Black Britain

[HaarlemShuffler]

Quite enjoying some of the themed programming on the beeb at this time. Good to be reminded that black people have been part of our society for more than a couple of thousand years and that all the recent stuff (Caribbean etc) is but an historic add-on.

For me a telling moment was when the gadgess of Roman expertise (cannae mind her name off hand) told us that the Romans were bastards, aye, and nae strangers to slavery and the like, but they weren't racist about it at all. The colour of someone's skin had nowt to do with their value judgements.

They were practical if nothing else (and ruthless bastards) but they based their civilisation on several key locations in the larger scheme of things - Milan was one, Antioch another I think and one in Turkey and one in N Africa.

We've been annoyingly getting on with each other for centuries, why is it we have another wave of populist and racist(-ish ok,) outbursts now when the economy is going tits up...

... oh aye, the economy is going tits up.

I for one am glad to read that for once in a feckin millenium the Dutch left may have a chance of uniting left (Labour plus Socialist Party) in the face of the umpteenth right wing regime with the outside chance of Wilders (Marine le Pen premium) ending up with the biggest party at the next elections due in March next year.

It's amazing how humanity can ignore the fact that they get on through social and communal cooperation more than they get on through marketing and entrepreneurialism. Both play a big part.

Time for humans to grow a pair. And work together again. Ramble over.

 

[egb_hibs]

Quite enjoying some of the themed programming on the beeb at this time. Good to be reminded that black people have been part of our society for more than a couple of thousand years and that all the recent stuff (Caribbean etc) is but an historic add-on.

For me a telling moment was when the gadgess of Roman expertise (cannae mind her name off hand) told us that the Romans were $#@!s, aye, and nae strangers to slavery and the like, but they weren't racist about it at all. The colour of someone's skin had nowt to do with their value judgements.

They were practical if nothing else (and ruthless $#@!s) but they based their civilisation on several key locations in the larger scheme of things - Milan was one, Antioch another I think and one in Turkey and one in N Africa.

We've been annoyingly getting on with each other for centuries, why is it we have another wave of populist and racist(-ish ok,) outbursts now when the economy is going tits up...

... oh aye, the economy is going tits up.

I for one am glad to read that for once in a feckin millenium the Dutch left may have a chance of uniting left (Labour plus Socialist Party) in the face of the umpteenth right wing regime with the outside chance of Wilders (Marine le Pen premium) ending up with the biggest party at the next elections due in March next year.

It's amazing how humanity can ignore the fact that they get on through social and communal cooperation more than they get on through marketing and entrepreneurialism. Both play a big part.

Time for humans to grow a pair. And work together again. Ramble over.

Didn't see the one about romans et al, but I did enjoy one about the experience of various celebs growing up. I have to say that based on this account it does sound like one of the Beeb's excursions into idealised history. I'm not sure that the romans were all that enlightened because their subordination of others was universal! I think the modern west remains the first (perhaps only, voluntarily) society to abolish slavery first of the in group (although the various socialisms of c20 brought it back for a while), then of the 'other'. Racism exists everywhere of course, or probably more accurately xenophobia, with race theory being a gift of the enlightened era, and nationalism the product of replacing authority of crown and altar with the people and the nation they constitute. The modern conception of racism meanwhile, which scoops up everything from disquiet at cutting out clitorises to questioning race to the bottom globalism, is newer still, and invented in the 1960s university.

I dare say the likes of le pen's rise could indeed be resolved by a Pax Romana. An elite ruling over an empire of subordinated people's would have little need to distinguish between them unless they did not submit. It would have its downsides, mind - although I can see why a metropolitan elite presiding over a proletariat used for labour and sexual chatteldom, throwing Christians to the lions, and crushing Zionists, might appeal to the London smart set. As it is, the best hope for keeping le pen out seems to be the Thatcherite right in France; she's doing very well with the former socialist vote (meaning labour not the professors) as these movements are everywhere (trump is acting like a 1930s democrat). Collectivism depends on defining a collective which is invariably exclusive as well as inclusive. Mind you the French are behind the curve on the whole liberal thing, which has through globalisation and an excess of individualism now brought us full circle.

What examples do you have in mind of free and cooperative societies, that were also mixed? I don't know of a combination of the three apart from our own very recent past - and you could argue that the cooperative bit was weak at least by socialist benchmarks. Afaik what you are referring to has never existed apart from under liberal capitalism in Christian or post Christian societies with those various ingredients forming the synthesis that allowed it (which isn't to say other formulas could not but they haven't yet afaik). The UK and even more the US provide examples of those coming together, with values based opposition to slavery breaking through when industrialisation had weakened the economic demand for it and so the racism used to rationalise it (hence the stark division between the industrialising Yankee north and agrarian south).

