posted
Why are some civilizations peaceful and others warlike? I once believed that region's climate affected the warlikeness of a culture residing within it. Many of the most aggressive peoples of Earth have lived in harsh cold or dry lands, such as the Mongols, Norse, Arabs, Lakota, and Zulu. According to this theory, desert or cold conditions tended to make people more vicious, because of competition over more limited resources. However, I have rejected this theory, because some cultures in more amicable climes, such as the Iroquois and the Amazonians, are still incredibly volatile. Furthermore, some peaceful civilizations, such as the Pueblos, live in lands with limited resources. If climate does not affect the aggressiveness or passivity of a civilization, what does?
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What was "harsh, cold, or dry" about the land where Chaka built the Zulu empire from his single small tribe into a confederated (by conquest) empire?
The initial Zulu weren't aggresive. Chaka's personal drive and ambition turned them into his unstoppable war machine.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ausar once made and interesting point -> The Eskimo live in perhaps the harshest environment of all people, yet they are comparatively gentle, in both their approach to nature, to one another, and to outsiders.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Testosterone level...
Evergreen Writes:
What is the relationship between testosterone level and the war/peace paradigm?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Testosterone level...
Evergreen Writes:
What is the relationship between testosterone level and the war/peace paradigm?
It was a joke and was waiting for the first poster to get trapped...Congratulations...I got you...
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Technical Anomal (What Box?:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Achillobator: Why are some civilizations peaceful and others warlike?
Evergreen Writes:
Access to natural resources and/or hegemony.
I agree with this. Something tells me it's probably more complex, though..
I would add:
natural resources and dominance in the relationship to other civilizations of contact. The latter could work both ways, ofcourse.
(Chastize-rebel relationship)
Evergreen Writes:
The cultures adjacent to the Mediterranan region may have been best positioned to benefit from this relationship. Unique resources would have flowed from inner-Africa, inner-Europe and Asia to the Mediterranean civilizations. An important concept to grasp is the fact that population density was greatest in Africa prior to the mid-Neolithic. The late UP Nile Valley may have been extensivly dense and packed.
Humans Eurasia would have flowed back into the Mediterranean. The neolithic spread from Africa caused population growth in Eurasia. These populations back-flowed into the Mediterranean during the late neolithic and EBA displacing the indigenous African populations in these regions.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
The cultures adjacent to the Mediterranan region may have been best positioned to benefit from this relationship. Unique resources would have flowed from inner-Africa, inner-Europe and Asia to the Mediterranean civilizations. An important concept to grasp is the fact that population density was greatest in Africa prior to the mid-Neolithic. The late UP Nile Valley may have been extensivly dense and packed.
Humans Eurasia would have flowed back into the Mediterranean. The neolithic spread from Africa caused population growth in Eurasia. These populations back-flowed into the Mediterranean during the late neolithic and EBA displacing the indigenous African populations in these regions.
This is why I take issue with the application of "Mediterranean": What does "Mediterranean" as you put forth, particularly in the highlighted piece above, entail...because you've also mentioned that they have "displaced" the "indigenous African populations" in those "regions".
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]This is why I take issue with the application of "Mediterranean": What does "Mediterranean" as you put forth, particularly in the highlighted piece above, entail...because you've also mentioned that they have "displaced" the "indigenous African populations" in those "regions".
Evergreen Writes:
Mediterranean in the context I used refers to the Neolithic and Bronze Age 'civilizations' that were adjacent to the body of water now known as the Mediterranean.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
This is why I take issue with the application of "Mediterranean": What does "Mediterranean" as you put forth, particularly in the highlighted piece above, entail...because you've also mentioned that they have "displaced" the "indigenous African populations" in those "regions".
Evergreen Writes:
Mediterranean in the context I used refers to the Neolithic and Bronze Age 'civilizations' that were adjacent to the body of water now known as the Mediterranean.
As it pertains to the "Neolithic" and "Bronze Age": which would "specifically" be...?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
This is why I take issue with the application of "Mediterranean": What does "Mediterranean" as you put forth, particularly in the highlighted piece above, entail...because you've also mentioned that they have "displaced" the "indigenous African populations" in those "regions".
