It would appear that equality is a modern concept, and one might say myth. Find refrences to the equality of individuals that predates the enlightenment. I would be interested in such refrences.
In fact, with some consideration, it appears that all of the so-called "propertyless" states and societies in the modern world came about as a product of conflict, ratrher than peace. It was so on the russian revolution, Mao's china, Cuba, North vietnam, etc... How does this corellate with your concepts of peace and property?
Early property rights were quite likely communal, as in , "this land belongs to the tribe". it's products were stillowned, as it was forbidden to other tribes or interlopers.
it is quite possible that the development of trade specialization, ( which occurs in tandem with the sedentary agricultural revolution), led to the development of persoanl property in the form of trade specific tools or locations, and then to the social stratification allowing property to extend to land ownership. We would not have to define who has what share of the tribes property if there was no disparity in status. rather every idividual would have an equal share.
While I find myself in agreement with your origional statement, I am curious as to why you believe that world peace would end property concepts.
I think the closest we have come to world peace is under the five good emporers of rome. (96-180 a.d., or C.e. if you are a politically correct historian)They ruled the known world and that a, " naked virgin could walk from Hispania to Italia with a bag full of gold and remain unmolested." is a quote from the time. The romans still had property.
As I wrack my brain, I cannot think of a time or place where internal or regional peace led too the abolition of property... can you provide examples?
As an aside, women are dependent on others during the latter stages of pregnancy, and also during early child rearing. ( somehow I believe, without any historical or archeological evidence at all that men avoded parenting responsibilities as much then as they do now, call it my own bias.) Just as men were dependent on women for gathering and the propogation of the species.
The only division of labor in modern hunter gatherer groups is by gender and age, not by social status.
Thus I would argue that the idea of a female being dependent on males is not entirely manufactured, but rather blown out of proportion to the corallational dependence of males on females. Ideally this is a symbiotic relationship, with both parties contributing, and benifiting from the efforts of the other. Portraying it as parasitic or dominant, I think, reveals our modern bias about gender issues, not the actual past.
As much as I must agree that the version of history we are fed today is mysoginistic, I cannot wholehertedly agree with your statement. While it is true that most ritual items we find from pre-civilization seem to venerate a female diety, we cannot know what status she held or domains she governed. The "woman of willendorf" a faceless pregnant icon than is common in european, middle eastern, and north african digs certainly seems to demonstrate a religious regard for women, specifically pregnant women, but as there are no written records or direct experience we are left with theories and supposition. We know absolutely nothing about the property values of these early peoples.
The closest we could come would be the descriptions of the Scythians provided in Herodotus, some of whos outlandish claims have recently been archeologically validated. Ruled by a queen, at least in H.'s time, and with a femanine snake goddess these may be taken as prototypical matriarchal barbarians. And still, we dont know if women could inherit, or own property.
Some have connected the rise of masculine "religious" iconography, ( how do you know something is holy, and not just art, or perhaps a toy, when you have no communication or context to understand the nature of the object?), which occured between 15 and 10 thousand years ago with the rise sedentary agrarian populations and organized conflict. 'Tis true that these early male votive statues and icons are almost universally depicted as fierce and beweaponed. Another explanation may lie in the growing understanding that men did contribute to conception, rather than it being a province of women alone.
Likely, if there were strictly matriarchal populations in pre-history, they pre-dated the widespread development of property, as the iconography alters before the agrarian revolution, rather than after, There was no ownership of land, thus no matriarchal land ownership.
Some would cite the origins of property in the sedentary lifestyle that accompanied of the agrarian revolution. The thinking, as I understand it, ids that settled populations would have the ability and incentive to claim and accumulate posessions. Early agrarians, archeology illuminates, actually had shorter lifespans, along with higher disease and infant mortality rates. This aside, farming was more viable than hunting and gathering as it allowed for storage of food surpluses, and also the specialization, and thus mastery, of trades.
Of course, when you have a food surplus and a drought comes along, there may well be disputes with those surrounding transitory populations who do not have the buffer provided by storage. Thus property, and warfare, quite likely share the same root causes.
Myself, I would be moe inclinerd to blame the bag for the creation of the property concept. Or perhaps the gourd. Prior to the development of this technology it was only possible for a gatherer to own two things at any one time, one in the right hand, and one in the left. The portable container would allow an individual to accumulate wealth and carry it for themselves. We commonly say that posession is 9/10ths of the law. I believe that it is more than that, the aclimitization of posessions quite likely invented the concept of posession itself.
