Not for 50 years.
Anyway, this is not going well. You don’t seem to want to change your mind no matter the evidence. Carry on.
Barbarians are awesome. Recommendation:
eta: Civilized = Endeavor to Persevere.
2 Likes
Scott’s view is that the archaeological evidence suggests that early human communities were constantly collapsing, dispersing, coming back together and collapsing again. Scott believes that state collapse has been viewed as bad by academics due to the loss of cultural complexity, but in fact he thinks it may have been good for the majority of people involved. Building on his critique of the State from earlier chapters, Scott asserts that living in early states meant you were subjected to large scale warfare, and slavery, and that the historical periods following state collapse may have brought a higher standard of living, and freedom.
The traditional narrative is that some “barbarian” communities became sedentary and then developed into early states and civilization. Meanwhile, those who did not undergo this transition remained “barbarian.” Scott argues that the history of “barbarians” and the state is much more fluid, that in fact some people “reverted” back to being barbarians precisely because of the failure and excesses of the state. This implies that civilization and state making was not the inexorable march of progress but rather a brutal project that people avoided when possible.
I wouldn’t argue against any of this. But you still have to concede that you’re going to be more likely to find more learned men of science and arts in the state vs. out on the open steppe. Which is the whole point of the joke. Most people’s lives might not be better under the state. But you do get scientific advancement under the state, which balances things out somewhat.
I agree that the whole idea of ranking one type of human society over another is very 19th century, and exactly what I was arguing against with the ancient aliens stuff. It does real harm to people like the modern Maya who are just beginning to struggle out of the basement of Mexican and Central American society and take some pride in their worth as a culture.
However I feel like we’re so far beyond putting down nomadic herder societies now in 2020 - that making a joke about the way a Khan would speak is just silly. Who does this harm in 2020 except Joe Rogan? Modern Mongolians? Other even more abstract - some group X = barbarians? I’m dubious.
Just like context matters when talking about anything racial in the US, context also changes over time. If there were still actual neanderthals running around, we’d have to be a lot more sensitive to how we talked about them. You can make jokes about the Irish or Italians that would have been a lot more hot-button 100-200 years ago in the US. I feel like nomadic herder societies from 800 years ago are fair game now.
Also if the world were to abolish the state now, there is zero chance imo that people’s lives would get better - at least not until most of the world starved to death, and then a few generations later after people started to recover from the trauma of the mass starving. We’re far too dependent on the mass-production of food now. We can’t all just go back to being goat-herders or farmers like when Rome collapsed.
1 Like
I’ve already explained the harm. It normalizes the idea that not speaking perfect English is a sign of stupidity therefore it dovetails perfectly into the indigenous and Asian stereotypes.
It places English speaking at the top of a hierarchy no different than 19th ranking of cultures. It’s just linguistic emperialism this time.
It’s racist because the vast majority of non English speakers are also non white.
English-speaking is at the top of the hierarchy whether people like it or not. It’s the most commonly learned second language in the world and is the language of international business.
There are arguments to be made about cultural imperialism that have been made repeatedly for decades but it still doesn’t change what is real about today.
So we should mock and belittle those who don’t speak English and even better use that fact as a way to make them lesser than?
That is the entire premise of the “joke”.
What made the Gauls uncivilized?
1 Like
19th century racist anthropological cultural typologies.
1 Like
Blue lives matter?
1 Like
AFAIK, no real written language, no records, no real strong form of government, no justice system, and mostly just a small tribal people. Although by the time Caesar Conquers them they’re reforming because of contact with Rome and becoming more like them.
To be clear I’m not saying uncivilized like bad, small tribes is probably the best way for humans to be managed. One of Americas biggest problems is too many people. Nordic countries/New Zealand are probably GOAT because smaller populations.
The Gauls society was better than the Romans in a lot of ways. I’m speaking strictly of how their society was structure, not whether they were good or bad.
I think its a modern thing that uncivilized = bad. More people would probably happy if we stayed hunter/gatherers.
Clovis I love you, lets just agree to disagree. Sorry I was mean earlier.
2 Likes
When victoar is on the other side you can rest easy, like a newborn baby, that you are absolutely on the right side of the debate.
For the longest time how the Gauls, the Germanic tribes and certainly others were viewed was shaped by contemporary Roman accounts which have been an example of history being written by the victors.
The Romans knew the value of propaganda and describing your conquest targets as dangerous and uncivilized.
Later archeology has shown that these tribes were much more organized than the Roman accounts led one to believe. They traded extensively and had highly skilled craftsmen. The tales of uncivilized barbarians are mostly fictitious.
4 Likes
Mostly table manners.
Nah dude Rome wasnt literally murdering everyone in the city and coming back days later to murder people hiding and dogs and shit.
Ancient sacking was brutal but mongols were on another level.
Same economic factors were for mongols too. The people could be used to generate taxes with their labor. They didn’t take that into consideration much. It was like oh you didn’t instantly submit you’re all dead
Respect for the update on this
Itt all history is bullshit and anthropology is a joke.
What the fuck forum am I in?
Not speaking English obviously.
2 questions:
-
So you’d be ok with the joke w/o the broken English? I’m fine with that as I don’t think it’s that integral to the joke.
-
If the entire Joe Rogan analogy was told in Thai, complete with broken Thai, it would be fine?