Evergreen Writes:
Mediterranean in the context I used refers to the Neolithic and Bronze Age 'civilizations' that were adjacent to the body of water now known as the Mediterranean.
As it pertains to the "Neolithic" and "Bronze Age": which would "specifically" be...?
Evergreen Writes:
'Which would "specifically" be'...what? You used an incomplete sentence and I am unsure what you are trying to ask?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
'Which would "specifically" be'...what? You used an incomplete sentence and I am unsure what you are trying to ask?
...because you made an incomplete statement. So let's cut to the chase:
What do you 'specifically' mean by the "mediterranean civilizations" whereby, in your own words: "indigenous African populations in these regions."?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
What do you 'specifically' mean by the "mediterranean civilizations" where by, in your own words: [i]"indigenous African populations in these regions.
Everegreen Writes:
Ancient Egypt would be one such example and EBA Palestine would be another.
So, Egypt is an example of "Mediterranean civilization", right? So I guess, one can say that "ancient Egypt is a Red Sea civilization" as well, right?
Now that you've pointed out "ancient Egypt" as a specific example, can you tell us why you think the "indigenous populations" of this region had been 'displaced'.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]So, Egypt is an example of "Mediterranean civilization", right? So I guess, one can say that "ancient Egypt is a Red Sea civilization" as well, right?
Evergreen Writes:
Debating with you is really boring. But the point is education, so here we go……
Yes, Ancient Egyptian civilization was a Mediterranean civilization, it was also a Red Sea civilization and a Saharan civilization and a Nilotic civilization. The context of the discourse was around the economic underpinning of ‘civilizations’. Geography played a role in this process.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]Now that you've pointed out "ancient Egypt" as a specific example, can you tell us why you think the "indigenous populations" of this region had been 'displaced'.
Evergreen Writes:
I never said the indigenous Africans in AE were displaced. I said the indigenous Africans in Mediterranean cultures/civilizations were displaced. This does not mean displacement took place in every civilization in this region. It certainly took place in Palestine where the early Natufian type was displaced.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
[QUOTE]So, Egypt is an example of "Mediterranean civilization", right? So I guess, one can say that "ancient Egypt is a Red Sea civilization" as well, right?
Evergreen Writes:
Debating with you is really boring. But the point is education, so here we go……
...likewise with you, but unlike yourself, I don't post on a forum necessarily to entertain another person or to be entertained; I do so to get to the bottom of issues.
quote:Evergreen:
Yes, Ancient Egyptian civilization was a Mediterranean civilization, it was also a Red Sea civilization and a Saharan civilization and a Nilotic civilization. The context of the discourse was around the economic underpinning of ‘civilizations’. Geography played a role in this process.
Simply immaterial.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Now that you've pointed out "ancient Egypt" as a specific example, can you tell us why you think the "indigenous populations" of this region had been 'displaced'.
Evergreen Writes:
I never said the indigenous Africans in AE were displaced. I said the indigenous Africans in Mediterranean cultures/civilizations were displaced.
^Contradiction.
You just said that "ancient Egypt" is an example of what you were referring to as "mediterranean civilization" in your earlier post, and as such you also wrote:
These populations back-flowed into the Mediterranean during the late neolithic and EBA **displacing** the indigenous African populations in these regions.
quote:Evergreen:
This does not mean displacement took place in every civilization in this region.
...which is an example of why I took issue with your application of the "blanket" and "ambiguous" term of "Mediterranean civilizations". See post above.
quote:Evergreen:
It certainly took place in Palestine where the early Natufian type was displaced.
So, when you were referring to "indigenous African populations" in "these regions", you were referring to just the "Natufians". Can you really treat the "Natufians" as "indigenous African" populations?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Technical Anomal (What Box?:
... which is why I don't like mediterranean.
I use SW Asian or the eurocentric propagandan term 'middle east'.
