1 posted on
09/16/2003 5:33:48 PM PDT by
blam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
To: blam
I always knew it was the Village People.
2 posted on
09/16/2003 5:34:36 PM PDT by
xJones
To: blam
It takes a village or two to fight a war.
3 posted on
09/16/2003 5:34:53 PM PDT by
jwalsh07
To: blam
It takes a village.
4 posted on
09/16/2003 5:35:01 PM PDT by
Paul Atreides
(Bringing you quality, non-unnecessarily-excerpted threads since 2002)
To: blam
In other words, the collective, not the individual, causes wars.
Remember that the next time some liberal whines about the greater good, it takes a village, etc.
To: blam
Scientists also say that "something came from nothing" or words to that effect!
6 posted on
09/16/2003 5:35:50 PM PDT by
Radix
To: blam
Burn the village! Then you don't need to raise the children.
Isn't this "statement" about like saying "When it rains, people will get wet!"? A chicken with the brain the size of a pea knows to walk under shelter.
8 posted on
09/16/2003 5:37:47 PM PDT by
Malsua
To: blam
The sad thing is that someone actually paid for a study to tell them this.
I mean I am no Anthropologist here but DUH PEOPLE !
Any amature student of human nature could have told them this.
Cheers,
knews hound
10 posted on
09/16/2003 5:39:21 PM PDT by
knews_hound
(Out of the NIC ,into the Router, out to the Cloud....Nothing but 'Net)
To: vikingchick
And so began the 'tribal' mentality..... ;)
11 posted on
09/16/2003 5:41:52 PM PDT by
BossLady
To: blam
This is why I could never be a member of the academic elite. I simply don't have the cognitive sense to figure this out on my own. It's a good thing these superior beings study these things and come to these conclusions or I just wouldn't be able to function in this elite world of ours./sarc/
12 posted on
09/16/2003 5:45:22 PM PDT by
TADSLOS
(Right Wing Infidel since 1954)
To: blam
, no evidence of warfare emerges from the region. Of course none emerges: what if not building stricture could surviver to this day to indicate the warfare?
The very proposition does not seem to be bright: animals have warfare. This "theory" seems more of the Leftist mantra: no "stratificaton" (read: equality) --- no warfare. Peace on earth, now and forever.
14 posted on
09/16/2003 5:46:29 PM PDT by
TopQuark
To: blam
...And, in totally unrelated news, rain began after the sky formed clouds!
I hope we didn't pay too much for this "scienist" to reach this particular conclusion(?)
18 posted on
09/16/2003 5:52:21 PM PDT by
The Duke
To: blam
Just what kind of archaeological evidence would you need for Cain killing Abel?
There isn't going to be much evidence for warfare before buildings were built.
21 posted on
09/16/2003 6:03:52 PM PDT by
TruthConquers
("Who will liberate us from these tyrants of secularist tolerance?")
To: blam
In Mexico? That's impossible! EVERYONE knows that the people of the New World lived in peace and in harmony with the environment until the white man came.
I guess the arrival of whitey will now have to be re-dated for an arrival to match with the data.
Maybe this will allow the study of Kennewick Man.
To: blam
One wonders if it might ever occur to the leaned scholors who put this piece together that finding
"archaeological remains of burning homes, fleeing refugees and slain captives [that] show simple raids steadily maturing into full-scale warfare as humans settled into villages and society became more stratified."
Might be in large part due to the obscure theory that all those things are much easier to FIND in a village?
Clashes between roving bands who slept on different ground every couple of days might leave behind a bone or two, some wrought weaponry (a rock that fits) and maybe a defilade showing three hunters and their dog made a stand. I really doubt anyone built a hut in order to memorialize having theie bison carcass stolen.
30 posted on
09/16/2003 6:48:44 PM PDT by
norton
To: blam
Tribal warfare is still going on in Africa, no need to speculate on what made villiages go to war when you can observe it first hand.
32 posted on
09/16/2003 6:53:56 PM PDT by
Rome2000
(Vote McNader and Bustamante wins)
To: blam
But wait... I thought.... IT TAKES A VILLIAGE!
34 posted on
09/16/2003 6:54:56 PM PDT by
PISANO
To: blam
35 posted on
09/16/2003 6:56:00 PM PDT by
Revolting cat!
(I'm more ignorant than you, you wanna a bet?!)
To: blam
The Villagers
36 posted on
09/16/2003 6:59:09 PM PDT by
Revolting cat!
(I'm more ignorant than you, you wanna a bet?!)
To: blam
I heard chimps also indulge in warfare but they don't have villages. Nomadic people also fight from time to time. You don't need villagers for a good rumble.
To: blam
Two anthropologists from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, suggest that although people could have come into conflict before civilization, archaeological remains of burning homes, fleeing refugees and slain captives show simple raids steadily maturing into full-scale warfare as humans settled into villages and society became more stratified. Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that it's sort of difficult to burn down a cave. Lord save us from the intellectuals.....
40 posted on
09/16/2003 7:10:59 PM PDT by
The Toad
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson