this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
229 points (96.7% liked)
Greentext
4295 readers
485 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As an aside on that kind of tribalism.
There is a valley on Africa where scientists have discovered the remains of multiple neolithic tribes inhabiting it long term in caves. The men all have markers indicating that they grew up in the valley.
All of the adult women do not.
Pretty cool to see cultural anti-incest policies in action.
Less cool that the women are, obviously, the ones expected to leave their homes.
I always think about these things when people act like primitivism is some coherent ideology to increase equality.
There's also the implication that they send the native women away
Yes. Notably, it seems like the same behaviours exist in Bonobos and in Chimpanzees.
In bonobos it is the young males that leave/are exiled from the group, and in Chimpanzees it is the young females.
I think it's more likely they were taken after fighting with another group
All of them? Not single one was killed in this supposed fighting?
It would have been pretty primitive fighting. While I'm sure death did happen, it might not have been a certainty even for the fighters. If they had been living the the area stably for thousands of years, there's a good chance they found an equilibrium regarding the cycle of violence.
Aztecs were a warrior culture but when they fought, they fought to capture rather than kill. It was so they could sacrifice the prisoners, but it is an example of conflict with serious consequences that didn't involve much death on the battlefield, let alone for those who were likely not even combatants. It's even possible the women willingly went along with whoever was stronger. Hell, let's add another layer of complexity, it's possible the women willingly went long with whoever was stronger specifically so that they would spare the lives of the ones they were leaving.
It's really all speculation without any evidence, and even with evidence, it's easy to misinterpret that evidence when viewing it through our perspective. Eg: ancient aliens.
When you phrase it that way sounds like it could have been a trade too. Trade your daughter for another's daughter to marry your son.
This is what it has to be, it doesn't make sense any other way.
If there was a fight over reproductive opportunities, and this valley's men took the women of another valley, there would be a mix; some from the locals, some from the other tribe.
If there was a fight over reproductive opportunities and this valley's men lost, there'd be no adult women at all.
If there was a fight for some other reason, you would assume that either a) everyone dies, or b) some mix of men and women died leaving a mix of men and women, all of whom would be locals.
The only way this works is if there's no fight; the men traded with another tribe's men.
Almost all humans have traditions that stemmed from a “inter village fuck festival”