Violence and civilisation

[Blind groper]

I regard violence and civilisation to be antithetical to each other. The word "civilised", I regard as describing a person or nation that behaves well, with little violence, and with empathy and kindness.

I am now reading Professor Stephen Pinker's book on the history of violence, called "The Better Angels of our Nature." A horrible title, but apparently a quote from Abe Lincoln, so it has gotta be OK!

Anyway, Pinker describes how violent rates dropped over time. Tribal peoples have terribly violent societies, with a murder rate of 500 killings per 100,000 people per year, or more. Modern societies are far less violent. The pattern is shown in the book.

Britons will be unsurpised to be told that the spread of low levels of violence, and hence civilised behaviour, began from that island and spread from there. In the first millennium of the current era justice was administered by family and friends. If someone was murdered, his family and friends would avenge him. Somewhere along the line, some murderer got worried and bought off the would-be avengers with gold. This became common practice, and the payment was called wer-guild (literally man-gold). Lots of money must have changed hands.

William the Conqueror saw an opportunity. He took over the mechanism of justice into government hands (his own), and made private justice illegal. That meant he could take the wer-guild himself. A great means of adding to royal coffers! He extended the practise to more than murder, adding even more to his coffers. This improved the efficacy of local justice, since a government has more resources to track down criminals and extract payment. The murder rate dropped five-fold.

Europe at the time was hundreds of principalities, and the rulers quickly adopted this practise. Murders fell across Europe.

As strong princes conquered weaker ones, turning small principalities into larger nations, the power of government increased and murders fell even more.

This process continues to this day, and murder rates continue to fall. In the USA, the rate was 10 per 100,000 per year in 1970, and is 4.3 today. In Britain, it is 1.2 today.

You could say that justice has moved from vigilanteeism to a proper justice system.

However, there are still vigilantees active today, and we should all oppose them with all our will. That is necessary to become yet more civilised.

[Ian]

That's one one of the best books I've read in recent years. Maybe ever.

[pErvinalia]

One world government FTW!! Wait till Seth gets here...

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

With 3.1% of the entire US population under 'correctional supervision' (0.743% actually in prison as of 2009) it seems to me that someone has overdone the concept of justice somewhat. Maybe they're a bit too civilised, or something.
American population = about 1/20th of the world's total poulation but accounted for a little under 1/4 of the world's total incarcerated people in recent years.
"Land of the Free" would appear to be something of a misnomer here.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censussta ... injail.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ation_rate

[Tyrannical]

Tribal peoples have terribly violent societies, with a murder rate of 500 killings per 100,000 people per year, or more. Modern societies are far less violent

Which is why it is essential to keep tribal peoples out of our modern society.

[pErvinalia]

I think we'd be better off keeping racists out of our society. People imbued with that much fear and hate are likely to be dangerous people.

[cronus]

The cost of a aversion to violence is weakness and every civilization is ultimately failed by weak leadership and unsavoury newcomers with something to teach about property rights. Rates of invasion are important since a small trickle of interlopers can be accommodated, and a flood overwhelm.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Tribal peoples have terribly violent societies, with a murder rate of 500 killings per 100,000 people per year, or more. Modern societies are far less violent

Which is why it is essential to keep tribal peoples out of our modern society.

I agree that tribalism is the problem. However, I would class racists and other similar, narrow-minded insular thinkers as being tribal elements within modern societies - every bit as much as immigrants that refuse to adopt the mores of their adopted country. When you divide society into "us" and "them", you join a tribe.

[cronus]

Tribal peoples have terribly violent societies, with a murder rate of 500 killings per 100,000 people per year, or more. Modern societies are far less violent

Which is why it is essential to keep tribal peoples out of our modern society.

I agree that tribalism is the problem. However, I would class racists and other similar, narrow-minded insular thinkers as being tribal elements within modern societies - every bit as much as immigrants that refuse to adopt the mores of their adopted country. When you divide society into "us" and "them", you join a tribe.

