Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage

[Nie Trink Wasser]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312310897/ref%3Dnosim/nationalreviewon/103-3062208-2270263






http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-bowman081403.asp

" A useful corrective to the bland assumption that seems to be shared by Miss Dowd and Mr. Braudy — namely that warlike-posturing is what produces wars rather than being produced by them — is to be found in Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage by Steven A. LeBlanc (with Katherine E. Register) (St. Martin's Press, 272 pages, $25.95). The book is as much a critique of academic anthropology's willful blindness to the centrality of warfare in human experience as it is an adumbration of the reasons for accepting that centrality. "

[Mr Manifesto]

That's nice. Do you have your own opinion on the subject?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The "Noble Savage" was discredited years ago, and this genius Winky Tinky Wuss is just now figuring it out?

[LW]

I have bought and read the book. It is quite good and well-reasoned. However, it perhaps emphasized a little too much the "constant" part of the name. It leaves the impression that all primitive societies were in a constant warfare with their neighbors. It mentions only very briefly that there is evidence that some cultures managed to live several centuries in a relative peace before a new period of brutal warfare set in.

But anyway, I recommend reading it.

[a_unique_person]

Coming up next: Debunking the myth of the Peaceful, Nobel Westerner.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
The "Noble Savage" was discredited years ago, and this genius Winky Tinky Wuss is just now figuring it out?

oh really, Central Spincter ?

"discredited" eh ? let us see this "discrediting".




Coming up next: Debunking the myth of the Peaceful, Nobel Westerner.

you have got to be the most guilt ridden goon here.
there comes a point on this here board in which you see someone's name and you either respond or you're just completely indifferent because you know how stupid the person is.

you're very "unique" to me in that way, but Ive decided to respond anyway out of pity.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


you have got to be the most guilt ridden goon here.



No. I'd say it was 'The Fool'.

Anyway, the recurring theme of the 'noble savage' was partly why I could never stand Steinbeck.

[Diamond]

I'm sorry but in Europe we only read the National Review for the laughs.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Diamond
I'm sorry but in Europe we only read the National Review for the laughs.

wow.

in North America we don't really think our land mass has as much pandering effect as you seem to think yours does.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Diamond
I'm sorry but in Europe we only read the National Review for the laughs.

So true. You'd be hard pressed to find another country outside of the USA that would find the National Review as anything more than a journal for misguided morons.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by KelvinG


So true. You'd be hard pressed to find another country outside of the USA that would find the National Review as anything more than a journal for misguided morons.


your ability to ignore the book and address only the source of the review is quite boring.

[Checkmite]

I made a plug for that book in my article on the "Beautiful People" myth for Skeptic Report. It's a good book, but it's known about. It's true, warfare and environmental destruction has defined Man pretty much ever since he's been Man. Since there's a general consensus on this, then...?