Paul Roman's Blog
March 11, 2020
Precariousness of socialism.
If only there would be fewer explanations of what ‘socialism’ means, the discussions about it would be much easier. Let’s try to make it easier; below, read the popular statements about socialism and the comments that follow; then decide how to use the term socialism properly.
•1 Socialism is when all (or a great majority) of
means of production and distribution are owned collectively by the public.
In the mid-1800s, few philosophers first mused about the concepts of socialism; now they are virtually unknown. The concept became more widely known when Karl Marx elaborated on it. Even today, it’s still taught at universities in Marxist departments. Its concise description is this: The communist-led dictatorship of the proletariat, the main features of which are • common ownership of all means of production and distribution (all businesses,) • and the prohibition of private business ownership, except perhaps a few minor exceptions.
This is the original meaning of socialism which has existed in people's minds for more than 100 years. •• Only this should be called socialism or Marxist socialism – if we want to use our language unambiguously.
•2 Socialism is when a state provides its citizens with free* services.
* free = paid for from tax revenue.
From ancient times, some activities were naturally performed by states such as defense, policing, and road building; nobody called them socialist, the word didn’t even exist. The word socialism first appeared in the mid-1800s. The first socialist country appeared after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Since then, more services and programs for citizens were gradually added to states’ activities – such as education, health care, food stamps, unemployment insurance, retirement pensions – by both socialist and capitalist countries. Unambiguously, you can call them • government-supplied services or • social benefits.
•3 Socialism is when a state owns select means of production.
From ancient times, states built aqueducts and supplied free water to some towns. Later, clean water was not provided by states free anymore but for a usually subsidized cost. Other strategically important production – such as extraction of natural resources – was sometimes owned by states and the materials were supplied to industry for the market price or subsidized price by both socialist and capitalist countries.
Unambiguously, you can call them • government-owned production.
•4 Democratic Socialism is when a democratic state with the capitalist economy provides social benefits such as free education, health care, and retirement pension as citizens’ rights.
Most democratic countries already provide social benefits – good examples are Scandinavian countries and Canada. Most people there don’t like to have the word ‘socialism’ connected to their countries in any way because of the bad connotation given to it by people like Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. Furthermore – since Marxist socialism requires dictatorship – connecting the words socialism and democratic creates an oxymoron since no country can possibly be a dictatorship and democracy at the same time.
Unambiguously, you can use the expressions • social democracy or • welfare state.
Calling too many things ‘socialism’ is sloppy, unclear, and creates confusion. We have more precise names; why not use them. For clarity of our language, the term socialism should be reserved only for Marxist socialism.
Now, let's look at the benefits and disadvantages that the 'fathers' of socialism from the mid-1980s have brought us.
The development of the undoubted benefits of free education, healthcare, and a variety of financial support is definitely a good thing.
The dictatorship of the proletariat that leads to corruption of leaders – as Lord Acton aptly remarked: “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” and the common ownership of means of production and distribution (all businesses) that leads to economic stagnation as shown by both empirical and theoretical indicators are definitely bad things.
•1 Socialism is when all (or a great majority) of
means of production and distribution are owned collectively by the public.
In the mid-1800s, few philosophers first mused about the concepts of socialism; now they are virtually unknown. The concept became more widely known when Karl Marx elaborated on it. Even today, it’s still taught at universities in Marxist departments. Its concise description is this: The communist-led dictatorship of the proletariat, the main features of which are • common ownership of all means of production and distribution (all businesses,) • and the prohibition of private business ownership, except perhaps a few minor exceptions.
This is the original meaning of socialism which has existed in people's minds for more than 100 years. •• Only this should be called socialism or Marxist socialism – if we want to use our language unambiguously.
•2 Socialism is when a state provides its citizens with free* services.
* free = paid for from tax revenue.
From ancient times, some activities were naturally performed by states such as defense, policing, and road building; nobody called them socialist, the word didn’t even exist. The word socialism first appeared in the mid-1800s. The first socialist country appeared after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Since then, more services and programs for citizens were gradually added to states’ activities – such as education, health care, food stamps, unemployment insurance, retirement pensions – by both socialist and capitalist countries. Unambiguously, you can call them • government-supplied services or • social benefits.
•3 Socialism is when a state owns select means of production.
From ancient times, states built aqueducts and supplied free water to some towns. Later, clean water was not provided by states free anymore but for a usually subsidized cost. Other strategically important production – such as extraction of natural resources – was sometimes owned by states and the materials were supplied to industry for the market price or subsidized price by both socialist and capitalist countries.
Unambiguously, you can call them • government-owned production.
•4 Democratic Socialism is when a democratic state with the capitalist economy provides social benefits such as free education, health care, and retirement pension as citizens’ rights.
Most democratic countries already provide social benefits – good examples are Scandinavian countries and Canada. Most people there don’t like to have the word ‘socialism’ connected to their countries in any way because of the bad connotation given to it by people like Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. Furthermore – since Marxist socialism requires dictatorship – connecting the words socialism and democratic creates an oxymoron since no country can possibly be a dictatorship and democracy at the same time.
Unambiguously, you can use the expressions • social democracy or • welfare state.
Calling too many things ‘socialism’ is sloppy, unclear, and creates confusion. We have more precise names; why not use them. For clarity of our language, the term socialism should be reserved only for Marxist socialism.
Now, let's look at the benefits and disadvantages that the 'fathers' of socialism from the mid-1980s have brought us.
The development of the undoubted benefits of free education, healthcare, and a variety of financial support is definitely a good thing.
The dictatorship of the proletariat that leads to corruption of leaders – as Lord Acton aptly remarked: “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” and the common ownership of means of production and distribution (all businesses) that leads to economic stagnation as shown by both empirical and theoretical indicators are definitely bad things.
March 6, 2020
Future of humankind?
Many people worry that humans are potentially facing three serious dangers: 1• nuclear war conflict, 2• serious technological disruptions caused by robotization and Artificial Intelligence (AI,) 3• ecological catastrophe caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW.) Since I'm an old man and don't like to spoil the Quality of my Remaining Time, I'd like to see things optimistically:
1• Atomic war won’t happen 2• Technological disruption will lead to a good thing 3• If any serious ecological problem arises, new technology will mitigate it quite well.
1• Russians are punching above their weight and won’t dare to get anywhere close to the atomic war.
Chinese will have enough problems with their bunch of about 40 ethnic groups, will be successful enough with their business expansion, won’t need any territorial expansion.
Americans will keep their military edge as a deterrent and won’t have to use it.
If some half-advanced people somehow get nuclear weapons, the West will detect their evil intention in time and remove it before anything happens.
2• Robots and AI will eliminate most of the jobs, the population will break into two groups: Homo Deus (I'm using Harari’s term) and the others on basic income.
Homo Deus people will be highly educated, capable and competitive. Their continuous education and competition struggle will muffle their reproductive activities.
Basic income will be generous enough for modest but comfortable survival and will lead to two subgroups of people: plebs that will subsist in the stupor of inactivity, will poison themselves with many vices, their health will deteriorate, their numbers will drastically plummet, overpopulation will be over.
The smaller group of the others on basic income will become 'enlightened hobbyists.' They’ll have time and enough money to study anything, become good in many activities, only a few of which will lead to a bit of extra income. Most of them will consider their stress-free lifestyle preferable, and – just like serfs accepted their position under aristocracy – the hobbyist will be content with their lower status under Homo Deus. Idiotic clamoring for equality will be gone. Their fertility rate will remain low, they won’t need children to eventually take care of them.
3• As is obvious from the above, the human population will go down significantly; people will wonder why anybody ever worried about environmental collapse due to overpopulation.
All that doesn’t mean that shit won’t happen. Florida might disappear under the ocean, not because of AGW but because nature goes through cycles and doesn’t care about humans. But because of the same cycles, some areas previously unusable will become friendly, perhaps with a bit of human terraforming activity, and advanced technology will make it reasonably easy to move sections of the diminishing population.
It also doesn’t mean that stupid human mistakes won’t happen. Just like Mayas or civilization on Indus starved to oblivion after their advanced agriculture completely exhausted and salinized their fields, Homo Deus will make stupid mistakes too, but their technology will eventually pull them out of the oblivion in time.
Here, my QRT is maintained.
1• Atomic war won’t happen 2• Technological disruption will lead to a good thing 3• If any serious ecological problem arises, new technology will mitigate it quite well.
1• Russians are punching above their weight and won’t dare to get anywhere close to the atomic war.
Chinese will have enough problems with their bunch of about 40 ethnic groups, will be successful enough with their business expansion, won’t need any territorial expansion.