Indeed, the 'blanket' nature of the term "Mediterranean" allows people to give themselves maneuver to flip flop. It is futile to use that term, because just as I forced Evergreen to demonstrate so, Red Sea could just as easily be applied to Egypt, Sudan and say, Saudi Arabia. The same can be true of places like Morocco, using appellations of "water bodies". This term has the additional effect of relieving non-Africans - who aren't particularly fond of the idea of complexes like "Ancient Egypt" being African - of having to place Egypt in its African context, just by simple reference to it as a "Mediterranean civilization", lumped into one entity along with other non-African so-called "Mediterranean civs.".
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
[QUOTE]So, Egypt is an example of "Mediterranean civilization", right? So I guess, one can say that "ancient Egypt is a Red Sea civilization" as well, right?
Evergreen Writes:
Debating with you is really boring. But the point is education, so here we go……
...likewise with you, but unlike yourself, I don't post on a forum necessarily to entertain another person or to be entertained; I do so to get to the bottom of issues.
Evergreen Writes:
Thus far you have gotten to the bottom of no issues. You have revealed no new information. You have not espoused a unique point of view or value-added frame of reference. All you have done is played a nit-pick game of internet stalking....following me from thread to thread and taking up my time with unsubstantive quieres.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:
quote:Evergreen:
Yes, Ancient Egyptian civilization was a Mediterranean civilization, it was also a Red Sea civilization and a Saharan civilization and a Nilotic civilization. The context of the discourse was around the economic underpinning of ‘civilizations’. Geography played a role in this process.
Simply immaterial.
Evergreen Writes:
Why is it not material? This is what is known as'drive-by' posting. You're not really contesting the validity of my position, you are simply ranting with a hit-and-run. You're question was answered with substance and validity.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Evergreen:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Now that you've pointed out "ancient Egypt" as a specific example, can you tell us why you think the "indigenous populations" of this region had been 'displaced'.
Evergreen Writes:
I never said the indigenous Africans in AE were displaced. I said the indigenous Africans in Mediterranean cultures/civilizations were displaced.
^Contradiction.
You just said that "ancient Egypt" is an example of what you were referring to as "mediterranean civilization" in your earlier post, and as such you also wrote:
These populations back-flowed into the Mediterranean during the late neolithic and EBA **displacing** the indigenous African populations in these regions.
Evergreen Writes:
No contradiction. Eurasians displacing indigenous Africans in the Mediterranan region is not mutually interchangeable with Mediterraneans displacing indigenous Africans in EVERY ancient civilization adjacent to the Mediterranean. I assumed you could grasp this. Was this asking to much?
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:[QUOTE]Evergreen:
This does not mean displacement took place in every civilization in this region.
...which is an example of why I took issue with your application of the "blanket" and "ambiguous" term of "Mediterranean civilizations". See post above.
Evergreen Writes:
There was nothing blanket or ambigous about my use of the term Mediterranean, at least not to anyone who uses English as their primary language. Context is allways important in any communication. The context of my usage of the term mediterranean was clearly related to geography and economics. I shouldn't have to 'dumb-down' my posts for the slow-pokes.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]Indeed, the 'blanket' nature of the term "Mediterranean" allows people to give themselves maneuver to flip flop. It is futile to use that term, because just as I forced Evergreen to demonstrate so, Red Sea could just as easily be applied to Egypt, Sudan and say, Saudi Arabia.
Evergreen Writes:
WTF? How did you force me to demonstrate anything? This is silly. AE civilization intereacted and were a part of many geographic and trading regions. When was this ever in dispute?
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]This term has the additional effect of relieving non-Africans - who aren't particularly fond of the idea of complexes like "Ancient Egypt" being African - of having to place Egypt in its African context, just by simple reference to it as a "Mediterranean civilization", lumped into one entity along with other non-African so-called "Mediterranean civs.".
Evergreen Writes:
Yawn....again, it is about the context of the term. Mediterranean is valid as a geographic region.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Thus far you have gotten to the bottom of no issues.
You may be right, in that you've failed to attach meaning to your bizarre claims of "Mediterranean civs.", the basis of which I'm trying to get at the bottom of.
quote:Evergreen:
You have revealed no new information.
About what? This is not only an incomplete statement, but also has an incomplete logic.
quote:Evergreen:
You have not espoused a unique point of view or value-added frame of reference.
