It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did protecting access to bronze drive imperialism?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by cloudyday
 


Its like our western concept of prisoners of war and treatment of enemy dead with respect, some other cultures considered prisoner of war non people, available for sacrifice or ill treatment and enemy bodies as lunch


Sometimes I wonder why humans have done so little cannibalism. Early humans must have worked very hard for every scrap of meat, so why not eat a dead tribe member? This cannibalism wouldn't need to be a disrespectful.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think cannibalism was normally eating an outsider killed for sacrifice as opposed to a insider killed by natural causes. I wonder how this taboo against cannibalism developed? It seems like most carnivores don't like eating their own species. My theory is that carnivores that work alone would avoid real violence among themselves due to the risk of injury to both parties. This policy makes sense for pack hunters too, because the risk to individual animals is still greater when attacking the same species - even if one pack has superior numbers.
edit on 16-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloudyday
I guess this is a little off topic, but I've always had a hard time understanding foreign policy and war. Like what makes a group of people mass into formations and kill each other in one spot on one day as opposed to raiding or whatever? There seem to be unspoken rules of war understood by both sides that makes war possible.

I have read that primitive warfare was designed to minimize casualties by focusing on intimidation and duels between champions. But this would limit the amount the winner could demand from the loser.

Maybe evolution is the best model. Nobody makes up the rules; they just follow the established rules and break them in minor ways. Gradually the rules evolve but they are not designed by anybody?
edit on 15-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)


Hey cloudy

If you want to gather a few clues about this concept.
Check out how Shaka Zulu evolved from primative intimidation warfare to some all out down and nasty more modern warfare. He was quick to adapt.
It is all a good read anyway. Oh and how the English square was used by the French to defeat the Mamluk in Egypt. All most fasinating.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
...
Hey cloudy

If you want to gather a few clues about this concept.
Check out how Shaka Zulu evolved from primative intimidation warfare to some all out down and nasty more modern warfare. He was quick to adapt.
It is all a good read anyway. Oh and how the English square was used by the French to defeat the Mamluk in Egypt. All most fasinating.


I just realized something: the so-called primitive intimidation warfare exists today as diplomacy. Nations have military parades or military maneuvers to display their strength in the same way that tribal warriors would shake their spears and flex their biceps. It is actually a very enlightened form of warfare. Each side assesses the expected outcomes and risks of combat. Then they negotiate a peace treaty to reflect this assessment without actually suffering the costs of war.

Actual combat should only happen if one party makes a mistake so that it assesses the likely outcome differently from the other party.

This reminds me of how animals defend their territories without actually harming each other.
edit on 16-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


Interesting take on it - i would also suggest that by using newspapers / magazines / tv to highlight their newest shiny toys they are also doing the same thing.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Ah so Flav
Buttin heads ring a bell. ooch!
Thats what I have to do over at this other thread in the forum.
It's about a dig in Norway. have any of you guys read any of it??



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


I suggest a book by Nigel Davies; Human Sacrifice in History and Today

He goes into the details of why cannibalism may have been a part of early religions, good read



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by cloudyday
 


I suggest a book by Nigel Davies; Human Sacrifice in History and Today

He goes into the details of why cannibalism may have been a part of early religions, good read


Thanks, I added it to my wish list.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join