statement was, that all societies which were controlled by the owners of private property created a culture where women were part of the property-relations to make heritage of property possible. Do you dispute that nomadic and agricultural societies fall into this category- not mentioning here the obvious feudal/slave/bourgois structures. We are still fighting the massive remnents of these cultures that denied the freedom and equality of women, and we still have a long way to go... even if your (unfortunately) miniscule community appearantly has a different history. I don't think anyone is qualified to speak for the "magyars" or the "brits" or the "zulu nation", as all of these represent a multitude of attitudes, religions, customs, politics etc. I am not speaking "for" anybody, but sum up some obvious patterns that persist in most societies. Eva (Hary Janos is ok... just an afterthought for the notion that teaching music would somehow make a revolution in thinking: it happened through the Kodaly system in a few countries; didn't make much difference except creating a few generations who could sing more songs, learned enjoyed music, produced more than the average number of good musicians. No revolution.) Eva, my apologies for not catching this post which was before my past one asking for a reply. My server only gave this post to me today for some reason. The Great Civilizations in North America were nearly all matrilineal including the Long House Houdinosaunee who gave Ben Franklin the systems that are the foundations of the U.S. Constitution. (They didn't accept the matrilineal element but did include a great deal of the "Great Law of Peace" in the Constitution).The exception to this may be the Pueblo peoples. I have called a Hopi friend of mine on that and hope he can tell me more about their very complicated formulas, however, I am not enthusiastic about my ability to comprehend. My own people the Cherokee were until 1828 Matrilineal at which point they realized that they would not survive without at least trying assimilation. So they met, drafted a written constitution and formed a mirror government to the U.S. Government including changing women's equality and property rights. (Needless to say this made the women go into a 150 year depression, only remedied with a return to traditional values and spiritual practices.) It didn't make any difference the "crackers" still stole the plantations, the cotton and fruit plantations and the herds of thoroughbred horses, sold them for pennies and marched the Cherokee to Oklahoma on a death march. Orphaning my great-grandfather in the process. The greatest City of North America was at Kahokia and was matrilineal as were all of the Mound Builder cultures.The great cultures of the Southeast and the Navajo in the Southwest were as well.The Great Speaker at Tenochtitlan was originally matrilineal although the reform of Tlacelel calls that into doubt at the time of Cortez. Some of the more nomadic cultures were not. Unfortunately those cultures are the ones that the movies and anthropologists wrote about. They were the more romantic of the bunch as opposed to people like the first psycho-linguist Sequoia (Cherokee) or Ely Parker. "Donehogawa" (Seneca) who was the gatekeeper of the Iroquois Confederacy a Lieutenant of Grant in the Civil War and the head of the Department of Indian Affairs. He was also a very wealthy engineer. The ways of Washington and the games with the "Indian Wars" out west were so discouraging that he resigned and continued both his business and his traditional ways.So you can take it from me. We were and are matrilineal inspite of and long before Rousseau and John Locke. As for the Inca. There are many new books being written by the people themselves and I would refer to those before taking the invaders words for much.But they are not my people and I won't speak for them.I would do the same for the Magyars even though I have sung Hary Janos and studied with Otto Herz and Bela Rozsa. Now that all being said, I re-state the original question: how do you justify your opinion about all women everywhere as property with the fact that in most Native American communities the women owned the property and could put the husband out of the marriage by simply putting his shoes in the door? Ray Evans Harrell Eva Durant wrote: I think this must be the exception, in tribes where the idea of surplus/private property of the means of production such as land and the separation of of work did not occur. I don't remember any such matriarchal structures mentioned in the inca and other city-dwelling or nomadic ancient americans. Westerners yearn so much for an idyll of back to nature, that they tend to re-create some of the "ancient" customs that were disrupted by their very
Re: chimpanzeehood and human nature
Ray is right about the relationship of matrilinearity and male dominance. Women always know who their children are - men can never be sure. In fact, recent research shows that women secret a selective spermicide in the uterus that favours conception by the *non*-regular partner - presumably to enhance genetic diversity and therefore species survivability. The patrilineal preoccupation with controlling female behaviour must stem from the need to pass on property exclusively to "rightful" heirs, whereas in matrilineal societies there is no such need. In matrilineal African cultures, for example, children "belong" to the mother, not the father, although the mother's brother assumes responsiblity for protection. In such societies there far fewer rules regarding emale sexual behaviour and property, and incidentally, fewer stigmatized sexual practices such as prostitution, since there are fewer reasons for women to be cast out of the family circle. I do think there's a relationship between stable agricultural capacity and matrilinearity and between pastoralism/ nomadism and patrilinearity. I wonder if Chinese culture which is now so patriarchal was that way before the Mongol invasions. There is plenty of evidence that ancient Hindu culture was originally very different. And even Christianity was egalitarian until Constatine took it up with a vengeance. I strongly recommend Riane Eisler's "The Chalice and the Blade" for the literature that leads to these conclusions. At 04:53 PM 27/08/98 -0700, Ray E. Harrell wrote: Eva, my apologies for not catching this post which was before my past one asking for a reply. My server only gave this post to me today for some reason. The Great Civilizations in North America were nearly all matrilineal including the Long House Houdinosaunee who gave Ben Franklin the systems that are the foundations of the U.S. Constitution. (They didn't accept the matrilineal element but did include a great deal of the "Great Law of Peace" in the Constitution).The exception to this may be the Pueblo peoples. I have called a Hopi friend of mine on that and hope he can tell me more about their very complicated formulas, however, I am not enthusiastic about my ability to comprehend. My own people the Cherokee were until 1828 Matrilineal at which point they realized that they would not survive without at least trying assimilation. So they met, drafted a written constitution and formed a mirror government to the U.S. Government including changing women's equality and property rights. (Needless to say this made the women go into a 150 year depression, only remedied with a return to traditional values and spiritual practices.) It didn't make any difference the "crackers" still stole the plantations, the cotton and fruit plantations and the herds of thoroughbred horses, sold them for pennies and marched the Cherokee to Oklahoma on a death march. Orphaning my great-grandfather in the process. The greatest City of North America was at Kahokia and was matrilineal as were all of the Mound Builder cultures.The great cultures of the Southeast and the Navajo in the Southwest were as well.The Great Speaker at Tenochtitlan was originally matrilineal although the reform of Tlacelel calls that into doubt at the time of Cortez. Some of the more nomadic cultures were not. Unfortunately those cultures are the ones that the movies and anthropologists wrote about. They were the more romantic of the bunch as opposed to people like the first psycho-linguist Sequoia (Cherokee) or Ely Parker. "Donehogawa" (Seneca) who was the gatekeeper of the Iroquois Confederacy a Lieutenant of Grant in the Civil War and the head of the Department of Indian Affairs. He was also a very wealthy engineer. The ways of Washington and the games with the "Indian Wars" out west were so discouraging that he resigned and continued both his business and his traditional ways.So you can take it from me. We were and are matrilineal inspite of and long before Rousseau and John Locke. As for the Inca. There are many new books being written by the people themselves and I would refer to those before taking the invaders words for much.But they are not my people and I won't speak for them.I would do the same for the Magyars even though I have sung Hary Janos and studied with Otto Herz and Bela Rozsa. Now that all being said, I re-state the original question: how do you justify your opinion about all women everywhere as property with the fact that in most Native American communities the women owned the property and could put the husband out of the marriage by simply putting his shoes in the door? Ray Evans Harrell Eva Durant wrote: I think this must be the exception, in tribes where the idea of surplus/private property of the means of production such as land and the separation of of work did not occur. I don't remember any such matriarchal structures mentioned in the inca and other
Re: chimpanzeehood and human nature
Eva, my apologies for not catching this post which was before my past one asking for a reply. My server only gave this post to me today for some reason. The Great Civilizations in North America were nearly all matrilineal including the Long House Houdinosaunee who gave Ben Franklin the systems that are the foundations of the U.S. Constitution. (They didn't accept the matrilineal element but did include a great deal of the "Great Law of Peace" in the Constitution).The exception to this may be the Pueblo peoples. I have called a Hopi friend of mine on that and hope he can tell me more about their very complicated formulas, however, I am not enthusiastic about my ability to comprehend. My own people the Cherokee were until 1828 Matrilineal at which point they realized that they would not survive without at least trying assimilation. So they met, drafted a written constitution and formed a mirror government to the U.S. Government including changing women's equality and property rights. (Needless to say this made the women go into a 150 