Of course I have, but you missed it because you cannot read. I did say that "Mediterranean civs." as you have used it, is baseless, blanket in nature and ambiguous. Are you telling me you are too hard of understanding English to the point that you cannot see that this is my "unique point of view", and in fact "value-added frame of reference"? I hope not.
quote:Evergreen:
All you have done is played a nit-pick game of internet stalking....following me from thread to thread and taking up my time with unsubstantive quieres.
...just like you stalk al Takruri and others around from thread to thread, taking up their time with unsubstantive queries, playing a nit-pick game? You bet.
quote:
quote:Mystery Solver:
quote:Evergreen:
Yes, Ancient Egyptian civilization was a Mediterranean civilization, it was also a Red Sea civilization and a Saharan civilization and a Nilotic civilization. The context of the discourse was around the economic underpinning of ‘civilizations’. Geography played a role in this process.
Simply immaterial.
Evergreen Writes:
Why is it not material? This is what is known as'drive-by' posting. You're not really contesting the validity of my position, you are simply ranting with a hit-and-run. You're question was answered with substance and validity.
Your point about..."The context of the discourse was around the economic underpinning of ‘civilizations’...is immaterial to the questions you were compelled to answer, pertaining to your questionable ‘blanket’ application of “Mediterranean” and the “displacement” of “indigenous” Africans in those regions . Your incapability of realizing that, should be known as 'drive-by' reading.
quote:Evergreen Writes:
No contradiction. Eurasians displacing indigenous Africans in the Mediterranan region is not mutually interchangeable with Mediterraneans displacing indigenous Africans in EVERY ancient civilization adjacent to the Mediterranean.
It is a contradiction, because your application of "Mediterranean" was blanket, and it applied to "indigenous" African populations of those regions, being displaced, and so when pressed to specify what you meant by those "Mediterrean" regions, you mentioned "ancient Egypt". No ones fault that you are not making sense, but yours.
quote:Evergreen:
I assumed you could grasp this. Was this asking to much?
You assumed wrong; that is the problem with "assumptions". I don't grasp nonsensical and unsubstantiated claims, but maybe you can turn around the status quo.
quote:Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
which is an example of why I took issue with your application of the "blanket" and "ambiguous" term of "Mediterranean civilizations". See post above.
Evergreen Writes:
There was nothing blanket or ambigous about my use of the term Mediterranean, at least not to anyone who uses English as their primary language.
Anyone who speaks English as their primary language and yet fails to see that "Mediterranean" is "blanket" or "ambiguous" in application to completely different cultural complexes in different landscapes, has really got to be quite dense in the head to make that judgment. The fact that you haven't been able to substantiate and clarify your claims as it pertains to this term, is testament of this.
quote:Evergreen:
Context is allways important in any communication. The context of my usage of the term mediterranean was clearly related to geography and economics.
Specificity is always important; 'blanket' terminology, which allows people like yourself to maneuver from idea to idea when pressed for 'specificity', doesn't help in 'contextualization'.
quote:Evergreen:
I shouldn't have to 'dumb-down' my posts for the slow-pokes.
..more importantly, you shouldn't post dumb claims, because it makes you look like one of those 'slow-pokes'.
quote:
Who's that Mysery guy?
^Who's this valueless pestilent ‘A-freak’?
quote:Evergreen:
quote:Mystery Solver:
Can you really treat the "Natufians" as "indigenous African" populations?
Evergreen Writes:
Of course you can.
On what basis?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Indeed, the 'blanket' nature of the term "Mediterranean" allows people to give themselves maneuver to flip flop. It is futile to use that term, because just as I forced Evergreen to demonstrate so, Red Sea could just as easily be applied to Egypt, Sudan and say, Saudi Arabia.
Evergreen Writes:
WTF? How did you force me to demonstrate anything? This is silly.
