POLITICS - How do you want to live today?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/31/04 12:03:30 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Contrast this to the Indians -- anyone who could

> hunt a buffalo could take a buffalo. Privatization of

> the " commons " is what started to lead to poverty --

> privatization allowed for the concept of the " haves "

> and " have nots " . Indians had the concept of private

> property, but not nearly to the degree the Europeans

> did.

It could work both ways. If there is a demand for hunting, you could have

private hunting grounds, just like you can have a private park, that people

would pay to be a member of.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/31/04 12:52:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> I haven't READ the whole book yet, so I'll have to punt ...

> the history of the US Indians, and Ainu in Japan, the Aborigines

> in Australia, the Germans in Europe, and others -- are that hunter-gatherer

> tribes tend to be " wiped out " by the invaders, who want their land.

> Either they get exterminated or assimilated or wiped out by " crowd

> diseases " ,

> but they don't remain happy hunter-gatherers. If you look at the map of the

> world, only a small area developed " civilization " and they took over

> the rest of the land.

There are plenty of examples of that happening, but there are far more than

four societies that have existed in the world, so the list hardly indicates

that that always happened. What happened much more often is that nearly every

society that had the capability to develop agriculture did so, and agriculture

tended to spread by the Middle East through *trade*, NOT conquering. Granted

the corollary of that is that the societies that developed agriculture and

animal domestication indigenously or through trade had military advantages over

those who did not, and quite often conquered them. Nevertheless it simply isn't

true that agriculture only occurred in one area, and it simply isn't true

that it primarily spread through conquering.

And Africans indigenously developed agriculture with GRAINS (millet, etc).

Chris

[Guest guest]

> > And here is where the differences issue of reasoning and economics is.

Who

> > or what gives man the right to control anything that is not man made?

> > Especially food and the other dignities needed for human life. This is

not

> > how everyone has always thought and some still do not see receiving a

gift

> > from creation as an economic exchange or a hierarchial right.

>

> Isn't food produced by farmers?

The monoculturists, economists, marketers and food,chemical corporations and

conglomerates that control 80-90% of the world food market now are

capitalists not farmers. Abuse of soil, air, water, animal, plant and human

life has few boundaries here other than not doing anything to destroy

dependance on what gives it existence. The producing farms get abused here

most with either abuse this way or lose. The mindset here is that man has

superiority over all other life and the environment. Everything is merely a

product for man's use, abuse and gain. On the other hand there are farmers

that do have boundaries to abuse and respect life. These are the farmers I

gladly pay for their nurturing and respect of life they've chosen to bring

up. Not paying them for what the earth, cow, sunshine, water, etc. naturally

do and are. Paying them for their ethics to creating a life and conditions

as close to how creation made them as possible.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>It could work both ways. If there is a demand for hunting, you could have

>private hunting grounds, just like you can have a private park, that people

>would pay to be a member of.

>

>Chris

Certainly. And there would be a demand for those parks,

and the " nobility " (the rich folk) would get first dibs. We

have gun clubs around here, and the waiting list is years

long, and they are pricey. Supply and demand. Land is

always in limited supply, the best cuts have always

gone to the rich.

Roosevelt, bless his heart, set aside a mess of land

for EVERYONE to use.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Austrailians did use agriculture, but had dropped it. And, in fact, Africans

>have been using agriculture long, long, long before they got colonized, and

>it's now believed by many that they developed agriculture indepdentently,

>whereas it was formerly thought that they developed it under the influence of

>Middle Easterners. I've never heard anyone propose that Africans were not

using

>agriculture until colonization, which essentially defies all the evidence.

>(Unless you just meant *some* Africans?)

That's why I made a distinction between " grain " agriculture and the small

scale agriculture. The small scale stuff didn't have the mass-change

impact on hunter-gatherers ... there are plenty of little villages

that grow a few tubers, or cut trees selectively, but do not

develop " civilization " as the Egyptians and Mesopotamians did.

(Civilization and grain seem to go together ... and they involve

laws, taxes, Kings, slaves, class divisions, and all that -- tuber growing

does not seem to have that impact).