Americans will keep their military edge as a deterrent and won’t have to use it.
If some half-advanced people somehow get nuclear weapons, the West will detect their evil intention in time and remove it before anything happens.
2• Robots and AI will eliminate most of the jobs, the population will break into two groups: Homo Deus (I'm using Harari’s term) and the others on basic income.
Homo Deus people will be highly educated, capable and competitive. Their continuous education and competition struggle will muffle their reproductive activities.
Basic income will be generous enough for modest but comfortable survival and will lead to two subgroups of people: plebs that will subsist in the stupor of inactivity, will poison themselves with many vices, their health will deteriorate, their numbers will drastically plummet, overpopulation will be over.
The smaller group of the others on basic income will become 'enlightened hobbyists.' They’ll have time and enough money to study anything, become good in many activities, only a few of which will lead to a bit of extra income. Most of them will consider their stress-free lifestyle preferable, and – just like serfs accepted their position under aristocracy – the hobbyist will be content with their lower status under Homo Deus. Idiotic clamoring for equality will be gone. Their fertility rate will remain low, they won’t need children to eventually take care of them.
3• As is obvious from the above, the human population will go down significantly; people will wonder why anybody ever worried about environmental collapse due to overpopulation.
All that doesn’t mean that shit won’t happen. Florida might disappear under the ocean, not because of AGW but because nature goes through cycles and doesn’t care about humans. But because of the same cycles, some areas previously unusable will become friendly, perhaps with a bit of human terraforming activity, and advanced technology will make it reasonably easy to move sections of the diminishing population.
It also doesn’t mean that stupid human mistakes won’t happen. Just like Mayas or civilization on Indus starved to oblivion after their advanced agriculture completely exhausted and salinized their fields, Homo Deus will make stupid mistakes too, but their technology will eventually pull them out of the oblivion in time.
Here, my QRT is maintained.
December 23, 2018
Why Canada, Why Oil? What happened to Canadians?
The first census of the Canadian population took place in 1871, four years after the establishment of Canadian Dominion. There were about 3.7 million people in the area of close to ten million square kilometers; that’s less than half a person per the square kilometer. But most of the area was unused, so the average population density in the used areas was perhaps between one and two persons per square kilometer.
Let’s put it in perspective: population density in England at that time was 164 persons per square kilometer. At the time of Spanish conquest, Aztec Empire had about 25 persons per square kilometers, and about four to five people controlled by Mayas and Incas lived in one square kilometer of Central and South America.
The estimate of the aboriginal population in Canadian Dominion at 1871 was one hundred to 150 thousand. So, the early European settlers north of Great Lakes and the 49th parallel must have been finding many different aboriginal tribes spread as thinly as one person per 15 or 20 square kilometers. Even today, 147 years later, some areas are close to empty. Yukon is 35% larger than Germany and only 38,000 people live there; that’s one person per 12.7 km2. The size and emptiness of this beautiful wilderness was and still is hard to imagine; what converted this wilderness to a successful country?
The width of Canada is over 9 thousand kilometers. Obviously, good communications over this distance are essential; • Trans-Canada railway connects the country since 1885. Roads connect the country coast to coast but also in the south direction to the USA. • The Trans-Canada highway was completed in 1962.
The country is full of natural resources, but to extract and process those needs lots of energy. Luckily, Albertans discovered the oil in 1914. • In 1953, Canadians built the Trans-Mountain pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific. • The first major hydroelectric power station and the aluminum smelter was built at Kitimat in 1954. • Another hydroelectric station stands on Peace River in British Columbia since 1968. • Churchill Falls in Manitoba got power station in 1970, • James Bay in Quebec in 1974, • and Peace River was harnessed by the second station in 1980. That’s eight mega projects in 95 years.
A successful country needs more than communication and energy mega-projects, but it’s safe to say that without them there would be no successful Canada.
In the last 38 years, no mega-project was built. The industry proposed several projects, but all of them were killed, except for the development of oil sands in northern Alberta. Among the killed projects were several pipelines to get the oil from the oil sands to markets; as a result, landlocked Alberta produces more oil than can be transported out. How silly is that; what happened to Canadians? They were capable of building one mega projects in about a decade; the first one was built while Canadians numbered only 4 million. Now they number 35 million, and they can only talk for a decade about a project in order to kill it.
Does the global climate change have something to do with it? Is there a concern that usefulness of oil and other fossil fuels is coming to the end? Let’s have a look.
If we look at the amount of energy used per capita in different regions it’s obvious that the level of development correlates to the amount of energy used; without energy economic development is impossible.
Most of humanity still lives in poverty. But the standard of living in underdeveloped and developing countries is steadily increasing, especially after the recent collapse of most socialist/ communists governments. As the development of the poorer world’s regions continue, the use of energy will continue to grow steeply for many years to come. But the recent rapid increase in the production of green, renewable source energy creates optimistic expectation that fazing-out of the fossil fuels is, perhaps, near. The recent growth of green energy production is truly amazing; if we look at the graph of green energy growth alone, we fully realize the exponential nature of its growth in the recent past. However, only the comparison of energy production values from all sources together will indicate to us that the green energy will not replace the non-renewable energy sources any time soon.
The world needs energy; most of it, by far, is derived from oil. Oil will be produced; if not by Canada then by someone else. To buy oil for eastern Canada from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela if we produce enough in Alberta is nuts. Not to have enough transportation capacity for Alberta’s oil is nuts. Until we get the surplus of Alberta oil out to the east and other world markets, Canada is nuts. What happened to Canadians?
Pic.1 Use of energy in five world's regions
Pic.2 Recent world's energy production
For illustrations see: https://www.facebook.com/shortEssence/
Let’s put it in perspective: population density in England at that time was 164 persons per square kilometer. At the time of Spanish conquest, Aztec Empire had about 25 persons per square kilometers, and about four to five people controlled by Mayas and Incas lived in one square kilometer of Central and South America.
The estimate of the aboriginal population in Canadian Dominion at 1871 was one hundred to 150 thousand. So, the early European settlers north of Great Lakes and the 49th parallel must have been finding many different aboriginal tribes spread as thinly as one person per 15 or 20 square kilometers. Even today, 147 years later, some areas are close to empty. Yukon is 35% larger than Germany and only 38,000 people live there; that’s one person per 12.7 km2. The size and emptiness of this beautiful wilderness was and still is hard to imagine; what converted this wilderness to a successful country?
The width of Canada is over 9 thousand kilometers. Obviously, good communications over this distance are essential; • Trans-Canada railway connects the country since 1885. Roads connect the country coast to coast but also in the south direction to the USA. • The Trans-Canada highway was completed in 1962.
The country is full of natural resources, but to extract and process those needs lots of energy. Luckily, Albertans discovered the oil in 1914. • In 1953, Canadians built the Trans-Mountain pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific. • The first major hydroelectric power station and the aluminum smelter was built at Kitimat in 1954. • Another hydroelectric station stands on Peace River in British Columbia since 1968. • Churchill Falls in Manitoba got power station in 1970, • James Bay in Quebec in 1974, • and Peace River was harnessed by the second station in 1980. That’s eight mega projects in 95 years.
A successful country needs more than communication and energy mega-projects, but it’s safe to say that without them there would be no successful Canada.
In the last 38 years, no mega-project was built. The industry proposed several projects, but all of them were killed, except for the development of oil sands in northern Alberta. Among the killed projects were several pipelines to get the oil from the oil sands to markets; as a result, landlocked Alberta produces more oil than can be transported out. How silly is that; what happened to Canadians? They were capable of building one mega projects in about a decade; the first one was built while Canadians numbered only 4 million. Now they number 35 million, and they can only talk for a decade about a project in order to kill it.
Does the global climate change have something to do with it? Is there a concern that usefulness of oil and other fossil fuels is coming to the end? Let’s have a look.
If we look at the amount of energy used per capita in different regions it’s obvious that the level of development correlates to the amount of energy used; without energy economic development is impossible.
Most of humanity still lives in poverty. But the standard of living in underdeveloped and developing countries is steadily increasing, especially after the recent collapse of most socialist/ communists governments. As the development of the poorer world’s regions continue, the use of energy will continue to grow steeply for many years to come. But the recent rapid increase in the production of green, renewable source energy creates optimistic expectation that fazing-out of the fossil fuels is, perhaps, near. The recent growth of green energy production is truly amazing; if we look at the graph of green energy growth alone, we fully realize the exponential nature of its growth in the recent past. However, only the comparison of energy production values from all sources together will indicate to us that the green energy will not replace the non-renewable energy sources any time soon.
