8 ms·

When reading through the Old Testament I came across something I hadn’t seen before, the Avenger of Blood. Essentially, a family member of a person who was murd

When reading through the Old Testament I came across something I hadn’t seen before, the Avenger of Blood. Essentially, a family member of a person who was murdered had every right to seek out the killer themselves. There were even rules around it. If you watch the old Disney 3 Musketeers movie, that’s essentially what the man pursuing Countess de Winter for killing his brother is doing. Just the first historical parallel that came to mind on reading this. Similar figures in a family were also responsible for helping other family members who couldn’t find work, gotten sick, etc. The family unit structure historically accounts for a lot.

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
> The family unit structure historically accounts for a lot. indeed it is interesting how when we compare "Western" society with more tribal norms, how much the individual in the West expects the system to do the things for them where previously family was in charge of. Taking French or German late night news I don't recall once that the word "clan" ever used in a positive way. It is always about criminal associations (often about Balkan families) where the attachment of individuals is still stronger within than (the trust) in the state. People are absolutely terrified by the idea of others belonging to a family that knows it's roots since 300+ years with an also non-local footprint and reach. Also a clan is usually always a foreign group.
- myWindoonn 6y ago
  In the USA, there are "political families" or "presidential families" who serve as pseudo-patrician organizations [0][1]. Western individualism is often performative, not structural. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:United_States_presidential_family_political_lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:United_States_preside... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_family
- iguy 6y ago
  This is (crudely speaking) because the Catholic church stamped out such things in the core of Europe 1000 years ago. (Or perhaps that sentence should be the other way around.) Many edges of Europe skipped this process -- Sicily (under the Sacreans?), the Balkans (Byzantine & then Ottoman), the Gaelic fringe (local kings), etc.
- tpush 6y ago
  > People are absolutely terrified by the idea of others belonging to a family that knows it's roots since 300+ years with an also non-local footprint and reach. And, you know, organized crime.
  - DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
    yes a a crime family will need to display very similar behavior as a clan in order to protect itself. And some clans certainly are criminal. While a large criminal syndicate would be a combination of families (that act like a clan), a clan by itself does not need to be part of a criminal syndicate. Also if a person from a clan robs a bank then this doesn't mean the clan is the cause (or the problem). Especially not when the group consists of a 600 or 1000 individuals who are part of that tribe. (whats your chances of bad apples over several extended family trees in the UK/US/France with such a size). My point specifically is that the media will 100% of the time criminalize the word clan and by extension anyone who is born into it. related: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/13/priti-patel-demonisation-gypsies-prejudice-bigotry https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/13/priti-...
    - iguy 6y ago
      There is distaste for clan-like behaviour even when no crimes are committed. For example, most westerners would not like to work in an organisation where your family connection to important people is valued over your work. Few would accept their choice of spouse being greatly constrained by what their grandfather thought was good for his little empire.
      - DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
        yes indeed, ... no doubt for some tribes a total contradiction (if not an adversarial intent) what Western cultures consider their right. If a group is so socially different also smaller chance they see a host country as their final destination (at least not those in power). Then an appeal to "integrate themselves" is a harder sell since the speaker has not only no authority in their eyes but what is proposed means cultural genocide in their eyes. Pretty hard place to build trust from here (maybe over generations but not years imo). unrelated: I do not want to give the impression that I am defending behavior which belongs to the stone age within our own societies. What might come across as too vague (or apologetic - though hopefully not), IMO the process is always violent for those who are on the receiving end of the more dominant system that incorporates them. Our own imperialist crimes in not too distant history (and still ongoing ones) indicate there is a lot of housekeeping still needed before we let the word clan get hi-jacked by our own (and perhaps unconscious) racial biases :)
- alicorn 6y ago
  I find it curious and vaguely racist that the word 'clan' is almost exclusively used in reference to immigrant and poc families and with an allusion to inherent criminality. This despite the fact that many Western countries have a handful of large, old families which own an inadequate proportion of the companies, resources, have outsized political influence and so on, and those families are almost exclusively in many generations from the country in question. They are as clan-ish as a 'clan' gets, but since they do not match the 'criminal immigrant' stereotype, nobody ever calls them a 'clan'. It irks me.
