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).
Rhonda, both in terms of timing and content,
your 21 Apr 2009 article is all about the lawsuit.
I find it surprising that someone who is in journalism would object to a characterization of the article as a "press release". Are you contending that a "press release" is some lesser form of journalism and cannot contain "serious discovery and research" ?
On reflection, there is little point in my continuing any sort of discussion with you concerning this topic because it appears to me that, in this area, if someone is not for your position, you deem that someone to be against your position. In short, that someone is "either with us or against us" (sound familiar ?). Both of us have better things to do with our time.
Regards
Mike
For anyone who is interested,
the Supreme Court (NY's trial court) for New York County (aka Manhattan) has a docket entry system similar to PACER, but free - the docket card for INDEX NO.: 105519-2009; PLAINTIFF: MANDINGO, HENEP ISUM; DEFENDANT: ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS, INC., has three pleadings of material interest:
Summons and Complaint 10/19/2009 - by pls (also on the Stinkyjournalism site as previously posted)
Answer 10/15/2009 - by defs.
Notice of Motion 11/30/2009 - by defs (for Summary Judgment).
The Motion for SJ cites a number of pleadings that are not listed on the online docket card:
Quote:
... affidavit of Jared Diamond, sworn to on November 20,2009, the affidavit of Thomas Summer, sworn to on November 18,2009, the affidavit of Pamela McCarthy, sworn to on November 20,2009, the affidavit of Peter Kovacs, sworn to on November 12,2009, and the affirmation of Carolyn K. Foley, dated November 23, 2009, and their accompanying exhibits, and upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants Advance Publications, Inc. and Jared Diamond’s Motion for Summary Judgment ...
The motion was noticed for February 8, 2010; adjourned to April 5, 2010; and adjourned to May 18, 2010 (docket entries). Deposition deadlines are set for Tuesday, May 29, 2012; so, this case has got a long way to go.
That's all, folks
Mike
Affidavits of Jared Diamond et al
I have read these affidavits listed above. They deal solely with procedural issues, such as statute of limitations for the magazine and DVD and whether or not the right party was sued. However, the interesting one is by Jared Diamond.
Instead of listing his research methods, arguing or providing evidence that what he wrote was true..Diamond writes: "I prepared the Article based in large part on information the plaintiff Daniel Wemp told me. At the time I prepared the Article and submitted it to The New Yorker, I believed it to be a true and accurate account of events as Daniel Wemp had told them to me."
That was it. No other evidence or arguement is offered. See link
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/imag...ed_Diamond.pdf
Rhonda, thank you for the link
You correctly carved out the only material portion of Diamond's affidavit:
Quote:
I prepared the Article based in large part on information the plaintiff Daniel Wemp told me. At the time I prepared the Article and submitted it to The New Yorker, I believed it to be a true and accurate account of events as Daniel Wemp had told them to me.
Odd affidavit in the context (it doesn't take on the amended complaint para by para). The obvious defense being asserted is "I was misled by Wemp"; so, therefore, an "absence of malice" (Paul Newman and Sally Fields ;)).
IMO: I'd say (but I shouldn't read tea leaves) that there is nothing in this affidavit for a judge to bite on so far as summary judgment is concerned. For a defendant to prevail on summary judgment, no material issues of fact can exist and, on those uncontested facts, the defendant must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
IMO: The amended complaint (by Richard Asche, who has good creds) lays out the various article passages that Diamond (based on his affidavit) presumably will testify were told him by Wemp. The complaint alleges that Wemp did not say what the article claims he said. Hence, questions of fact exist as to what Wemp told Diamond (Diamond: he told me "A"; Wemp: I did not tell him "A"); and the case should go to the jury. However, since "Judge McCarthy" ain't hearing the motion, his opinion ain't worth spit.
The motions based on NY's 1 year statute of limitations are important, since if that statute was blown (late filing), the case can be tossed regardless of its merits. The SJ Motion mentions a defendants' Memorandum of Law filed. If you have a link to that, it would spell out the defendants' theories more clearly. And, if Asche has filed a responsive Memorandum of Law, a link to that would be most enlightening.
Regards
Mike
Mike, I will look for the MEMO tomorrow--thanks
Hummm. Have to look. I was told the Memo was filed and public. I appreciate that you've read this stuff and offer "IMO" s. Thanks. One question:
Is this case like the Paul Newman movie in that malice is not the bar that must be met because the plaintiffs in his case are without doubt private, not public figures?
The hilarious part of the Diamond's affidavit statement is the tautology (the premise repeated in the conclusion) "He told me this, and at the time I wrote the article I believed what he told me."
