Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Lies They Told You About Civilization

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:03:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Some people seem to make an assumption that without a state, we would collapse back into being hunter gatherers. However, stateless, organized societies existed for 6000 years in Mesopotamia before the state emerged. Evidence from Catal Huyuk, the Samarran Period, the Halafian Period, and the Ubaid period in Mesopotamian history signify that prior to the emergence of the state, people successfully organized themselves into complex cultures, advanced technology, and conducted long distance trade. Even during Mesopotamian's state period, it was trading with stateless societies. Lapis lazuli products from Queen Puabi's tomb at Ur were imported from Afghanistan, which had not yet organized into a state yet still was able to produce luxury goods. This indicates that during the Uruk period, Afghanistanis had a division of labor and were conducting long-distance trade without a state.

So, given that organized stateless cultures have existed for longer than state-cultures, why do people claim that states are necessary to prevent us from collapsing back into hunter-gatherer societies?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:20:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Although I'm an anarchist, it's good to note that historical stateless societies don't really say much about the present since they had nothing in the way of technology or communication. In one way or another, it would be a hell of a lot different today if the government were to be eliminated.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:24:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"
Even though the Indus River Valley civilization's government is somewhat of a mystery, we do know that they had some what of a central government, because of the lay out of the city that was so much the same between all of the cities.

We know very little about India's government. Perhaps the undeciphered seals that have been found in many places will be the key to this.
They did have Rajahs which were the rulers of the cities. Perhaps they could have combined their systems to have one central government. Also religion was a big part of how things operated."
http://www.kidsnewsroom.org...

The Indus Valley civilization was spread out over 1,260,000 km", and Afganistan was one of their colonies. Later semi-nomadic central Asians began to migrate to Afganistan as well.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:28:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:20:08 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Although I'm an anarchist, it's good to note that historical stateless societies don't really say much about the present since they had nothing in the way of technology or communication. In one way or another, it would be a hell of a lot different today if the government were to be eliminated.

The standardization of pottery over vasts swaths of land in the Samarran period as well as long-distance trade indicates that they did communicate well.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:29:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:24:00 AM, DanT wrote:
"
Even though the Indus River Valley civilization's government is somewhat of a mystery, we do know that they had some what of a central government, because of the lay out of the city that was so much the same between all of the cities.

We know very little about India's government. Perhaps the undeciphered seals that have been found in many places will be the key to this.
They did have Rajahs which were the rulers of the cities. Perhaps they could have combined their systems to have one central government. Also religion was a big part of how things operated."
http://www.kidsnewsroom.org...

The Indus Valley civilization was spread out over 1,260,000 km", and Afganistan was one of their colonies. Later semi-nomadic central Asians began to migrate to Afganistan as well.

Your source offers no proof that Afghanistan was a colony of the Harappan civilization, and I am fairly certain that Ur rose before the Indus Valley Civilization anyways, so even if Afghanistan was a colony, your argument is irrelevant.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 11:13:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:29:43 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/26/2013 8:24:00 AM, DanT wrote:
"
Even though the Indus River Valley civilization's government is somewhat of a mystery, we do know that they had some what of a central government, because of the lay out of the city that was so much the same between all of the cities.

We know very little about India's government. Perhaps the undeciphered seals that have been found in many places will be the key to this.
They did have Rajahs which were the rulers of the cities. Perhaps they could have combined their systems to have one central government. Also religion was a big part of how things operated."
http://www.kidsnewsroom.org...

The Indus Valley civilization was spread out over 1,260,000 km", and Afganistan was one of their colonies. Later semi-nomadic central Asians began to migrate to Afganistan as well.

Your source offers no proof that Afghanistan was a colony of the Harappan civilization
"Around five thousand years ago, an important civilization developed on the Indus River floodplain. From about 2600 B.C. to 1700 B.C. a vast number of settlements were built on the banks of the Indus River and surrounding areas. These settlements cover a remarkable region, almost 1.25 million kilometres of land which is today part of Afghanistan, Pakistan and north-western India. "
http://www.ancientindia.co.uk...

and I am fairly certain that Ur rose before the Indus Valley Civilization anyways, so even if Afghanistan was a colony, your argument is irrelevant.
Ur was a Sumerian city state. I'm pretty well versed in ancient Sumerian history. Your proof was that Afghanistan was stateless not that Ur was stateless; if Ur existed before Afghanistan, it neither proves nor disproves anything about a stateless society.

Nin Puabi lived in the first Dynasty of Ur, about 2600 BC. Afghanistan was part of the Indus Valley culture since around the 3rd millennia BC, and around 2nd millennia BC a semi-nomadic people migrated to Afghanistan from central Asia.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 11:32:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:28:45 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/26/2013 8:20:08 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Although I'm an anarchist, it's good to note that historical stateless societies don't really say much about the present since they had nothing in the way of technology or communication. In one way or another, it would be a hell of a lot different today if the government were to be eliminated.

The standardization of pottery over vasts swaths of land in the Samarran period as well as long-distance trade indicates that they did communicate well.

The Samarran culture existed from roughly the 55th century to the 48th century BC, which served as a precursor for the Ubaid culture. The Ubaid culture lasted until about the 38th century BC when it was replaced by the Uruk culture. The Sumerian civilization was born out of the Uruk culture. The First Sumerian Dynasty of Uruk arose around the 29th century BC. Around the 26th or 25th century BC King Mesannepada started the 1st Ur Dynasty. Nin Puabi was from the 1st Ur dynasty of the Sumerian culture, not the Samarran culture.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 11:38:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:03:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Some people seem to make an assumption that without a state, we would collapse back into being hunter gatherers. However, stateless, organized societies existed for 6000 years in Mesopotamia before the state emerged. Evidence from Catal Huyuk, the Samarran Period, the Halafian Period, and the Ubaid period in Mesopotamian history signify that prior to the emergence of the state, people successfully organized themselves into complex cultures, advanced technology, and conducted long distance trade. Even during Mesopotamian's state period, it was trading with stateless societies. Lapis lazuli products from Queen Puabi's tomb at Ur were imported from Afghanistan, which had not yet organized into a state yet still was able to produce luxury goods. This indicates that during the Uruk period, Afghanistanis had a division of labor and were conducting long-distance trade without a state.

So, given that organized stateless cultures have existed for longer than state-cultures, why do people claim that states are necessary to prevent us from collapsing back into hunter-gatherer societies?

tl; dr: Tribes existed for a long time before states so states aren't necessary. Have I got that right?

If you would accept a debate (after I'm done with my current one), I'd be happy to educate you on the fundamental sociological and economic differences in a modern society that make politics necessary, but all the conservatives and fascists would votebomb you. So I won't bother. :)
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 11:40:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Sumerians referred to the Indus Valley as Meluhha
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 11:50:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:28:45 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/26/2013 8:20:08 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Although I'm an anarchist, it's good to note that historical stateless societies don't really say much about the present since they had nothing in the way of technology or communication. In one way or another, it would be a hell of a lot different today if the government were to be eliminated.

The standardization of pottery over vasts swaths of land in the Samarran period as well as long-distance trade indicates that they did communicate well.

I think he meant communication as in across the globe in seconds, not vast swaths of land over decades. He also mentioned technology as a factor.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...