  - fakedang 6y ago
    Are you sure about that? Members of rich families in the US are routinely called as part of a clan - Roosevelt clan or Vanderbilt clan. Or they're collectively called something like Boston Brahmans. It's less used in Europe, but they are still referred to as aristocratic clans.
    - mbg721 6y ago
      To me the connotation has always been something like Hatfields and McCoys, not exactly positive, but not linked to race.
      - fakedang 6y ago
        Brahmans isn't related to race either. It's just an alliteration. You're right that they are mostly referred to in the plural form (eg: The Roosevelts bought out....) but the clan usage is fairly common too (eg: he's a member of the Roosevelt clan/dynasty).
js2 6y ago
"Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
- hinkley 6y ago
  You have an over-developed sense of vengeance. It's going to get you into trouble someday.
- fakedang 6y ago
  Beat me to it
notsureaboutpg 6y ago
Isn't this just eye-for-an-eye, the oldest and most reliable type of justice that has ever existed? (reliable in the sense that it functions even in situations with low practical governance like a remote village or an understaffed nation / area).
- brightball 6y ago
  Sort of but there were also 6 cities of refuge where the accused could flee for safety. If I remember correctly, there may have been a period of years after which they could no longer be pursued? It’s been a while since I read about it though.
  - mminer237 6y ago
    Whenever the high priest died, all such people accused of manslaughter were made innocent and could leave the cities of refuge again.
- simplify 6y ago
  Yes, and it's a shame such justice isn't applied in the US like drug possession laws, where the punishment far exceeds the crime.
  - chevill 6y ago
    Isn't Thailand one of the places where you get either 50 years or life for bringing tiny amounts of marijuana across the border?
    - simplify 6y ago
      I don't know anything about Thailand. I'm only commenting on the US.
MontagFTB 6y ago
The Bible is also rife with passages that talk about justice for the fatherless, the widow, the orphan, and the poor. These are categories of people that by and large have no access to the same channels of justice that strong, large family units had. So the community- especially those in power and able to do something about it- were called to step up and fill in that void.
74d-fe6-2c6 6y ago
I'm not in favour of revenge. But I find it irritating how rarely people resort to it. For example if I was a father and somebody killed and raped my daughter. I'd like to think of myself as someone who'll kill that person if he receives anything less than a life sentence - or maybe even anyway. I'd be aware that this is a crime and I'll have to serve a prison sentence for it myself - I'd even see the point of it - a society cannot tolerate revenge. But I'd non the less feel morally obligated to do it. The only possible good reason not to resort to revenge would be if there is a possibilty of being wrong about the identity of the culprit. That this doesn't happen more often just shows to me that most wo:men are cowards. Not just that - our society even systematically rewards and encourages cowardry by reframing it as smartness or sober-mindedness. But this is true in a more general sense and not restricted to revenge of course. This can be observed on a daily basis at work, at school, pretty much anywhere. --- Of course, I get downvoted - but how do you argue against my point?
- nicoburns 6y ago
  What good would come of such revenge? Edit: to expand, if (god forbid) someone did that to my daughter, my instinct would not be to kill them, it would be to find them, talk them, to understand why they did it. And to try somehow to make them truly understand the consequences of what they had done. I don't feel like killing them would achieve any of that.
  - 74d-fe6-2c6 6y ago
    Thanks for your response instead of just downvoting. > What good would come of such revenge? One bad person less. And, yes, I'd feel a bit better. Not much maybe. I might even question it in the long run. But think about the alternative. In Germany it is not at all unheard of that murderers (who murdered for sexual desire or greed) get less than ten years of sentencing and are on day parole after a couple of years. How would you feel about that? What "good" comes from that? Do you maybe even wish that person a happy life? > to expand, if (god forbid) someone did that to my daughter, my instinct would not be to kill them, it would be to find them, talk them, to understand why they did it. You want to ask the guy "Why did you rape and kill my daughter?"? Are you kidding yourself? What would you expect for an answer? Also in this hypothetical situation you'd have to use force to even ask that question. You think you'd get an honest answer? "Sorry, didn't know it's your daughter." "I was just so horny - didn't know what else to do." What would you expect for an answer that even has the slightes potential of being meaningful to your pain? > to make them truly understand the consequences of what they had done. People who rape and kill don't tend to be the "understanding" type ... just think about how f'ed up someone has to be to do that. > I don't feel like killing them would achieve any of that. How about asking questions, then torturing, then killing. You'd get the cake and eat it, too.
generalizations 6y ago
It's also worth noting that the rules included protection for the murderer: in fact, that's where the term 'sanctuary city' came from, I think. If the murderer made it to a predefined sanctuary city, the "Avenger of Blood" wasn't allowed to touch them.
- brightball 6y ago
  Yep. "City of Refuge"

