Originally posted by undercoverchef
thelibra - Thanks for your well thought out and well constructed replies
I don't agree with most of what you say but do respect your opinion and also am a realist enough to know that, should there be a Situation X, yours
would be the most likely outcome.
Nooo, no not neccessarily. Actually, what I need, from people just like yourselves, to explain to me why it is wrong. That'll make more sense by the
end of the post, but it is a compliment, and a thank you for yours. I thrive upon a healthy debate against someone with a differing view because
sometimes I get to learn a whole new point of view on something. Sometimes it changes my mind, and sometimes it reinforces it. You raise many valid
points that make me rethink my ideas about compassion, balance, and its place within civilzation.
And I believe we have much common ground on some of these ideas. I will do my best to share them, and, by all means, share any difference of opinion
you have. We just might end up agreeing.
Originally posted by undercoverchef
There is no reason to believe that early man (aboriginals) behaved like savages... If we look at the hunter gatherer society's that still exist they
are mainly peaceful people who enjoy a good life.
Ahhh... We are agreed on a major point already. I was thinking more of a Class 4 or 5 disaster, where for the most part, mankind still has access to
technology or a close enough memory and access to enough archives to at least achieve something approaching that of the industrial age (crude
machinery, steamworks, agricultural revolution, gunpowder), and you were thinking more in lines with stone to bronze age (bows, spears, etc.)
And depending upon the location of Situation X, anywhere between and beyond the two are entirely possible. If, for instance, it happened in the UK, I
think there are still enough people with a broad enough skillset and access to resources, that at worst, they'd be thrown back to the Industrial
However, were it to happen in a place like the Phillipines, or Haiti, or other places that are remote enough, and poor enough, yet with close enough
family bonds to dissolve and become individual tribes.
I also agree, 100% that not all aboriginal peoples (or in my case, Native Americans) are not barbarians. There were certainly at least a few tribes
that were total bastages to the others, and one might call them barbarians. I'm descended from the Sac & Fox, and nothing I have ever read suggested
But what is a barbarian?
From a technological standpoint, the Aztecs weren't barbarians. They were actually quite advanced thanks to the adsorbtion of the Toltecs. From a
moral standpoint, they were monsters who worshipped gods of pain and war, like Tezcatlipoca, sacrificed slaves in public spectacle by the hundreds, if
not thousands, for any number of reasons. Their history rivals that of Nazi Germany in both their industriousness and the extent of the barbaric
treatment of their fellow man.
What I meant by the alternative being barbarians, what I meant was, "truckloads of men with guns who raid the landscape, kill anyone who does not
join then, and raping women, and burning anything they can't loot." And I wholeheartedly believe that, if present-day man were suddenly shaken by an
Earth-Shattering cataclysm on the scale of a Class 5 situation, then, for at least a while, these barbarians would roam the landscape, killing,
pillaging, raping, and looting.
The alternative to this is going to be behind the safety of a well-fortified community that can stand as one against the barbarians, produce her own
food and water, so as not to be susceptable to siege, and have as many resources, so as to have something to build with.
And then... what?
I mean, the barbarians won't just go away one day. They will either continue to raze the countriside, and conquer, enslave, rape, or kill any whom
couldn't protect themselves, or they will meet a force that prevents them from doing so, or they will settle down and eventually form their own
nation, which will, eventually, have to learn how to deal with the growing number of other nations out there who formed to protect themselves against
the barbarians in the first place.
That community might be something as simple as a stone-age tribe, or as advanced as perhaps the late 19th or early 20th century, but they will exist,
and they will spread out of neccessity for space and resources.
Examine North America before the white man came and took over. OVer 500 Nations existed here. Individual tribes, some quite advanced, some quite
primitive, and for the most part, they acted much the same way as Europeans did back home. They warred with each other, they conquered each other,
they fought for territory, and sometimes committed terrible deeds.
Now at the same time though, they had a deep abiding respect for the land, a reverence for nature, and a connection to her that the white man had
forgotten long before they arrived at our shores. Some had a deep, rich oral history, medicinal knowledge, and a sense of honor, of nobility, that
could never be bought by gold or granted by sheets of paper.
I am not nearly so familiar with the Australian Aboriginal Peoples, but I suspect that the real stories behind their tribes are much the same.
Communities will still exist. People will still crave to be a part of something. A tribe wasn't just some small collection of huts that banded
together for warmth, a tribe was your Nation. It was your leadership, your source of protection, food, weapons, and medicine.
What I propose is no less than that.
But like any tribe, there will eventually come a time when someone else, be they another tribe or barbarians, who will have the idea of taking us
over, and I can never help but try to be as prepared for that day as I am for Situation X. And what seems to be the best preparation for that is to
advance my tribe first, and those friendly to my tribe, first.
Before I get too far into the rest, I'm curious to see what your thoughts are on this.