Is Equality something that Governments should strive to impose on people?

[upinwath]

What precisely is your issue with their gender roles?

 

Equality would be all sharing all jobs not having some defined as women's work and some defined as men's.

Not allowed to shirk - Of course not. Unlike most on this forum, I've seen subsistence farming first hand and, if you don't work, you don't eat. It's as simple as that and bugger all to do with any political situation.

 

Any more questions?

[Tony]

And they all do what the shaman tells them to do anyway. Equality? Of course not.

[Cavegirl]

Equality would be all sharing all jobs not having some defined as women's work and some defined as men's.

Not allowed to shirk - Of course not. Unlike most on this forum, I've seen subsistence farming first hand and, if you don't work, you don't eat. It's as simple as that and bugger all to do with any political situation.

 

Any more questions?

 

Just one- why do you equate subsistence farming with a hunter gatherer group?

 

You have no idea what you're talking about. Run away and watch that documentary again, this time you might learn something...

[Cavegirl]

And they all do what the shaman tells them to do anyway. Equality? Of course not.

 

!Kung shamans are healers not leaders.

[Cyclone]

This is simply not true. In the UK we see the origins of Parliament in the Anglo-Saxon period. It began with the 'Witan' in which the king would call forth his nobles to advise him, but their assent was not necessary for a law to be enacted and they did not help to frame the laws. There were smaller councils in the countryside known as 'shire moots' which were led by local lords and bishops.

 

After the Norman conquest the King began to govern through a smaller permanent council, but he would occasionally call a meeting of a larger number of barons and earls, bishops and abbots to gain approval of his decisions and this larger council would later become the House of Lords.

The shire moot developed into the County Court during this period and later it became the basis for the House of Commons.

 

There's no indication that the 'will of the people' was ever involved in the creation of UK Parliament or government. It was created through constant struggle between the king and the nobles. People were used as the pawns in the army of whichever side offered them the most benefits. The US essentially copied our model of government and as a sweetner to the people they provided a constitution that would preserve and defend the land rights of commoners.

We're not discussing the historical origin or purpose of whoever ruled the UK over the past thousand years though.

The government now exists to administrate the country, we vote on who will represent us, it can't get more "will of the people" than that. We are also all free to stand as representatives, so it's "of the people".

 

Today the government campaigns for votes by promising the majority the things they think they want and then once in power they do whatever they want or whatever the ideology of the party dictates.

If they want electing again they have to balance doing "what they want" with "what the majority of people want".

 

See here for more details:

http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/overview/origins/

 

 

 

You're misconstruing the term 'noble savage' here. Noble savage refers to human behaviour- it describes a sentimentalised view, primarily of American Indians but later it was adapted for other cultures also, but it does not describe the structure of human society. The two do not really mix.

 

Certainly we can see the origins of leadership, status and wealth accumulation in early agrarian societies as people are freed to develop craft specialisations, but it's only really with the arrival of bronze that competition for resources leads to the development of hierarchical stratas in society.

 

I don't think I'm misconstruing it at all, you're claiming that life as hunter gatherers was somehow 'better' than life today. Life then was nasty, savage and short, and I doubt that there was much co-operation through enlightened self interest at all, co-operation through fear or necessity, probably, but equally a lot of might makes right.

[Tony]

!Kung shamans are healers not leaders.

 

No they aren't, they are leaders, not healers. People who are followed by others are leaders. Doctors are healers.

 

Evidence suggests that !Kung are no good at either.

[Cavegirl]

We're not discussing the historical origin or purpose of whoever ruled the UK over the past thousand years though.

The government now exists to administrate the country, we vote on who will represent us, it can't get more "will of the people" than that. We are also all free to stand as representatives, so it's "of the people".

If they want electing again they have to balance doing "what they want" with "what the majority of people want".

 

I would have to disagree. I think that knowing the history of Parliament is vitally important for understanding its role today, but hey that's just me right. Still I think you're being too simplistic here. Our entire system is set up to favour the 3 main parties- every large newspaper, apart from the Independant, endorses one of these parties come election time so what chance do the 'people' really have? They can choose to tow a main party line or they can be largely ignored. In short, the system is propped up by propaganda and its own internal structure, not by the people.

 

Today it's even worse, there's little to choose from between the two main parties because they're fighting over the centre ground in order to appeal, not to the people, but to big business. The government even lies to the people to protect big business. Here's the most recent evidence of this:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html

 

I think you need to ask yourself one question- hypothetically, if nobody went out and voted in the next election would the government cease to exist any more? I don't think it would.

 

I don't think I'm misconstruing it at all, you're claiming that life as hunter gatherers was somehow 'better' than life today. Life then was nasty, savage and short, and I doubt that there was much co-operation through enlightened self interest at all, co-operation through fear or necessity, probably, but equally a lot of might makes right.

 

I've never once suggested life was better for hunter gatherers, I've only ever suggested that hunter gatherer groups have no social hierarchy and are therefore egalitarian whereas our society is highly complex and stratified and therefore we can't have true equality. I've also suggested that the cause of our inequality has been a sense of competetiveness that arose when we started using precious metals.

 

I would say that life is 'nasty, savage and short' for a slum kid in India, but I would say life is just life for a hunter gatherer, made up of good and bad times and devoid of advanced technology and medicine. The fact that prehistoric peoples buried their dead and tried to heal their sick suggests that cooperation existed at a level greater than simple fear or necessity, it suggests that they actually cared about each other.

[Cavegirl]

No they aren't, they are leaders, not healers. People who are followed by others are leaders. Doctors are healers.

 

Evidence suggests that !Kung are no good at either.

 

Nothing on the page you've posted here even refers to shamans nevermind whether they were healers or leaders. It just says that health levels are exactly what you'd expect from a society that doesn't have advanced medicine.

 

Perhaps you should have continued reading because this is what it says on page 261:

 

N/um [this is the trance like state that the !Kung shaman enters] reflects the basically egalitarian nature of !Kung life. It is not reserved for a privileged few: nearly half the men and a third of the women have it. There is enough for everyone; it is infinitely divisible; and all can strive for it. Almost anyone who is willing to go through the rigors of apprenticeship can attain it. Not everyone wants to however.

 

Here it is:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=up4_q8ooKO0C&pg=PA261&lpg=PA262&dq=!Kung+trance+healers