-->

-->... die illusionslose Frage:

Wer würde heute in Australien herrschen, wenn die Missionare den Yir Yoront 1952"richtige" Waffen geschenkt hätten. Ich meine solche, mit deren Hilfe sie (mit entsprechenden Zündern versehen und entsprechend platziert oder auf zielsicheren Rampen installiert) den gesamten Kontinent hätten"unterwerfen" können und das ohne, dass ein Aussie sich hätte entfernen können?

Antwort: Sicher nicht der Governor General of Her Majesty the Queen.

His Excellency Mr. Yir Yoront, president for life und Träger höchster Orden, würde in einem doppelt-opernhausgroßen Palast residieren und die Seinen hätten wirklich ein für alle Mal ausgesorgt. Im UNO-Sicherheitsrat wäre Australien logo auch vertreten. Permanent member.

Die Abschussrampen müssten natürlich perfekt gesichert sein, sonst wär's vorbei mit der YY-Herrlichkeit.

Sorry for that!

-->Sali Popeye et al.


Erschütternd, aber lehrreich Dein faszinierender Bericht: Eine Steinzeitkultur, in der Steinäxte ein zentrale sozio-ökonomische Rolle erfüllen, wird ge-, ver-, und zerstört, weil Missionare den „Primitiven“ Stahläxte schenken. Die Missionare erkannten tragischerweise den Unterscheid nicht zwischen Form(Axt) und Funktion(sozi-ökonomische Bedeutung der Axt). Mit katastrophalen Folgen:

<ul><font color=blue>Steel Axes for Stone-Age Aborigines (pp. 421-422)

The consequences of the adoption of steel axes by a tribe of Australian aborigines vividly illustrates the need for consideration of the undesirable, indirect, and unanticipated consequences of an innovation.

The Yir Yoront traveled in small nomadic groups over a vast territory in search of game and other food. The central tool in their culture was the stone ax, which the Yir Yoront found indispensable in producing food, constructing shelter, and heating their homes. A complete revolution was precipitated by the replacement of the stone ax by the steel ax.

Anthropologist Lauriston Sharp (1952) conducted his investigation of the Yir Yoront by the method of participant observation. He studied Yir Yoront culture by taking par in its everyday activities. Because of their isolation, the tribe was relatively unaffected by Western civilization until the establishment of a nearby missionary post. The missionaries distributed many steel axes among the Yir Yoront as gifts and as payment for work performed.

Previously, the stone ax had been a symbol of masculinity and of respect for elders. Only men owned stone axes, although women and children were the principal users of these tools. Axes were borrowed from fathers, husbands, or uncles according to a system of social relationships prescribed by custom. The Yir Yoront obtained their stone ax heads in exchange for spears through bartering with other tribes, a process that took place as part of elaborate rituals at seasonal fiestas.

When the missionaries distributed the steel axes to the Yir Yoront, they hoped that a rapid improvement in living conditions would result. There was no important resistance to using the steel axes, because the tribe was accustomed to securing their tools through trade. Steel axes were more efficient for most tasks, and the stone axes rapidly disappeared among the Yir Yoront.

But the steel ax contributed little to social progress; to the disappointment of the missionaries, the Yir Yoront used their new-found leisure time for sleep,"an act they had thoroughly mastered." The missionaries distributed the steel axes equally to men, women, and children. Young men were more likely to adopt the new tools than were the elders, who did not trust the missionaries. The result was a disruption of status relations among the Yir Yoront and a revolutionary confusion of age and sex roles. Elders, once highly respected, now became dependent upon women and younger men, and were often forced to borrow steel axes from these social inferiors.

The trading rituals of the tribe also became disorganized. Friendship ties among traders broke down, and interest declined in the annual fiestas, where the barter of stone axes for spears had formerly taken place. The religious system and social organization of the Yir Yoront became disorganized as a result of the tribe's inability to adjust to the innovation. The men began prostituting their daughters and wives in exchange for the use of someone else's steel ax.

Many of the consequences of the innovation among the Yir Yoront were undesirable, indirect, and unanticipated; these three types of consequence often go together, just as desirable, direct, and anticipated consequences are often associated.

Sharp, Lauriston (1952),"Steel Axes for Stone Age Australians," in Edward H. Spicer(ed.), Human Problems in Technological Change, New York, Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 69-72.</ul></font>

Nicht unnteressant finde obiges in Zusammenhang von Ergebnissen aus der Aggressions-Forschung. Dazu ein Zitat: Erich Fromm schreibt in seinem Buch ‚Anatomie der menschlichen Destruktivität’ S. 17O, Zitat: ’’...Wrigth’s Monumentalwerk -1637 Seiten- bringt eine gründliche Analyse der Kriegsführung der primitiven Völker,..(.).. bei 653 primitiven Völkern erhoben wurden..(.).. Ergebnisse von beträchtlichem Interesse, da sie statistisch eine Tendenz zeigen, die mit den Ergebnissen zahlreicher anderer Autoren übereinstimmt: <<Primitive Jäger, Sammler und Ackerbauern sind die wenigsten kriegerischsten. Die weiter fortgeschritten Jäger und Ackerbauern sind kriegerischer, und die am höchsten entwickelten Hirten und Ackerbauern sind am kriegerischsten>>, (Quincy Wright, 1965). Diese Feststellung bestätigt die Annahme, dass Kriegslust keine Funktion angeborener menschlicher Triebe ist, die in der primitivsten Form der menschlichen Gesellschaft manifestiert, sondern [bestätigt], dass es sich dabei um eine Funktion der Entwicklung der Zivilisation handelt. Aus Wrights Daten geht hervor, dass eine Gesellschaft um so kriegerischer ist, je mehr Arbeitsteilung in ihr herrscht..’’ Ende Zitat.

