[Faungarne]

I seriously doubt that homosexuality as taboo started with religion. I rather think it's possible the taboo was there before religion, and was incorporated into most of them. However, it's impossible to know. It was my impression, however, that most "traditional" societies were highly intolerant of such things...

-Arrian

[xiaoselangone]

Are you honestly going to assert that members of a subsistance society (whether farmers or hunter-gatherers) did not worry about finding enough food to last through the winter/dry season? Are you ****ing kidding me?

-Arrian

[DoctorBretonDen]

Originally posted by Arrian
Are you honestly going to assert that members of a subsistance society (whether farmers or hunter-gatherers) did not worry about finding enough food to last through the winter/dry season? Are you ****ing kidding me?

-Arrian Again, on most years there was plenty.

[Ambrakam]

Originally posted by BeBro


What years? What timeframe? What regions? Climate? MOST years, until advancements started to occur. Advancements are what caused the overpopulation and famines. Nature itself did not cause as much famine.

[LSDDSL]

Originally posted by Kidicious



No it's not, and either is it today. It's nice to have comfortable shoes etc.. , but in usually things were very stable for primative societies. There was famine and drought, things like that, but most years were pretty good. A man your age would probably already be dead in a primitive society.

[zdlupikkkdi]

I can't believe that Kiddy thinks that prehistoric society was better than today's.

Wait. Scratch that. What I really can't believe is that I just said that.

[Zvmwissq]

I love the whole "people are pressured to be what their family/society/corporations(!) want them to be bit." As if a person in a primitive society had a choice about their role?

You are a bushman. You are a hunter. That's your job, end of story. You don't get a choice. But clearly you would be happier, because at least you aren't stuck in a cubicle!

-Arrian

[en-druzhba]

Originally posted by Arrian


What society has no hierarchy? Primitive societies were less complex, but they had structure, man.

-Arrian They were incredibly different in regards to social hierarchy. And were so until agricultural and religion became implemented.

[yK2VgoEI]

Originally posted by Arrian
You are a bushman. You are a hunter. That's your job, end of story. You don't get a choice. But clearly you would be happier, because at least you aren't stuck in a cubicle!

-Arrian Yes, it is better to not have a choice than to be stuck in a cubicle. I couldn't have said it better.

[Teprophopay]

I pick choices. I CAN still pick bushman.

[Ngwkgczx]

Originally posted by Pekka
I pick choices. I CAN still pick bushman. And you probably will because you are addicted to modern life (stress etc.). You can't really comprehend another life.

[Alice_Medichi34]

Originally posted by Kidicious


"Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have non-hierarchical, egalitarian social structures. However, this is usually only the case in the more mobile societies, which generally are not able to store surplus food. "

wiki

Surplus of food is one cause of hierachialism. Source good.

I agree that settled, agricultural socities had more structure and hierarchy. I question whether hunter-gatherer societies really have none (non-hierarchical, egalitarian). Further, even if that is the case, I still question how they treat... deviation, shall we say, from social norms.

-Arrian

[VomsVomaMew]

Originally posted by Arrian


Source good.

I agree that settled, agricultural socities had more structure and hierarchy. I question whether hunter-gatherer societies really have none (non-hierarchical, egalitarian). Further, even if that is the case, I still question how they treat... deviation, shall we say, from social norms.

-Arrian It's never going to be very hierarchial when everyone shares in the work.

[SaraKonradtt]

It's never going to be very hierarchial when everyone shares in the work. "Not very hierarchical" =! No hierarchy at all.

Further, "very little hierarchy" does not mean that there are no social norms, and that people are necessarily tolerant of deviation from said norms (for instance, homosexuality).

-Arrian

[BDDkDvgZ]

Originally posted by Arrian


"Not very hierarchical" =! No hierarchy at all.

Further, "very little hierarchy" does not mean that there are no social norms, and that people are necessarily tolerant of deviation from said norms (for instance, homosexuality).

-Arrian A social norm and intoleration of differences is different. Think about what causes such oppression.

[womberte]

In reading some more online about the Bushmen, it seems that there are very clearly defined gender roles. Men and women are expected to act a certain way.

Which to me is a "social norm." Now, what happens if an individual in that society doesn't conform?

-Arrian

[AliceFromHouston]

Kid:

WTF would you do all day long as a bushmen? There's no famine and in two hours you gathered all the berries you can eat. Now what? Even modern TV and commercials don't dumb people down as fast as staring at rocks all day long.