NeverMore, do read Lloyd on incest and even more importantly, on the origin of human violence including war (and yes primitive tribes are more violent than democracies) being child abuse and neglect.
“Ever since the Greek historians first wrote about the customs of other nations, scholars have compared the habits of different cultures, hoping to discover meaningful regularities in human behavior.
Yet the only universal trait that Contemporary social scientists and historians agree has been found in every known culture is the prohibition of incest. As one standard text puts it, “The taboo on incest within the immediate family is one of the few known cultural universals.”(1) Kroeber stated, “If ten anthropologists were asked to designate one universal institution, nine would likely name the incest prohibition; some have expressly named it as the only universal one.”(2) That “no known tribe has ever permitted incest”(3) has been a truism for cross-cultural studies ever since Durkheim and Westermarck’s early books on the subject.(4)
Indeed, rather than examining the actual occurrence of incest in either historical or contemporary groups, the voluminous literature on the subject instead speculates on why incest supposedly doesn’t occur. Many explanations have been proposed: the biological impairments attendant upon inbreeding, the utility of social alliances, the collapse of the family if sexual rivalry is allowed, even boredom with family members. When exceptions have been acknowledged-royal incest in dozens of societies,(10) sibling incest among the general population in others,(11) widespread pederasty in still others,(12) – discussion has continued to focus on why incest is supposedly rare, not on whether it really is.
One begins to realize how odd this is when it is compared, say, with the study of other deviant acts, such as homicide. Although effective laws against murder long preceded laws against incest – and were far more often enforced rather than winked at – no one thinks of writing hundreds of studies on why mankind has a “universal homicide taboo.”(13)
This essay is intended to consider the evidence for the opposite hypothesis: That it is incest itself – and not the absence of incest – that has been universal for most people in most places at most times. Further-more, the earlier in history one searches, the more evidence there is of universal incest, just as there is more evidence of other forms of child abuse.”(14)
Take this for example: "Two kinds of incest will be considered: direct incest, overt sexual activity between family members other than spouses; and indirect incest, the providing of children by their parents to others in order for them to be sexually molested."
Whaaaaaaaaattt??? That is an insane use of the word "incest"! Call it child abuse if you want, but incest? C'mon! That's extreme semantic gerrymandering!
I checked out this essay the last time you posted a link... and I had already heard of Psychohistory from Dan Carlin's book...
I had a quick look at the essay... but honestly can't take this guy seriously. This guy seems like a total quack to me. He is projecting modern ideas about child-rearing on societies that existed in very different times and places. You can't hope to understand the internal logical coherence of a society and judge it by your own culture's standards simultaneously. This is why cultural relativism to essential to anthropology. It's not woke political correctness... it's necessary to set aside one's own cultural lens if one hopes to understand another culture.
I consider you have been indoctrinated with the Status/Statis Quo AnthroApology "cultural relativism" which as a supposed Voluntaryist goes against your principles.
The object should be to understand ALL cultures and judge them EQUALLY according to the principles of Self-Ownership and Non-Aggression.
This does not, of course, mean an anthropologist should not be objective in recording what is occurring; but likewise, it should not mean the anthropologist becomes an apologist for the violence done in the culture being studied.
It is true that Lloyd has a bias--as you do and I do--for looking for evidence that supports his perspective and he should be criticized for that in any particular instances found.
To judge ALL cultures on the continuum of Self-Ownership and Non-Aggression should be the obligation of all who profess to be Voluntaryists/Anarchists, that is, Self-Authorized, Responsible Free Individuals.
Just as you should not give one criminal government a pass such as Ehret does for his beloved CCP while judging another one as the U.S. as criminal, you should not praise primitive cultures for whatever reason that practice infanticide while rightfully criticising helicopter parenting in democracies.
To consider Lloyd a "quack" simply shows your learned ignorance. Read his work and check the huge number of references that prove his claims. And yes, I have read criticisms of his work.
You, as unfortunately too many who seem to value freedom, suffer from "Moral Schizophrenia".
Time to eliminate your contradictions and achieve moral integrity.
