nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
What a great argument in support of your points! Thanks for the links that support the idea that humans are 2 million years old!
Pretentious Crap
- Thread starter josef k.
- Start date
What a great argument in support of your points! Thanks for the links that support the idea that humans are 2 million years old!
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
the "us" above refers to homosapiens. what i said is that there are different views on how much differences existed between what has been previously categorized as earlier stages of evolution and homosapiens. there are scientists who say "not so much" -- thus extending the history of "human beings" (the definition of which is itself in debate) to as far as 4 or 5 million years.
anyhow, here is the z-share link:
Peoples and Cultures of the World - Prof Edward Fischer
CHAPTER 13: Gatherers and Hunters
you will find data cited which support many or all of my claims.
but the fundamental thing here is this: i am interested in an alternative reading of pre-history, and challenging previously held notions, notions held by most, and i believe tainted by ideology ----- and not positing that ANYTHING is the "Truth" set in stone.
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
Which is a noble aim. But you have to be careful, it seems to me, that you do not simply replace one truth with another for the sake of it, or because of your own animus towards one ideology or affection for another. Something that appeals, that should be right -- those are the hardest bastards to slay. Not to say that either of you are wrong. In fact I'm not even sure what it is you're arguing about.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Roffle.
Yes, Zhao, there are "scientists" who say "not so much" and think that "humans" existed for 4 million years. Whatever you say buddy...clearly the truth is not true.
No, they don't. In fact, the age of humans has been getting rather younger since we've mapped the human genome.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
I'm listening...Zhao is trying to say bands and tribes are different, bands are not hierarchical and existed BEFORE tribes.
"Bands" are EQUATED with TRIBES by Fischer. I'm listening to it now.
Within the first five minutes, he says "bands, or tribes"...he cites a book that uses a four-pronged typology. Where the idea is there are bands, tribes, chiefdoms, etc. He says anthropologists do not rely on typologies, and are deeply suspicious of them. There are always exceptions to these typologies.
Last edited:
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
This guy starts off by admitting what he's saying has been widely criticized.
Then he claims that bands were the primary form of social organization for human history. But he cites no sources. I searched the internet and could not find a single one.
Either way, band-level societies are acknowledged as a sort of tribe AND as hunter gatherers. So even if band-level societies are proven to be the "primary form of social organization" for human history, they are hunter gatherers.
Dobe are not called "gatherer hunterer" by Fischer, he calls them hunter gatherers. (he does cite sources here)
Then he claims that bands were the primary form of social organization for human history. But he cites no sources. I searched the internet and could not find a single one.
Either way, band-level societies are acknowledged as a sort of tribe AND as hunter gatherers. So even if band-level societies are proven to be the "primary form of social organization" for human history, they are hunter gatherers.
Dobe are not called "gatherer hunterer" by Fischer, he calls them hunter gatherers. (he does cite sources here)
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Zhao is saying that "tribes" didn't exist, and people didn't eat meat (except "marginally) until recently.
scottdisco
rip this joint please
i like the Pinker article you just quoted Vim, that was grand
the version i'm interested in putting forth, because it challenges the commonly accepted version, which in my view is distorted by ideology:
band level societies (such as the Dobe) with no leaders (except temporary), no division of labor, no private property, largely egalitarian, gatherer/hunters, was the dominant form of social organization for most human history.
tribes, with permanent leaders, some division of labor, and some agriculture, came later. and cheifdoms, with more agriculture, more hierarchies, even later. all the way to nation states.
for most of human history, whether that is 140,000 years or 2 million or 4 million, our ancesters gathered more fruits, nuts, vegetables than hunted. they were less violent, less aggressive, more egalitarian, than the picture painted by our society.
band level societies (such as the Dobe) with no leaders (except temporary), no division of labor, no private property, largely egalitarian, gatherer/hunters, was the dominant form of social organization for most human history.
tribes, with permanent leaders, some division of labor, and some agriculture, came later. and cheifdoms, with more agriculture, more hierarchies, even later. all the way to nation states.
for most of human history, whether that is 140,000 years or 2 million or 4 million, our ancesters gathered more fruits, nuts, vegetables than hunted. they were less violent, less aggressive, more egalitarian, than the picture painted by our society.
um, the title of the chapter is "gatherers and hunters".
the funny thing about 'instructing' us all as to what was going down 140,000 or 2,000,000 million years ago, MISTER ZHAO, is that YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE, silly guy. No evidence FOR or AGAINST anything at the level of food, society, and organization. I mean, tell me, what evidence exists for human organization ONE MILLION YEARS AGO? Your claims are the most methodologically ridiculous of any that a person might make, frankly. I could also tell you how "the powers that be" (all of whom seem bent on one thing and one thing only, OPPRESSING THE ENLIGHTENED VIEWS OF PEOPEL LIKE ZHAO) were organizing events on Mars one million years ago too, and you would rightly ask me how I know this. DUH ! JUST BECAUSE I SAID SO .
Last edited:
everything i say is backed by archeological evidence. there exists a large amount of data which supports my views. (the lecture i linked to above for one)
and there also exists data which suports other view points. --- this is the thing: there is not just one version, but many versions of pre-history: and the version which became "conventional wisdom" may not be the most accurate, and may have become popular for political and ideological reasons.
i have no intention of "instructing" anyone -- only to offer a different point of view from the dominant one. i do not claim that what i say is the truth and the only truth.
oh and please save your childish name-calling for AOL chat rooms, thanks.
Last edited:
reeltoreel
Well-known member
I'd be keen to hear what you've been reading as well. The lecture you posted up mentions Marshall Sahlins and the Leakeys - what else has been on your radar?
i suggest you find a time to listen to the mp3.
____________________________________________________
for now, the version i'm interested in putting forth:
band level societies (such as the Dobe) with no leaders (except temporary), no division of labor, no private property, largely egalitarian, gatherer/hunters, was the dominant form of social organization for most of human history (at least 150,000 years).
during this time our ancesters gathered more fruits, nuts, vegetables than hunted. they were less violent, less aggressive, more egalitarian, than the picture painted by our society.
tribes, with permanent leaders, some division of labor, and some agriculture, came later. and cheifdoms, with more agriculture, more hierarchies, even later. all the way to nation states.
____________________________________________________
the conventional version:
hierarchies, centralized power, slavery, subjugation, etc., have always existed, human beings are inherently selfish, violent and aggressive. our ancesters were primarily meat eaters and hunters.
Last edited:
have to finish these damned designs... more later.