Kommentare?

Grüsse an Dich und die Runde
Liated

-->Sali Popeye et al.


Erschütternd, aber lehrreich Dein faszinierender Bericht: Eine Steinzeitkultur, in der Steinäxte eine zentrale sozio-ökonomische Rolle erfüllen, wird ge-, ver-, und zerstört, weil Missionare den „Primitiven“ Stahläxte schenken. Die Missionare erkannten tragischerweise den Unterscheid nicht zwischen Form(Axt) und Funktion(sozi-ökonomische Bedeutung der Axt). Mit katastrophalen Folgen:

<ul><font color=blue>Steel Axes for Stone-Age Aborigines (pp. 421-422)

The consequences of the adoption of steel axes by a tribe of Australian aborigines vividly illustrates the need for consideration of the undesirable, indirect, and unanticipated consequences of an innovation.

The Yir Yoront traveled in small nomadic groups over a vast territory in search of game and other food. The central tool in their culture was the stone ax, which the Yir Yoront found indispensable in producing food, constructing shelter, and heating their homes. A complete revolution was precipitated by the replacement of the stone ax by the steel ax.

Anthropologist Lauriston Sharp (1952) conducted his investigation of the Yir Yoront by the method of participant observation. He studied Yir Yoront culture by taking par in its everyday activities. Because of their isolation, the tribe was relatively unaffected by Western civilization until the establishment of a nearby missionary post. The missionaries distributed many steel axes among the Yir Yoront as gifts and as payment for work performed.

Previously, the stone ax had been a symbol of masculinity and of respect for elders. Only men owned stone axes, although women and children were the principal users of these tools. Axes were borrowed from fathers, husbands, or uncles according to a system of social relationships prescribed by custom. The Yir Yoront obtained their stone ax heads in exchange for spears through bartering with other tribes, a process that took place as part of elaborate rituals at seasonal fiestas.

When the missionaries distributed the steel axes to the Yir Yoront, they hoped that a rapid improvement in living conditions would result. There was no important resistance to using the steel axes, because the tribe was accustomed to securing their tools through trade. Steel axes were more efficient for most tasks, and the stone axes rapidly disappeared among the Yir Yoront.

But the steel ax contributed little to social progress; to the disappointment of the missionaries, the Yir Yoront used their new-found leisure time for sleep,"an act they had thoroughly mastered." The missionaries distributed the steel axes equally to men, women, and children. Young men were more likely to adopt the new tools than were the elders, who did not trust the missionaries. The result was a disruption of status relations among the Yir Yoront and a revolutionary confusion of age and sex roles. Elders, once highly respected, now became dependent upon women and younger men, and were often forced to borrow steel axes from these social inferiors.

The trading rituals of the tribe also became disorganized. Friendship ties among traders broke down, and interest declined in the annual fiestas, where the barter of stone axes for spears had formerly taken place. The religious system and social organization of the Yir Yoront became disorganized as a result of the tribe's inability to adjust to the innovation. The men began prostituting their daughters and wives in exchange for the use of someone else's steel ax.

Many of the consequences of the innovation among the Yir Yoront were undesirable, indirect, and unanticipated; these three types of consequence often go together, just as desirable, direct, and anticipated consequences are often associated.

Sharp, Lauriston (1952),"Steel Axes for Stone Age Australians," in Edward H. Spicer(ed.), Human Problems in Technological Change, New York, Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 69-72.</ul></font>

Nicht unnteressant finde ich obiges in Zusammenhang mit Ergebnissen aus der Aggressions-Forschung. Dazu ein Zitat: Erich Fromm schreibt in seinem Buch ‚Anatomie der menschlichen Destruktivität’ S. 17O, Zitat: ’’...Wrigth’s Monumentalwerk -1637 Seiten- bringt eine gründliche Analyse der Kriegsführung der primitiven Völker,..(.).. bei 653 primitiven Völkern erhoben wurden..(.).. Ergebnisse von beträchtlichem Interesse, da sie statistisch eine Tendenz zeigen, die mit den Ergebnissen zahlreicher anderer Autoren übereinstimmt:"Primitive Jäger, Sammler und Ackerbauern sind die wenigsten kriegerischsten. Die weiter fortgeschritten Jäger und Ackerbauern sind kriegerischer, und die am höchsten entwickelten Hirten und Ackerbauern sind am kriegerischsten"", (Quincy Wright, 1965). Diese Feststellung bestätigt die Annahme, dass Kriegslust keine Funktion angeborener menschlicher Triebe ist, die in der primitivsten Form der menschlichen Gesellschaft manifestiert, sondern [bestätigt], dass es sich dabei um eine Funktion der Entwicklung der Zivilisation handelt. Aus Wrights Daten geht hervor, dass eine Gesellschaft um so kriegerischer ist, je mehr Arbeitsteilung in ihr herrscht..’’ Ende Zitat.

Kommentare?

Grüsse an Dich und die Runde
Liated