year depression, only remedied with a return to traditional values and spiritual practices.) It didn't make any difference the "crackers" still stole the plantations, the cotton and fruit plantations and the herds of thoroughbred horses, sold them for pennies and marched the Cherokee to Oklahoma on a death march. Orphaning my great-grandfather in the process. The greatest City of North America was at Kahokia and was matrilineal as were all of the Mound Builder cultures.The great cultures of the Southeast and the Navajo in the Southwest were as well.The Great Speaker at Tenochtitlan was originally matrilineal although the reform of Tlacelel calls that into doubt at the time of Cortez. Some of the more nomadic cultures were not. Unfortunately those cultures are the ones that the movies and anthropologists wrote about. They were the more romantic of the bunch as opposed to people like the first psycho-linguist Sequoia (Cherokee) or Ely Parker. "Donehogawa" (Seneca) who was the gatekeeper of the Iroquois Confederacy a Lieutenant of Grant in the Civil War and the head of the Department of Indian Affairs. He was also a very wealthy engineer. The ways of Washington and the games with the "Indian Wars" out west were so discouraging that he resigned and continued both his business and his traditional ways.So you can take it from me. We were and are matrilineal inspite of and long before Rousseau and John Locke. As for the Inca. There are many new books being written by the people themselves and I would refer to those before taking the invaders words for much.But they are not my people and I won't speak for them.I would do the same for the Magyars even though I have sung Hary Janos and studied with Otto Herz and Bela Rozsa. Now that all being said, I re-state the original question: how do you justify your opinion about all women everywhere as property with the fact that in most Native American communities the women owned the property and could put the husband out of the marriage by simply putting his shoes in the door? Ray Evans Harrell Eva Durant wrote: I think this must be the exception, in tribes where the idea of surplus/private property of the means of production such as land and the separation of of work did not occur. I don't remember any such matriarchal structures mentioned in the inca and other city-dwelling or nomadic ancient americans. Westerners yearn so much for an idyll of back to nature, that they tend to re-create some of the "ancient" customs that were disrupted by their very arrival... Eva Eva, how do you justify your opinion about all women everywhere as property with the fact that in most Native American communities the women owned the property and could put the husband out of the marriage by simply putting his shoes in the door? Power was vested in the clans and in the clan mothers who chose and still choose the members of the council. Only they can depose a leader and in my nation only the "beloved woman" can declare war. In my two divorces the wife got all of the property and left me only with what they didn't want. It is not easy being in a traditional marital arrangement. That is why we so rarely leave them. You seem a bit Eurocentric here. REH Durant wrote: (David Burman:) On the contrary. The evidence strongly suggests that our original foreparents were egalitarian in their practices, with agricultural surpluses and advanced cultural development, but with no signs of fortification that would suggests the need for defence from others. This contradicts the commonly held patriarchal assumptions that agricultural surplus was the necessary and sufficient condition for domination and war. These societies valued the feminine power to create life over the masculine power to take it. I wonder on what sort of evidence
Re: chimpanzeehood and human nature
I think this must be the exception, in tribes where the idea of surplus/private property of the means of production such as land and the separation of of work did not occur. I don't remember any such matriarchal structures mentioned in the inca and other city-dwelling or nomadic ancient americans. Westerners yearn so much for an idyll of back to nature, that they tend to re-create some of the "ancient" customs that were disrupted by their very arrival... Eva Eva, how do you justify your opinion about all women everywhere as property with the fact that in most Native American communities the women owned the property and could put the husband out of the marriage by simply putting his shoes in the door? Power was vested in the clans and in the clan mothers who chose and still choose the members of the council. Only they can depose a leader and in my nation only the "beloved woman" can declare war. In my two divorces the wife got all of the property and left me only with what they didn't want. It is not easy being in a traditional marital arrangement. That is why we so rarely leave them. You seem a bit Eurocentric here. REH Durant wrote: (David Burman:) On the contrary. The evidence strongly suggests that our original foreparents were egalitarian in their practices, with agricultural surpluses and advanced cultural development, but with no signs of fortification that would suggests the need for defence from others. This contradicts the commonly held patriarchal assumptions that agricultural surplus was the necessary and sufficient condition for domination and war. These