Kurdistan

[Aristotle]

I do disagree about Europe vs the Middle East being tribalistic, though. I don't see any difference. You can refer to nationalities or nation-states, but at the end of the day they're still just glorified tribes.

[Chinahand]

11 hours ago, woolley said:

No region has a greater propensity to fight than any other. The circumstances and events shift over time, but it's humans that fight. The causes change, the weapons become ever more ferocious, but it's humans that fight. Always have and always will.

I've been thinking about this and I'm not quite sure what to say.  At particular times in history some regions have had a far greater propensity to fight than others - say Europe's propensity in the 1940s compared to say South America's.  

A whig view of history has had a bit of a revival recently - Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature is the latest go and it says culture matters, and cultures have been getting less violent over time.

Of course there are huge ebbs and flows and the two world wars are always going to be the central arguments for the prosecution, but the proportion of people living peaceful lives free from violent unnatural death does show a certain secular positive trend over the very long term.

Humanity is learning to deal with conflict and reduce violence over time.

That quite definitely doesn't mean human violence isn't a huge problem, that we will ever be free of the truly terrible consequences of modern warfare, or that thugs won't be thuggish.  But I do think we are learning - slowly.  And the result is that even given our propensity to fight, the regions of the world not troubled by violence will likely to continue growing, slowly and fitfully over time.

The trends are a cause for hope, but vigilance, not cynicism and despair ... even if you are a Kurd.

 

[Uhtred]

30 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

I am sorry my multi-accounted friend, but you are far far too obsessed with this.  It isn't worth it.  Uthred wrote 83 words - they weren't the most perfect 83 words written about the Middle East, but they also weren't that terrible either.  The Middle East is a more tribalistic place today than Europe is.  That doesn't say Europe or anywhere else isn't tribalistic, nor that they haven't acted tribalistically in the past.  The Middle East was a tribalistic place in biblical times.  That doesn't say Europe, or any other place, wasn't tribalist in the past.  Now go and exaggerate and make all the sweeping statements you like.  It's the internet.  

A splendid intervention Chinahand but one that will not change the price of Aristotle's fish. (Although I am rather pleased at the realisation of the bet I made with myself that Zoroastrianism would surface before we were done!).

[Chinahand]

7 minutes ago, Aristotle said:

I do disagree about Europe vs the Middle East being tribalistic, though. I don't see any difference. You can refer to nationalities or nation-states, but at the end of the day they're still just glorified tribes.

I wish I could find its title, and the author, but an anthropologist wrote a well reviewed book about 10 years ago looking at how tribal cultures were different around the world and how they were different from the cultural norms of the west.  I'm reasonably certain it was reviewed in the Economist, but have searched in vain.

The scale of the modern nation state makes analogies with tribes pretty tenuous.  The imagined community is a pretty different thing that the kin based real community that exists in tribal structures.  Large, family based structures have been systematically undermined in nation states, and loyalty to them replaced by ideas of law and justice rather than partisanship to kith and kin.

There are always ways to claim resonances, and they do exist, but to say you don't see any difference is in my view far too overblown.

[Aristotle]

29 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

I wish I could find its title, and the author, but an anthropologist wrote a well reviewed book about 10 years ago looking at how tribal cultures were different around the world and how they were different from the cultural norms of the west.  I'm reasonably certain it was reviewed in the Economist, but have searched in vain.

The scale of the modern nation state makes analogies with tribes pretty tenuous.  The imagined community is a pretty different thing that the kin based real community that exists in tribal structures.  Large, family based structures have been systematically undermined in nation states, and loyalty to them replaced by ideas of law and justice rather than partisanship to kith and kin.

There are always ways to claim resonances, and they do exist, but to say you don't see any difference is in my view far too overblown.

No need to find the source - I happily agree with them. But again you make my case. The modern nation-state - whether it be in the middle east or in the middle of Europe - is not analogous with ancient bronze age tribes of either the middle east or of Europe.

[Aristotle]

38 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

A splendid intervention Chinahand but one that will not change the price of Aristotle's fish. (Although I am rather pleased at the realisation of the bet I made with myself that Zoroastrianism would surface before we were done!).

And so it should. Zoroastrianism influenced all the major religions of the world.

[woolley]

2 hours ago, Chinahand said:

 Humanity is learning to deal with conflict and reduce violence over time.

That quite definitely doesn't mean human violence isn't a huge problem, that we will ever be free of the truly terrible consequences of modern warfare, or that thugs won't be thuggish.  But I do think we are learning - slowly.  And the result is that even given our propensity to fight, the regions of the world not troubled by violence will likely to continue growing, slowly and fitfully over time.

I don't see any evidence to support this. Like most things it appears to be cyclical and it ebbs and flows around the globe over time. I'm not even convinced that we have free will on the matter. The incidence of conflict might be as random as the weather or natural disasters and we simply haven't cottoned on to what dictates it. Could be the moon or solar activity, or absolutely anything. We are driven by electrochemical impulses at a mundane level and much of our activity is hardwired into us. How we react to future challenges such as overpopulation and competition for depleting resources on the planet is unpredictable, but it is a fair assumption that war will feature strongly as it plays out.

It is interesting to note that as we have acquired higher levels of knowledge we have not applied those gains to the abolition of violent conflict, but we have certainly applied them to the development of ever more terrible weapons for the prosecution of it.

 

[Tibet]

I'm not sure what any of the previous four pages of nonsense have to do with Kurdish independence. Let us hope for peace in the middle east. It would be really nice if Donald Trump was able to use his art of the deal to bring the parties together and reach a lasting peace. All military support should be given to defend the Kurds. They are good people and remain a civilising force in the region. I read somewhere (it might have been on this thread, or it could have been on a news site) that the Turkish dictator is threatening to starve the Kurds. This is history repeating itself, as they did the same with the Armenians, who were subjected to genocide. We must lobby our governments to make sure the Kurds are provided with food and resources. If I was Chief Minister, I would henceforth be allocating 100% of all foreign aid to the Kurds.

[Tibet]

On 9/29/2017 at 8:36 AM, Uhtred said:

You are a fantasist (or a particularly abject troll). 

Might as well add some positive input here too

A nice tune for a Saturday morning to kick start the day.