What is silly, is how you fail to see the highlighted: You were compelled to show that appellation of “Red Sea” could just as easily be justifiably applied to “ancient Egypt” as “Mediterranean civs.” - which goes to show "blanket" appellation of “Mediterranean” doesn’t go far in adding value to the discussion. However, this sort of double speak and useless talk doesn’t arise when “ancient Egypt” is simply recognized for what it actually is, “African”.
quote:Evergreen: AE civilization intereacted and were a part of many geographic and trading regions. When was this ever in dispute?
Good question, because when did this ever come up in the questions you were requested to answer [by me]?
quote:Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
This term has the additional effect of relieving non-Africans - who aren't particularly fond of the idea of complexes like "Ancient Egypt" being African - of having to place Egypt in its African context, just by simple reference to it as a "Mediterranean civilization", lumped into one entity along with other non-African so-called "Mediterranean civs.".
Evergreen Writes:
Yawn....again, it is about the context of the term. Mediterranean is valid as a geographic region.
Yawn…again, its about the lack of ‘context’ of the term, as you’ve used it. “Mediterranean” is as “useless” a term for a geographic region of "land mass" as “Middle East” , except for those who have a political motive for using it, whether it is geopolitics or the act of diminishing the prospect of being strongly pinned down on an issue(s) - in other words, to create an avenue through which they can flip flop.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]...just like you stalk al Takruri and others around from thread to thread, taking up their time with unsubstantive queries, playing a nit-pick game? You bet.
Evergreen Writes:
Get off that man's jock.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
...just like you stalk al Takruri and others around from thread to thread, taking up their time with unsubstantive queries, playing a nit-pick game? You bet.
Evergreen Writes:
Get off that man's jock.
This is a forum where anybody, including yourself can be held accountable for questionable claims. So be prepared to be "stalked" for such claims; can't handle the heat, kick yourself out of the kitchen.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE] Your point about..."The context of the discourse was around the economic underpinning of ‘civilizations’...is immaterial to the questions you were compelled to answer, pertaining to your questionable ‘blanket’ application of “Mediterranean” and the “displacement” of “indigenous” Africans in those regions
Evergreen Writes:
You have yet to prove that my application of the term Mediterranean was a ‘blanket application’. Please define what you mean when you use the term ‘blanket application’ and then demonstrate how I have made a ‘blanket application’ pertaining to the use of the term Mediterranean.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]Anyone who speaks English as their primary language and yet fails to see that "Mediterranean" is "blanket" or "ambiguous" in application to completely different cultural complexes in different landscapes, has really got to be quite dense in the head to make that judgment
Evergreen Writes:
But that is just it, I made a geographic reference not a cultural reference when using the term Mediterranean. Again, the ESL thing or did you ride the little yellow bus to school?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTEThis is a forum where anybody, including yourself can be held accountable for questionable claims. So be prepared to be "stalked" for such claims; can't handle the heat, kick yourself out of the kitchen.
Evergreen Writes:
I agree with accountability. Stand on your own two feet and use your own logic and reason to justify your positions. No need to seek a 'big-brother' or a 'father-figure' to protect you.
[ 16. April 2007, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Horus_Den_1 ]
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Your point about..."The context of the discourse was around the economic underpinning of ‘civilizations’...is immaterial to the questions you were compelled to answer, pertaining to your questionable ‘blanket’ application of “Mediterranean” and the “displacement” of “indigenous” Africans in those regions
Evergreen Writes:
You have yet to prove that my application of the term Mediterranean was a ‘blanket application’.
I don't have to prove your application of "Mediterranean" to be something that any logical person can already see it as.
quote:Evergreen:
Please define what you mean when you use the term ‘blanket application’ and then demonstrate how I have made a ‘blanket application’ pertaining to the use of the term Mediterranean.
Sure: indiscriminately applying a single term for very distinct and unspecified entities. I thought English was your primary language.
Demonstration:
Humans Eurasia would have flowed back into the Mediterranean. The neolithic spread from Africa caused population growth in Eurasia. These populations back-flowed into the Mediterranean during the late neolithic and EBA displacing the indigenous African populations in these regions.
And here:
Mediterranean in the context I used refers to the Neolithic and Bronze Age 'civilizations' that were adjacent to the body of water now known as the Mediterranean.