> Are you suggesting that most folks actually *chose* not to engage in

>Agriculture? Because, while it's true that some groups could and would choose

that,

>Diamond's entire book is a well-supported refutation of that being a driving

>force of history.

I haven't READ the whole book yet, so I'll have to punt ...

the history of the US Indians, and Ainu in Japan, the Aborigines

in Australia, the Germans in Europe, and others -- are that hunter-gatherer

tribes tend to be " wiped out " by the invaders, who want their land.

Either they get exterminated or assimilated or wiped out by " crowd diseases " ,

but they don't remain happy hunter-gatherers. If you look at the map of the

world, only a small area developed " civilization " and they took over

the rest of the land.

>Two other things are worth noting: 1, " small-scale farming " is " agriculture "

>by definition. 2, hunter-gatherers didn't just hunt and gather, but often

>engaged in extensive modification of their environment, so the dividing line is

>rather blurry.

Again, the small-scale agriculture that many tribes engage in seems

to remain small-scale and not induce major socialogical changes.

I do think it is a thing about GRAIN .... it's growing conditions are just

different. You can stick some tuber plants in the ground and they

will grow without major tilling and cultivation ... you can leave them

there, go wander around nomadically, and come back and pull

some tubers when you get hungry. Grain requires major harvesting,

storehouses, someone to gaurd the storehouses so they don't

get raided ... pretty soon you have accountants and taxes ... you can

crowd more people together .. now you need police ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Why should I have to PAY for private hunting when it's a given that as an

animal of the planet I have the distinct right to hunt for food ?

_____

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

Sent: Sunday, 1 February 2004 2:23 AM

Subject: Re: POLITICS - How do you want to live today?

In a message dated 1/31/04 12:03:30 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Contrast this to the Indians -- anyone who could

> hunt a buffalo could take a buffalo. Privatization of

> the " commons " is what started to lead to poverty --

> privatization allowed for the concept of the " haves "

> and " have nots " . Indians had the concept of private

> property, but not nearly to the degree the Europeans

> did.

It could work both ways. If there is a demand for hunting, you could have

private hunting grounds, just like you can have a private park, that people

would pay to be a member of.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

You're right on the cost and restrictions to hunting. Private land included.

No such thing as public lands. The public pays for it's upkeep and policing

because there'll always be people that don't know how to treat it right.

Indians have where they are then and others respected that as a general

rule. Territory best says it. To not respect it is seen as a threat to the

tribe's wellbeing which is different than property ownership. Food was never

denied another that I know of. Locally, on the river was probably the

largest shad run in New England. Even though it was in one tribe's

territory, it was a fishing village. Tribe's from all over New England would

come to fish shad and dry it to take back. Didn't matter what was going on

between the tribes at the time.

> I do too ... they hunt on public land, because in this

> country that land is available for hunting. IF they get

> a license etc. (and things like moose licenses are

> done by lottery and are really difficult to get). But

> in Europe, a lot of the forests were disignated as

> " King's lands " or " private parks " and only nobility

> was allowed to hunt there. A starving peasant who

> killed a deer was likely to be hung, if he were caught.

>

> Contrast this to the Indians -- anyone who could

> hunt a buffalo could take a buffalo. Privatization of

> the " commons " is what started to lead to poverty --

> privatization allowed for the concept of the " haves "

> and " have nots " . Indians had the concept of private

> property, but not nearly to the degree the Europeans

> did.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>Territory best says it. To not respect it is seen as a threat to the

>tribe's wellbeing which is different than property ownership.

I think the " tribe's well being " part says it all ... in most tribal

cultures, there is a different sense of " self " . Life is about

the tribe, not ME ME ME. In Asia is is often about the family,

which is similar. In America, we think in terms of just ourselves

and our money and our next stock dividend ... not the land,

not the next generation, not the country as a whole.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>> but they don't remain happy hunter-gatherers. If you look at the map of the

>> world, only a small area developed " civilization " and they took over

>> the rest of the land.