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago

> The family unit structure historically accounts for a lot. indeed it is interesting how when we compare "Western" society with more tribal norms, how much the individual in the West expects the system to do the things for them where previously family was in charge of. Taking French or German late night news I don't recall once that the word "clan" ever used in a positive way. It is always about criminal associations (often about Balkan families) where the attachment of individuals is still stronger within than (the trust) in the state. People are absolutely terrified by the idea of others belonging to a family that knows it's roots since 300+ years with an also non-local footprint and reach. Also a clan is usually always a foreign group.

myWindoonn 6y ago
In the USA, there are "political families" or "presidential families" who serve as pseudo-patrician organizations [0][1]. Western individualism is often performative, not structural. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:United_States_presidential_family_political_lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:United_States_preside... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_family
iguy 6y ago
This is (crudely speaking) because the Catholic church stamped out such things in the core of Europe 1000 years ago. (Or perhaps that sentence should be the other way around.) Many edges of Europe skipped this process -- Sicily (under the Sacreans?), the Balkans (Byzantine & then Ottoman), the Gaelic fringe (local kings), etc.
tpush 6y ago
> People are absolutely terrified by the idea of others belonging to a family that knows it's roots since 300+ years with an also non-local footprint and reach. And, you know, organized crime.
- DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
  yes a a crime family will need to display very similar behavior as a clan in order to protect itself. And some clans certainly are criminal. While a large criminal syndicate would be a combination of families (that act like a clan), a clan by itself does not need to be part of a criminal syndicate. Also if a person from a clan robs a bank then this doesn't mean the clan is the cause (or the problem). Especially not when the group consists of a 600 or 1000 individuals who are part of that tribe. (whats your chances of bad apples over several extended family trees in the UK/US/France with such a size). My point specifically is that the media will 100% of the time criminalize the word clan and by extension anyone who is born into it. related: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/13/priti-patel-demonisation-gypsies-prejudice-bigotry https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/13/priti-...
  - iguy 6y ago
    There is distaste for clan-like behaviour even when no crimes are committed. For example, most westerners would not like to work in an organisation where your family connection to important people is valued over your work. Few would accept their choice of spouse being greatly constrained by what their grandfather thought was good for his little empire.
    - DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
      yes indeed, ... no doubt for some tribes a total contradiction (if not an adversarial intent) what Western cultures consider their right. If a group is so socially different also smaller chance they see a host country as their final destination (at least not those in power). Then an appeal to "integrate themselves" is a harder sell since the speaker has not only no authority in their eyes but what is proposed means cultural genocide in their eyes. Pretty hard place to build trust from here (maybe over generations but not years imo). unrelated: I do not want to give the impression that I am defending behavior which belongs to the stone age within our own societies. What might come across as too vague (or apologetic - though hopefully not), IMO the process is always violent for those who are on the receiving end of the more dominant system that incorporates them. Our own imperialist crimes in not too distant history (and still ongoing ones) indicate there is a lot of housekeeping still needed before we let the word clan get hi-jacked by our own (and perhaps unconscious) racial biases :)
alicorn 6y ago
I find it curious and vaguely racist that the word 'clan' is almost exclusively used in reference to immigrant and poc families and with an allusion to inherent criminality. This despite the fact that many Western countries have a handful of large, old families which own an inadequate proportion of the companies, resources, have outsized political influence and so on, and those families are almost exclusively in many generations from the country in question. They are as clan-ish as a 'clan' gets, but since they do not match the 'criminal immigrant' stereotype, nobody ever calls them a 'clan'. It irks me.
- fakedang 6y ago
  Are you sure about that? Members of rich families in the US are routinely called as part of a clan - Roosevelt clan or Vanderbilt clan. Or they're collectively called something like Boston Brahmans. It's less used in Europe, but they are still referred to as aristocratic clans.
  - mbg721 6y ago
    To me the connotation has always been something like Hatfields and McCoys, not exactly positive, but not linked to race.
    - fakedang 6y ago
      Brahmans isn't related to race either. It's just an alliteration. You're right that they are mostly referred to in the plural form (eg: The Roosevelts bought out....) but the clan usage is fairly common too (eg: he's a member of the Roosevelt clan/dynasty).