The world needs energy; most of it, by far, is derived from oil. Oil will be produced; if not by Canada then by someone else. To buy oil for eastern Canada from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela if we produce enough in Alberta is nuts. Not to have enough transportation capacity for Alberta’s oil is nuts. Until we get the surplus of Alberta oil out to the east and other world markets, Canada is nuts. What happened to Canadians?
Pic.1 Use of energy in five world's regions
Pic.2 Recent world's energy production
For illustrations see: https://www.facebook.com/shortEssence/
April 3, 2018
Exoneration Story
Based on The Chilcotin Uprising of 1864 by Edward S. Hewlett
http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/b...
In the middle of 19th century, William Manning was the only white man settler between Bute Inlet and Anahim Lake in what's now British Columbia. In the pristine foothill wilderness of Coast Mountains, there were very few settlers; most settlers were in Victoria on Vancouver Island, New Westminster at Pacific coast and along the valley of mighty Fraser River. Manning, with his Chilcotin wife and partner Alexander Macdonald, he has built a little log house and planted a garden next to a water spring and close to the shores of Puntzi Lake. It was hard work, and he must have loved it. Macdonald was not staying there with him, but he was instrumental in supplying him with tools and food supplies.
For the backbreaking labour of clearing the land, Manning was not alone; members of local Chilcotin (Tsilhqot'in) semi-nomadic tribe helped him. They were not very happy that Manning has made use of the camping ground where their ancestors repeatedly camped for centuries, but he paid them with white men's products they valued. Sometimes, Manning was slow in paying them for their help, other times he paid them ahead when they needed food supplies to survive a harsh winter.
For Chilcotins, Manning was not the only source of European trade goods. They occasionally traded with native coastal tribes that were suppliers of prime quality pelts to European fur traders for decades. The fur traders tried to set up a direct link to Chilcotins, but without much success. Chilcotin contact with Europeans remained infrequent; for that reason, they were not fully aware of the degree of white men strength. They also suffered less than a coastal native from the effect of alcohol and disease brought from Europe, although they did experience the devastating effect of smallpox and the threat of plague of sickness must have loomed large in their minds.
People who hunt and fish to sustain themselves need large territories. The rugged terrain of British Columbia at this time was home to several aboriginal tribes of not more than altogether ten thousand people*. Chilcotin tribe was one of them. Most of the time, they must have lived in peace with the distant neighbouring tribes, but not always. When an armed conflict flared up, it was more of an opportunistic skirmish and looting or self-defense rather than a sustained war effort.
The fur traders lived in a mutually beneficial, sometimes uneasy, relationship with most tribes, but with Chilcotin, they had troubled even hostile relationship. No tribe developed significant interdependence with the newly arising gold mining communities, and, in contrast with aboriginals of other parts of future Canada, no aboriginals of this land signed treaties with the British.
All this was part of the setting for the tragic events that were soon to follow, but not before gold came into the picture in a big way.
It was native people who first noticed glittering yellow nuggets in Thompson River and soon discovered that white men want them even more than fur pelts. Hudson's Bay Company sent some gold bartered from aboriginals for smelting to San Francisco; soon after, gold prospectors were streaming up the Fraser River and panning for gold everywhere. The wave of gold seekers – mostly Americans – eventually outnumbered the entire aboriginal population* of British Columbia at least three times. Not surprisingly and sadly, few aboriginal gold miners were soon overwhelmed by aggressive newcomers.
As the search for gold extended from Thompson and Fraser rivers to other areas, new approach routes were required. Waterways of Bute Inlet and Bentick (Bella Coola) Arm – penetrating deeply into the coastal mountains – were eminently suitable for trailheads of new roads. The colonial government of British Columbia awarded the contract to build a bridle path from Bute Inlet through the Coastal Mountains to Alfred Waddington. By 1864, Waddington's men established a trailhead station at the mouth of Homathco River, a ferry over the river with storehouse snugged about 30 miles upstream, amidst icefield covered peaks on both sides of the valley, and two work camps 10 and 12 miles further up. Approximately another 100 miles in the north-east direction – deep in traditional Chilcotin territory – was Puntzi Lake with Manning's ranch nearby. Apart from a crew of white men, Homathko and Chilcotin Indians also worked on the road.
During the winter of 1863-64 some flour disappeared from the Waddingham's storehouse, and in March 1864, when a work crew arrived for the new season of work, a dispute arose between them and Chilcotins about how much food, if any, is due to Indians for their labour. Waddington's men refused to give the Indians extra food they demanded. On April 29, 1864, Chilcotin chief Klatsassin with five Indian men appeared at the ferry over the Homathco River. They killed the ferry operator, threw his body into the river and looted the storehouse and destroyed everything they couldn't carry off, including the ferry skiff, perhaps to cut off the up-river camps from the coast; then they proceded upstream to the lower work camp. On the way, they met another Chilcotin chief, Telloot, who joined them and together they arrived at the camp where they spent the night. At dawn, they attacked the workers sleeping in tents, shot, stabbed and clubbed them all to death, except three men who managed to escape. Meanwhile, another group of six or seven Indians arrived at the advanced work camp two miles upstream. When the Klatsassin's group met them a little later, four workers were already working with axes on the road; probably all four were shot, one of them might have tried to escape by jumping into the river; his body, as well as the ferry man's body, were never found. A Homathko Indian boy, who was cooking for the advanced work camp, run downstream, swam across the river at the destroyed ferry to arrive at the trailhead station after nightfall with the news of the killings.
Few weeks before the tragic event at Bute Inlet, Alexander Macdonald, the partner of Manning, had been awarded a contract for a bridle path construction from Bentinck Arm along Anahim Lake to connect eventually with the road from Bute Inlet. On May 17, Macdonald set out with a work crew from Bentick Arm towards Anahim Lake. It's uncertain whether Klatsassin new about the arrival of Macdonald's pack train, but he was heading, with his warriors, to Anahim Lake from the other side and arrived there first. When it became clear that a pack train of white men is coming, Annichim, the chief of Chilcotins from Anahim Lake agreed to join Klatsassin group in attacking the pack train. Luckily for Macdonald's men, one of them had a Chilcotin wife, and she was visiting her people at Anahim Lake. She made sure that her husband was informed about the planned attack. Macdonald decided to stop and dig a makeshift fortification. It was a wasted effort since Chilcotins were not interested in attacking a fortification, no matter how flimsy, so the group tried to get back to the coast. Indians followed and managed to kill two men in an ambush. Macdonald was shot and killed in the ensuing fight; five men escaped and eventually reached Bentinck Arm. One of them first tried to hide in the nearby ranch of a settler, Hamilton. When it became obvious that he didn't shake off his pursuers he got away from the ranch together with Hamilton in the nick of time. Indians didn't follow them but preferred to plunder the settler's house. Under the command of Annichim, the group of warriors then traveled to Puntzi Lake, killed Manning, looted and destroyed his ranch including his plow, other agricultural tools, garden, and field.
Upon learning about the tragic events, the colonial government sent an expedition against the unruly Chilcotins. One part of the expedition was dispatched from Victoria to Bute Inlet; the bigger part was organized in Alexandria in Fraser River valley, and another one originated from New Westminster and sailed to Bella Coola. But it's not easy to chase experienced hunters in the wilderness; it's even more difficult for few hundred experienced hunters to resist an armed expedition of British Empire. When Wiliam Cox, the commander of the expedition, received a message from Klatsassin that he'd like to talk, he sent a message back inviting him to Hudson's Bay Company's fort at Chezco River. Apparently, it was not clear what those messages exactly were. Some thought that the instigators of the fighting were asked to surrender unconditionally, the instigators thought that they were to attend peace talks with the government representatives. Eight Chilcotin warriors came unarmed to Cox expedition's camp; they were arrested tried in criminal court for murder, the jury found five of them guilty, and judge Begbie sentenced all five to death. Klatsassin, Telloot, Tahpit, Piel, and Chessus were hanged. A year later, another two participants in the tragic fighting gave themselves up in Bella Coola. Both of them were tried, found guilty and sentenced to death, but only one, Ahan, was executed since the other one received clemency from the governor of the colonial government.
Even if we are uncertain about how to call those tragic events, we cannot doubt the descendants of the event instigators when they keep saying "We meant war, not murder." So, the exoneration from guilt for murder, posthumously delivered by Canadian prime minister to the six executed Chilcotins, makes sense. But unfortunately, it also raises many questions: • Is it possible that it might worsen rather than improve the future relationship with the indigenous population? Should we start apologizing for other dark parts of our history? • Does it suggest that other nations should do the same? Surely, there are many dark parts in the world's history. • Should all future generations feel guilty for 'sins' of theirs long bygone ancestors? • Should all immigrants, whose ancestors were not involved in the bygone 'sins,' also feel guilty? • Should we perhaps pay some reparation for the past wrongs in perpetuity? If we did, would it help or harm the future indigenous population?