>

>There are plenty of examples of that happening, but there are far more than

>four societies that have existed in the world, so the list hardly indicates

>that that always happened. What happened much more often is that nearly every

>society that had the capability to develop agriculture did so, and agriculture

>tended to spread by the Middle East through *trade*, NOT conquering.

That may have been true in the Middle East ... the whole area may

have evolved at once, and it was likely an easy place to grow grain

(esp. with rivers that flooded a lot). But to quote the beginning

of the book:

" Those historical inequalities have

cast long shadows on they modern world, because

the literate societies with metal tools have conqured or

exerminated the other societies "

Granted this is not just " agricultural " societies,

but the larger sense of more " civilized " societies, so maybe

we are talking about two different things. But I can't think of ANY

examples, of say, successful American Indian tribes happily farming

wheat or corn for sale, or South African blacks, for that matter --

they COULD have emulated the Dutch who settled there, but they

mostly seem to have ended up working as laborers or in diamond

mines.

Also the " slow spread of agriculture " theory has been challenged

of late by some historians ... in a lot of places there really are not

good records. But in every time and place we have records of,

the norm is that the stronger " tribe " steals and subjugates the

weaker. There was a discussion of this in terms of Japan and

Korea ... Japan seems to have been " colonized " by folks from

Korea, and the folks writing about it were thinking this may

be the norm, the agriculturists have more kids and tend

to expand out into other lands, driving out the natives.

And yeah, the Africans did have millet, which is a point ...

still at a rather tribal level though. Well, I'll comment when

I get to that chapter ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/31/04 4:43:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,

anthony.byron@... writes:

> Why should I have to PAY for private hunting when it's a given that as an

> animal of the planet I have the distinct right to hunt for food ?

You shouldn't have to pay for the animal, and if you want to go hunt in the

wilderness, go ahead and do so. If you want to hunt on someone else's land,

you need to pay; first, because it's their land; second, because conservation of

hunting land actually requires productive input.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/31/04 12:54:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Certainly. And there would be a demand for those parks,

> and the " nobility " (the rich folk) would get first dibs.

First, the rich are an aristocracy, not a nobility. Nobilities are

herditary.

Second, the evidence suggests that isn't so, since there *are* private parks,

and access is simply not restricted to rich folk nor cost-prohibitive to

non-rich folk.

Third, the hunters can pool their resources to buy their own land, and it

could be controlled by a voluntary association of hunters.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/31/04 11:00:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Also the " slow spread of agriculture " theory has been challenged

> of late by some historians ... in a lot of places there really are not

> good records. But in every time and place we have records of,

> the norm is that the stronger " tribe " steals and subjugates the

> weaker. There was a discussion of this in terms of Japan and

> Korea ... Japan seems to have been " colonized " by folks from

> Korea, and the folks writing about it were thinking this may

> be the norm, the agriculturists have more kids and tend

> to expand out into other lands, driving out the natives.

I think that's basically what happened. But agriculture arose in many places

independently, and also occurred through trade.

I think we may be speaking of two different issues at the moment. I agree

that those with agriculture tend to conquer those without. What I disagree

with, is the idea that there are many people who didn't adopt agriculture when

they had the chance. Most folks *did* develope agriculture and/or animal

domestication whenever they had a shot at it, and were primarily limited by the

environment.

Chris

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> In a message dated 1/31/04 12:54:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> heidis@... writes:

>

> > Certainly. And there would be a demand for those parks,

> > and the " nobility " (the rich folk) would get first dibs.

>

> First, the rich are an aristocracy, not a nobility. Nobilities are

> herditary.

>

> Second, the evidence suggests that isn't so, since there *are* private

parks,

> and access is simply not restricted to rich folk nor cost-prohibitive

to

> non-rich folk.

Admission to private parks is cheap, but hunting on private land does

tend to be fairly expensive, partly because you're paying for the

animals, and partly because these are premimum services--the presence of

tax-subsidized hunting grounds run by the government has destroyed the

market for low-end private hunting grounds.