Here it is:
[url]http://www.ealdriht.org/meaningfrith.html[/url]

I think it can provide some additional insight to a lot of the things Anthropik has been talking about lately.

A short excerpt regarding violence:
[quote]This absolute, uncompromising character of kindred-oriented frith actually contributed significantly to the pursuit of feuds and strife within the larger community, at the same time that it reduced strife within the kindred, inside the pale of frith. Frith was nothing if not partisan: focused on security and stability of the kindred, it had no appl ication to those individuals and groups who lay outside the boundaries when it came to a conflict of interest between the two. Nor could any notion of absolute, unbiased justice make a dent in it: defending one’s kindred was always right, no matter how wrong their actions were.[/quote]

And another one about [i]frithguilds[/i], which grew up as a way to replace the traditional bonds of kinship, fealty and worship that broke down as northern European society grew larger and more complex:
[quote]The general provisions of the frithguilds were as follows:
Members of a guild were not to engage in strife with each other; but if they did do so, they were not allowed to bring it before any court for litigation, excepting the court of the Guild itself.

If anyone killed a man who was not a member of the Guild, the Guild must help their fellow escape with such provision as they could manage for his well-being. Anyone who failed to help when they were able to do so was cast out as a niðing.

Every brother of the Guild was obliged to help every other one in lawsuits (by being an oath-helper, by guarding him in court and out, and so forth).

If a Guild-brother was killed, other Guild members must refrain from eating, drinking, or having any social connections with his slayer, and must aid the dead man s heirs in seeking vengeance or restitution. (See Groenbech, Vol. I, Ch. 1)

By these descriptions, we can gain a better understanding of our forebears’ expectations of frith, of its value to them and their dependence on it for support and safety. [/quote]

With us, violence is complicated by the (often strictly theoretical) prospect of state intervention and a great uncertainty regarding outcomes. Perhaps the parties will just stand around screaming ‘F*ck you!’ at each other. Perhaps they will indulge in what is effectively ritualistic punching, but battery nonetheless. Or someone might end up on the ground with a boot in the head. Or the knives or guns come out. Or the law and the courts get involved, and even minding your own business can look guilty under forensic investigation. Many people will endure low-level violence in possibly ambiguous circumstances rather than endure the complications of the law. And so far I have not even considered the reality that social position enables violence in our societies, and that some people can literally get away with murder.

The net result, then, is a much greater prevalence of what we might call ‘ego violence’ - mouthing off and lower-level assaults, with this behaviour spread ‘undemocratically’ (for want of a better term). Some people get to indulge in practically costless violence against others.

Personally I think the simple clarity of the Bushmen way has a lot more going for it. Violence of any form against other people is understood by all to have very serious consequences, in virtually all cases. And that is as it should be.

My argument is that it doesn’t need to be countered. It is better to have freedom even if it brings more violence with it.

I think it would though. I think all men would need to know how to fight and use weapons. I think people would need to be armed when they travel around.

I think a lot of people would prefer to live in a more secure enviroment than that however.

In the midst of a civilized society people have that. Sure much of the foundations of the society are based on conquest abroad and opression at home, but still things are safer on an interpersonal level; a local level.

I do think it is part of human otogeny to fight. I agree it is better not to repress that.

I don’t think this is the view of most anti-civ anarchsits coming from a left perspective. The argument there is that all violence is bad and that the main reason civilization is bad is because its violent.

I think its just better at violence making it more sophisticated and impersonal. Its better at exploitation and domination through threats of violence.

But to live in a primitive society means killing for food, very likely killing other people in battle close up and face to face and carrying a weopon when traveling.

I want to acknowledge that. Not rationalize it away.

That relationship with violence does not exist for the average middle class member of a first world country.

But when you let the violent impulse play itself out, does it really go all the way to murder? Not usually, I don’t think.

All adult male Bushmen have a bow and poisoned arrows. The poison is deadly and agonizing, but is slow acting and so allows its victim time for retaliation. The Bushmen then have very good reason to contain violence, since it can easily escalate to deadly levels. As noted above, Bushmen children are socialized to fear and avoid violence. War is unknown. However, impulsive violence and even murder does occur among the Bushmen. When temper flare between adults, their friends and relatives will often find and hide the poisoned arrows. People will actively intervene to break up fights. If violence occurs or tensions remain high, one or both groups will be asked to move away. Separating the parties allows tempers to cool, and social norms to reassert control. Ury recounts the extreme case of a serial killer. “In the 1940s a man named Twi who had killed two people and was possibly psychotic was ambushed by his community and was fatally wounded. After he was dead, all the men and women stabbed him with spears, thus symbolically sharing the responsibility for what had amounted to a collective execution.”¹

I think when violence is allowed to run its course, you end up with less violence than when you try to repress it. I think our society’s idea that violence is qualitatively “bad” has led to our society becoming hyper-violent. We’re never given a healthy outlet for violent emotion or impulse, and so it simply builds and becomes pathological. It eventually finds in release, but when it does, it’s compounded by the failed attempt to stop that. Primitive societies have a much healthier attitude towards violence, and so experience much less actual violence than civilizations. Civilizations try to repress violence, and by deeming violence always and everywhere illegitimate, create the conditions for far more violence to take place.

The first evidence for war, archaeological, in cave paintings, or anything else, only goes back to 12,000 BCE—not long before the Neolithic, or in it by some estimates. Questioning the relationship of war and violence to “human nature” and hunter-gatherers is not anything vague, or even romanticizing “Noble Savages”—it’s refusing to accept a Hobbesian view of ourselves without question. There’s very good reason to question the notion that violence, war and murder are aything but aberrations, and it’s high time we did so, rather than passively accepting such things as necessary evils.

less violence? Are you kidding me?

Janene

The way most societies have achieved an approximation of this is to have the state monopolize violence and to supress the freedom of its citizens.

Words like “rare” “capable” and so forth are pretty vague and relative.

People kill each other that is a fact. Is this a part of human nature that needs to be changed through eugenics programs or sociological experiments or is it somthing to be accepted?

I tend to put a higher premium on freedom and personal autonomy that in security and order.

I also don’t want to overly romanticize hunter gatherers. I think its obvious they fight and make war and commit murder. They come up with cultural ways to control it but its there.

Primitive people carry around weapons, the men are warriors they have neighbors that they consider enemies, and within their society they are more close knit and affectionate and intimate.

I think in civilized society we have balanced things out. Less violence and less intimacy.