Posted on 04/18/2014 6:29:51 PM PDT by RoosterRedux
There are four parts to the case I will make. The first is that by fighting wars, people have created larger, more organized societies that have reduced the risk that their members will die violently.
This observation rests on one of the major findings of archaeologists and anthropologists over the last century: that Stone Age societies were typically tiny. Chiefly because of the challenges of finding food, people lived in bands of a few dozen, villages of a few hundred, or (very occasionally) towns of a few thousand members. These communities did not need much in the way of internal organization and tended to live on terms of suspicion or even hostility with outsiders.
*SNIP*
My second claim is that while war is the worst imaginable way to create larger, more peaceful societies, it is pretty much the only way humans have found. “Lord knows, there’s got to be a better way,” Edwin Starr sang, but apparently there isn’t. If the Roman Empire could have been created without killing millions of Gauls and Greeks, if the United States could have been built without killing millions of Native Americans—in these cases and countless others, if conflicts could have been resolved by discussion instead of force, humanity could have had the benefits of larger societies without paying such a high cost. But that did not happen. It is a depressing thought, but the evidence again seems clear. People hardly ever give up their freedom, including their rights to kill and impoverish each other, unless forced to do so, and virtually the only force strong enough to bring this about has been defeat in war or fear that such a defeat is imminent.
(Excerpt) Read more at defenseone.com ...
War is also good at disabusing the idea that people are basically good
In my experience, the good of men comes to the surface in danger. They care about each other only when life becomes precious.
Well, we can eliminate Chamberlain.
I believe much is solved by violence.
When we are willing to fight for what we believe and what we want.
Society changes...and obeys.
It arises when it wants and then we are drawn into it.
I am afraid that it comes again...and we must get ready.
Yes, it is horrible. But it is real.
Millions of Gauls and Greeks? Millions of Native Americans? Well, so much for credibility Morris.
While it's obvious that we as a society simply do not have the stomach for it, the best response to terrorism is to launch such a devastating blow to societies that harbor terrorists that whenever any fool even talks about attacking us, his own mother will spit in his face.
Don't just whine...state your point.
Ahem!
Considerably fewer than a million Greeks lived in Greece and Macedonia when Rome conquered it.
There were fewer than a million Gauls at the time as well.
Native America was much less densely populated in the 1600s than Greece or Gaul were in 250 or 75 BC.
No more invading, occupying and rebuilding poor uncivilized Muslim crapholes.(then leaving them anyway and getting nothing for it)
Invading and occupying Iraq in 2003 was completely different than what happened in Germany and Japan in 1945.
Two people can live by compromise. When a third person is added, eventually two will come together against the one. That is why there will always be war.
If this guy is fabricating bullshit numbers then why should anyone believe anything else he says.
#5) Reduces population of fit males in the breeding pool. Another factor in the ‘wussification’ of a population.
You do have a point there. He definitely exaggerated a bit too much.
It is extremely unlike the USA and its colonial foreruners killed even 1M Indians. Due mainly to the fact that there just weren't enough Indians around. Even the larger tribes were usually well under 50,000 in number.
Total number of Indians killed by the USA is probably somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000.
It is quite possible, BTW, that more "Americans" were killed by Indians.
I don't know where you get these numbers. Population of Athens alone is estimated at over 250,000. During the Macedonian Wars the kings were able to support formal armies around 50,000 in number. Given the low level of economic productivity at the time, this implies a population of at least several millions.
There were fewer than a million Gauls at the time as well.
Numbers I've seen are in the 3M to 6M range, of whom about 1/3 died, JC sold 1/3 into slavery, and 1/3 survived the conquest. At Alesia, the Gallic Army numbered between 100,000 and 250,000. Supplying such numbers, not that the Gauls were very good at it, requires a pretty hefty population base.
Native America was much less densely populated in the 1600s than Greece or Gaul were in 250 or 75 BC.
True. We have accurate numbers as to the Indian population. The Comanche probably never numbered more than 30,000. The Cherokee, one of the larger tribes, had 16,542 removed on the Trail of Tears. The Navajo had around 10,000 undergo the Long Walk, probably a majority of the tribe at the time. The Lakota population at its peak around 1880 was probably a little less than 20,000. The Iroquois probably numbered about 25,000 at their peak around 1660.
One of the more amusing claims out there is that America ever had a conscious national policy of genocide against the Indians. If so, why didn't it succeed in killing off such rather small numbers?
The Argentines, at around the same time, DID have such a policy, and Argentina today doesn't have an Indian problem. Or Indians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.