tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post6853476206814478715..comments2024-03-28T17:53:43.541-04:00Comments on DarwinCatholic: Anthropology, Violence and RelativismDarwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-77396488184314971122013-02-26T11:39:05.760-05:002013-02-26T11:39:05.760-05:00Joseph Moore and Darwin,
The crux of our critique...Joseph Moore and Darwin,<br /><br />The crux of our critique of Diamond and Chagnon is not that "it's not nice to judge one as less advanced or more violent than another, however accurate such an assessment may be."<br /><br />The crux of our critique is that both Diamond and Chagnon's data (and, incidentally Stephen Pinker's) is flawed.<br /><br />The Daily Beast article linked to above explains why Diamond's data is flawed. <br /><br />As for Chagnon's data, he is but one of dozens of other anthropologists who have spent many years working with the Yanomami. Many of them vehemently disagree with his characterization of the tribe as extremely violent - their findings show otherwise.<br /><br />Here's the other side of the coin: http://www.survivalinternational.org//articles/3272 <br /><br />Many of Chagnon's defenders cite his commitment to 'science' in his defence. It is certainly not 'scientific' of these champions to take one man's word that an entire people is 'sly, aggressive, and intimidating', 'fierce', 'continuously making war on each other', and living in a 'state of chronic warfare'. <br />Survival Internationalhttp://www.survivalinternational.org/news/8997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-81558408023515623142013-02-19T16:44:07.193-05:002013-02-19T16:44:07.193-05:00cminor,
One of the things about this whole spat i...cminor,<br /><br />One of the things about this whole spat is that there are quite good critiques to make of Chagnon and and Diamond's work -- among them that primative tribes who are still around a primative tribes now are arguably not representative of all neolithic tribal societies, in that one of the notable things about all the other neolithic tribal societies is that they developed into more modern societies while those that remain primitive obviously didn't for some reason. Diamond tends to assume that's simply because the peoples that are still primitive didn't have the physical resources available to them that other peoples did. So, for instance, he argues in Guns, Germs and Steel that the only reason that the American Indians didn't have civilizations on the level of those in Europe is because they didn't have as many domesticatable animals and plants as were available in Europe. I'm really not sure one can make that assumption. It seems pretty reasonable to me that primitive tribes now are in various ways _not_ the same as primitive tribes 10,000 years ago. <br /><br />All that said, when it comes to violence in tribal societies, Chagnon's findings fit pretty well with what we know of the primitive ancestors of the West based on examining burials for signs of death by violence, etc. <br /><br />Joseph Moore,<br /><br />I wasn't necessarily taking Correy's claim to be that primitive societies were better than ours, but rather that each society is different and thus cannot be judged by the standards of another. He doesn't want to deal with any factual claim that a society is less technologically advanced than ours or that it is more violent than ours, he simply wants to say they are different and leave it at that. That was what struck me as a very relativistic position.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-35621130906834074782013-02-19T16:02:04.073-05:002013-02-19T16:02:04.073-05:00Good stuff, thanks. One question: where do you see...Good stuff, thanks. One question: where do you see the relativism in this? It seems clear that the problem is that primitive tribes *must* be better than us - a clear, if nonsensical, moral position. Relativism would simply state that our concern over murder is merely a social construct of our own society and has no standing as better or worse than the Yanomami's practice of killing each other. Not that this kind of thinking is going to be reigned in by constructs such as 'logic', 'consistency' and 'making an ounce of sense'. Joseph Moorehttp://yardsaleofthemind.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-49270188030626042352013-02-19T15:21:57.001-05:002013-02-19T15:21:57.001-05:00Interesting. I was intrigued by the ending of the...Interesting. I was intrigued by the ending of the Chagnon review, which suggested the previous dispossession of the tribe. Scratch the surface, there may be a savage (and not a noble one, either) in us all. cminornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-794734930034272822013-02-19T12:21:36.496-05:002013-02-19T12:21:36.496-05:00Its funny that those holding the view "If we ...Its funny that those holding the view "If we talk about some societies as being less advanced or more violent, that will give us an excuse to oppress them.", are more than willing to call conservatives less advanced and hence oppress them.Alannoreply@blogger.com