Interestingly , observation of ape populations reveals some rudimentary property behaviors, especially among juveniles. Individual apes have been witnessed as posessinfg a stick, or other object, and keeping it with them, demonstrating consternation when it is approached or used by another. Usually the property seems to be used as a toy, rather than as a tool. This points to the possibility that property, and all of it's baggage, has origins deeper in the past than any agricultural or tool based revolutions of homo sapiens. An intruiging, and disillusioning thought.
Aug 28 2012: A question?
Am I confused, or was not a malaysian citizen recrntly scentenced to 11 years imprisonment for being an atheist? (after a brutal beating for which no one was prosecuted).Is it not also true that sharia law governs? Tell me , what do they do to a muslim who choses to convert, or to renounce his faith? Does it , "promote better understanding and common values..."
As an aside, I would argue that all religions are not pretty much the same, deism is vastly differnt as it posits a god so transcendent it is removed from the universe itself. Religions can be passive, (the dao), or aggressive, (sikh)... prosletyzing, (mormon), or exclusive, (judaism), among a thousand other qualifications. They can be revealed to a single individual, (such as islam or the mormon faith), or as an amalgam of experiences,( the gospels perhaps, or the torah).
You could posit that all religions were basically the same were to examine them in a psycological or sociological paradigm, but not in a theological one. Of course then you would have to back that up with a creditable psyco- or socio- explanation as to what religion was and why they were similar. As Marx did for example.
Aug 28 2012: As the most self indulgent and wasteful culture in human history. The dark middle ages were named by later historians, as was the classical era, and the Rennaisance. Should we be lucky and leave literate generations behind us when we are done, they will likely refer to us with a much less charity.
Aug 15 2012: A thought...
I learned something from an older sikh gentleman a few years ago. He taught me that the best name for those people who frequently frustrate and confound us is "teacher".
The thought process being that they are teaching us patience, understanding, calm, and empathy... I very much like this concept.
TEDCred score: +3.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: When and why did we start staking out property?
It would appear that equality is a modern concept, and one might say myth. Find refrences to the equality of individuals that predates the enlightenment. I would be interested in such refrences.
Regards.
A reply on Conversation: When and why did we start staking out property?
In fact, with some consideration, it appears that all of the so-called "propertyless" states and societies in the modern world came about as a product of conflict, ratrher than peace. It was so on the russian revolution, Mao's china, Cuba, North vietnam, etc... How does this corellate with your concepts of peace and property?
Regards...
A reply on Conversation: When and why did we start staking out property?
Early property rights were quite likely communal, as in , "this land belongs to the tribe". it's products were stillowned, as it was forbidden to other tribes or interlopers.
it is quite possible that the development of trade specialization, ( which occurs in tandem with the sedentary agricultural revolution), led to the development of persoanl property in the form of trade specific tools or locations, and then to the social stratification allowing property to extend to land ownership. We would not have to define who has what share of the tribes property if there was no disparity in status. rather every idividual would have an equal share.
Regards.
A reply on Conversation: When and why did we start staking out property?
While I find myself in agreement with your origional statement, I am curious as to why you believe that world peace would end property concepts.
I think the closest we have come to world peace is under the five good emporers of rome. (96-180 a.d., or C.e. if you are a politically correct historian)They ruled the known world and that a, " naked virgin could walk from Hispania to Italia with a bag full of gold and remain unmolested." is a quote from the time. The romans still had property.
As I wrack my brain, I cannot think of a time or place where internal or regional peace led too the abolition of property... can you provide examples?
Regards...
A reply on Conversation: When and why did we start staking out property?
As an aside, women are dependent on others during the latter stages of pregnancy, and also during early child rearing. ( somehow I believe, without any historical or archeological evidence at all that men avoded parenting responsibilities as much then as they do now, call it my own bias.) Just as men were dependent on women for gathering and the propogation of the species.
The only division of labor in modern hunter gatherer groups is by gender and age, not by social status.
Thus I would argue that the idea of a female being dependent on males is not entirely manufactured, but rather blown out of proportion to the corallational dependence of males on females. Ideally this is a symbiotic relationship, with both parties contributing, and benifiting from the efforts of the other. Portraying it as parasitic or dominant, I think, reveals our modern bias about gender issues, not the actual past.
Regards.
A reply on Conversation: When and why did we start staking out property?
...