This defense may cover the Daniel Wemp problem, that is if Diamond and not Wemp , is believed. However this does not cure the problem New Yorker and Diamond have with the other plaintiff, Henep Isum Mandingo who Diamond never spoke to.
The possible defense "Daniel told me that he killed..." does not also include, as far as I know, "Daniel told me that he and Isum killed ..." when no attempts to do any independent verification was done.
Another interesting point is there is no proof that Wemp said these things in 2001-2002, as the article dates his quotes, since there are no notes or tape recordings. The only notes Diamond took were from one meeting in May 2006.
Diamond had a white AU bird tour guide, David Bishop, with him at all times he was with Wemp, but Bishop says he does not remember anything of what Wemp said.
Wemp has a couple of witnesses (two indigenous men who were working for World Wildlife Fund in 2006, who were also Wemp's employer when he drove Diamond back in 2001-2002) from May 2006 who heard some of what Wemp said and back him up.
-Rhonda
Court Motion and MEMO docs --also I do research in Egypt
Here are the most recent documents RE the Diamond side of the case:
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/misc...ndum-Part1.pdf
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/misc...ndum-Part2.pdf
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/misc...TION-Part1.pdf
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/misc...TION-Part2.pdf
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/misc...TION-Part3.pdf
FYI Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that Egyptians don't identify themselves with tribes. Boy is that true. They don't even see themselves as Arabs but as Egyptians. Arabs are people from the desert or the Gulf in their view and parlance.
I have been in Egypt at least 30 times the past 10 years and am working on finishing a book on the true story of the crash of EgyptAir Flight 990, Oct 31 1999. If you recall its the fatal accident off the Atlantic coast of the US where the first officer was accused by NTSB of downing the plane while committing suicide.
BTW We have two more investigations that expose Diamond's errors (fabrications?) forthcoming soon. One involves his famed book Guns, Germs and Steel and the second one is about another indigenous Papua New Guinea tribesman who worked for Diamond and his tribe that Diamond accused in multiple publications of having conducted systematic "genocide" for revenge.
Finally, Mike and Steve, it's no mystery IMO what studies have credibility. There are signposts like transparency of method and providing clear sources and documentation. For example, we not only have photos of Isum walking around (that Diamond falsely reported was paralyzed in a wheelchair for 11 years, "cut" in his spine from Wemp's assassins' arrow), we also have hospital records and XRays that verify his medical history and the dates.
New Yorker's fact checking method, as they admit in multiple places, involved speaking to no witnesses or named indigenous people. The editor said "in this case we consulted a large number of experts in the various fields the material touches on.” In other words, no specific facts were checked... with the people in the article accused of crimes, police, govt agencies, NGOs, missionaries, maps, oil companies or the one expert who is widely known in the field on the specific area of Papua New Guinea, Paul Sillitoe, who even knows Wemp, Isum etc.
We checked with ALL of the aforementioned and have published much, but not all, of this information on StinkyJournalism.org.
Mike, you're not saying there is no truth, are you?
Mike, you wrote: "What is truth?... asked Pilate - no answer is given in the canonical Gospel text. In the area of defamation, we may not have advanced much in 2000 years."
The only reason why I do investigations is because repeatable and knowable facts exist and they are beautiful and powerful. Such facts are truth in my view. At the very least, they are the closest thing on earth to the Platonic notion of truth.
Easy for you to say Tyrrell....
Looks like 150+ pages to look through - it might be interesting. :D
My concerns (besides the accuracy via "fact checking" of more formal documents used by our troops - e.g., RAND monographs, etc.) also were with (what I suspect) might be a much less formal process used in the field in non-secure areas - as to which, MikeF and Schmelap have had more recent experience. What do they (if they are still reading this) suggest re: "fact checking" of folks who give them narratives and of those folks' informants ?
Regards
Mike
To Dayuhan-- thanks for link!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
Thanks for posting this link. Very interesting!
-Rhonda
Tyrrell, now, you've gone and done it....
by mentioning "good governance". We'll soon be joined by COL Bob Jones who will explain his theories of "good governance" in terms of "a (nomonological-)deductive logic system", and in terms of "an inductive (probabilistic) logical system", to boot. At which point, this country lawyer will really be lost in the fog of words. :D
Some points in this discussion exemplify the problem of expressing "facts" in words. I thought Rhonda was doing pretty well with her 60 mph van until this:
Quote:
from RRS
The details may not be a certainty but stepping front and center of a van moving 60 miles a hour would be no doubt prove fatal in every trial.
The problem is with "every". People have survived direct hits from motor vehicles traveling 60 mph or more; just as people have survived free falls from thousands of feet. Those are admittedly outliers, but they do exist. So, "almost every" is more precise wording in that particular case.
Now, excuse me while I go and look up "nomonological-deduction". ;)
Regards
Mike