^"blanket" application? No, it couldn't be.
quote:Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Anyone who speaks English as their primary language and yet fails to see that "Mediterranean" is "blanket" or "ambiguous" in application to completely different cultural complexes in different landscapes, has really got to be quite dense in the head to make that judgment
Evergreen Writes:
But that is just it, I made a geographic reference not a cultural reference when using the term Mediterranean.
When you say "Mediterranean civilizations" you are not referring to cultural complexes? LOL.
What single landmass is called "Mediterranean" landscape?
quote:Evergreen:
Again, the ESL thing or did you ride the little yellow bus to school?
Did you have a donkey for a teacher, because man, you are quite thick in the head...I mean really 'thick'.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
This is a forum where anybody, including yourself can be held accountable for questionable claims. So be prepared to be "stalked" for such claims; can't handle the heat, kick yourself out of the kitchen.
Evergreen Writes:
I agree with accountability. I'm just trippin off you riding that man's jock. Stand on your own two feet and use your own logic and reason to justify your positions. No need to seek a 'big-brother' or a 'father-figure' to protect you.
I'm glad you have a sense of humor, and I hope you'll entertain that attitude, when you come up with answers for the following, which you've dodged:
[*]Now that you've pointed out "ancient Egypt" as a specific example, can you tell us why you think the "indigenous populations" of this region had been 'displaced'.
[*]Mystery Solver says:
Can you really treat the "Natufians" as "indigenous African" populations?
Evergreen replies:
Of course you can.
Mystery Solver asks:
On what basis?
Evergreen:
Comes up with no answer!
^So, the "Natufians" are supposedly the **sole** so-called "indigenous Africans" displaced in those "Mediterranean" regions you were referring to, and yet, you cannot demonstrate how they are supposedly "indigenous" Africans living in "SW Asia"?
If you don't answer these outstanding questions, you on the other hand, may need to seek a 'big-brother' or a 'father-figure' to protect you.Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Your point about..."The context of the discourse was around the economic underpinning of ‘civilizations’...is immaterial to the questions you were compelled to answer, pertaining to your questionable ‘blanket’ application of “Mediterranean” and the “displacement” of “indigenous” Africans in those regions
Evergreen Writes:
You have yet to prove that my application of the term Mediterranean was a ‘blanket application’.
I don't have to prove your application of "Mediterranean" to be something that any logical person can already see it as.
Evergreen Writes:
Sure you do - it's called accountability....remember.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:
quote:Evergreen:
Please define what you mean when you use the term ‘blanket application’ and then demonstrate how I have made a ‘blanket application’ pertaining to the use of the term Mediterranean.
Sure: indiscriminately applying a single term for very distinct and unspecified entities. I thought English was your primary language.
quote:Evergreen:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Anyone who speaks English as their primary language and yet fails to see that "Mediterranean" is "blanket" or "ambiguous" in application to completely different cultural complexes in different landscapes, has really got to be quite dense in the head to make that judgment
Evergreen Writes:
But that is just it, I made a geographic reference not a cultural reference when using the term Mediterranean.
When you say "Mediterranean civilizations" you are not referring to cultural complexes?
Evergreen Writes:
What I am referring to is the Neolithic and EBA civilizations that are adjacent to the Mediterranean. I have stated this several times just for.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE][*]Now that you've pointed out "ancient Egypt" as a specific example, can you tell us why you think the "indigenous populations" of this region had been 'displaced'.
Evergreen Writes:
As I have stated several times **just for you**, the indigenous Africans of AE were NOT displaced. Africans in other regions around the Mediterranean were displaced. One such example that I have allready given for you were the Natufians.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE][*]^So, the "Natufians" are supposedly the **sole** so-called "indigenous Africans" displaced in those "Mediterranean" regions you were referring to, and yet, you cannot demonstrate how they are supposedly "indigenous" Africans living in "SW Asia"?
Evergreen Writes:
Help me understand what your question is really about. Are you questioning the African origins of the Natufians or the fact that they would have been indigenous to Palestine at the time of back-migration from inner-Eurasia?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Sure you do - it's called accountability....remember.
