Violence and civilisation

[Blind groper]

Genetic versus environment

I would like to point out again what is happening here in NZ. The average Maori is three quarters European due to extensive intermarriage. So the genetic difference is three fifths of five eights of sweet F. all.

Yet the Maori, who make up 12% of our adult population, also make up 52% of our prison population, and I am told that, if you break it down to violent criminals, the percentage is a lot higher still. Why then, if it is genetic, do the Maori who are genetically almost identical, have such a high rate of violent offending compared to their white cousins?

My answer is that it is cultural. The old time Maori, no more than 200 years ago, had a tribal and very violent culture. It takes time for cultural aspects of a people to disappear.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Genetic versus environment

I would like to point out again what is happening here in NZ. The average Maori is three quarters European due to extensive intermarriage. So the genetic difference is three fifths of five eights of sweet F. all.

Yet the Maori, who make up 12% of our adult population, also make up 52% of our prison population, and I am told that, if you break it down to violent criminals, the percentage is a lot higher still. Why then, if it is genetic, do the Maori who are genetically almost identical, have such a high rate of violent offending compared to their white cousins?

My answer is that it is cultural. The old time Maori, no more than 200 years ago, had a tribal and very violent culture. It takes time for cultural aspects of a people to disappear.

Once were warriors.

[pErvinalia]

I wonder if there is a Libertarian gene?...

[cronus]

Violence never goes away. It takes very little to bring out the base ape in a human. Deny it food and water for a day, or something to do with its hands. Cause it to think too much by posing complicated issues and it'll quickly look for violent shortcuts. The human animal is a nasty stinking piece of defecating meat and you can't civilize it. The best you can hope for is to partially tame it and give it predictable routines that keep it occupied and unworried about its next mealtime. Look at dogging culture and what goes on out of sight? Left to its own devices it'll be back swinging in the trees - for it is a wild beast.

[Audley Strange]

You cannot have civilisation without violence. For to be civilised means to behave in a way that is considered civilised. To create such a situation one must use violence, discipline and punitive measures against people who do not adhere to the rules of such a group in order to create a cohesive civil structure in the first place.

Yes, but the end result is significantly less violence overall.

Only for some of the chosen. Example, London may be less violent than Baghdad, but was it less violent than Bagdhad before we removed Hussein and the limbs and lives of civilians? I'd say no. So, was Saddam Hussein's use and threat of violence on his people more effective or less effective than the allies megaviolence against those same people? Another example, were the audacious attacks and deaths of the folks in the Twin Towers and the pentagon, significantly higher than the deaths by U.S state in the previous twelve months?

Violence and the threat of is all that ever keeps us in line, why do you think we invented the concept of eternal damnation? Don't get me wrong I'm not celebrating the fact, but I think it necessary.

[rainbow]

Well Xamonas, I am here to educate, though learning does require an open mind I sometimes wonder if you are trolling me by feigning ignorance or if you really are that ignorant on the subjects. There is such a thing as being knowledgeable but disagreeing instead of pretending that you don't believe the source exists.

The real question Tyrannical is whether you were born stupid, or can we blame it on your upbringing?

[rainbow]

By the definition suggested in the OP some of the more 'civilized' countries would include Sweden, Norway and of course Japan. Japan, for centuries highly conformist and ordered but at times externally very aggressive.

..after which I googled 'least violent countries'. There is a so called peace index available here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

Wonderful.

Now if this index were calculated between say 1935 and 1945, would Germany and Japan rate as highly on this "Peace Index"?

Have they become civilised since then?

[JimC]

By the definition suggested in the OP some of the more 'civilized' countries would include Sweden, Norway and of course Japan. Japan, for centuries highly conformist and ordered but at times externally very aggressive.

..after which I googled 'least violent countries'. There is a so called peace index available here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

Wonderful.

Now if this index were calculated between say 1935 and 1945, would Germany and Japan rate as highly on this "Peace Index"?

Have they become civilised since then?

In comparison, yes they have...

[Blind groper]

WWII saw 60 million deaths (plus a minus a titch), or 10 million per year. With a global population of more than 2 billion at the time, the death toll was less than 500 per 100,000 people per year. So even during WWII, the per capita death toll globally from violence was less than it was in Anglo Saxon England (with an estimated murder rate of 500 per 100,000 per year, according to Pinker.).

And WWII was a brief leap in violent death rate by orders of magnitude.

Then there is leviathan theory.
This was invented by the political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes in the 17th Century. A leviathan is, of course, a massive sea monster. But Hobbes used the word to describe a massively powerful government (appropriate), wich all modern governments are.

His theory is that violent behaviour drops with an increase in the power of central government. In effect, government takes over from the vigilantees, and deals out justice. People improve their behaviour accordingly.

Pinker shows, with solid data, that this connection is true. For example, the murder rate in the American wild west correlated inversely with the amount of government in the various areas. Some wild west towns had murder rates equal to that of very primitive tribes, due to almost total lack of imposed law. But as central government, and its law enforcement arms, stretched out to cover the western areas, murder rates dropped massively.

Perhaps we should appreciate government more, which keeps us alive, where murderous assholes might do us in otherwise.

