Notes+on+Beyond+War,+Ch+8-16[1] - Notes on Douglas P Frys...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Notes on Douglas P. Fry’s Beyond War Chapter 8, “Man the Warrior: Fact or Fantasy?” Conflicts in band societies are regularly presented as “warfare” – due to misperceptions, projects, poetic license, or deliberately to make some point of the author. Use of “warrior” language, the vocabularies of war – warfare, battle, enemy, declarations of war, war parties, war paint, war dance, and so on – are used deliberately even when they don’t apply. [Use of similar terms within Western biomedicine to talk about people with cancer!] “Descriptions of this kind help to re-create the “savage” in our own preconceived warlike image, as the Western concept of war is projected onto indigenous activities that are not really war at all.” Two Kinds of Assumptions Implicit assumptions – the “taken for granteds,” Mother Culture, creep into theoretical modeling, research design, and scientific interpretations. Explicit assumptions – those stated at the outset, held up for inspection and review. The “Man the Warrior” View of the Past Pervasive Intergroup Hostility Model: groups of related men who defend their territories and resources against similar, hostile groups of related men. Assumptions of this model: War is extremely ancient Intergroup relations tended to be hostile in the past Group membership was largely fixed – the exception being that women were captured from neighboring groups as a goal of war The males in a group were genetically related to one another, perhaps as members of a patrilineage Related males readily bonded and cooperated with each other in warfare Effective male bonding and cooperation in war paid off in terms of increased reproductive success for males engaging in those behaviors Critical resources were scarce War was waged to acquire scarce resources, territory, and women Leadership and warrior behavior correlated with reproductive success and thus were evolutionarily favored Fry says all of these assumptions are not supported by the ethnographic data about simple, nomadic hunting and gathering societies, and that, in fact, overly aggressive individuals were selected against (by being killed either by others in revenge for their 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
own homicidal behavior, or killed by their own relatives who perceived them as dangerous to the group). Chapter 9, “Insights from the Outback: Geneva Conventions in the Australian Bush” Island continent of Australia, before arrival of Europeans, 750,000 people speaking over 200 distinct languages. All simple hunters and gatherers – Ishmael would describe them as “Leavers.” In Aboriginal Australia before the arrival of Europeans, warfare was the rarest of anomalies. They did have murder, vengeance killings, limited feud, juridical fights, duels, and punishment or execution of wrongdoers. “However, lethal intergroup violence that could be considered warfare was truly the exception to the well-established peace system of the Australian Aborigines.”
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 13

Notes+on+Beyond+War,+Ch+8-16[1] - Notes on Douglas P Frys...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online