...and sure I did hold you accountable...remember? Obviously in your case...NOT!
quote:Evergreen Writes:
What I am referring to is the Neolithic and EBA civilizations that are adjacent to the Mediterranean. I have stated this several times just for.
...and I stated several times, that it is a 'blanket' and 'ambiguous' application, pending very specific applications.
quote:Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
[*]Now that you've pointed out "ancient Egypt" as a specific example, can you tell us why you think the "indigenous populations" of this region had been 'displaced'.
Evergreen Writes:
As I have stated several times **just for you**, the indigenous Africans of AE were NOT displaced. Africans in other regions around the Mediterranean were displaced. One such example that I have allready given for you were the Natufians.
And as I have said several times **just for you**, how can you talk of "indigenous Africans" in those "regions" to which they are obviously not "indigenous"...unless you are talking of Africans in mainland "Africa".
Also, as I have asked you several times now, how do you justify calling Natufians "indigenous Africans", only to have no answer for it.
quote:Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
[*]^So, the "Natufians" are supposedly the **sole** so-called "indigenous Africans" displaced in those "Mediterranean" regions you were referring to, and yet, you cannot demonstrate how they are supposedly "indigenous" Africans living in "SW Asia"?
Evergreen Writes:
Help me understand what your question is really about. Are you questioning the African origins of the Natufians or the fact that they would have been indigenous to Palestine at the time of back-migration from inner-Eurasia?
See post above; I'm questioning your justification of calling Natufians "indigenous Africans", and whether they were supposedly the "sole" indigenous Africans you were referring to in "those" [unspecified] regions, where they were "displaced".
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Sure you do - it's called accountability....remember.
...and sure I did hold you accountable...remember? Obviously in your case...NOT!
Evergreen Writes:
Yes, you did hold me accountable...and I appreciate that because it keeps me sharp. However, when I turned the tables and asked you to define your position you retreated to the old 'I don't have to prove anything' escape clause.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:
quote:Evergreen Writes:
What I am referring to is the Neolithic and EBA civilizations that are adjacent to the Mediterranean. I have stated this several times just for.
...and I stated several times, that it is a 'blanket' and 'ambiguous' application, pending very specific applications.!
Evergreen Writes:
I made no such blanket or ambiguous application. I was very specific. I stated then and state now that I was refering to the cultures and civilizations adjacent to the Mditerranean. Can't get much clearer than that.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote: [QUOTE]Evergreen:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
[*]Now that you've pointed out "ancient Egypt" as a specific example, can you tell us why you think the "indigenous populations" of this region had been 'displaced'.
Evergreen Writes:
As I have stated several times **just for you**, the indigenous Africans of AE were NOT displaced. Africans in other regions around the Mediterranean were displaced. One such example that I have allready given for you were the Natufians.
And as I have said several times **just for you**, how can you talk of "indigenous Africans" in those "regions" to which they are obviously not "indigenous"...unless you are talking of Africans in mainland "Africa".
Evergreen Writes:
The Natufian moved into the Levant during the early mesolithic period. Why would they not be indigenous to this region by the neolithic period. With this standard no one would be indigenous anywhere outside of Africa.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well back to the original question:Why are some civilizations peaceful and others warlike?
This is my own take on it. It is the disposition of leadership for the most part that determines if a society is warlike. Humans in general have agressive tendencies. Humans like other primates have cultures that are almost always set up in a hierachical manner. All cultures have ways of channeling and restricting this agressiveness and ways of changing or maintaining their hierachical structure. These are two factors that determine whether or not a society is warlike. The other component needed is to define an "other" who possesses some "thing" that the society desires. It can be a possession such as a women or land or a natural resource or it can be something intangible like respect or submission and deference by the other group. If the leadership decides that it is socially acceptable to dispossess the "other" of it's "property" or that fighting the other is "respectable" then the society will be warlike.
An example of this would be granting of estates by a ruler to his military subordinates. "I dominate you and I agree to let you dominate them for a portion of the "property" you take from then plus your agreement to accept my dominance." This channels the society's aggression and also the need leaderships to proctect it's position does not lead to internal violence.