[JimC]

Blind groper wrote:

Perhaps we should appreciate government more, which keeps us alive, where murderous assholes might do us in otherwise.

As long as the appreciation is accompanied by a healthy measure of distrust for its tendency to extend the boundaries of its control to inappropriate levels, and for its human components to be susceptible to corruption...

[Seabass]

Genetic versus environment

I would like to point out again what is happening here in NZ. The average Maori is three quarters European due to extensive intermarriage. So the genetic difference is three fifths of five eights of sweet F. all.

Yet the Maori, who make up 12% of our adult population, also make up 52% of our prison population, and I am told that, if you break it down to violent criminals, the percentage is a lot higher still. Why then, if it is genetic, do the Maori who are genetically almost identical, have such a high rate of violent offending compared to their white cousins?

My answer is that it is cultural. The old time Maori, no more than 200 years ago, had a tribal and very violent culture. It takes time for cultural aspects of a people to disappear.

Maybe the violence done to them by their "peaceful" "white neighbors" might have something to do with it. I'd probably be pissed off too, if whitey came in and genocided and subjugated my people.

[Pappa]

Genetic versus environment

I would like to point out again what is happening here in NZ. The average Maori is three quarters European due to extensive intermarriage. So the genetic difference is three fifths of five eights of sweet F. all.

Yet the Maori, who make up 12% of our adult population, also make up 52% of our prison population, and I am told that, if you break it down to violent criminals, the percentage is a lot higher still. Why then, if it is genetic, do the Maori who are genetically almost identical, have such a high rate of violent offending compared to their white cousins?

My answer is that it is cultural. The old time Maori, no more than 200 years ago, had a tribal and very violent culture. It takes time for cultural aspects of a people to disappear.

Maybe the violence done to them by their "peaceful" "white neighbors" might have something to do with it. I'd probably be pissed off too, if whitey came in and genocided and subjugated my people.

Plus, there's been some good research done on how cultures can become more internally violent when their lands are encroached from outside.

[pErvinalia]

WWII saw 60 million deaths (plus a minus a titch), or 10 million per year. With a global population of more than 2 billion at the time, the death toll was less than 500 per 100,000 people per year. So even during WWII, the per capita death toll globally from violence was less than it was in Anglo Saxon England (with an estimated murder rate of 500 per 100,000 per year, according to Pinker.).

And WWII was a brief leap in violent death rate by orders of magnitude.

Then there is leviathan theory.
This was invented by the political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes in the 17th Century. A leviathan is, of course, a massive sea monster. But Hobbes used the word to describe a massively powerful government (appropriate), wich all modern governments are.

His theory is that violent behaviour drops with an increase in the power of central government. In effect, government takes over from the vigilantees, and deals out justice. People improve their behaviour accordingly.

Pinker shows, with solid data, that this connection is true. For example, the murder rate in the American wild west correlated inversely with the amount of government in the various areas. Some wild west towns had murder rates equal to that of very primitive tribes, due to almost total lack of imposed law. But as central government, and its law enforcement arms, stretched out to cover the western areas, murder rates dropped massively.

Perhaps we should appreciate government more, which keeps us alive, where murderous assholes might do us in otherwise.

I can't help thinking you've got this mixed up. Was murder/violence rates high within tribal groups, or between tribal groups? If it was really between tribal groups (which is how I would imagine it) then I don't see how it is much different these days. The US tribe doesn't seem to have a problem exporting violence all over the world. Israel too, in its part of the world. The Turks and Arabs vs the Kurds, and vice versa. Radical Islam vs the West and vice versa.

[rainbow]

His theory is that violent behaviour drops with an increase in the power of central government. In effect, government takes over from the vigilantees, and deals out justice. People improve their behaviour accordingly.

Pinker shows, with solid data, that this connection is true. For example, the murder rate in the American wild west correlated inversely with the amount of government in the various areas. Some wild west towns had murder rates equal to that of very primitive tribes, due to almost total lack of imposed law. But as central government, and its law enforcement arms, stretched out to cover the western areas, murder rates dropped massively.

Perhaps we should appreciate government more, which keeps us alive, where murderous assholes might do us in otherwise.

Clearly then, in Nazi Germany there was very little murder.
...a bit of State-sanctioned killing, perhaps?

How about Stalinist Russia?

[Blind groper]

To rainbow

That is a fair point. In fact, when government takes over from individual violence, the actions of violence go from citizen to state. The thing is, though, that governments generally kill a lot fewer citizens than citizens without government do.

On tribal killings.
Yes, it is mostly between two tribes rather than within one tribe. It is mostly from raids, and ambushes. Occasional all out war, but more killings in small scale actions.

On the Maori.
No they are not more violent because of genocide by whiteys. Europeans never committed wholesale slaughter of Maori, unlike what happened in the USA and in Australia. It was not all roses, of course. Several British governments were responsible for large scale theft of land from Maori. This led to some small scale conflict, but the death toll was never that high. Uniquely, the relationship between Britain and the Maori began with a treaty, which gave Maori full rights as citizens. Mostly, with the exception of stealing land, the treaty was honored. Pity about the land problem, but the Maori were never treated as badly as American and Australian native peoples.