Comments on: On Violence

By: “Ax Ishmael” (The Anthropik Network)

“Ax Ishmael” (The Anthropik Network) — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:04:44 +0000

[…] It’s hard to tell if the fault lies with Prentiss, or Dr. Carlson, but to that Ishmael “has violent themes” is the kind of ridiculous statement one could make only by assiduously avoiding any actual reading of Ishmael. There are violent elements in primitivism—I’ve written against them before—but Daniel Quinn’s work is essentially the rallying point of the non-violent wing of primitivism. Hueng-Sui’s Christian upbringing introduced him to far more violent themes than he would find in Quinn. And where is the rest of the evidence for this? Where are the videos with Hueng-Sui talking about Takers or Leavers? Where does he mention the Thunderbolt? The Law of Life? Any of it at all, except the name? […]

By: The Battle for Our Home (The Anthropik Network)

The Battle for Our Home (The Anthropik Network) — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:16:48 +0000

[…] It’s become a very heated debate. On 11 August 2002, ELF fire-bombed the U.S. Forest Service’s forestry sciences lab near Buckaloons. Fitting ELF’s record, no one was harmed (the bombing took place late at night), but it caused $700,000 in property damage. ELF took responsibility in an email which included a pronouncement that it may begin straying from its usual principles: “While innocent life will never be harmed in any action we undertake, where it is necessary, we will no longer hesitate to pick up the gun to implement justice.” The Aug. 11 attack has only exacerbated the situation. Jim Kleissler, co-founder of the Clarion-based Allegheny Defense Project and one of the most effective critics of logging in the ANF since the mid-1990s, angered timber industry representatives in a Sept. 5 interview with the Times-Observer. […]

By: RedWolfReturns

RedWolfReturns — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:23:20 +0000

Yeah, the whole “Noble Savage” back & forth in academia is mostly rhetoric (and in my opinion mostly unhelpful). We need honest depth of understanding when it comes to the quality of life created by different ways of living.

And on a side note, I’d be curious to know what Out of Shape is actually doing to deal with the fact that “indigenous people…are being conscripted/assimilated/eliminated everyday” that would give him/her such a high position from which to judge others here.

By: Jason Godesky

Jason Godesky — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:32:53 +0000

Out of Shape — WTF, mate? Nobody said anything about the rest of the world waiting for “first world whites to get their shit together.” But by the same token, those of us inside civilization probably wouldn’t be well advised to wait for anyone to come rescue us, either, and like it or not, it is our civilization that’s destroying the world. So, I guess what I’m saying is, I have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.

RedWolfReturns — Good points, all. I wish more anthropologists and such would take those questions seriously and produce more useful studies of that sort of comparison to see if it really bears out, rather than simply beating up the “Noble Savage” straw man constantly.

By: RedWolfReturns

RedWolfReturns — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 04:37:31 +0000

Actually, all I was talking about in my spear v.s. bomb example was to contrast the experience of say, a Dani warrior on the field of battle (see the ethnography “Grand Valley Dani : Peaceful Warriors” (Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology) by Karl G. Heider) to someone killed by a bombing raid or artillery barrage in (for instance) WWII. The Dani has far more individual power in relation to his fate/destiny (and thus more chance to distinguish himself in terms of honor) than the modern soldier could ever hope for, and I would say this makes their experiences qualitatively different regardless of the what statistics are used to compare the casualty rates between the two. (And ultimately what this study proves is that once again our cultural values are revealed in that we value the preservation of life — i.e. quantity, over questions conserning the quality of life.)

However, since you mention it, another qualitative aspect of primitive warfare v.s. state warfare is that in state-less/chief-less “wars” there is no subjugation of a “loser” by a “winner”, so the foundations of conflict differ in yet another important qualitative way. Lastly, anthropologists (to my knowledge at least) have not observed primitive warriors suffering from the intense psychological trauma and death of spirit commonly associated with vets who survive modern state warfare. So really, just how much do the statistics really tell us? After all, as Tyler Durden points out, the chances of survival for every one of us hits zero when placed on a long enough time line…

…we all live and we all die, the important question is not so much “how long?” as “how well?”

By: Out of Shape

Out of Shape — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 04:37:03 +0000

im just waiting and waiting for all the first world whites to get their shit together. its dependent on them for anything to happen…. or i mean to mental masturbate on the internet until youre forced to make a decision. nevermind indigenous people who are being conscripted/assimilated/eliminated everyday.. all thats left is the vanguard of north american/european whites who have all the time in the world to voyage the maze of confusion with their guts cut out.

fuck all this shit.

By: Jason Godesky

Jason Godesky — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:45:42 +0000

Well, if you redefine the terms of success like that. In every war, the two sides have different objectives and different criteria for success. For instance, Britain generally sees the Colonial Revolution as aggressive, but it was largely fought with guerrilla tactics, especially in the South.

By: _Gi

_Gi — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:38:56 +0000

A successful smaller force doesn’t win. it simply denies the control of the bigger force.
A win would be for a smaller force to subjugate the bigger force, but a successful guerillas merely deny the occupiers control over the occupied population, never impose control over the population of occupiers.

By: Jason Godesky

Jason Godesky — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:18:21 +0000

Did he also include the deaths of uncivilized people killed in the civilizing process (since this is a major theme leading up to and into the 20th century)?

No, but that’s a different thing than just war. War can be respectable, you see….

Also, did he include secondary casualties of civilized warfare (such as when the population starves because their farm fields are laid waste to, or casualties from disease when urban sanitation infrastructure is disabled by war? Stuff like that?

I believe so … at least some of them. It’s been a long time since I read it.

Lastly, does he discuss the qualitative differences in warfare, or is his analysis pretty much restricted to quantitative aspects?

He does, but I think that’s the weakest part of his argument. Where do you draw the line between war, and homicide? If you have a group of 10 people, and you murder one, that’s a 10% casualty rate, something even the worst civilized wars don’t manage. At the same time, when you’re equating a single homicide to a war, I think you’ve crossed an important qualitative divide.

Casualty figures are one thing, but I’d much rather go down as a warrior taking a spear in the chest than be taken out by a bomb while I’m sitting on the toilet.

Well, that’s a question of tactics, and what we call “terrorism,” or what might more accurately be called, “guerrilla warfare,” is the only strategy that’s ever allowed a smaller force to win against a larger one.

By: RedWolfReturns

RedWolfReturns — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:07:40 +0000

Sounds about right then. Did he also include the deaths of uncivilized people killed in the civilizing process (since this is a major theme leading up to and into the 20th century)? Also, did he include secondary casualties of civilized warfare (such as when the population starves because their farm fields are laid waste to, or casualties from disease when urban sanitation infrastructure is disabled by war? Stuff like that?

Lastly, does he discuss the qualitative differences in warfare, or is his analysis pretty much restricted to quantitative aspects?

Casualty figures are one thing, but I’d much rather go down as a warrior taking a spear in the chest than be taken out by a bomb while I’m sitting on the toilet.

I look forward to reading his book at some point, just havent gotten to it yet…