It's not that Canada didn't try to improve a lot of its indigenous population. Since 1990, there were three attempts for a major overhaul of the Indian Act – the legislation related to self-governance and support of the indigenous population. All of them failed. Finding out who has stood in the way of those attempts for improvements and why then making another attempt would surely be better than apologizing. Apologizing is easy, finding the way how to integrate modern society with people trying somehow to build on traditions of their hunter-gatherer ancestors is not.
* http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/98-187-x...
More information on the subject:
• http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/w...
• Nemiah; The Unconquered Country by Terry Glavin
http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/b...
In the middle of 19th century, William Manning was the only white man settler between Bute Inlet and Anahim Lake in what's now British Columbia. In the pristine foothill wilderness of Coast Mountains, there were very few settlers; most settlers were in Victoria on Vancouver Island, New Westminster at Pacific coast and along the valley of mighty Fraser River. Manning, with his Chilcotin wife and partner Alexander Macdonald, he has built a little log house and planted a garden next to a water spring and close to the shores of Puntzi Lake. It was hard work, and he must have loved it. Macdonald was not staying there with him, but he was instrumental in supplying him with tools and food supplies.
For the backbreaking labour of clearing the land, Manning was not alone; members of local Chilcotin (Tsilhqot'in) semi-nomadic tribe helped him. They were not very happy that Manning has made use of the camping ground where their ancestors repeatedly camped for centuries, but he paid them with white men's products they valued. Sometimes, Manning was slow in paying them for their help, other times he paid them ahead when they needed food supplies to survive a harsh winter.
For Chilcotins, Manning was not the only source of European trade goods. They occasionally traded with native coastal tribes that were suppliers of prime quality pelts to European fur traders for decades. The fur traders tried to set up a direct link to Chilcotins, but without much success. Chilcotin contact with Europeans remained infrequent; for that reason, they were not fully aware of the degree of white men strength. They also suffered less than a coastal native from the effect of alcohol and disease brought from Europe, although they did experience the devastating effect of smallpox and the threat of plague of sickness must have loomed large in their minds.
People who hunt and fish to sustain themselves need large territories. The rugged terrain of British Columbia at this time was home to several aboriginal tribes of not more than altogether ten thousand people*. Chilcotin tribe was one of them. Most of the time, they must have lived in peace with the distant neighbouring tribes, but not always. When an armed conflict flared up, it was more of an opportunistic skirmish and looting or self-defense rather than a sustained war effort.
The fur traders lived in a mutually beneficial, sometimes uneasy, relationship with most tribes, but with Chilcotin, they had troubled even hostile relationship. No tribe developed significant interdependence with the newly arising gold mining communities, and, in contrast with aboriginals of other parts of future Canada, no aboriginals of this land signed treaties with the British.
All this was part of the setting for the tragic events that were soon to follow, but not before gold came into the picture in a big way.
It was native people who first noticed glittering yellow nuggets in Thompson River and soon discovered that white men want them even more than fur pelts. Hudson's Bay Company sent some gold bartered from aboriginals for smelting to San Francisco; soon after, gold prospectors were streaming up the Fraser River and panning for gold everywhere. The wave of gold seekers – mostly Americans – eventually outnumbered the entire aboriginal population* of British Columbia at least three times. Not surprisingly and sadly, few aboriginal gold miners were soon overwhelmed by aggressive newcomers.
As the search for gold extended from Thompson and Fraser rivers to other areas, new approach routes were required. Waterways of Bute Inlet and Bentick (Bella Coola) Arm – penetrating deeply into the coastal mountains – were eminently suitable for trailheads of new roads. The colonial government of British Columbia awarded the contract to build a bridle path from Bute Inlet through the Coastal Mountains to Alfred Waddington. By 1864, Waddington's men established a trailhead station at the mouth of Homathco River, a ferry over the river with storehouse snugged about 30 miles upstream, amidst icefield covered peaks on both sides of the valley, and two work camps 10 and 12 miles further up. Approximately another 100 miles in the north-east direction – deep in traditional Chilcotin territory – was Puntzi Lake with Manning's ranch nearby. Apart from a crew of white men, Homathko and Chilcotin Indians also worked on the road.
During the winter of 1863-64 some flour disappeared from the Waddingham's storehouse, and in March 1864, when a work crew arrived for the new season of work, a dispute arose between them and Chilcotins about how much food, if any, is due to Indians for their labour. Waddington's men refused to give the Indians extra food they demanded. On April 29, 1864, Chilcotin chief Klatsassin with five Indian men appeared at the ferry over the Homathco River. They killed the ferry operator, threw his body into the river and looted the storehouse and destroyed everything they couldn't carry off, including the ferry skiff, perhaps to cut off the up-river camps from the coast; then they proceded upstream to the lower work camp. On the way, they met another Chilcotin chief, Telloot, who joined them and together they arrived at the camp where they spent the night. At dawn, they attacked the workers sleeping in tents, shot, stabbed and clubbed them all to death, except three men who managed to escape. Meanwhile, another group of six or seven Indians arrived at the advanced work camp two miles upstream. When the Klatsassin's group met them a little later, four workers were already working with axes on the road; probably all four were shot, one of them might have tried to escape by jumping into the river; his body, as well as the ferry man's body, were never found. A Homathko Indian boy, who was cooking for the advanced work camp, run downstream, swam across the river at the destroyed ferry to arrive at the trailhead station after nightfall with the news of the killings.
Few weeks before the tragic event at Bute Inlet, Alexander Macdonald, the partner of Manning, had been awarded a contract for a bridle path construction from Bentinck Arm along Anahim Lake to connect eventually with the road from Bute Inlet. On May 17, Macdonald set out with a work crew from Bentick Arm towards Anahim Lake. It's uncertain whether Klatsassin new about the arrival of Macdonald's pack train, but he was heading, with his warriors, to Anahim Lake from the other side and arrived there first. When it became clear that a pack train of white men is coming, Annichim, the chief of Chilcotins from Anahim Lake agreed to join Klatsassin group in attacking the pack train. Luckily for Macdonald's men, one of them had a Chilcotin wife, and she was visiting her people at Anahim Lake. She made sure that her husband was informed about the planned attack. Macdonald decided to stop and dig a makeshift fortification. It was a wasted effort since Chilcotins were not interested in attacking a fortification, no matter how flimsy, so the group tried to get back to the coast. Indians followed and managed to kill two men in an ambush. Macdonald was shot and killed in the ensuing fight; five men escaped and eventually reached Bentinck Arm. One of them first tried to hide in the nearby ranch of a settler, Hamilton. When it became obvious that he didn't shake off his pursuers he got away from the ranch together with Hamilton in the nick of time. Indians didn't follow them but preferred to plunder the settler's house. Under the command of Annichim, the group of warriors then traveled to Puntzi Lake, killed Manning, looted and destroyed his ranch including his plow, other agricultural tools, garden, and field.
Upon learning about the tragic events, the colonial government sent an expedition against the unruly Chilcotins. One part of the expedition was dispatched from Victoria to Bute Inlet; the bigger part was organized in Alexandria in Fraser River valley, and another one originated from New Westminster and sailed to Bella Coola. But it's not easy to chase experienced hunters in the wilderness; it's even more difficult for few hundred experienced hunters to resist an armed expedition of British Empire. When Wiliam Cox, the commander of the expedition, received a message from Klatsassin that he'd like to talk, he sent a message back inviting him to Hudson's Bay Company's fort at Chezco River. Apparently, it was not clear what those messages exactly were. Some thought that the instigators of the fighting were asked to surrender unconditionally, the instigators thought that they were to attend peace talks with the government representatives. Eight Chilcotin warriors came unarmed to Cox expedition's camp; they were arrested tried in criminal court for murder, the jury found five of them guilty, and judge Begbie sentenced all five to death. Klatsassin, Telloot, Tahpit, Piel, and Chessus were hanged. A year later, another two participants in the tragic fighting gave themselves up in Bella Coola. Both of them were tried, found guilty and sentenced to death, but only one, Ahan, was executed since the other one received clemency from the governor of the colonial government.