 

[HaarlemShuffler]

Well seen you never went tae' Burdie primary

Cheers

Aye, Tin Huts then St Kaff's was good enough for me!

Didn't see the one about romans et al, but I did enjoy one about the experience of various celebs growing up. I have to say that based on this account it does sound like one of the Beeb's excursions into idealised history. I'm not sure that the romans were all that enlightened because their subordination of others was universal! I think the modern west remains the first (perhaps only, voluntarily) society to abolish slavery first of the in group (although the various socialisms of c20 brought it back for a while), then of the 'other'. Racism exists everywhere of course, or probably more accurately xenophobia, with race theory being a gift of the enlightened era, and nationalism the product of replacing authority of crown and altar with the people and the nation they constitute. The modern conception of racism meanwhile, which scoops up everything from disquiet at cutting out clitorises to questioning race to the bottom globalism, is newer still, and invented in the 1960s university.

It probably was a bit idealised but then every historian's version of the past is subjective in many ways. I also have to say right away that I was not praising the Romans for being non-racist, they certainly were in some cases, and we can see from their name for them what they thought of the Barbarians.

The main point was that it was not a thing of all ages to be racist; not a natural way to be in a big civilisation, one of the greatest there has ever been.

I dare say the likes of le pen's rise could indeed be resolved by a Pax Romana. An elite ruling over an empire of subordinated people's would have little need to distinguish between them unless they did not submit. It would have its downsides, mind - although I can see why a metropolitan elite presiding over a proletariat used for labour and sexual chatteldom, throwing Christians to the lions, and crushing Zionists, might appeal to the London smart set. As it is, the best hope for keeping le pen out seems to be the Thatcherite right in France; she's doing very well with the former socialist vote (meaning labour not the professors) as these movements are everywhere (trump is acting like a 1930s democrat). Collectivism depends on defining a collective which is invariably exclusive as well as inclusive. Mind you the French are behind the curve on the whole liberal thing, which has through globalisation and an excess of individualism now brought us full circle.

As intimated above I am not holding the Romans up as an example for right or left wing politics of this age. The programme showed how there were black people at the time of the Romans in Britain who had lived their whole lives in (f.e.) S. England; they were of African race but locally brought up (some smart professor proved this by examining her teeth which contain traces of local plants in them apparently).

What examples do you have in mind of free and cooperative societies, that were also mixed? I don't know of a combination of the three apart from our own very recent past - and you could argue that the cooperative bit was weak at least by socialist benchmarks. Afaik what you are referring to has never existed apart from under liberal capitalism in Christian or post Christian societies with those various ingredients forming the synthesis that allowed it (which isn't to say other formulas could not but they haven't yet afaik). The UK and even more the US provide examples of those coming together, with values based opposition to slavery breaking through when industrialisation had weakened the economic demand for it and so the racism used to rationalise it (hence the stark division between the industrialising Yankee north and agrarian south).

I am thinking of the way things were before big civilisation, and before the whole of the Earth's surface had been explored. Humans always depended on cooperation for hunting and later farming to ensure survival. Only when it came to the last millenium or two and the birth and flourishing of big cities did we see the 'merits' of market economies, first with provision at the gates of the city where new specialists arose, selling each their own speciality, later in the cities themselves in shops, and still later in the creation of the first trading floor markets.

It's a bit like digitalisation: things got more efficient but the efficiency did away with a lot of other livelihooods and a fair bit of common socialisation amongst folk as they began to work on their own at their own speciality.

Coming back to the programme itself, the guy presenting it certainly seemed to provide enough evidence that what he was saying was true and he showed paintings, for example, from times when we would only expect pictures of rich business barons or nobility, with black people in them, some in foreground, others more tellingly as incidentals in the background and no less convincing for that.

 

[egb_hibs]

Pre-history was the most violent era in human history as well as when we evolved our charming in / out group mentality. The noble savage fantasy has not stood up to the evidence.

As one example, I recently read an interesting article about a wide ranging study that looked at the history of violence and compared it to primate behaviour.

Over time humans have murdered each other at pretty much the same rate as 'murder' is found among higher apes - it's only come down from that within higher civilisation...which has produced large scale warfare on the other side of the balance sheet.

It sometimes seems to me that a secular age has seen a paradoxical rise in the view of mankind as somehow outside of nature; we are not. Indeed it seems to me that our great achievement is in curtailing bloodshed versus our failure to do that completely being a justification for the kind 'I hate humanity sometimes' response to our many horrors (which I'm not attributing to you, just to be clear). The same goes for in group / out group mentality and our rising above it.

 

[HaarlemShuffler]

Pre-history was the most violent era in human history as well as when we evolved our charming in / out group mentality. The noble savage fantasy has not stood up to the evidence.