I believe environmental conditions can sometimes favor a warlike attitude. Especially in cultures that have not adapted to that environment. So if a society lacks some needed resource and they see another group has it and for whatever reason the society that lacks it can not produce it or find it for them selves they will fight for it.
Posts: 167 | From: usa | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Yes, you did hold me accountable...and I appreciate that because it keeps me sharp.
Which is why you start name calling?
quote:Evergreen:
However, when I turned the tables and asked you to define your position you retreated to the old 'I don't have to prove anything' escape clause.
You asked me a dumb question about how your application of "Mediterranean" is "blanket", and which I had demonstrated anyways. This is not 'turning' the tables - it is essentially asking me to justify your usage for you...by proving a 'negative'.
quote:Evergreen:
Evergreen Writes:
I made no such blanket or ambiguous application. I was very specific. I stated then and state now that I was refering to the cultures and civilizations adjacent to the Mditerranean. Can't get much clearer than that.
It is 'blanket', as you have still not specified what these "cultures" or 'civilizations" are supposed to be.
quote:Evergreen:
The Natufian moved into the Levant during the early mesolithic period. Why would they not be indigenous to this region by the neolithic period.
Why would they need to be "indigenous Africans" during this period? You can dance around the question, but it still remains unanswered.
quote:Evergreen:
With this standard no one would be indigenous anywhere outside of Africa.
With this standard, it is any wonder why someone would still be called "indigenous African" anywhere outside of Africa.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, you did hold me accountable...and I appreciate that because it keeps me sharp.
Which is why you start name calling?
Evergreen Writes:
Oh geez, I was just teasing you. It's not that serious. You're ok in my book.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:[QUOTE]Evergreen:
The Natufian moved into the Levant during the early mesolithic period. Why would they not be indigenous to this region by the neolithic period.
Why would they need to be "indigenous Africans" during this period? ?
Evergreen Writes:
Again, are you questioning the Africaness of the Natufians or their indigenousness? Don't try the bait and switch.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Again, are you questioning the Africaness of the Natufians or their indigenousness? Don't try the bait and switch.
Evergreen, how many times must a question be asked in simple English before it sinks in. What did I say in my last post, and why would that warrant 'bait and switch', when you haven't even yet answered the questions?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]....why someone would still be called "indigenous African" anywhere outside of Africa.
Evergreen Writes:
Last post for the night. Have to hit the hay.
Your position is of interest. Do we call a group of Africans that migrate out of Africa and colonize a different region (Natufians) Africans or do we refer to them as SW Asians. Your position on the term Mediterranean seems to indicate that you stand against communication templates that obfuscate the Africanity of said people.
My position is that they were INDIGENOUS to the Levant by the Neolithic period. I refer to them as AFRICANS to highlight their biologial affinity with this continent.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Your position is of interest. Do we call a group of Africans that migrate out of Africa and colonize a different region (Natufians) Africans or do we refer to them as SW Asians. Your position on the term Mediterranean seems to indicate that you stand against communication templates that obfuscate the Africanity of said people.
My position is that they were INDIGENOUS to the Levant by the Neolithic period. I refer to them as AFRICANS to highlight their biologial affinity with this continent.
Natufians are generally understood to be the derivative of migrants from the Nile Valley and in situ Levantine groups. Given this, along with your acknowledgement that Natufians are "indigenous" to the Levant by the Neolithic period, how can anyone justify calling them "indigenous Africans".
On that note, I look forward to the prospect of bringing the issues raised by my questions to their logical conclusions...including whether the Natufians were supposedly the "sole" group you were referring to as "displaced indigenous Africans", and what, if any, "Mediterranean civilizations" you were referring to with respect to "indigenous Africans", was in application to "African-based" complexes.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Achillobator: Why are some civilizations peaceful and others warlike?...
Answer: The culture of that civilization or society.
Different societies have different views, and with those different views come different temperaments. It's not always about how 'harsh' the environment is. As Ausar said the Inuit (Eskimos) as well as various Siberians peoples of arctic and the Australian aborigines of the hot arid Outback are all very gentle people who in general are not war-like.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic