Choada_Boy Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 The practice of infanticide has taken many forms. Child sacrifice to supernatural figures or forces, such as the one practiced in ancient Carthage, may be only the most notorious example in the ancient world. Anthropologist Laila Williamson notes that "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."[2] A frequent method of infanticide in ancient Europe and Asia was simply to abandon the infant, leaving it to die by exposure (i.e. hypothermia, hunger, thirst, or animal attack).[3][4] Infant abandonment still occurs in modern societies.[5] In at least one island in Oceania, infanticide was carried out until the 20th century by suffocating the infant,[6] while in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and in the Inca Empire it was carried out by sacrifice (see below). [edit] Paleolithic and Neolithic Many Neolithic groups routinely resorted to infanticide in order to control their numbers so that their lands could support them. Joseph Birdsell believed that infanticide rates in prehistoric times were between 15% and 50% of the total number of births,[7] while Laila Williamson estimated a lower rate ranging from 15% to 20%.[2] Both anthropologists believed that these high rates of infanticide persisted until the development of agriculture during the Neolithic Revolution.[8] Comparative anthropologists have calculated that 50% of female newborn babies were killed by their parents during the Paleolithic era.[9] Decapitated skeletons of hominid children have been found with evidence of cannibalism.[10] The children were not necessarily actively killed, but neglect and intentional malnourishment may also have occurred, as proposed by Vicente Lull as an explanation for an apparent surplus of men and the below average height of women in prehistoric Menorca.[11] Marvin Harris estimated that among Paleolithic hunters 23-50% of newborn children were killed. He argued that the goal was to preserve the 0.001% population growth of that time.[118] He also wrote that female infanticide may be a form of population control.[118] Population control is achieved not only by limiting the number of potential mothers; increased fighting among men for access to relatively scarce wives would also lead to a decline in population. For example, on the Melanesian island of Tikopia infanticide was used to keep a stable population in line with its resource base.[6] Research by Marvin Harris and William Divale supports this argument, it has been cited as an example of environmental determinism.[119] Ok how would you react if somebody(s) murdered your entire family, with the exception of a son, and someone posts that as a response???? If my son were Jesus and you killed him too, I'd feel pretty good about it. I hope you find this comforting in your time of need, spraying on as you are about this shit that happened a world away. Quote
j_b Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 So, what happened to the Swedes? Torching Europe for 2 centuries, then 2 centuries with almost no wars? One would think that "man the warrior" wouldn't waste 2 centuries living in peace. Quote
j_b Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 My point is over your head. In simple talk here it is: J_B says hunter-gatherer societies were peaceful. If they were it is because they killed, and in some cases ate, up to half their children at birth. Societies that had lower rates of infanticide usually did so because they needed the babies to grow up in order to fight other tribes or bear more babies. I don't really follow. Hunter-gatherers likely abandoned old people too but it doesn't make them warlike. Nobody here claimed that primitive folk didn't know violence but ambushing individuals to get revenge (for example) isn't war. Quote
j_b Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Robert Fisk has a very different take on this butchery Quote
G-spotter Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 My point is over your head. In simple talk here it is: J_B says hunter-gatherer societies were peaceful. If they were it is because they killed, and in some cases ate, up to half their children at birth. Societies that had lower rates of infanticide usually did so because they needed the babies to grow up in order to fight other tribes or bear more babies. I don't really follow. Hunter-gatherers likely abandoned old people too but it doesn't make them warlike. Nobody here claimed that primitive folk didn't know violence but ambushing individuals to get revenge (for example) isn't war. My point is if you kill 50% of your population through violence and they are young children, or if you kill 50% of your population through warfare as mature adults, you still kill 50% of your population through violent means. Quote
ivan Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Nobody here claimed that primitive folk didn't know violence but ambushing individuals to get revenge (for example) isn't war. when the conversation veered off the donkey path somewhere up-thread, the point was that there are a multitude of definitions of "war" and that yes, you can construction a definition that would include ambushing people for revenge - hell, sounds just like the famous lincoln county war of 1878! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_County_War violence is violence, and at some nebuolous point in the collective conscious, enough individual acts of violence do amount to what is understood to be "war" - every christmas tree i piss on, afterall, gets filed under fox's "war on christmas" Quote
rob Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 hell, sounds just like the famous lincoln county war of 1878! Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 So, what happened to the Swedes? Torching Europe for 2 centuries, then 2 centuries with almost no wars? One would think that "man the warrior" wouldn't waste 2 centuries living in peace. Heart of Darkness Quote