For shame Egb, even you must see the illogicality of the bold statement! We don't know about pre-history, well not much anyway. And the time I was on about is between 5 and one thousand years ago, although that varies as to where on the planet you are talking about. Some tribes are quite peaceful sorts and went along in that way for many centuries sometimes before others intervened. Others are never happier than when they are hacking someone's head off and shrinking it for posterity or luck.

As one example, I recently read an interesting article about a wide ranging study that looked at the history of violence and compared it to primate behaviour.

Over time humans have murdered each other at pretty much the same rate as 'murder' is found among higher apes - it's only come down from that within higher civilisation...which has produced large scale warfare on the other side of the balance sheet.

Again with the proviso that we can only look at the last few thousand years for evidence in living animals, no doubt there is truth in what you say. And with the numbers of humans on the planet nowadays, the pressure ain't gonna stop anytime soon afa evolution v civilisation is concerned.

It sometimes seems to me that a secular age has seen a paradoxical rise in the view of mankind as somehow outside of nature; we are not. Indeed it seems to me that our great achievement is in curtailing bloodshed versus our failure to do that completely being a justification for the kind 'I hate humanity sometimes' response to our many horrors (which I'm not attributing to you, just to be clear). The same goes for in group / out group mentality and our rising above it.

Yes, no-one is saying that the world is a fair place or that humans are equally capable of great and awful acts. The only way I can see things going is the hive mind based on better and better connectivity between machine and humans collectively. The hope will then be that this collective consciousness might be able to combat some of the more obvious problems and blights of this time.

Unfortunately, that - as the Dutch say - is music of the future....

 

[Dub]

For shame Egb, even you must see the illogicality of the bold statement! We don't know about pre-history, well not much anyway. And the time I was on about is between 5 and one thousand years ago, although that varies as to where on the planet you are talking about. Some tribes are quite peaceful sorts and went along in that way for many centuries sometimes before others intervened. Others are never happier than when they are hacking someone's head off and shrinking it for posterity or luck.


Again with the proviso that we can only look at the last few thousand years for evidence in living animals, no doubt there is truth in what you say. And with the numbers of humans on the planet nowadays, the pressure ain't gonna stop anytime soon afa evolution v civilisation is concerned.


Yes, no-one is saying that the world is a fair place or that humans are equally capable of great and awful acts. The only way I can see things going is the hive mind based on better and better connectivity between machine and humans collectively. The hope will then be that this collective consciousness might be able to combat some of the more obvious problems and blights of this time.

Unfortunately, that - as the Dutch say - is music of the future....

Something like this

 

[egb_hibs]

For shame Egb, even you must see the illogicality of the bold statement! We don't know about pre-history, well not much anyway. And the time I was on about is between 5 and one thousand years ago, although that varies as to where on the planet you are talking about. Some tribes are quite peaceful sorts and went along in that way for many centuries sometimes before others intervened. Others are never happier than when they are hacking someone's head off and shrinking it for posterity or luck.

we don't have recorded history in pre history, i.e. We don't know that Ug the elder twatted gunt the ugly for being an ugly gunt (though if he didn't he should have) but iirc we do have archeological evidence which suggest (through injuries to bones) a lot higher levels of violence than any time since. Most (but not all - sure I once read about one with no outgroup rivalry that didn't wasn't regularly at war) Stone Age tribes still around today have high incidences of violence as well.

Keen to learn more specifics about where you have in mind 5000 - 1000 years ago which takes us well into the realm of history.

Again with the proviso that we can only look at the last few thousand years for evidence in living animals, no doubt there is truth in what you say. And with the numbers of humans on the planet nowadays, the pressure ain't gonna stop anytime soon afa evolution v civilisation is concerned.


Yes, no-one is saying that the world is a fair place or that humans are equally capable of great and awful acts. The only way I can see things going is the hive mind based on better and better connectivity between machine and humans collectively. The hope will then be that this collective consciousness might be able to combat some of the more obvious problems and blights of this time.

Unfortunately, that - as the Dutch say - is music of the future....

dont see the hive mind as a very attractive goal I have to say, it's kind of the ultimate totalitarian vision. I think there are reasons to be hopeful that warfare may one day dwindle if sufficient prosperity is achieved but 'social violence' is almost certainly destined always to be with us.

Ps here's an article on homicidal primates

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/...ammals-but-averagely-violent-primates/501935/

 

[gun ainm]

we don't have recorded history in pre history

my understanding of the development of human societies was that by and large population pressures (and competition for resources between tribes) gradually escalated after the neolithic (transition to a farming economy)? The industrial age ramped things up another level. mesolithic societies were undoubtedly violent but I don't think wars or intertribal conflict was the norm? This articles summarises some interesting research on the matter LINK and the debate around whether 'advanced' state societies are inherently more (or less) prone to violence. its interesting but I don't think we can be definitive either way at that level. What we can probably do more reasonably is look at what characteristics make a modern state or society more and less likely to be 'violent'. Putin, Trump and le Pen represent a very worrying direction of travel for the 'west' in that regard. They are examples of the capacity of people to delude themselves, avoiding fundamental truths by scapegoating and false promises. Its all going to go t!ts up pretty soon.

