What tribal societies can tell us about justice and liberty
An excellent article just appeared at Stinkyjournalism.org entitled Rebutting Jared Diamond's Savage Portrait: What tribal societies can tell us about justice and liberty. While it is part of a larger, ongoing, argument about Jared Diamond's New Yorker article, it has some very interesting lessons for understanding how tribal societies operate.
Quote:
How do tribal communities in developing countries without functioning police, judges, law courts and prisons ensure social stability? This question is of perennial interest to anyone familiar with tribal societies. It is difficult for those of us familiar with such state institutions of law enforcement to imagine how people in tribal environments create order, particularly in dense populations like that of the New Guinea Highlands which also prizes individual political autonomy. The popular image – traceable to Renaissance times, when Europeans first encountered tribal peoples – is of savages condemned to disorderly, even anarchic lives of constant violence and frequent bloodletting.
When acephalous does not equate to anomie
Hi Marc,
Several years ago, Toby Dodge, a British historian who wrote extensively on Iraq and the failures of nation-building, tackled the issue of modernity and governance through the lens of Somalia describing how the tribes maintained law and order after state-failure through their accepted and traditional norms, values, and beliefs. While many are uncomfortable of this notion, primarily because it challenges the permanence of the Westphalian nation-state and the same areas lead to a breeding ground for al Qaeda's unconventional warfare campaign, I think there is some truth to his thesis that tends to support Paul Sillitoe & Mako John Kuwimb's rebuttal.
Sometimes, acephalous does not equate to anomie or anarchy.
Instead, sometimes, others (formerly savages) have a way of working things out that are simply foreign to the “civilized” world. Specifically, they have a better tolerance for levels of violence. It took me a long time to accept and fully understand this distinction. In Iraq, as the time passed when the tribes were working things out and the situation declined into a civil war, the world was very bloody, and I was struck at how inhuman my neighbors acted towards each other. Eventually, we intervened and forced arbitration.
As I reeled in the Sunnis, I was unsure of how to approach to force some acceptance that beheading their neighbors and stealing their land was unacceptable. I finally just shamed them by making them watch the actual video of the executions over and over pointing out how they stood cheering while their friends died. The elders cried over and over, but they remained stuck in inaction for some time to make amends.
I walked away from that deployment just shaking my head and conceding that there are some people that you just can’t help.
A year later, my friends (both US and Iraqis) wrote to me to tell me of the sustained peace that had come back to the valley. I was in disbelief. I thought they’d simply just keep killing each other, but then I was reminded of the conflict resolution negotiations we had conducted in my final days there. Sunnis and Shias, all neighbors, some interrelated, meeting for the first time since they had last been fighting. I did not know what to expect. When we walked into the building, they were all crying and hugging each other proclaiming how much they missed each other. I was befuddled. These were the same men, who three months prior, were literally trying to kill each other. In truth, I had to learn that this was normal for them. They were conditioned to periods of peace under controlled governance with periods of intense fighting breaking out with each regime change followed with conflict resolution and amends.
Conversely, I think sometimes we fail to grasp how modernity is viewed by the tribes. In the case of Sayyid Qutb,when attending school in Colorado, he did not see a land of freedom, self-reliance, and endowed with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He observed a promiscuous land with no values- a Devil’s playground.
I suppose it's all about how you look at the society. In some ways, to each their own, that is, until you decide to fly planes into someone else's playground :cool:.
v/r
Mike
We used to call this "economic warfare"
The response by stinkyjournalism.org to Jared Diamond's article (118 KB in pdf on disc) does not spare the horses, or in the article's context - the pigs (2748 KB on disc in its 10-part attack on Diamond - and, yes, I read all 10).
That output does not include Stinky's 21 Apr 2009 special report, Jared Diamond’s Factual Collapse: New Yorker Mag’s Papua New Guinea Revenge Tale Untrue, Tribal Members Angry, Want Justice (492 KB in pdf on disc), which was essentially a press release on the $10 million lawsuit filed (via a summons) on 20 Apr 2009 by Henep Isum Mandingo and Hup Daniel Wemp. The plaintiffs appeared "pro se", by themselves, no attorney of record. The two PNG citizens certainly cannot be termed primitive from the wording in the summons - "libel per se" and "inter alia" evince their background in Latin legalese. :D
Lack of attorneys was soon corrected. The latest substance I found via a quick search was this 8 Feb 2010 blog quote from Forbes, Papua New Guineans raise damages demand in libel suit to $45 million; "Preppie Murder" lawyer Jack Litman takes on case.
Quote:
On account of The New Yorker's portrayal of him, Daniel Wemp claims he is in hiding and fears for his life. A 30-page amended complaint filed Friday in New York State Supreme Court contends that a story in the magazine about tribal violence in Papua New Guinea generated such anger toward Wemp among his fellow tribesmen that he can't return to his highlands village or hold a job.
....
.... Filed by Wemp's new lawyer, Jack Litman, who represented Robert Chambers in the infamous "Preppie Murder" case, the amended complaint raises the demand for damages to some $45 million from an initial $10 million in the original suit filed in last April. [JMM Note: since Jack Litman died 23 Jan 2010,
NYT obit, after a long illness, his personal involvement seems questionable. The explanation is that the
amended complaint was dated 21 Sep 2009 and filed 16 Oct 2009 by Richard Asche, Litman's partner - as reported by Katie Rolnick, Stinkyjournalism.org,
Jared Diamond, The New Yorker Deny All: New Guinea Tribesmen Wemp and Mandingo File Amended Libel Lawsuit] ....
.....
The suit is based on a 40,000-word study on The New Yorker story by Rhonda Roland Shearer, director of the New York City-based Art Science Research Lab, which runs a media ethics project dubbed stinkyjournalism.org. ....
Perhaps I'm growing far too skeptical in my old age; but after placing the 10-part series in context (as I tend to view things as a lawyer), I felt I was reading a 10-part brief for the plaintiffs.
Regards
Mike
Welcome to the forum, Rhonda
I could challenge your characterization of what I said (which was not very much since the post largely referenced your website and other sources). However, my dog is not in this fight, though your dog clearly is.
You stated your position well (in your 21 Apr 2009 article, "JARED DIAMOND’S FACTUAL COLLAPSE: New Yorker Mag’s Papua New Guinea Revenge Tale Untrue, Tribal Members Angry, Want Justice", following the 20 Apr filing of the plaintiffs' summons):
Quote:
Let this case be a cautionary tale warning others around the world that such "academic" exploitation will no longer be tolerated and will be exposed by the international community, who will stand up along with the victims of such painful lies.
And indeed, your 10-part series does "stand up" alongside of the two plaintiffs. That is part of your right to publish, which I did not and do not attack.
I am interested in the issue of: to what extent (if any), this case may be affected by NYT-Sullivan 1964 and Time-Hill 1967 and their progeny - and by SCOTUS' grant of cert in Snyder-Phelps (see this post, Some background items). While your case may be a "cautionary tale" to you, it could be considered a "chilling effect" by others.
It will be up to the judge to decide the pre-trial motions; and, if the case be tried, up to the jury to decide whether the plaintiffs should receive $45 million.
Regards
Mike
PS - Marc, beyond reading his two books (Guns and Collapse) and what I've read in the articles I cited in my post, I know nothing of Diamond. And, no, I'm not about to enter the lists to tourney out the merits and demerits of "Environmental determinism, aka climatic determinism or geographical determinism". For me (a non-SME), that would indeed be tilting at windmills. :D Cheers from South of the Border (despite being well North of you).