As much as I must agree that the version of history we are fed today is mysoginistic, I cannot wholehertedly agree with your statement. While it is true that most ritual items we find from pre-civilization seem to venerate a female diety, we cannot know what status she held or domains she governed. The "woman of willendorf" a faceless pregnant icon than is common in european, middle eastern, and north african digs certainly seems to demonstrate a religious regard for women, specifically pregnant women, but as there are no written records or direct experience we are left with theories and supposition. We know absolutely nothing about the property values of these early peoples.
The closest we could come would be the descriptions of the Scythians provided in Herodotus, some of whos outlandish claims have recently been archeologically validated. Ruled by a queen, at least in H.'s time, and with a femanine snake goddess these may be taken as prototypical matriarchal barbarians. And still, we dont know if women could inherit, or own property.
Some have connected the rise of masculine "religious" iconography, ( how do you know something is holy, and not just art, or perhaps a toy, when you have no communication or context to understand the nature of the object?), which occured between 15 and 10 thousand years ago with the rise sedentary agrarian populations and organized conflict. 'Tis true that these early male votive statues and icons are almost universally depicted as fierce and beweaponed. Another explanation may lie in the growing understanding that men did contribute to conception, rather than it being a province of women alone.
Likely, if there were strictly matriarchal populations in pre-history, they pre-dated the widespread development of property, as the iconography alters before the agrarian revolution, rather than after, There was no ownership of land, thus no matriarchal land ownership.
Regards
A comment on Conversation: When and why did we start staking out property?
Some would cite the origins of property in the sedentary lifestyle that accompanied of the agrarian revolution. The thinking, as I understand it, ids that settled populations would have the ability and incentive to claim and accumulate posessions. Early agrarians, archeology illuminates, actually had shorter lifespans, along with higher disease and infant mortality rates. This aside, farming was more viable than hunting and gathering as it allowed for storage of food surpluses, and also the specialization, and thus mastery, of trades.
Of course, when you have a food surplus and a drought comes along, there may well be disputes with those surrounding transitory populations who do not have the buffer provided by storage. Thus property, and warfare, quite likely share the same root causes.
Myself, I would be moe inclinerd to blame the bag for the creation of the property concept. Or perhaps the gourd. Prior to the development of this technology it was only possible for a gatherer to own two things at any one time, one in the right hand, and one in the left. The portable container would allow an individual to accumulate wealth and carry it for themselves. We commonly say that posession is 9/10ths of the law. I believe that it is more than that, the aclimitization of posessions quite likely invented the concept of posession itself.
Interestingly , observation of ape populations reveals some rudimentary property behaviors, especially among juveniles. Individual apes have been witnessed as posessinfg a stick, or other object, and keeping it with them, demonstrating consternation when it is approached or used by another. Usually the property seems to be used as a toy, rather than as a tool. This points to the possibility that property, and all of it's baggage, has origins deeper in the past than any agricultural or tool based revolutions of homo sapiens. An intruiging, and disillusioning thought.
Regards.
A reply on Conversation: Aren't Christianity, Judaism and Islam basically the same? How much archaeological evidence is there of similar teachings in the past?
Am I confused, or was not a malaysian citizen recrntly scentenced to 11 years imprisonment for being an atheist? (after a brutal beating for which no one was prosecuted).Is it not also true that sharia law governs? Tell me , what do they do to a muslim who choses to convert, or to renounce his faith? Does it , "promote better understanding and common values..."
As an aside, I would argue that all religions are not pretty much the same, deism is vastly differnt as it posits a god so transcendent it is removed from the universe itself. Religions can be passive, (the dao), or aggressive, (sikh)... prosletyzing, (mormon), or exclusive, (judaism), among a thousand other qualifications. They can be revealed to a single individual, (such as islam or the mormon faith), or as an amalgam of experiences,( the gospels perhaps, or the torah).
You could posit that all religions were basically the same were to examine them in a psycological or sociological paradigm, but not in a theological one. Of course then you would have to back that up with a creditable psyco- or socio- explanation as to what religion was and why they were similar. As Marx did for example.
Regards.
A comment on Conversation: How do you think history will judge us?
A comment on Conversation: Is there an indispensable person or group in your life with whom you frequently disagree? How has this made you a better person?
I learned something from an older sikh gentleman a few years ago. He taught me that the best name for those people who frequently frustrate and confound us is "teacher".
The thought process being that they are teaching us patience, understanding, calm, and empathy... I very much like this concept.
Regards,