 

[egb_hibs]

[MENTION=325]gun ainm[/MENTION]

Not sure industrialisation marked an uptick. We naturally think of ww1 and ww2 and the mass slaughter enabled by technology. However if you look outside the west those kind of horrendous numbers are not unusual, sadly. While we have far better data for the world wars, higher end estimates for the mongol conquests, Muslim invasion of India, any number of Chinese wars (the history of which is enough to turn your hair white) and others are comparable or higher. In western terms the conquest of the Americas is up there too although that also has factors like the inadvertent introduction of diseases to which native Americans had no immunity - with catastrophic results.

While I think that people like Simon pinker - who I understand has argued we have adapted to be less violent- are a bit optimistic, there seems little doubt that over time we have in practice become so in terms of wars. Violence within society would be another matter though again I think the same tendencies prevail but are probably influenced by a different mix of factors.

The rise of the nationalism is a big worry and may test how durable some of our recent (relative) peacefulness will prove to be. Again though it's a western yardstick - the rest of the world is still a lot more red in tooth and claw, and without western influence (and, frankly, force) would doubtless be more so.

This is why I voted remain - globalism may suck but the other side of the equation is its contribution to peace.

 

[gun ainm]

[MENTION=325]gun ainm[/MENTION]

Not sure industrialisation marked an uptick. We naturally think of ww1 and ww2 and the mass slaughter enabled by technology. However if you look outside the west those kind of horrendous numbers are not unusual, sadly. While we have far better data for the world wars, higher estimates for the mongol conquests, Muslim invasion of India, any number of Chinese wars (the history of which is enough to turn your hair white) and others are comparable or higher. In western terms the conquest of the Americas is up there too although that also has factors like the inadvertent introduction of diseases to which native Americans had no immunity - with catastrophic results.

While I think that people like Simon pinker - who I understand has argued we have adapted to be less violent- are a bit optimistic, there seems little doubt that over time we have in practice become so in terms of wars. Violence within society would be another matter though again I think the same tendencies prevail but are probably influenced by a different mix of factors.

The rise of the nationalism is a big worry and may test how durable some of our recent (relative) peacefulness will prove to be. Again though it's a western yardstick - the rest of the world is still a lot more red in tooth and claw, and without western influence (and, frankly, force) would doubtless be more so.

This is why I voted remain - globalism may suck but the other side of the equation is its contribution to peace.

i'd say its premature to claim we've pacified but lets not labour the point. with regards your last point surely its not a binary proposition? I admit there has been a failure to articulate exactly what that may be (particularly on the left) but its up to us all to do so now. what other option is there?

 

[egb_hibs]

Ps even in years parallel with ww2 22-25 million civilians were killed in the war between china and Japan. Out east they never really had the qualms about massacring civilians which pertained imperfectly in Christendom. That all imploded in the thirty years war which is the only western example I can think of prior to the total war of ww2, where a European war has been conducted with the horrific abandon and scale of points east.

- - - Updated - - -

i'd say its premature to claim we've pacified but lets not labour the point. with regards your last point surely its not a binary proposition? I admit there has been a failure to articulate exactly what that may be (particularly on the left) but its up to us all to do so now. what other option is there?

Don't understand the question R? What's not a binary position? If you mean globalism, I agree - that was my intended point, it has upsides and downsides.

 

[gun ainm]

Don't understand the question R? What's not a binary position? If you mean globalism, I agree - that was my intended point, it has upsides and downsides.

sorry dude - i meant the 'choice' between the emergent new nationalism and the neo-liberal orthodoxy which has driven globalisation. that looked to be the proposition during the referendum if you listened to either of the campaigns, neither an attractive option for me (and i'd assume many others). in the end i too voted remain because I felt it was the least bad option, one of the reasons why i not really a fan of referenda (unless it delivers what I want c'mon yes2 ;P)

 

[egb_hibs]

sorry dude - i meant the 'choice' between the emergent new nationalism and the neo-liberal orthodoxy which has driven globalisation. that looked to be the proposition during the referendum if you listened to either of the campaigns, neither an attractive option for me (and i'd assume many others). in the end i too voted remain because I felt it was the least bad option, one of the reasons why i not really a fan of referenda (unless it delivers what I want c'mon yes2 ;P)

i do think there is a choice but the centre left and right have rejected it. Indeed it's been a bit of a theme of mine over the years - if the mainstream don't address globalism and bonkers pc excesses then someone else will. And lo it has come to pass - the Ctrl left have resulted in the alt right and globalisation has cut loose a lot of the presumed captive votes which gave the liberal left power.