Coldfinger Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 You already look like an asshole. Hey I'm 50% asshole, and 50% your bro brah. Quote
rob Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 So, what happened to the Swedes? Torching Europe for 2 centuries, then 2 centuries with almost no wars? One would think that "man the warrior" wouldn't waste 2 centuries living in peace. yeah yeah yeah, and there are also some purely vegetarian cultures but that doesn't mean man in general is mostly vegetarian. Quote
Coldfinger Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Well the Swedes have one of the largest arms industries in the world and one of the most modern militaries, Bofors are particularly responsible for quite a bit of destruction. So it's not like they're "peaceful" or a hippy commune, in the strict sense. They're kinda like the Swiss--war profiteers that nobody really wants to fuck with b/c they CAN defend themselves. That and they help you fight your own wars. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Well the Swedes have one of the largest arms industries in the world and one of the most modern militaries, Bofors are particularly responsible for quite a bit of destruction. So it's not like they're "peaceful" or a hippy commune, in the strict sense. They're kinda like the Swiss--war profiteers that nobody really wants to fuck with b/c they CAN defend themselves. That and they help you fight your own wars. gotta love how j_b's link to support his "position" shows Sweden engaged in a long and bloody history. yeah, war is a rarity, and exception for the angry hairless monkeys Quote
j_b Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 My point is if you kill 50% of your population through violence and they are young children, or if you kill 50% of your population through warfare as mature adults, you still kill 50% of your population through violent means. There is a significant difference between eliminating the young that have very little change of making it and sacrificing adults to plunder the neighbors. Quote
j_b Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Well the Swedes have one of the largest arms industries in the world and one of the most modern militaries, Bofors are particularly responsible for quite a bit of destruction. So it's not like they're "peaceful" or a hippy commune, in the strict sense. They're kinda like the Swiss--war profiteers that nobody really wants to fuck with b/c they CAN defend themselves. That and they help you fight your own wars. Indeed, but the discussion wasn't about hippies. Quote
Coldfinger Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Well the Swedes have one of the largest arms industries in the world and one of the most modern militaries, Bofors are particularly responsible for quite a bit of destruction. So it's not like they're "peaceful" or a hippy commune, in the strict sense. They're kinda like the Swiss--war profiteers that nobody really wants to fuck with b/c they CAN defend themselves. That and they help you fight your own wars. Indeed, but the discussion wasn't about hippies. No, it was that you kinda misunderstand the Swedes. Quote
j_b Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 So, what happened to the Swedes? Torching Europe for 2 centuries, then 2 centuries with almost no wars? One would think that "man the warrior" wouldn't waste 2 centuries living in peace. yeah yeah yeah, and there are also some purely vegetarian cultures but that doesn't mean man in general is mostly vegetarian. Humans aren't mostly vegetarian but they aren't mostly violent either. Quote
j_b Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 No, it was that you kinda misunderstand the Swedes. I didn't claim to understand them. I was pointing a fact tending to show that war isn't "ineluctable" as it surely would if it were part of human nature. Quote
j_b Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 violence is violence, and at some nebuolous point in the collective conscious, enough individual acts of violence do amount to what is understood to be "war" Individual acts of collective violence is what is understood to be war. Most everything else can be dealt with with a police force or mediation of some type. Quote
rob Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 wtf is an individual act of collective violence? are you using big words again? Quote
j_b Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) War is collective violence which is the summation of individual acts of violence. Your neighbor murdering his wife isn't war. Edited March 22, 2012 by j_b Quote
Coldfinger Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 wtf is an individual act of collective violence? are you using big words again? And footnotes! Quote
rob Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 War is collective violence which is the summation of individual acts of violence. Your neighbor murdering his wife isn't war. But I thought your point was humans weren't a violent species. Or are you saying we're violent but not warlike? Quote
ivan Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 hell, sounds just like the famous lincoln county war of 1878! shit! in america, if they make a movie about it, it's famous history and holy fuck, hollywood done made TWO films about this carbuncle on the crotch of humankind - the lincoln county war engaged the godlike acting prowess of both The Duke and martin sheen's other, less fucked-up kid Quote
ivan Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 . Or are you saying we're violent but not warlike? brilliant! 'bout sums up how it sounds to me... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.