Was violence the norm in the past?

Post Reply New Topic

What about his violence do you consider to be unusual compared to predecessors, successors or contemporaries?

How exactly did Magna Carta make violence a thing of the past? wasn't it's impact specifically local in Britain anyway?
In the European context random violence where warbands march into your village to plunder, grape and pillage probably ended with the viking age in 1065. Although Harald Hadrada (the last viking) was technically an emperor with an empire stretching over the north sea.

Organised state/nation violence would be a way of life in Europe well into the 20th century. I would argue violence was experienced in greater scales across Europe in WWI and II. After WWII western Europe, and the Western colonies have experienced an epoch of peace for 80 years (Ireland being an exception). However for the rest of the world (including parts of eastern Europe) violence is always been simmering along.

It didn't. I don't think anyone claimed it did. What it did was introduce, for the first time, some basic human rights (like the right not to be imprisoned without a trial) that were protected by law.

But even the rights it introduced weren't implemented overnight, it took a long time to be universally applied (within Britain I mean). It was originally just designed to protect the rights of very rich and powerful people, that slowly got extended to include commoners.

Also worth remembering that most 'English' nobles of the medieval period are actually French in origin. The rights they sought with the Magna Carta they already had in France. The principles actually existed in many European countries so while Magna Carta was only law in England, the ideas it contained were commonplace elsewhere.

I said that as Britain's influence grew globally with empire, so too the principles established by Magna Carta spread further than our shores.

British law in general has had an outsized impact globally thanks to empire building. Many former colonies have legal systems that have their origins in British law.

Ok, that makes sense. But being charitable, its limited wanton violence into violence in the countries it spread to. One exception is India which seems to be the only democracy run by non-whites that has economically prospered in relative peace. they have borrowed the best of British including the parliamentary form of government and British law.

I'd think the Normans under William the Conqueror (a real bastard... no, I mean he literally was!) had done their share of pillaging and murder right after Harald Hardrada had worn down Harold of Hasting's forces.
Then there was the whole situation with William Wallace and Robert de Bruce in Scotland, which was none too peaceful.

Yeah the stars were certainly not aligning for King Harold or the last Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Britain. Yes, Hadrada softened up the Anglo-Saxons so William could run through their forces in 1066. Yes the plunder that happened after William conquered England created violence. But unlike viking raids in the past, the English village folk knew what to expect. that was the rules of war. to the victor goes the spoils. In viking times, an Englishman might be brushing his teeth in the outhouse only to be rudely interrupted by a passing viking named Sven who busts open his door and garrots him. But, I guess a Norman blade isn't less horrifying than a viking blade.

Some say the hunter-gatherers were absolute sweeties compared to the farmers that succeeded them. So I don't know that there's been a simple drop in violence since the human race started out.

I suppose violence is the extreme form of a general disregard for the well-being of others. Disregard for others may be related to the perception of others as being "them" rather than "us." And a scarcity of resources tends to encourage competition, which leads to a sense of "them" and often to violence in one form or another.

Possibly in the developed world there's less direct violence these days. Your opponents might rob you (perhaps in subtle ways) but they're less likely to kill you.

But it's probably more complicated than that. Certainly I can't predict which way the frequency of killing will go. But with resources drying up because of overpopulation and overexploitation, I'd guess that it's going to get worse.

Personally, I think violence is only a day to day reality once we left hunter-gatherer societies for agricultural societies up until more modern times. Back in tribal times, you identified with your group, everyone knew everyone, and the whole point was to work harmoniously together to survive. A lot of things motivating violence (money, theft, etc.) didn't exist. Not to say never, but just not common.

It's only once we invented fences, ownership, excess, artificial governance and control over people too numerous to remember everyone, that I think force of will via violence became a thing. The haves would use violence to control the have-nots, and the have-nots would use violence to take from the haves.

Interesting theory on the origin of Muslim women's head-wear. Apparently in the early days of the Islamic period, there was a problem of rape (sexual-violence) of women who went to use the latrines on the outskirts of town. BUT the bad men wouldn't attack women who were known to be important to any tribal group (multiple affiliations present. Too many different groups to know every individual). This is because of fear of retaliation (physical violence). Instead they'd target slaves or lower class women who were unprotected by family/tribal ties. The Muslim leaders solved the problem by requiring all women to wear the coverings to eliminate any obvious distinction between high and low, at least enough to cause doubt in the minds of the rapists. They couldn't be sure if they were endangering themselves, so they left the women alone.

Did it happen this way? I don't know. But I find it interesting that the same elements are at play here as in 16th century Europe. There'd be no jails, except for rare high profile cases and people. No police force, except private security for those who can afford it. There'd just be lots of people, wealth and poverty, and your protection and ability to avoid violence would be tied to your family or gang.

Violence became LESS problematic in the last couple hundred years as we gained universal (to a country) law, police, jails, and welfare.

I watched the New Transformers Beast movie last night. It started by introducing the lead young man, doing everything in his power to get a legitimate job that paid enough to live on and meet his younger brother's medical bills. In the end he was reduced to agreeing to a local criminal's scheme to steal a high end car (which turned out to be a transformer). Think of all the ways modern America let him down and forced him into crime. The insufficient welfare system to fall back on as another alternative to crime. The medical system that wouldn't treat his brother past a certain point. It's great that he didn't resort to more violent options. But many do, because of those kinds of stressors.

Then of course there's plenty of morally weak individuals who who don't need an excuse. They're just predisposed when they don't get their way.

Still, things are better than they used to be. Though I expect to see a sharp uptake in violence over the next few years.

this is one of those subjects that isn't researched too deep due to being offensive to modern cultural norms. But there's plenty of evidence that women in pre-islamic societies in Persia and Arabia and India wore veils and coverings. I've read a few different versions but common theme is that it was a form of cultural/class based societal expectation. there is a concept called "Purdah" which is common in the middle east and in non-muslim India where specifically women of high status are expected to be in seclusion away from male gaze and in public dress modestly from head to toe. When guests were invited for a feast usually the women will go into a separate room away from the men.

As to why this practice started? I guess the man of high status did not want other men coveting their wives/concubines whom were (in ancient times) considered property. I think if the origin of this practice is understood then its implementation in modern times should (technically) be considered oppressive.

Probably. Though that raises the question of, if it was oppressive, does that mean it's still oppressive. Motives change.

In Shinto, the Japanese penchant for cleanliness was tied to mythology. A god/kami washed himself thoroughly after encountering his dead and putrid wife/goddess/kami. Since then, Japanese knew to follow his example and stay clean.

But now we have science and hygiene knowledge. The motive changes, but the Japanese still keep clean and tidy.

Interesting about the ubiquity of head coverings is that in those cultures, even the men almost always wear hats, turbans, etc. I'm guessing it started as a hygiene expedient for hair care. Keep the sand out. But hiding women's faces adds a little extra protection in a world where women are blamed, or co-blamed for actions leading from men's lust. And if not unjustly blamed, at least a tacit recognition that they might be targets in a world in which such men are known to exist. So, in a world without our level of surveillance and forensics, the simple veil might have been a wise expediency.

Yes, your analogy/example from Japan is wise. Yes it makes sense that what practices considered oppressive in the past can evolve to be a voluntary act of piety/chastity. I have read many accounts from women who feel more comfortable with hijab. However, I wonder if they can disentangle their personal choice from subconsciously conforming to social or family expectations/norms? I also thing there are young women who are coerced so its a controversial subject.

Maybe. But we have our own forced cultural norms as well... as the Gays and Trans are now being forcibly 'reminded'.

Force, coercion, expectation, habituation, comfort, free will... Seems every society cycles through these things.

After gaining a taste of the freedom potential in Liberal Democracy, now we're getting a taste of brutal violence ripping it away from our fellow citizens. Now in USA, and probably in other Western countries as the dominoes fall.

And we'll quiver our bodices over the injustices heaped on Muslim women.

Humanity is in serious need of an enema.

But are we really seeing the decay of the west as something new or unique? the likes of Oswald Spengler opined virtually the same way back in the early 20th century as European empires began their decline. Rise of communism was seen as if the free world was on the precipice of doom. I am old enough to remember the constant fear of impending nuclear holocaust even in the faraway antipodes in Australia. If you believe the likes of Douglas Murray he'll have you believe globalisation and domestic demographic change (i.e. great replacement theory) is a symptom of the demise of the west all over again.

MAGAs and rise of Donald trump is a symptom of cyclic social change and the rise of popularism. It happened in the 20th century where economic malaise led to the rise of popularist fascist leaders who take despondent Europeans to the promised land. I suspect we will all come out the other end. If not, then it is what it is.

Back in medieval times it was the norm to use all kinds of torture on prisoners or chop off their hands for stealing a chicken. People who suffered from seizures were seen as possessed and burned at the stake. But now that kind of punishment is generally seen as barbaric, at least in most western countries.

But humans inevitably give in to their violent urges anyway. That's why we keep having stupid political and religious wars and Americans elected a criminal Orange Man who wants to annex Canada. The USA loves violence even, if they pretend not to. Just look at all the violence in their media. But they're ironically terrified of nudity, even though they act as if they're even more obsessed with sex than they are with violence. They would rather their kids believe the stork bring babies until the kids are at least 21 years old. They flip out when a woman breast feeds in public, no matter how discreet she's being and the fact that the baby needs food. What a joke.

It is a contradiction of societies around the world, prudish social conservativism when it comes to sex/marriage but openly glorifying violence. the world has been ruled by tribal warfare/skirmishes and the rise of violent empires. I think many theories suggest homo sapiens was incredibly violent, eradicating up to 14 other hominid species and absorbing the last neanderthals and denisovans through conquest. It's hard coded in our DNA. However, with education and proper stewardship (not popularist dictators who throw around slogans) it may be possible to create peaceful societies who don't derive pleasure from violence. Having said that, I can't watch tv without seeing some conflict.