Despite the quarrels of the past, we have finally – partly through Darmangeat’s work – arrived at a basic idea of the two main types of inter-tribal confrontation that occurred in Indigenous Australia. The most common, devastating warfare seems to have been stealth attacks – raids or kanudaitji (secret or revenge expeditions), for instance in the Western Deserts.40 These were usually small parties of men, but sometimes scores or more, who would sneak deep into enemy territories to commit assassinations or theft (usually of women).41 In contrast to raids there existed what we can call open, regulated battles (some prefer the word “tournaments”), which were much more formalized and lengthy events, involving anywhere from 60 to over 1,500 combatants, drawn from several allied groups.
…
At any rate, battles, raids and duels were intended more as a form of cathartic venting rather than a field of slaughter. In South Australia, an Indigenous Australian informant described what he considered a recent “glorious” (successful) battle. He defined it as successful because “nobody tumble down, only big one yabber [talk]. … My king … say ‘don’t throw spears, only yabber.’”
Even when battles involved very large numbers of warriors, they generally resulted in flesh wounds and very few, if any, deaths – although there were some very violent exceptions, depending on the intensity of the dispute. Raids were more usually fatal, and highly unpredictable (indeed, it was expected that women and children would suffer), but often only the targets were slain.
According to his findings, 64% of open battles ended with less than three deaths each, despite usually involving hundreds of combatants.
… that’s not at all unusual. Even with technology and tactics as late as the 15th century AD, battles of thousands of individuals could end with only a handful of actual deaths. Hand-to-hand combat is extremely trying, and without a means of running down an enemy after they’re routed (ie cavalry), casualties only become large in the most desperate and dire of battles.
None of that paper seems to at all address my point, which was of per capita deaths by violence, not whether any individual battle produced a large number of deaths.
I dunno what to tell you, man. Tribes are good and tribalism isn’t as warlike as the turn of phrase implies. You’ve seen the numbers. The international legal structure was engineered to prevent bloody wars between tribes. It was like the UN, but actually effective.
I dunno what to tell you, man. Tribes are good and tribalism isn’t as warlike as the turn of phrase implies. You’ve seen the numbers.
And I pointed out that the numbers don’t say what you think they’re saying. Furthermore, your own source paints Australian Aboriginal society as quite warlike, discussing how even deaths by natural causes could spark murderous feuds over ‘sorcery’, and that the kidnapping and rape of women, and counter-raids to recover women, were extremely common.
About all it actually shows is the low casualty numbers for the ritualistic battles, the higher casualty numbers for raids, and a number of ‘laws of war’.
I agree that aboriginal treatment of women was often horrific, but when it comes to sorcery, you have to understand that the white people’s idea of reality simply wasn’t present in precolonial Australia. Singing was and continues to be a serious issue with serious consequences, and if someone has good reason to believe sorcery was used in the carrying out of a murder, they should be able to present that evidence to the local authorities (the tribe elders) and seek payback.
Payback is a much more humane approach to criminal punishment than the white people’s prison system. White people lock a lad up for years and destroy his relationship to his community, so as often as not he’s forced to commit crimes again to survive. Payback is quick and simple, and once it’s done, the victim is expected to forgive the criminal. No bloody cycles of revenge, no more hard feelings. It’s exactly the opposite of the “tribalism” we see in white society, with ancient blood feuds between different groups. This is just another example of white people assuming their social flaws are human nature, and that they are somehow the best at rising above it. Projection, in other words.
As you read in the excerpt I shared, aboriginal tribes would go to war, and the leaders would instruct the warriors to avoid shedding blood. And if no blood was spilled, it would be considered a great victory. Look at the Crusades and tell Me what we’ve discussed today fits your idea of “tribalism” better than white people’s greatest “accomplishments”. The truth is, the realists are more militant in their quest to destroy opposing social groups than any tribe.
Singing was and continues to be a serious issue with serious consequences, and if someone has good reason to believe sorcery was used in the carrying out of a murder, they should be able to present that evidence to the local authorities (the tribe elders) and seek payback.
… the source you provided explicitly contradicts this notion of well-founded claims of sorcery.
Payback is a much more humane approach to criminal punishment than the white people’s prison system. White people lock a lad up for years and destroy his relationship to his community, so as often as not he’s forced to commit crimes again to survive. Payback is quick and simple, and once it’s done, the victim is expected to forgive the criminal. No bloody cycles of revenge, no more hard feelings.