societies valued the feminine power to create life over the masculine power to take it. I wonder on what sort of evidence such assuptions are based. There is some evidence that climatic changes in central Asia precipitated a gradual change to sky god worshipping, male dominant and dominating modes of social organization. These changes are thought to have been associated with loss of agricultural productivity which resulted mass migrations and ultimate overrunning of the peaceful populations they encountered, while taking on a modifyied form of the cultures they conquered. The most recent of such invasions, and hence the only one in recorded history, was Mycenian invasion of Crete. From this material, it seems that the history of conquest and domination that we assume to be human nature, is really an historical blip of a mere 5,000 years. It makes more sense to me to assume, that women had more power while gathering was a more guaranteed "income" then the other activities. In flood plains where agriculture was "easy", it developed, where it was not, nomad animal-rearing, thus wondering was the norm. Both activities lead to surplus, private property, which required heirs, thus women became part of the property ever since. Conquest and domination was part of human life - as it was part of animal life. However, I agree, it is not necesserily "human nature", as human behaviour changes much more rapidly as to be possible to define it. Eva [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: chimpanzeehood and human nature
Eva, how do you justify your opinion about all women everywhere as property with the fact that in most Native American communities the women owned the property and could put the husband out of the marriage by simply putting his shoes in the door? Power was vested in the clans and in the clan mothers who chose and still choose the members of the council. Only they can depose a leader and in my nation only the "beloved woman" can declare war. In my two divorces the wife got all of the property and left me only with what they didn't want. It is not easy being in a traditional marital arrangement. That is why we so rarely leave them. You seem a bit Eurocentric here. REH Durant wrote: (David Burman:) On the contrary. The evidence strongly suggests that our original foreparents were egalitarian in their practices, with agricultural surpluses and advanced cultural development, but with no signs of fortification that would suggests the need for defence from others. This contradicts the commonly held patriarchal assumptions that agricultural surplus was the necessary and sufficient condition for domination and war. These societies valued the feminine power to create life over the masculine power to take it. I wonder on what sort of evidence such assuptions are based. There is some evidence that climatic changes in central Asia precipitated a gradual change to sky god worshipping, male dominant and dominating modes of social organization. These changes are thought to have been associated with loss of agricultural productivity which resulted mass migrations and ultimate overrunning of the peaceful populations they encountered, while taking on a modifyied form of the cultures they conquered. The most recent of such invasions, and hence the only one in recorded history, was Mycenian invasion of Crete. From this material, it seems that the history of conquest and domination that we assume to be human nature, is really an historical blip of a mere 5,000 years. It makes more sense to me to assume, that women had more power while gathering was a more guaranteed "income" then the other activities. In flood plains where agriculture was "easy", it developed, where it was not, nomad animal-rearing, thus wondering was the norm. Both activities lead to surplus, private property, which required heirs, thus women became part of the property ever since. Conquest and domination was part of human life - as it was part of animal life. However, I agree, it is not necesserily "human nature", as human behaviour changes much more rapidly as to be possible to define it. Eva [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: chimpanzeehood and human nature
(David Burman:) On the contrary. The evidence strongly suggests that our original foreparents were egalitarian in their practices, with agricultural surpluses and advanced cultural development, but with no signs of fortification that would suggests the need for defence from others. This contradicts the commonly held patriarchal assumptions that agricultural surplus was the necessary and sufficient condition for domination and war. These societies valued the feminine power to create life over the masculine power to take it. I wonder on what sort of evidence such assuptions are based. There is some evidence that climatic changes in central Asia precipitated a gradual change to sky god worshipping, male dominant and dominating modes of social organization. These changes are thought to have been associated with loss of agricultural productivity which resulted mass migrations and ultimate overrunning of the peaceful populations they encountered, while taking on a modifyied form of the cultures they conquered. The most recent of such invasions, and hence the only one in recorded history, was Mycenian invasion of Crete. From this material, it seems that the history of conquest and domination that we assume to be human nature, is really an historical blip of a mere 5,000 years. It makes more sense to me to assume, that women had more power while gathering was a more guaranteed "income" then the other activities. In flood plains where agriculture was "easy", it developed, where it was not, nomad animal-rearing, thus wondering was the norm. Both activities lead to surplus, private property, which required heirs, thus women became part of the property ever since. Conquest and domination was part of human life - as it was part of animal life. However, I agree, it is not necesserily "human nature", as human behaviour changes much more rapidly as to be possible to define it. Eva [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: chimpanzeehood and human nature
Riane Eisler, in her books "The Chalice and the Blade" and "Sacred Pleasure", which report and interpret up-to-date interpretations of palaolithic archeology, shows that violence and domination are far from being natural human traits. On the contrary. The evidence strongly suggests that our original foreparents were egalitarian in their practices, with agricultural surpluses and advanced cultural development, but with no signs of fortification that would suggests the need for defence from others. This contradicts the commonly held patriarchal assumptions that agricultural surplus was the necessary and sufficient condition for domination and war. These societies valued the feminine power to create life over the masculine power to take it. There is some evidence that climatic changes in central Asia precipitated a gradual change to sky god worshipping, male dominant and dominating modes of social organization. These changes are thought to have been associated with loss of agricultural productivity which resulted mass migrations and ultimate overrunning of the peaceful populations they encountered, while taking on a modifyied form of the cultures they conquered. The most recent of such invasions, and hence the only one in recorded history, was Mycenian invasion of Crete. From this material, it seems that the history of conquest and domination that we assume to be human nature, is really an historical blip of a mere 5,000 years. At 03:44 AM 08/08/98 +0200, Tor Forde wrote: Jay Hanson wrote: It does make a big difference. But an observer from outer space would classify humans as the Third Chimpanzee (see Diamond's book of the same name). The most important difference between us and chimps is our innate technology: big brains, thumbs, and voice. The ONLY scientific explanation for human behavior comes from the evolutionary psychologists. Evolutionary psychologists are reverse-engineers -- they observe behavior and then try to understand how that behavior led to survival. If we reject their findings because we believe that humans transcend nature, then we are left with "unexplainable behavior". If we continue to deny our animal nature -- if we embrace superstition and ignorance -- then we condemn our grandchildren to certain death. I have read the book "The third chimpanzee" by Diamond. It was a nice book. What he writes is that some 7 or 8 million years ago the big rift valley in Africa began to evolve, and at that time, and because of that, our forefathers and the forefathers of the chimpanzees split. But humans are a new, may be not more than 100.000 years old, less than 200.000 years. Our forefathers and foremothers living 100.000 years ago were very few, maybe only a few families. They were living a simple and difficult life at that time. But 50.000 years ago things had changed very much. Humans had a rich culture. They had become very clever hunters able to catch all kinds of game. They could make ropes and nets. They developed art as the cave paintings tell us. And from skeletons and bones from humans living at that time it is possible to see that they were never starving or suffering from malnutrition or sickness. But about 10.000 years ago a catastrophe happened: agriculture was developed. And from then on began humans to suffer from malnutrition, starvation and suppression. What happened between 100.000 and 50.000 years ago that made the lives of humans so much richer? Diamond thinks the in those years language was developed, and language made it possible to accumulate skills and knowledge in a large scale, and to cooperate. Diamond says that there once was a garden of Eden, but he does not say that we are born sinners in any way, unlike what Jay Hanson says. On another list I read that in Nature 11 june 1998 page 573-577 there is an article by Martin Nowak and Karl Sigmund that shows that deception strategies are doomed to failure for small and middle sized groups. And this should actually be obvious: you cannot fool people you are together with all the time, and you do not want to do it either. I think that book by Diamond was rather promising: Most of the time until the last 10.000 years humans were living a good life, and The only persons I have met who believe in an "original sin", that we are born sinners are old-fashioned christians, and Jay Hanson. In Norway that "inherited sin" is a joke. The notion about the orginal sin has been used to explain why people should be ruled by others, and why there should be no freedom. I don't like it, and it is very different from Diamond's book, which is an optimistic book. -- All the best Tor Førde