Even if we are uncertain about how to call those tragic events, we cannot doubt the descendants of the event instigators when they keep saying "We meant war, not murder." So, the exoneration from guilt for murder, posthumously delivered by Canadian prime minister to the six executed Chilcotins, makes sense. But unfortunately, it also raises many questions: • Is it possible that it might worsen rather than improve the future relationship with the indigenous population? Should we start apologizing for other dark parts of our history? • Does it suggest that other nations should do the same? Surely, there are many dark parts in the world's history. • Should all future generations feel guilty for 'sins' of theirs long bygone ancestors? • Should all immigrants, whose ancestors were not involved in the bygone 'sins,' also feel guilty? • Should we perhaps pay some reparation for the past wrongs in perpetuity? If we did, would it help or harm the future indigenous population?
It's not that Canada didn't try to improve a lot of its indigenous population. Since 1990, there were three attempts for a major overhaul of the Indian Act – the legislation related to self-governance and support of the indigenous population. All of them failed. Finding out who has stood in the way of those attempts for improvements and why then making another attempt would surely be better than apologizing. Apologizing is easy, finding the way how to integrate modern society with people trying somehow to build on traditions of their hunter-gatherer ancestors is not.
* http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/98-187-x...
More information on the subject:
• http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/w...
• Nemiah; The Unconquered Country by Terry Glavin
October 20, 2017
Independent review
5 stars of 5 for Essence of Existence:
https://readersfavorite.com/book-revi...
https://readersfavorite.com/book-revi...
Spouses and egos
In what marriage frictions do not exist? And I hear that frequency of marriage quarrels often increase when 'the nest' becomes empty. One of the explanations of the phenomena stems from an understanding of the concept of ego – based on a cursory study of Freud, Jung, and Bern:
Ego is the main component of our personalities. Most of it is in our subconscious, so we don't see clearly how our ego operates just as we are not aware of how our thyroid or kidney operate. A smaller part of it is in our consciousness, so it's possible to talk to and influence our egos, but it's not easy.
Each ego strives to feel well by looking good and achieving good results in selected fields of endeavor. That's a good thing, but the egos' effort to shine often goes too far; it is characteristic for an ego to feel only the best about itself. Only by a conscious and judicial act of the brain, an ego can sometimes arrive at partial correction of this uncritical self-assessment. The criticism by others is difficult to take for any ego, sometimes strong and sensitive egos have trouble admitting any mistakes.
Since it's virtually impossible to be the best in something, competing with others can be dangerous for some egos. A better strategy could be to compete only with your old self. Then, over a long run, success is assured, and even slow but sustained progress will lead to exceptional or certainly at least above-average results.
Everyone has an ego; they vary greatly in strength and sensitivity.
A weak, sensitive ego doesn't encourage achievements and induces lack of confidence. If it's not sensitive, a weak ego allows stagnation in mediocre contentment.
A strong ego helps us to focus on achieving good results and confidence in life; obviously, it's good to have a strong ego. But we should watch it's sensitivity, for it often induces negative traits and triggers unpleasant ego techniques:
• Excessive sensitivity can needlessly undermine our confidence.
• Strong but insensitive (conceited) ego can overrate its quality to the point of perceived perfection and unwillingness, even inability to admit mistakes, which can slow down or even stop further gains of knowledge and skills.
• Any ego tends, at least in its mind, to underrate achievements of others; it's often reluctant to praise others and thus relatively devalue itself.
• At its worst, ego tries to degrade others to elevate itself.
At times, we all have used some or all of these techniques at least to some degree. Our egos prove this point by innumerable examples in everyday life everywhere: • friendly or not so friendly poking of siblings or friends, • argumentative discussions containing gentle or not so gentle put-downs • almost criminal bullying of subordinates in the army or other walks of life.
Our egos are determined mostly by nature (genetics), but surely it can also be influenced, with a little bit of knowledge and effort, by nurture.
For any ego, especially strong ones, achievement is not enough if it isn't acknowledged. Egos need praise, compliments, recognition – the psychological and even physical caressing and stroking. That's ok unless the need for it is excessive.
The strong but not too sensitive ego of a scientist needs recognition say once every two years upon conclusion of some research.
Overly big and sensitive ago of a movie star needs stroking say twenty times a day or more. And one of the most powerful caresses for ego is an approving attention from a member of the opposite sex; that partially explains the high rate of adultery and divorce among the movie stars.
Knowing that praising is important for any ego, we should give praise whenever it's due, but not in an excessive way; that could lead to uncritically conceited egos and resulting stagnation of personal development. Giving praise to others may also solicit more of desirable praise for ourselves, but not necessarily. When the significant others don't reciprocate, holding back our praise because of it would make the situation even worse.
If a nine-year-old beginner on skis feels that he is a better skier than his grandfather, the ski instructor, it will sure slow down his progress in skiing, and it's difficult to address it. When a seven-year-old girl often tells you "I know that already," but then patiently and carefully listens to everything you tell her, she just wants to feel on the same level with you. It's ok to let her keep this unjustifiable confidence; it's not slowing her down in learning. Your peers often have the same tendency; when they do, and if you want or need to impart your knowledge to them, it's better to just 'exchange' experiences with them rather than to teach them.
The lack of praise for your ego is a problem not easily solved; you can not ask for more praise. In relationships, such as marriage, the feeling of a lack of recognition is often mutual. This feeling can lead to many quarrels, and it often stems from the competition of egos. But young people seldom think about ego even if they know what it is. Soon after wedding, arguably most men – at least in the Western cultures – take their leading positions for granted, whether consciously or not they assume their ego is larger of the two. Even if it's not so, most women might go along with that assessment, especially during energy consuming child-bearing and up-bringing times. When the frictions grow in frequency and intensity, if not sooner, it's time to re-assess the relative size of spousal egos. Failer to do so might lead to deterioration of marriage quality, long period of cold co-existence interrupted with quarrels and solution attempts that lead nowhere, or worse. Ego re-assessment might lead to a renaissance of your marriage.
The solution to many quarrels should be achievable by logical discussion, but not if the opposing egos are dug in positions and not willing to lose. Egos are emotional, not logical. Rather than striving for a logical solution, it might be better to let the problem go and try, some other day, a new strategy based on these points:
• It's helpful to know the ranking of the egos in the relationship by size.
• Every ego needs occasional caress.
• The bigger egos need patting more often.
• Sometimes it's necessary to give caress while not receiving any, especially for smaller egos.
• Any ego, especially big ones, at least sometimes gain satisfying elevation of itself by refusal to provide caress, or even by reducing or sinking surrounding egos. With proper 'ego awareness' this shouldn't happen much, but if it does, egos should take it in stride.
Others already said something similar in more poetic language:
• The true love is unconditional.
• It's not easy to give unconditional love, for many situations test the limits of the unconditional love.
• If equal affection cannot be, let the more loving one be me. (This is easier to achieve for smaller egos.)
In practical terms, one of the ways that might perhaps work should look like this:
• You have to start somewhere; perhaps by cheerful greeting 'good morning,' and a hearty hug.
• Use every opportunity for psychological and physical caress and hug.
• This naturally leads to a better mood and more sex.
• More sex leads to a better mood and more hugs, which leads to …
• If at all possible, do not refuse even the faintest invitation to sex. Such refusal is unpleasant for any ego, especially the big ones.
• When a difficult dispute occurs, if at all possible, it's better to pass it over rather than to solve it, and return as soon as possible to the 'caress routine.' A dispute solution then often comes automatically.
The book called Ego-slavery (it's available only in Czech – Egootroctví by Iva Pondělíková) neatly encapsulates the way ego influences us all: we can be slaves to our egos. But if we learn a bit about how ego operates, with some effort we can free ourselves from the negative influence of our ego and improve our lives, ability to solve disputes with our spouses or the way we bring up our children.
Ego is the main component of our personalities. Most of it is in our subconscious, so we don't see clearly how our ego operates just as we are not aware of how our thyroid or kidney operate. A smaller part of it is in our consciousness, so it's possible to talk to and influence our egos, but it's not easy.
Each ego strives to feel well by looking good and achieving good results in selected fields of endeavor. That's a good thing, but the egos' effort to shine often goes too far; it is characteristic for an ego to feel only the best about itself. Only by a conscious and judicial act of the brain, an ego can sometimes arrive at partial correction of this uncritical self-assessment. The criticism by others is difficult to take for any ego, sometimes strong and sensitive egos have trouble admitting any mistakes.
Since it's virtually impossible to be the best in something, competing with others can be dangerous for some egos. A better strategy could be to compete only with your old self. Then, over a long run, success is assured, and even slow but sustained progress will lead to exceptional or certainly at least above-average results.
Everyone has an ego; they vary greatly in strength and sensitivity.
A weak, sensitive ego doesn't encourage achievements and induces lack of confidence. If it's not sensitive, a weak ego allows stagnation in mediocre contentment.