Are you being fucking serious? Your own source points out that the exact opposite is the case - that deaths in Aboriginal warfare continued to generate feud and counter-feud even in the most ritually justified circumstances.
As you read in the excerpt I shared, aboriginal tribes would go to war, and the leaders would instruct the warriors to avoid shedding blood. And if no blood was spilled, it would be considered a great victory.
In ritualistic battles bloodshed was not the goal. Your source explicitly points out that in other forms of Aboriginal warfare bloodshed explicitly was the goal.
Look at the Crusades and tell Me what we’ve discussed today fits your idea of “tribalism” better than white people’s greatest “accomplishments”.
the fuck
The truth is, the realists are more militant in their quest to destroy opposing social groups than any tribe.
The question isn’t about destroying ‘opposing social groups’, the question is of death by violence.
I’m not having fun in this argument anymore because it feels like we’ve gotten to the “no it doesn’t yes it does” portion of the argument, and you’re using pronouns I don’t like even though I tried to remind you. So I think I’m gonna dip until next time. Have fun, I liked the meme
That doesn’t really gel with the observation of high per capita rates of death by violence in hunter-gatherer societies.
https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/indigenous-australian-laws-of-war-914
… that’s not at all unusual. Even with technology and tactics as late as the 15th century AD, battles of thousands of individuals could end with only a handful of actual deaths. Hand-to-hand combat is extremely trying, and without a means of running down an enemy after they’re routed (ie cavalry), casualties only become large in the most desperate and dire of battles.
None of that paper seems to at all address my point, which was of per capita deaths by violence, not whether any individual battle produced a large number of deaths.
I dunno what to tell you, man. Tribes are good and tribalism isn’t as warlike as the turn of phrase implies. You’ve seen the numbers. The international legal structure was engineered to prevent bloody wars between tribes. It was like the UN, but actually effective.
And I pointed out that the numbers don’t say what you think they’re saying. Furthermore, your own source paints Australian Aboriginal society as quite warlike, discussing how even deaths by natural causes could spark murderous feuds over ‘sorcery’, and that the kidnapping and rape of women, and counter-raids to recover women, were extremely common.
About all it actually shows is the low casualty numbers for the ritualistic battles, the higher casualty numbers for raids, and a number of ‘laws of war’.
I agree that aboriginal treatment of women was often horrific, but when it comes to sorcery, you have to understand that the white people’s idea of reality simply wasn’t present in precolonial Australia. Singing was and continues to be a serious issue with serious consequences, and if someone has good reason to believe sorcery was used in the carrying out of a murder, they should be able to present that evidence to the local authorities (the tribe elders) and seek payback.
Payback is a much more humane approach to criminal punishment than the white people’s prison system. White people lock a lad up for years and destroy his relationship to his community, so as often as not he’s forced to commit crimes again to survive. Payback is quick and simple, and once it’s done, the victim is expected to forgive the criminal. No bloody cycles of revenge, no more hard feelings. It’s exactly the opposite of the “tribalism” we see in white society, with ancient blood feuds between different groups. This is just another example of white people assuming their social flaws are human nature, and that they are somehow the best at rising above it. Projection, in other words.
As you read in the excerpt I shared, aboriginal tribes would go to war, and the leaders would instruct the warriors to avoid shedding blood. And if no blood was spilled, it would be considered a great victory. Look at the Crusades and tell Me what we’ve discussed today fits your idea of “tribalism” better than white people’s greatest “accomplishments”. The truth is, the realists are more militant in their quest to destroy opposing social groups than any tribe.
(Also pronouns)
… the source you provided explicitly contradicts this notion of well-founded claims of sorcery.
Are you being fucking serious? Your own source points out that the exact opposite is the case - that deaths in Aboriginal warfare continued to generate feud and counter-feud even in the most ritually justified circumstances.
In ritualistic battles bloodshed was not the goal. Your source explicitly points out that in other forms of Aboriginal warfare bloodshed explicitly was the goal.
the fuck
The question isn’t about destroying ‘opposing social groups’, the question is of death by violence.
I’m not having fun in this argument anymore because it feels like we’ve gotten to the “no it doesn’t yes it does” portion of the argument, and you’re using pronouns I don’t like even though I tried to remind you. So I think I’m gonna dip until next time. Have fun, I liked the meme
… wait, where did I use a gendered pronoun?