Oh my. That sounds exactly like BNP. The parallels are quite obvious – at that time the English were a starving band of immigrants, present only at the pleasure of the local government, barely able to stay alive and hovering in their own little ghettos. The modern term for what Metacom was trying to do is ethnic cleansing. You may (completely ahistorically) imagine that the Englsih were some mighty colonizing force, sweeping all before them, but that simply doesn’t square with the facts of the situation in the seventeenth century in North America. The modern term for that is White Supremacy.

“Reading up on the Iriquois, I noted that at their height the Iriqouis are stated to have numbered 12,000. Yep, 12,000. I think only the Vatican has a smaller number of citizens than that – kind of puts your comments in context I think.”

Actually that puts your comments in context. Estimates of Native American population figures are notoriously shaky. They are basically baseless, and beyond that tendentious; they appear intended to show that since there were so few of these people, the land was basically empty, so the whites were basically right in coming in and taking. And that’s the line you are repeating here.

BTW, what was the population of London during the same period – 1150-1700? Equally easy to dismiss as inconsequentially small?

Yes, they reacted violently and with alarm once they realised that the Europeans were there to take their land and treat them like second class citizens.

Reading up on the Iriquois, I noted that at their height the Iriqouis are stated to have numbered 12,000. Yep, 12,000. I think only the Vatican has a smaller number of citizens than that – kind of puts your comments in context I think.

Got it. I agree there. Industrial-scale warfare pretty much requires an industrial state to wage it, though a few well-organized horsemen can come pretty close to the same effect. The Mongols flattened Baghdad about as effectively as the Brits flattened Dresden. But the Mongols were anomalous; that’s one reason that they were so successful in the first place.

“However, one notes how helpful and co-operative they tended to be towards the original settlers. ”

When they weren’t being unhelpful. The Wampanoag under Massasoit welcomed the English at Plymouth, and the under his son Metacom tried to exterminate them when they had become too numerous. Nick Griffin would understand perfectly. Something similar happened in Virginia.

And it’s not evry useful to lump Native americans inot one group and Europeans into anojter. For instance, one way the the Objibwe and the Huron were “helpful” to the French was in wiping out English settlements. and this was total war – male captives were tortured as public entertainment rather than being held for ransom as in Europe, civilians were slaughtered so the winners could settle the land, except for the children and those women who were kidnapped to become slaves or perhaps eventually members of society they found themsleve in. In fact a prpensity to tiorture and a preference for total war as a default setting are a major contribution of Native Americans to general American culture, right down to the present day.

“Jim, atomism, too, was an Athenian invention but it doesn’t mean that Leucippus and Epicurus could have walked into Rutherford’s laboratory and solved his equations for him.”

Yes, but poor analogy. Your point si that the concept of democracy has developed. Well yes, but that development is very recent and may really just be semantic decay. As recently two hundred years ago demoocracy was still a synonym for mob-rule, at least in America, and seen as probably the shortest path to tyranny.

“What have you given us, sir?”

“A republic, if you can keep it!”

That’s what Franklin had to say on the subject.

1. I was never denying that violence and conflict have been part of human society since the year dot. The issue is whether that has always been conducted with the ferocity and consistency that warfare demands. The historical and archeological record suggests no – particularly not when the human population was much lower and competition for resources much less.

2. The Native Americans of what is now the USA were in a very strange position following the beginning of European colonisation. However, one notes how helpful and co-operative they tended to be towards the original settlers.

The Native Americans’ way of life was completely disrupted by the arrival of Europeans. As you no doubt know, the horse was a European introduction. Once it was mastered by NAtive Americans, violent raiding became a much more common phenomenon.

“Democratic norms’” vary depending on who defines them. If I define freedom of speech as a democratci norm, where does that leave most european polities?

Tribes – it is at least a litlte ….um, problematic to characterize the Five Nations as a tribe as opposed to European states. Let’s just leave it at that.

“However, I shall read up on the Iriquois.”

Good. You will find that the last ttwo of your conditions:

“I think it was clear in context that I was referring to democratic states with a free media, rule of law, regular elections etc. ”

Applied to them. Aspects of their Constituion foreshadowed ours, although theirs wasn’t written, which is no hindrance, is it?

“The facts are against you. Let’s leave the Iroquois out of this.
In terms of the last 100 years, ”

That’s narrowing the field way down form the sweeping claims you made earlier. Well, that’s progress.

“In the last 65 years peace has reigned between the two countries and they have even united in a strong and peaceful union. ”

Not a good example to support your argument. For 45 of those years the US and the Soviet Union policed that peace, in effect. So far they have gone 18 years without butchering each other, which is a long time for Europeans. Best of luck to them both.

“Obedience in stressful situations is at the very heart of a war machine. The new soldier is being made to obey commands and thus disobey his emotions – whether they be empathy, pity, disgust, the urge to flight, the urge to surrender or change sides. ”

Do you get your understanding of war from comic books?

Obedience in stressful situations is the very heart of all sorts of stessful situations, some of which have nothing to do with war. The standard of discipline on a merchant vessel is at least as strict as in any military unit.

“The new soldier is being made to obey commands and thus disobey his emotions ”

Non sequitur. What basis to have for asserting that the orders don’t accord with the soldier’s emotions? You have none because you can have no real idea of what his emotions are, can you?

“….whether they be empathy, pity, disgust, the urge to flight, the urge to surrender or change sides. ”

Empathy with whom? His fellows or the enemy that is trying to kill him? Are you really serious? Do you mean to say that a soldier’s emotions are going to be based on equal love and concern for all people without distinction? Study after study shows that the over-riding concern of most soldiers is a horror at letting down their buddies, and that this can even lead to atrocities committed against explict orders. That’s the “disgust” that the soldier feels.

“I was referring to what the archeological record shows.”

That’s a methodical error right there. As the saying goes “Not all possums are born dead by the side of the road.” Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Bottom line – warfare didn’t start with the Neolithic.

“Warfare developed as a consequence of the neolithic revolution which led to a huge population explosion and the creation of states with agricultural surpluses which could maintain large armies, even standing armies. ”

You don’t need a standing army to mount devasting wars – the Cheyenne and Lakota managed very well as hunter-gatherers, and the Comanche even better. They very nearly prevented to formation of the state of Texas. The Tlingit conducted slave raids as far south as the mouth of the Columbia and were feared all up and down the coast.

In New Guinea people mange to fight continually with very small forces.

“I don’t know what schoolyard you went to but I don’t remember the playground being littered with the dead and wounded. ”

Columbine? Paducah, Pearlsboro…..?

“”In fact what I remember most was not all out war but cliques, tribes and lots of co-operative effort.”

Ah. you think there is some kind of opposition between conflcit and cooperative effort. in fact they are two sides of the same effort. People cooperate in groups for the purpose of conflict with other groups.

“Of course things have changed more recently – fights between teenagers certainly have become more murderous – but that just shows it has been a cultural change, not a genetic one. ”

The change has been the availability of deadlier weapons. The contention that it is a change of motive is undemonstrated, at least here. It is moot to debate whether the motive is cultural or genetic, since it is the genetic nature of humans to generate culture, and the cultures we generate are limited by our biology.

“By the standards of its own time, of course, very much so. ”

Joe, the point was that the standards of that time are every bit as valid to defining democracy as the standards of this time are. In the case of democracy, the standards of that time are probably more valid that ours are since “democracy” is an Athenian invention and the word an Athenian coinage.

“No, field, that is not the point of basic training. The point of basic training is to get people organized, to form so thay they can operate in organizations, to do thier killing. You seem to think that humans are nt naturally efficient kiling machines. On the contrary, humans kill very efficiently and they show a propensity to this from a very early age. If you doubt this, go spend some time on a schoolyard.”

Obedience in stressful situations is at the very heart of a war machine. The new soldier is being made to obey commands and thus disobey his emotions – whether they be empathy, pity, disgust, the urge to flight, the urge to surrender or change sides.

I don’t know what schoolyard you went to but I don’t remember the playground being littered with the dead and wounded. In fact what I remember most was not all out war but cliques, tribes and lots of co-operative effort. Very few people wanted to fight and those that did fight usually did so ineffectively. Of course things have changed more recently – fights between teenagers certainly have become more murderous – but that just shows it has been a cultural change, not a genetic one.

“This depends on your definition of what constitutes “organized”. Gangs and clans are not states by any real defintion and they carry on wars that last for generations.”

I was referring to what the archeological record shows. Warfare developed as a consequence of the neolithic revolution which led to a huge population explosion and the creation of states with agricultural surpluses which could maintain large armies, even standing armies. Of course there was aggression and there were violent clashes before but they were probably not much more sophisticated than the sort of “battles” you get between bands of chimps whose paths cross.

“I can think of one big example without even thinking very hard – the Five Nations (Iroquois) were the premier military machine in eastern North America for several centuries, and by any measure that society was a fully democratic republic. This is hardly some obscure example either; Iroquois patronage and protection were crucial to the survival of English > British colonies in North America.”

I think it was clear in context that I was referring to democratic states with a free media, rule of law, regular elections etc. It is not uncommon for tribes to “elect” their leaders, but I doubt they meet many other democratic norms. However, I shall read up on the Iriquois.

“Here is your problem in a nutshell: you seem to think there is some sharp dichotomy between democracies and tyrannies. The fact is that the more democratic a republic becomes, the easier it becomes for someone to stir up the mob and become a tyrant. War is a perfect example of this – the minute you give noncombatants the vote, the easier it is to get approval for wars – see the Iroquois above, where women not only had the vote but had significant institutional power. They themselves risked almost nothing in a war, so they were quite willing over and over to send their men off on wars in all directions for the plunder they would bring back.”

The facts are against you. Let’s leave the Iroquois out of this.
In terms of the last 100 years, and in terms of states recognised in international law here is a list of tyrannies, monarchies or dictatorships warring with each other or democracies that I can think of:-

Imperial Russia, Soviet Union, Austro-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Japan under Imperial rule, Mao’s China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Paraguay, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Argentina, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Kampuchea, Honduras, Greece, Egypt, Indonesia, Libya, Morocco.

Democracies versus democracies:-

Well I can’t think of one unless you are going to include the Cod War between the UK and Iceland.

I suppose one can note that the democracies with empires did engage in armed conflict to suppress the peoples of those Empires. But in a sense that makes my point as well – that is a case where democracies were wearing two faces: democracies at home and tyrannies abroad.

“The solution to war is to eradicate humans.”

France and Germany engaged in three major wars between 1870 and 1939, just short of 70 years. There had been numberless wars between French and German states for hundreds of years before that.

In the last 65 years peace has reigned between the two countries and they have even united in a strong and peaceful union. It is simply not credible to think that if these two countries maintain their democratic constitutions they will ever go to war again.

There will be conflicts but conflicts can be contained, as they usually are in life.