So you have two classes then....already? Why view racists as the issue....most people go through stages of growth and for some who have little formal education what they see is more important. Perhaps the teachers are the issue who don't teach the electromagnetic spectrum and to keep a open mind? Perhaps the ones who make a special issue out of racialism are using it to mask the real inequalities of class and wealth and gender?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Tribal peoples have terribly violent societies, with a murder rate of 500 killings per 100,000 people per year, or more. Modern societies are far less violent

Which is why it is essential to keep tribal peoples out of our modern society.

I agree that tribalism is the problem. However, I would class racists and other similar, narrow-minded insular thinkers as being tribal elements within modern societies - every bit as much as immigrants that refuse to adopt the mores of their adopted country. When you divide society into "us" and "them", you join a tribe.

So you have two classes then....already? Why view racists as the issue....most people go through stages of growth and for some who have little formal education what they see is more important. Perhaps the teachers are the issue who don't teach the electromagnetic spectrum and to keep a open mind? Perhaps the ones who make a special issue out of racialism are using it to mask the real inequalities of class and wealth and gender?

No. You clearly didn't read my post thoroughly (or I didn't express myself well enough). The BIG problem (as I see it) is in identifying yourself and your "group" as being superior - whether that is a group based on race, gender, wealth, class, musical taste, sexuality, religion or any other arbitrary division. What unites us is our shared humanity and it is massively bigger than anything that divides us.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Tribal peoples have terribly violent societies, with a murder rate of 500 killings per 100,000 people per year, or more. Modern societies are far less violent

Which is why it is essential to keep tribal peoples out of our modern society.

I agree that tribalism is the problem. However, I would class racists and other similar, narrow-minded insular thinkers as being tribal elements within modern societies - every bit as much as immigrants that refuse to adopt the mores of their adopted country. When you divide society into "us" and "them", you join a tribe.

So you have two classes then....already? Why view racists as the issue....most people go through stages of growth and for some who have little formal education what they see is more important. Perhaps the teachers are the issue who don't teach the electromagnetic spectrum and to keep a open mind? Perhaps the ones who make a special issue out of racialism are using it to mask the real inequalities of class and wealth and gender?

No. You clearly didn't read my post thoroughly (or I didn't express myself well enough). The BIG problem (as I see it) is in identifying yourself and your "group" as being superior - whether that is a group based on race, gender, wealth, class, musical taste, sexuality, religion or any other arbitrary division. What unites us is our shared humanity and it is massively bigger than anything that divides us.

[Tyrannical]

No. You clearly didn't read my post thoroughly (or I didn't express myself well enough). The BIG problem (as I see it) is in identifying yourself and your "group" as being superior - whether that is a group based on race, gender, wealth, class, musical taste, sexuality, religion or any other arbitrary division. What unites us is our shared humanity and it is massively bigger than anything that divides us.

If there are statistically significant differences between groups, it is not an arbitrary division. It is a rational division. Really, there is nothing sillier than an atheist that still holds that God created man equally, since equality is incompatible with evolution and natural selection.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

No. You clearly didn't read my post thoroughly (or I didn't express myself well enough). The BIG problem (as I see it) is in identifying yourself and your "group" as being superior - whether that is a group based on race, gender, wealth, class, musical taste, sexuality, religion or any other arbitrary division. What unites us is our shared humanity and it is massively bigger than anything that divides us.

If there are statistically significant differences between groups, it is not an arbitrary division. It is a rational division. Really, there is nothing sillier than an atheist that still holds that God created man equally, since equality is incompatible with evolution and natural selection.

1. I don't hold that man was created at all - and certainly not by anything describable as a god.
2. I have never claimed that "all men are equal" and certainly did not do so in the post you quote!
3. My contention was, and I quote, "What unites us is our shared humanity and it is massively bigger than anything that divides us."

Kindly attack what I say, an which I stand by, and not strawmen of your own devising - that just makes you appear either duplicitous or incapable of comprehending what you read.

[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.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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.

Unless they use... the comfy chair!!!!