js2 6y ago

"Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

hinkley 6y ago
You have an over-developed sense of vengeance. It's going to get you into trouble someday.
fakedang 6y ago
Beat me to it

notsureaboutpg 6y ago

Isn't this just eye-for-an-eye, the oldest and most reliable type of justice that has ever existed? (reliable in the sense that it functions even in situations with low practical governance like a remote village or an understaffed nation / area).

brightball 6y ago
Sort of but there were also 6 cities of refuge where the accused could flee for safety. If I remember correctly, there may have been a period of years after which they could no longer be pursued? It’s been a while since I read about it though.
- mminer237 6y ago
  Whenever the high priest died, all such people accused of manslaughter were made innocent and could leave the cities of refuge again.
simplify 6y ago
Yes, and it's a shame such justice isn't applied in the US like drug possession laws, where the punishment far exceeds the crime.
- chevill 6y ago
  Isn't Thailand one of the places where you get either 50 years or life for bringing tiny amounts of marijuana across the border?
  - simplify 6y ago
    I don't know anything about Thailand. I'm only commenting on the US.

MontagFTB 6y ago

The Bible is also rife with passages that talk about justice for the fatherless, the widow, the orphan, and the poor. These are categories of people that by and large have no access to the same channels of justice that strong, large family units had. So the community- especially those in power and able to do something about it- were called to step up and fill in that void.

74d-fe6-2c6 6y ago

I'm not in favour of revenge. But I find it irritating how rarely people resort to it. For example if I was a father and somebody killed and raped my daughter. I'd like to think of myself as someone who'll kill that person if he receives anything less than a life sentence - or maybe even anyway. I'd be aware that this is a crime and I'll have to serve a prison sentence for it myself - I'd even see the point of it - a society cannot tolerate revenge. But I'd non the less feel morally obligated to do it. The only possible good reason not to resort to revenge would be if there is a possibilty of being wrong about the identity of the culprit. That this doesn't happen more often just shows to me that most wo:men are cowards. Not just that - our society even systematically rewards and encourages cowardry by reframing it as smartness or sober-mindedness. But this is true in a more general sense and not restricted to revenge of course. This can be observed on a daily basis at work, at school, pretty much anywhere. --- Of course, I get downvoted - but how do you argue against my point?

nicoburns 6y ago
What good would come of such revenge? Edit: to expand, if (god forbid) someone did that to my daughter, my instinct would not be to kill them, it would be to find them, talk them, to understand why they did it. And to try somehow to make them truly understand the consequences of what they had done. I don't feel like killing them would achieve any of that.
- 74d-fe6-2c6 6y ago
  Thanks for your response instead of just downvoting. > What good would come of such revenge? One bad person less. And, yes, I'd feel a bit better. Not much maybe. I might even question it in the long run. But think about the alternative. In Germany it is not at all unheard of that murderers (who murdered for sexual desire or greed) get less than ten years of sentencing and are on day parole after a couple of years. How would you feel about that? What "good" comes from that? Do you maybe even wish that person a happy life? > to expand, if (god forbid) someone did that to my daughter, my instinct would not be to kill them, it would be to find them, talk them, to understand why they did it. You want to ask the guy "Why did you rape and kill my daughter?"? Are you kidding yourself? What would you expect for an answer? Also in this hypothetical situation you'd have to use force to even ask that question. You think you'd get an honest answer? "Sorry, didn't know it's your daughter." "I was just so horny - didn't know what else to do." What would you expect for an answer that even has the slightes potential of being meaningful to your pain? > to make them truly understand the consequences of what they had done. People who rape and kill don't tend to be the "understanding" type ... just think about how f'ed up someone has to be to do that. > I don't feel like killing them would achieve any of that. How about asking questions, then torturing, then killing. You'd get the cake and eat it, too.

generalizations 6y ago

It's also worth noting that the rules included protection for the murderer: in fact, that's where the term 'sanctuary city' came from, I think. If the murderer made it to a predefined sanctuary city, the "Avenger of Blood" wasn't allowed to touch them.

brightball 6y ago
Yep. "City of Refuge"