Will we ever exist without war ?

[Cavegirl]

I think there is still some confusion being caused by our different definition of war, war is simply a conflict in which different people fight each other for one reason or another and humans have always fought each other over resources, be it food, mates, or just because they didn’t like each other.

 

If a woman murders her spouse for money is it war? No, interpersonal violence is something quite different from warfare.

 

Warfare is prolonged, open, armed combat between different groups/ nations. It requires military tactics (leaders) and payment of the army involved (resources).

[MrSmith]

If a woman murders her spouse for money is it war? No, interpersonal violence is something quite different from warfare.

 

Warfare is prolonged, open, armed combat between different groups/ nations. It requires military tactics (leaders) and payment of the army involved (resources).

 

I would agree that the wars of today can be like that, but thousands of years ago they were just small groups killing each other over resources, clearly the war that you describe couldn't happen 12000 years ago, but humans did kill each during conflict which by definition is war.

 

Not all wars involve leaders and paid armies; many civil wars have no paid army or leadership, they were just groups of people working together for a common coal, to take control of a country or area.

[Cavegirl]

I would agree that the wars of today can be like that, but thousands of years ago they were just small groups killing each other over resources, clearly the war that you describe couldn't happen 12000 years ago, but humans did kill each during conflict which by definition is war.

 

Not all wars involve leaders and paid armies; many civil wars have no paid army or leadership, they were just groups of people working together for a common coal, to take control of a country or area.

 

You can keep beating this drum, but it always comes back to evidence- there is no conclusive evidence that small prehistoric groups killed each other over resources. If you find some come back to me and we'll discuss it again, until then the point you keep trying to argue is moot.

 

You need a much better grasp of Palaeolithic/ Mesolithic/ Neolithic cultures before we can really debate this properly.

[PaliRichard]

If a woman murders her spouse for money is it war? No, interpersonal violence is something quite different from warfare.

 

Warfare is prolonged, open, armed combat between different groups/ nations. It requires military tactics (leaders) and payment of the army involved (resources).

 

I need to be brief (which for me is difficult) but I will attempt to expand later.

 

I think you're limiting your own argument by using a limited definition of war. You can't talk about evidence when you're limiting the definition like that, it's akin to saying there is no evidence that smoking is dangerous when the research is funded by a tobacco company.

 

Also it's a little irrelevant to the O/P's question, the potential for war existed whether war itself did or not and while the potential is there we can't really say we can ever exist without war.

[MrSmith]

You can keep beating this drum, but it always comes back to evidence- there is no conclusive evidence that small prehistoric groups killed each other over resources. If you find some come back to me and we'll discuss it again, until then the point you keep trying to argue is moot.

 

 

You still want evidence that isn’t possible, 12000 years ago humans were nomadic, they would move around depending on the availability of resources, groups of humans wouldn’t have been in the thousands and probably wouldn’t meet each other very often. If one group of humans strayed into the area of another group there would likely be conflict and not sharing, much like many animal of today, a pride of lions wouldn’t share with another pride, they would try to drive it away from that area.

We know from cave paintings that humans attacked other humans with weapons, stones and sticks, if group A attacked and killed group B there wouldn’t have been thousands of bodies and they wouldn’t have been buried, they would have been eaten by other animals or even humans, leaving very little in the way of evidence. Once we organised into larger groups and settled into permanent settlements the evidence of conflict from that time becomes easier to find.

[Cavegirl]

I need to be brief (which for me is difficult) but I will attempt to expand later.

 

I think you're limiting your own argument by using a limited definition of war. You can't talk about evidence when you're limiting the definition like that, it's akin to saying there is no evidence that smoking is dangerous when the research is funded by a tobacco company.

 

Also it's a little irrelevant to the O/P's question, the potential for war existed whether war itself did or not and while the potential is there we can't really say we can ever exist without war.

 

I'm sorry Richard but words have definitions, there are certain rules to language and you can't just change definitions because you don't like an argument.

But nevermind, let's unlimit this definition, let's call it something more appropriate- 'group raiding parties' or 'intertribal conflict'. It's largely irrelevent because there's still no conclusive evidence for that either.

You seem to be suggesting that I'm ignoring evidence to serve my argument, I would argue that that's the position L.H. Keeley has taken in trying to 'prove' widespread intertribal conflict occurred in prehistory by strongly attributing the condition to sites where, in fact, other possibilities are just as valid.

 

But evidence here is important. Violence leaves its mark on human skeletal remains. Osteoarchaeologists are usually very good at recognising not only the trauma but also what caused it. We've found trauma on many Prehistoric skeletons as well as on numerous animals that have been hunted and butchered, we've found numerous graves, in the case of the Neolithic whole chambered tombs full of human skeletal remains, we've found ritual sites and monuments, we've found portable and non-portable art, we've found meeting places, settlements and cave sites.

 

Now if we've managed to find all of these things why do you think all of these sites that contain evidence of intertribal conflict have so far proven elusive? Are we looking in the wrong places? Not recognising the evidence for what it is? Perhaps we're hiding the evidence from each other so we can continue to portray hunter gatherers as egalitarian and cooperative for some nefarious reason. Or perhaps and I think this is most likely, there's just no conclusive evidence for it to date.

 

You've already proven to me that you're rather closed minded on this subject because you accepted Mr Smith's chimpanzee research without researching it or critically thinking about it. It suited what you wanted to believe about the past. However, if you can overcome this and begin to entertain the possibility that hunter gatherers managed to develop a social behaviour that prevented intertribal conflict from arising then we can push this discussion forward into something meaningful, about how that might be and what it might mean for us. It's an important point because as you say, there was always the potential for conflict, but perhaps there's a way our social behaviour can overcome that potential.

[alchresearch]

A couple of hundred years back, or even less, continents were waging war on each other.

 

I think its pretty inconceivable now that we'll ever have another war on US soil or in Europe.

 

And when a continent is united perhaps their strength together is to not wage war on other countries (aside from the usual Middle east conflicts we've been involved in).

 

If the US wants to pick on Iran, Syria, Korea. Let them. I doubt that any of their leaders are considering France, Germany, Luxembourg, Switzerland as future targets.

[PaliRichard]

I'm sorry Richard but words have definitions, there are certain rules to language and you can't just change definitions because you don't like an argument.

But nevermind, let's unlimit this definition, let's call it something more appropriate- 'group raiding parties' or 'intertribal conflict'. It's largely irrelevent because there's still no conclusive evidence for that either.

You seem to be suggesting that I'm ignoring evidence to serve my argument, I would argue that that's the position L.H. Keeley has taken in trying to 'prove' widespread intertribal conflict occurred in prehistory by strongly attributing the condition to sites where, in fact, other possibilities are just as valid.

 

But evidence here is important. Violence leaves its mark on human skeletal remains. Osteoarchaeologists are usually very good at recognising not only the trauma but also what caused it. We've found trauma on many Prehistoric skeletons as well as on numerous animals that have been hunted and butchered, we've found numerous graves, in the case of the Neolithic whole chambered tombs full of human skeletal remains, we've found ritual sites and monuments, we've found portable and non-portable art, we've found meeting places, settlements and cave sites.

 

Now if we've managed to find all of these things why do you think all of these sites that contain evidence of intertribal conflict have so far proven elusive? Are we looking in the wrong places? Not recognising the evidence for what it is? Perhaps we're hiding the evidence from each other so we can continue to portray hunter gatherers as egalitarian and cooperative for some nefarious reason. Or perhaps and I think this is most likely, there's just no conclusive evidence for it to date.

 

You've already proven to me that you're rather closed minded on this subject because you accepted Mr Smith's chimpanzee research without researching it or critically thinking about it. It suited what you wanted to believe about the past. However, if you can overcome this and begin to entertain the possibility that hunter gatherers managed to develop a social behaviour that prevented intertribal conflict from arising then we can push this discussion forward into something meaningful, about how that might be and what it might mean for us. It's an important point because as you say, there was always the potential for conflict, but perhaps there's a way our social behaviour can overcome that potential.

 

Indeed words do have meanings http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/war and I'm at a loss as to the complexity you're placing on the meaning of 'war' given the recognised meaning of the word.

 

Regarding accepting Mr Smith's chimp evidence. I have personally seen organised groups of animals fighting for territory, many times, animals partake in war, not technologically advanced war, but war none the less. Take your head out of your text books and take a look at life, then maybe you will see your 'evidence' in a different light.

[Cavegirl]

Indeed words do have meanings http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/war and I'm at a loss as to the complexity you're placing on the meaning of 'war' given the recognised meaning of the word.

 

Regarding accepting Mr Smith's chimp evidence. I have personally seen organised groups of animals fighting for territory, many times, animals partake in war, not technologically advanced war, but war none the less. Take your head out of your text books and take a look at life, then maybe you will see your 'evidence' in a different light.

 

Oh I don't know, I rather like my academic ways, it means I don't need to resort to just telling people to 'get a life' when they disagree with what I say.

[PaliRichard]

I didn't say 'get a life', I said you should take a look at life in context of the conversation.

 

---------- Post added 17-04-2013 at 15:36 ----------

 

Ok, I have a little more time so I want to expand a little.

 

Regarding the earlier link I put on to oxford dictionaries online here

 

Definition of war

 

noun

 

[mass noun]

 

a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country:Japan declared war on Germany the two countries were at war for the next eight years [count noun]:I fought in two wars

 

• a state of competition or hostility between different people or groups:she was at war with her parents [count noun]:a price war among tour operators

 

• a sustained campaign against an undesirable situation or activity:the authorities are waging war against smuggling [count noun]:a war on drugs

 

verb (wars, warring, warred)

[no object]

engage in a war:small states warred against each another figurativeconflicting emotions warred within her

 

I want to look at the definition in relation to your earlier claim of what war actually means via your description of warfare.

 

You said

Warfare is prolonged, open, armed combat between different groups/ nations. It requires military tactics (leaders) and payment of the army involved (resources)[/Quote]

 

Where in the definition does it state that it has to be prolonged? Where does it state that it has to be armed? Where does it state it has to have tactics (or indeed leaders), where does it state payment has to be involved?

 

Hence my earlier statement that you're using a limited definition of war, if you used the definition from the Oxford dictionaries site (and I agree btw, it is vitally important to get our definitions correct) it is highly unlikely that your earlier statement of

I'm far more aware than you I'm sure of all the prehistoric cases of infanticide, murder, cannibalism, ritual sacrifice[/Quote] discounts these people from engaging in war.

 

There maybe no evidence of orgnaised warfare, but as the definition of war says there was

a state of competition or hostility between different people or groups[/Quote] I'm sure we cannot discount

infanticide, murder, cannibalism, ritual sacrifice[/Quote] from falling into that category. And I think to suggest all (or even any) of these things took place without a state of competition is incredibly naive and ignores some very basic patterns of human behaviour.

 

As for telling you to 'get a life' as you put it. I said you should 'take a look at life' in reference to the animal kingdom fighting each other for resources. I find your posts quite interesting, even if I do disagree with some of them, I certainly don't think you should abandon your studies and I definately didn't mean to imply you were somehow boring because of them. If that's how it came across I apologise.