A strong ego helps us to focus on achieving good results and confidence in life; obviously, it's good to have a strong ego. But we should watch it's sensitivity, for it often induces negative traits and triggers unpleasant ego techniques:
• Excessive sensitivity can needlessly undermine our confidence.
• Strong but insensitive (conceited) ego can overrate its quality to the point of perceived perfection and unwillingness, even inability to admit mistakes, which can slow down or even stop further gains of knowledge and skills.
• Any ego tends, at least in its mind, to underrate achievements of others; it's often reluctant to praise others and thus relatively devalue itself.
• At its worst, ego tries to degrade others to elevate itself.
At times, we all have used some or all of these techniques at least to some degree. Our egos prove this point by innumerable examples in everyday life everywhere: • friendly or not so friendly poking of siblings or friends, • argumentative discussions containing gentle or not so gentle put-downs • almost criminal bullying of subordinates in the army or other walks of life.
Our egos are determined mostly by nature (genetics), but surely it can also be influenced, with a little bit of knowledge and effort, by nurture.
For any ego, especially strong ones, achievement is not enough if it isn't acknowledged. Egos need praise, compliments, recognition – the psychological and even physical caressing and stroking. That's ok unless the need for it is excessive.
The strong but not too sensitive ego of a scientist needs recognition say once every two years upon conclusion of some research.
Overly big and sensitive ago of a movie star needs stroking say twenty times a day or more. And one of the most powerful caresses for ego is an approving attention from a member of the opposite sex; that partially explains the high rate of adultery and divorce among the movie stars.
Knowing that praising is important for any ego, we should give praise whenever it's due, but not in an excessive way; that could lead to uncritically conceited egos and resulting stagnation of personal development. Giving praise to others may also solicit more of desirable praise for ourselves, but not necessarily. When the significant others don't reciprocate, holding back our praise because of it would make the situation even worse.
If a nine-year-old beginner on skis feels that he is a better skier than his grandfather, the ski instructor, it will sure slow down his progress in skiing, and it's difficult to address it. When a seven-year-old girl often tells you "I know that already," but then patiently and carefully listens to everything you tell her, she just wants to feel on the same level with you. It's ok to let her keep this unjustifiable confidence; it's not slowing her down in learning. Your peers often have the same tendency; when they do, and if you want or need to impart your knowledge to them, it's better to just 'exchange' experiences with them rather than to teach them.
The lack of praise for your ego is a problem not easily solved; you can not ask for more praise. In relationships, such as marriage, the feeling of a lack of recognition is often mutual. This feeling can lead to many quarrels, and it often stems from the competition of egos. But young people seldom think about ego even if they know what it is. Soon after wedding, arguably most men – at least in the Western cultures – take their leading positions for granted, whether consciously or not they assume their ego is larger of the two. Even if it's not so, most women might go along with that assessment, especially during energy consuming child-bearing and up-bringing times. When the frictions grow in frequency and intensity, if not sooner, it's time to re-assess the relative size of spousal egos. Failer to do so might lead to deterioration of marriage quality, long period of cold co-existence interrupted with quarrels and solution attempts that lead nowhere, or worse. Ego re-assessment might lead to a renaissance of your marriage.
The solution to many quarrels should be achievable by logical discussion, but not if the opposing egos are dug in positions and not willing to lose. Egos are emotional, not logical. Rather than striving for a logical solution, it might be better to let the problem go and try, some other day, a new strategy based on these points:
• It's helpful to know the ranking of the egos in the relationship by size.
• Every ego needs occasional caress.
• The bigger egos need patting more often.
• Sometimes it's necessary to give caress while not receiving any, especially for smaller egos.
• Any ego, especially big ones, at least sometimes gain satisfying elevation of itself by refusal to provide caress, or even by reducing or sinking surrounding egos. With proper 'ego awareness' this shouldn't happen much, but if it does, egos should take it in stride.
Others already said something similar in more poetic language:
• The true love is unconditional.
• It's not easy to give unconditional love, for many situations test the limits of the unconditional love.
• If equal affection cannot be, let the more loving one be me. (This is easier to achieve for smaller egos.)
In practical terms, one of the ways that might perhaps work should look like this:
• You have to start somewhere; perhaps by cheerful greeting 'good morning,' and a hearty hug.
• Use every opportunity for psychological and physical caress and hug.
• This naturally leads to a better mood and more sex.
• More sex leads to a better mood and more hugs, which leads to …
• If at all possible, do not refuse even the faintest invitation to sex. Such refusal is unpleasant for any ego, especially the big ones.
• When a difficult dispute occurs, if at all possible, it's better to pass it over rather than to solve it, and return as soon as possible to the 'caress routine.' A dispute solution then often comes automatically.
The book called Ego-slavery (it's available only in Czech – Egootroctví by Iva Pondělíková) neatly encapsulates the way ego influences us all: we can be slaves to our egos. But if we learn a bit about how ego operates, with some effort we can free ourselves from the negative influence of our ego and improve our lives, ability to solve disputes with our spouses or the way we bring up our children.
July 27, 2017
Fidelity, cuckoo birds and antlers
There is the saying that monogamy is as old as Adam and Eve; it's a hyperbole that doesn't pinpoint the origin of monogamy, but it indicates that it is hidden somewhere in the long-gone ancient times.
Perhaps even men of many small prehistoric hunter-gatherers tribes – it could be credibly argued – enjoyed a life-long relationship with one woman. Survival then wasn't easy; it must have required close cooperation of all tribe members. Surely, dissatisfied single men would not be inclined to give their loyalty and unreserved cooperation to a leader who hogged several wives for himself. Wife hogging was even a lesser danger where women were tribe leaders.
In much larger militarized societies of antiquity, polygamy was the norm for men of high status even though ordinary people were monogamous. In some parts of the world, it still stays like that; elsewhere monogamy became practically universal. Since two strong contributing factors to the spread of monogamy were Roman law and Christianity, it is now codified everywhere in the West, and it's likely a contributing factor to the Western civilization's success.
Polygamy became illegal in many countries, infidelity didn't, but it was always considered immoral at least to a degree that varied from place to place and in time. Somewhere in England in late middle ages, the immorality of infidelity was encapsulated in an interestingly compact slighting expression: cuckold. It designates a husband of an unfaithful wife. It's an imperfect analogy for the cuckoo birds' habit of laying eggs in other bird species nests; a cuckolding woman could plant an offspring of another man into her's and her husband's nest.
Different expressions with the same meaning appeared, at different times, in other countries and languages. In Latin, Greek, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Czech or Ukrainian, an unfaithful wife puts symbolical horns or antlers on her husband's head. Perhaps a similar expression exists in all languages.
From the time of its origin till today, the cuckold label and all its derivatives are derisive terms for men, not women. The explanation of this peculiar fact requires a bit of digging into the history of law and, perhaps surprisingly, rape:
The lust and violence are certainly older than Eve and Adam; they surely existed in prehistoric times. Let's go back to a clan of small hunter-gatherer tribes 30 thousand years ago. Even though the clan didn't like members of the neighboring clan, they would consider stealing their women or trading goods for them. But it's very likely that even in times when a lack of women threatened the very survival of a small tribe, they would not consider taking a Neanderthal female for a wife; she looked so different and could not even speak. So how did the Neanderthals' genes got into a genome of the modern man? It's not so difficult to imagine a group of randy boys raping few Neanderthal females caught alone picking up blueberries on a remote clearing. The social norms of the randy boys' tribe – where the leader certainly would not allow a rapist to disturb the peace inside of his or her small group –included the prohibition of rape, but they didn't apply to Neanderthal girls who were not even human and didn't deserve much consideration. It's not difficult to imagine a group of randy Neandethal boys doing the same to few lone Homo Sapiens girls. Could be that this was a contributing reason why the prehistoric man fought Neanderthals to extinction.
In large communities of old antiquity, rape certainly disturbed the peace of many young women whether it was committed by Gods or randy boys; mythology is frequently talking about it. High-status warrior males could protect their women against men but not Gods. Nothing protected low born women; their men could not possibly stand up to amorously aggressive aristocratic men skilled in the use of weapons, and the society didn't care; rape was not a crime.
In ancient Rome, moral and legal codes related to family and procreation evolved and proved to be beneficial for the future western societies including women. Monogamy became even stronger social norm than ever before; polygamy was prohibited, adultery and rape were criminalized. Convicted rapists were burned alive. Christian education improved a lot of women a bit too; an involuntary sexual pleasure became a sin, and the church strongly supported the social norm of monogamy. Unfortunately, both the God's and legal punishments for sexual predators provided only feeble protection for women.
So even in the late middle ages, many males could impose themselves on women with impunity; women had no defense other than their men. Women had no choice but to submit to amorous aggressors whether they liked it or not. They could not be blamed for it, only fathers of girls and, after marriage, their husbands should and sometimes could provide the defense for them against both the rapists or seducers. The acts of adultery, therefore, reflected negatively on husbands, not on wives. Men were blamed for failing to provide protection. That's why "cuckold" label was disdainful for men, not women. The same went for men who didn't speak English, and their adulterous wives caused them to wear symbolic horns or antlers.
Old habits die hard, so the cuckold label is still a snide, mocking remark, if it's not an insult, for men only. But the situation is now different in two ways: the adultery is not a crime anymore, not even a sin for many, and today's moral and legal codes provide a much better deterrent against rape than ever before. In contrast to medieval times, adultery is now nearly always carried out voluntarily by both men and women, and in the overpopulated societies, constant protection by husbands for their wives is not only undesirable but also impossible. So, it should be possible to use the cuckold expression for both cheating husband and wives. Previously without many rights, women can even vote now for about hundred years already, but still, only husbands are called cuckolds. However, the formerly strictly derogative term lost its weight and could be now used as a lighthearted joke, more so in some places than others. Apparently, in southern Italy being called 'cornuto' (horned=cuckold) is still a serious insult.
Among people that care about the concept of fidelity – hopefully, that's still a majority – calling a man cuckold is more of an insult to his wife than him since it might suggest that she is floozy if not a tart. Any thoughtful person should be able to conclude that much. In front of people who don't care about being faithful nor wish to be perceived as faithful, it's most likely safe to joke about cuckoo birds, horns or antlers; otherwise, it's a tactless indiscretion or worse.
Personally, I had failed to see how anyone can consider cuckold jokes funny, so I inquired about my friends. Now I know that a significant number of people do consider them funny including 50% of responders to my inquiry. 57% of responders thought that such jokes are impudent or insulting. The sum is over 100% because some people say cuckold jokes can be both funny or insulting depending on context: In a small group of intimate friends cuckold jokes could be funny, but in larger gatherings or on social media, they are inappropriate or insulting.
Certainly, we shouldn't expect that adultery will disappear. But perhaps we could expect that, in another hundred years or so, the cuckold and antler jokes or insults will be applied equally to men and women. Logic calls for it.
Perhaps even men of many small prehistoric hunter-gatherers tribes – it could be credibly argued – enjoyed a life-long relationship with one woman. Survival then wasn't easy; it must have required close cooperation of all tribe members. Surely, dissatisfied single men would not be inclined to give their loyalty and unreserved cooperation to a leader who hogged several wives for himself. Wife hogging was even a lesser danger where women were tribe leaders.
In much larger militarized societies of antiquity, polygamy was the norm for men of high status even though ordinary people were monogamous. In some parts of the world, it still stays like that; elsewhere monogamy became practically universal. Since two strong contributing factors to the spread of monogamy were Roman law and Christianity, it is now codified everywhere in the West, and it's likely a contributing factor to the Western civilization's success.
Polygamy became illegal in many countries, infidelity didn't, but it was always considered immoral at least to a degree that varied from place to place and in time. Somewhere in England in late middle ages, the immorality of infidelity was encapsulated in an interestingly compact slighting expression: cuckold. It designates a husband of an unfaithful wife. It's an imperfect analogy for the cuckoo birds' habit of laying eggs in other bird species nests; a cuckolding woman could plant an offspring of another man into her's and her husband's nest.
Different expressions with the same meaning appeared, at different times, in other countries and languages. In Latin, Greek, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Czech or Ukrainian, an unfaithful wife puts symbolical horns or antlers on her husband's head. Perhaps a similar expression exists in all languages.
From the time of its origin till today, the cuckold label and all its derivatives are derisive terms for men, not women. The explanation of this peculiar fact requires a bit of digging into the history of law and, perhaps surprisingly, rape:
The lust and violence are certainly older than Eve and Adam; they surely existed in prehistoric times. Let's go back to a clan of small hunter-gatherer tribes 30 thousand years ago. Even though the clan didn't like members of the neighboring clan, they would consider stealing their women or trading goods for them. But it's very likely that even in times when a lack of women threatened the very survival of a small tribe, they would not consider taking a Neanderthal female for a wife; she looked so different and could not even speak. So how did the Neanderthals' genes got into a genome of the modern man? It's not so difficult to imagine a group of randy boys raping few Neanderthal females caught alone picking up blueberries on a remote clearing. The social norms of the randy boys' tribe – where the leader certainly would not allow a rapist to disturb the peace inside of his or her small group –included the prohibition of rape, but they didn't apply to Neanderthal girls who were not even human and didn't deserve much consideration. It's not difficult to imagine a group of randy Neandethal boys doing the same to few lone Homo Sapiens girls. Could be that this was a contributing reason why the prehistoric man fought Neanderthals to extinction.
In large communities of old antiquity, rape certainly disturbed the peace of many young women whether it was committed by Gods or randy boys; mythology is frequently talking about it. High-status warrior males could protect their women against men but not Gods. Nothing protected low born women; their men could not possibly stand up to amorously aggressive aristocratic men skilled in the use of weapons, and the society didn't care; rape was not a crime.
In ancient Rome, moral and legal codes related to family and procreation evolved and proved to be beneficial for the future western societies including women. Monogamy became even stronger social norm than ever before; polygamy was prohibited, adultery and rape were criminalized. Convicted rapists were burned alive. Christian education improved a lot of women a bit too; an involuntary sexual pleasure became a sin, and the church strongly supported the social norm of monogamy. Unfortunately, both the God's and legal punishments for sexual predators provided only feeble protection for women.
So even in the late middle ages, many males could impose themselves on women with impunity; women had no defense other than their men. Women had no choice but to submit to amorous aggressors whether they liked it or not. They could not be blamed for it, only fathers of girls and, after marriage, their husbands should and sometimes could provide the defense for them against both the rapists or seducers. The acts of adultery, therefore, reflected negatively on husbands, not on wives. Men were blamed for failing to provide protection. That's why "cuckold" label was disdainful for men, not women. The same went for men who didn't speak English, and their adulterous wives caused them to wear symbolic horns or antlers.
Old habits die hard, so the cuckold label is still a snide, mocking remark, if it's not an insult, for men only. But the situation is now different in two ways: the adultery is not a crime anymore, not even a sin for many, and today's moral and legal codes provide a much better deterrent against rape than ever before. In contrast to medieval times, adultery is now nearly always carried out voluntarily by both men and women, and in the overpopulated societies, constant protection by husbands for their wives is not only undesirable but also impossible. So, it should be possible to use the cuckold expression for both cheating husband and wives. Previously without many rights, women can even vote now for about hundred years already, but still, only husbands are called cuckolds. However, the formerly strictly derogative term lost its weight and could be now used as a lighthearted joke, more so in some places than others. Apparently, in southern Italy being called 'cornuto' (horned=cuckold) is still a serious insult.
Among people that care about the concept of fidelity – hopefully, that's still a majority – calling a man cuckold is more of an insult to his wife than him since it might suggest that she is floozy if not a tart. Any thoughtful person should be able to conclude that much. In front of people who don't care about being faithful nor wish to be perceived as faithful, it's most likely safe to joke about cuckoo birds, horns or antlers; otherwise, it's a tactless indiscretion or worse.
Personally, I had failed to see how anyone can consider cuckold jokes funny, so I inquired about my friends. Now I know that a significant number of people do consider them funny including 50% of responders to my inquiry. 57% of responders thought that such jokes are impudent or insulting. The sum is over 100% because some people say cuckold jokes can be both funny or insulting depending on context: In a small group of intimate friends cuckold jokes could be funny, but in larger gatherings or on social media, they are inappropriate or insulting.
Certainly, we shouldn't expect that adultery will disappear. But perhaps we could expect that, in another hundred years or so, the cuckold and antler jokes or insults will be applied equally to men and women. Logic calls for it.
January 2, 2017
Saving the World?
Ismael and My Ismael by Daniel Quinn are two books looking at the same things in two slightly different angles. (Few illustrations may be seen at:
https://www.facebook.com/authorEssenc... )
One genre sub-classification for these books is Science Fiction & Fantasy, so it's not entirely clear if Quinn is serious when he deliberates about the human condition starting with the question: "… the whole universe works! Every single thing in it works – except for us. Why?" If he just attempted to generate discussion and new points of view on human societies, then the books are quite good. But the tone of the books indicate that he is assessing our condition and suggesting the solution for problems seriously; if that's the case, then his premises seem to me hopelessly naive and incomplete and his conclusions utterly unworkable and confused.
