6 ms·

Actually it's written by anthropologists. If you look at how our species came to self-organize, there has always been a strong component of innate, voluntary c

• anonporridge 5y ago
  Who pays the anthropologists? And what cultural biases do they infuse in their work? Modern gangs also sometimes organize via voluntary cooperation. Their ability to commit violence and control their territory is merely the foundation of their legitimacy in any non violent agreement. Same foundation as all "official" governments.
  • vanusa 5y ago
    Who pays the anthropologists? Yeah I guess they're all just paid shills, and have no idea of what they're talking about.
    • JetAlone 5y ago
      I think the poster above is suggesting something much more nuanced than that. I think they're trying to say that the anthropologists do know what they research, to the best of their abilities. However, I think they're suggesting that anthropology projects are less likely to get funding if the likely reported results would heavily suggest theories that are ultimately critical of whichever seated establishment funded them in the first place. Think about it this way - would you be willing to pay me 5% of your pay for this month to have me generate a report of your productivity, if you already knew I was highly likely to send a result that suggests your boss might want to fire you? If you were expected to pay me to do such a report for some reason, I think you'd prefer to pay me to report on someone else's productivity instead.
      • vanusa 5y ago
        I don't think it was that nuanced, actually. Basically it came down to an attempt at FUD: "Everyone is biased, you can't really trust anyone, therefore I don't need to acknowledge of any of the substantive points you are making." Misdirection, in other words.
        • notreallyserio 5y ago
          Agreed with one addendum, the missing phrase: "I am objectively right."
        • JetAlone 5y ago
          I'm trying to imagine a good counterargument to anonporridge's actual stated position. If they're fundamentally wrong about violence as the legitimizing factor of authority, then there has to be some more important/more powerful legitimizing factor. Something that trumps violence without using violence or the threat of it. What works in the place of violence? Escape? Maybe you can have a diaspora society willing to run away and rebuild in any territory it can ever reach and live in. Nullifying defense? Say you have some kind of structure or device that makes you invincible without fighting back and all violence against you is a pointless waste of energy. Then you could just be, and voluntarily agree to some social contract you never use violence to uphold. Love? Maybe all violence could hypothetically be stopped if the violent person's emotions could be negotiated with to circumvent their desires and everyone ends up happy. These all seem totally utopian to depend on 100% purely at a societal level, but these are all nonviolent approaches I know people take to resist violence on a practical 1 to 1 level.
          • newby 5y ago
            The problem I see in anonporridge's argumentation is that it seems to ignore the question of legitimacy. Using terms like "gangs' implies criminality, right? (not native English speaker, correct me if I am wrong). Not all violence is criminal. Not all violence is perceived as illegitimate. There are scenarios of monopoly on violence I would certainly not label as 'gangs' - obeying the pharaoh because he is believed to be a God, respecting the leader of the tribe because he is the most experienced hunter who can use his knowledge and physical strength to provide food for the tribe...
  • noduerme 5y ago
    What you're saying applies to some modern and historical states, but not all. Would you consider the IRA in the early 1900s to be nothing more than a gang looking to control territory? Or were they an independence movement? What about the Continental Congress? What about the Viet Cong? The former two led to a democracy and the latter to an authoritarian dictatorship; all engaged in violence; but none was a gang whose primary motivation was to gain personal wealth by criminal activity. The IRA would be the closest to a "gang" but even there, the state they produced renounced violence.
    • dragonwriter 5y ago
      > The former two led to a democracy The Continental Congress did not lead a democracy, any more than the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States does.
      • comex 5y ago
        Led to, not led.
• smoe 5y ago
  Victors don't necessarily write the history, but they greatly influence what part of history survives and how it is presented to the general public. Trying to get rid other cultures herritage is quite a common activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyed_heritage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyed_heritage History classes in primary and secondary school are often extremely light on any criticism of the own nations past if mentioned at all. In my own case in Switzerland, some things we were taught were outright lies, fabricated by a historian from Zürich almost a century earlier to promote patriotism. The European colonial period is another thing that got completely misrepresented for example.
• hoseja 5y ago
  That innate voluntary cooperation stops at the tribe level. Further you need organized violence and focused indoctrination.
• _glass 5y ago
  Apropos, I read some anthropology for my PhD, it became quite common to call the German nobility of the Middle Ages warlords, to stress the commonality between today's criminal regimes.
• usrusr 5y ago
  ...and before those proto-gangs, you had extend families acting as a power structure. (and many places still have them, competing against gangs/state/corporations, with a noticeable organisation efficiency cost from murky loyalties)