Quinn asserts that Takers (that's how he calls all people who adopted the invention of agriculture) are heading into serious trouble because they don't live by the natural laws like hunter-gatherers (he calls them Leavers) and all other animals do. In a nutshell, this is what Quinn thinks the natural laws look like:
• Species must not destroy food of other species. • Species must not prevent access to food for other species. • Species must not eradicate any other species; they can eat other species but not exterminate them.
Even if I knew nothing about the much more authoritative law of natural selection proposed by Charles Darwin, I would have a hard time believing Quinn's laws of nature. Quinn is right; Takers don't live by 'his' natural laws, but contrary to his belief neither do animals and Leavers. They seldom if ever did. It's hard to imagine that lions would somehow stop hunting their preferred prey just to prevent its extinction. Prehistoric hunters in Europe and Asia never gave up opportunities to hunt Mammoth, a source of huge amount of meat, and thus became the significant factor in Mammoth extinction. Giant Sloth disappeared from landscape shortly after Clovis hunters, with sophisticated stone tipped javelins, came to North America. Not too long after Maori hunters arrived in New Zealand, large flightless Moa bird was extinct.
To look at a balanced ecosystem is to see many species more or less harmoniously co-existing, But it doesn't mean that such balance, which evolved over millions of years, was not occasionally spiced by one species exterminating another. Existing species are hugely outnumbered by already extinct species. Sure, natural disasters caused most extinctions, but inevitably some were caused by inter-species competition.
With the advent of pastoral life and development of agriculture starting around 10,000 years ago, most human tribes gradually became Takers, and according to Quinn their Culture doesn't work well ever since. The main culprit is supposedly the fact that in Takers' Culture the food became 'owned' and was locked. That became the necessary cornerstone of Takers' economy, "because, if food wasn't under lock and key who would work?"
But obtaining food was always 'work.' Consider the hunter-gatherers' effort to wring out food out of nature. Sure, at times it was leisurely picking of blueberries, but other times it was hard work digging roots or pursuing spares game over long distances, butchering, preserving, transporting and storing food in caches for distribution in long winter months. In early stages of agricultural societies, the previous distribution of stored food couldn't have changed much yet. Later on, when the population grew dramatically since more food was available, granaries were indeed locked, but for many reasons other than making people work.
But surely it's correct to assume that Takers always worked more than Leavers. When blueberries are gone, you can't keep picking, when the game disappears you can't keep hunting, but you can always work on a larger field when the amount of land is still inexhaustible. The reward for more work was more food, no starvation, more surviving babies. More interestingly, some people were not needed in food production cycle anymore and could start thinking about thousands of inventions.
Whether the food was locked or not, avoiding work for an individual in an early human tribe – where everybody knows everybody – was not an option in a hunting tribe or a farming tribe. Sure stealing and other forms of avoiding work in Takers' tribes did appear later with the substantial growth of population, but probably they had little to do with the lock on granaries.
Some Takers tribes undoubtedly considered work in fields less exciting than hunting, but reverting to the old style of living was always difficult and soon became impossible since it could not sustain the increased population.
Takers are getting into trouble even more in the modern age, and Quinn is not alone worrying about it. Brainstorming for a possible solution is necessary. Inventing natural laws that support some "creative return" to Leavers' lifestyle may be less dangerous than, say, Marx's or Hitler's ideology but equally useless.
https://www.facebook.com/authorEssenc... )
One genre sub-classification for these books is Science Fiction & Fantasy, so it's not entirely clear if Quinn is serious when he deliberates about the human condition starting with the question: "… the whole universe works! Every single thing in it works – except for us. Why?" If he just attempted to generate discussion and new points of view on human societies, then the books are quite good. But the tone of the books indicate that he is assessing our condition and suggesting the solution for problems seriously; if that's the case, then his premises seem to me hopelessly naive and incomplete and his conclusions utterly unworkable and confused.
Quinn asserts that Takers (that's how he calls all people who adopted the invention of agriculture) are heading into serious trouble because they don't live by the natural laws like hunter-gatherers (he calls them Leavers) and all other animals do. In a nutshell, this is what Quinn thinks the natural laws look like:
• Species must not destroy food of other species. • Species must not prevent access to food for other species. • Species must not eradicate any other species; they can eat other species but not exterminate them.
Even if I knew nothing about the much more authoritative law of natural selection proposed by Charles Darwin, I would have a hard time believing Quinn's laws of nature. Quinn is right; Takers don't live by 'his' natural laws, but contrary to his belief neither do animals and Leavers. They seldom if ever did. It's hard to imagine that lions would somehow stop hunting their preferred prey just to prevent its extinction. Prehistoric hunters in Europe and Asia never gave up opportunities to hunt Mammoth, a source of huge amount of meat, and thus became the significant factor in Mammoth extinction. Giant Sloth disappeared from landscape shortly after Clovis hunters, with sophisticated stone tipped javelins, came to North America. Not too long after Maori hunters arrived in New Zealand, large flightless Moa bird was extinct.
To look at a balanced ecosystem is to see many species more or less harmoniously co-existing, But it doesn't mean that such balance, which evolved over millions of years, was not occasionally spiced by one species exterminating another. Existing species are hugely outnumbered by already extinct species. Sure, natural disasters caused most extinctions, but inevitably some were caused by inter-species competition.
With the advent of pastoral life and development of agriculture starting around 10,000 years ago, most human tribes gradually became Takers, and according to Quinn their Culture doesn't work well ever since. The main culprit is supposedly the fact that in Takers' Culture the food became 'owned' and was locked. That became the necessary cornerstone of Takers' economy, "because, if food wasn't under lock and key who would work?"
But obtaining food was always 'work.' Consider the hunter-gatherers' effort to wring out food out of nature. Sure, at times it was leisurely picking of blueberries, but other times it was hard work digging roots or pursuing spares game over long distances, butchering, preserving, transporting and storing food in caches for distribution in long winter months. In early stages of agricultural societies, the previous distribution of stored food couldn't have changed much yet. Later on, when the population grew dramatically since more food was available, granaries were indeed locked, but for many reasons other than making people work.
But surely it's correct to assume that Takers always worked more than Leavers. When blueberries are gone, you can't keep picking, when the game disappears you can't keep hunting, but you can always work on a larger field when the amount of land is still inexhaustible. The reward for more work was more food, no starvation, more surviving babies. More interestingly, some people were not needed in food production cycle anymore and could start thinking about thousands of inventions.
Whether the food was locked or not, avoiding work for an individual in an early human tribe – where everybody knows everybody – was not an option in a hunting tribe or a farming tribe. Sure stealing and other forms of avoiding work in Takers' tribes did appear later with the substantial growth of population, but probably they had little to do with the lock on granaries.
Some Takers tribes undoubtedly considered work in fields less exciting than hunting, but reverting to the old style of living was always difficult and soon became impossible since it could not sustain the increased population.
Takers are getting into trouble even more in the modern age, and Quinn is not alone worrying about it. Brainstorming for a possible solution is necessary. Inventing natural laws that support some "creative return" to Leavers' lifestyle may be less dangerous than, say, Marx's or Hitler's ideology but equally useless.
December 25, 2016
Professional Reviews
Official reviews of Essence of Existence prepared for members of the following book information organisations:
• Readers'Favorite: https://readersfavorite.com/book-revi...
• OnlineBookClub: http://forums.onlinebookclub.org/view...
• Readers'Favorite: https://readersfavorite.com/book-revi...
• OnlineBookClub: http://forums.onlinebookclub.org/view...
November 5, 2016
Tyrant's Paranoia?
Was it just paranoia that led Stalin to send millions to the gulag? Yes, but not entirely. Contrary to the pretty picture of quick Bolshevik victory forced-fed later to Soviet vassal countries, the revolution was a tough, protracted civil war. The political and ethnic groups opposing Bolsheviks were many, too numerous to mention. Severe fighting lasted five years, sporadic armed resistance for further eleven years till 1934. After that, opposition was crushed but could spring up anytime. The continuous waves of innocent victims disappearing into the gulag's maw were necessary not only to remove any potential leaders of the opposition but mainly to keep the population terrorised into submission. The glorious communist utopia can't be built for several reasons, but the necessity of dictatorial power to kick start the process is the main one. "The power corrupts, and the absolute power corrupts absolutely," in many different ways.
For illustration see: https://www.facebook.com/authorEssenc...
For illustration see: https://www.facebook.com/authorEssenc...