Heal thyself and get whole and judge all according to Everything Voluntary Do No Harm.
Great work. Great post. Thanks.
you've gathered a trove of material here!
NeverMore, do read Lloyd on incest and even more importantly, on the origin of human violence including war (and yes primitive tribes are more violent than democracies) being child abuse and neglect.
The Universality of Incest Lloyd DeMause
The Journal of Psychohistory, Fall 1991
https://psychohistory.com/articles/the-universality-of-incest/
“Ever since the Greek historians first wrote about the customs of other nations, scholars have compared the habits of different cultures, hoping to discover meaningful regularities in human behavior.
Yet the only universal trait that Contemporary social scientists and historians agree has been found in every known culture is the prohibition of incest. As one standard text puts it, “The taboo on incest within the immediate family is one of the few known cultural universals.”(1) Kroeber stated, “If ten anthropologists were asked to designate one universal institution, nine would likely name the incest prohibition; some have expressly named it as the only universal one.”(2) That “no known tribe has ever permitted incest”(3) has been a truism for cross-cultural studies ever since Durkheim and Westermarck’s early books on the subject.(4)
Indeed, rather than examining the actual occurrence of incest in either historical or contemporary groups, the voluminous literature on the subject instead speculates on why incest supposedly doesn’t occur. Many explanations have been proposed: the biological impairments attendant upon inbreeding, the utility of social alliances, the collapse of the family if sexual rivalry is allowed, even boredom with family members. When exceptions have been acknowledged-royal incest in dozens of societies,(10) sibling incest among the general population in others,(11) widespread pederasty in still others,(12) – discussion has continued to focus on why incest is supposedly rare, not on whether it really is.
One begins to realize how odd this is when it is compared, say, with the study of other deviant acts, such as homicide. Although effective laws against murder long preceded laws against incest – and were far more often enforced rather than winked at – no one thinks of writing hundreds of studies on why mankind has a “universal homicide taboo.”(13)
This essay is intended to consider the evidence for the opposite hypothesis: That it is incest itself – and not the absence of incest – that has been universal for most people in most places at most times. Further-more, the earlier in history one searches, the more evidence there is of universal incest, just as there is more evidence of other forms of child abuse.”(14)
Get free, stay free.
Take this for example: "Two kinds of incest will be considered: direct incest, overt sexual activity between family members other than spouses; and indirect incest, the providing of children by their parents to others in order for them to be sexually molested."
Whaaaaaaaaattt??? That is an insane use of the word "incest"! Call it child abuse if you want, but incest? C'mon! That's extreme semantic gerrymandering!
I checked out this essay the last time you posted a link... and I had already heard of Psychohistory from Dan Carlin's book...
I had a quick look at the essay... but honestly can't take this guy seriously. This guy seems like a total quack to me. He is projecting modern ideas about child-rearing on societies that existed in very different times and places. You can't hope to understand the internal logical coherence of a society and judge it by your own culture's standards simultaneously. This is why cultural relativism to essential to anthropology. It's not woke political correctness... it's necessary to set aside one's own cultural lens if one hopes to understand another culture.
I consider you have been indoctrinated with the Status/Statis Quo AnthroApology "cultural relativism" which as a supposed Voluntaryist goes against your principles.
The object should be to understand ALL cultures and judge them EQUALLY according to the principles of Self-Ownership and Non-Aggression.
This does not, of course, mean an anthropologist should not be objective in recording what is occurring; but likewise, it should not mean the anthropologist becomes an apologist for the violence done in the culture being studied.
It is true that Lloyd has a bias--as you do and I do--for looking for evidence that supports his perspective and he should be criticized for that in any particular instances found.
To judge ALL cultures on the continuum of Self-Ownership and Non-Aggression should be the obligation of all who profess to be Voluntaryists/Anarchists, that is, Self-Authorized, Responsible Free Individuals.
Just as you should not give one criminal government a pass such as Ehret does for his beloved CCP while judging another one as the U.S. as criminal, you should not praise primitive cultures for whatever reason that practice infanticide while rightfully criticising helicopter parenting in democracies.
To consider Lloyd a "quack" simply shows your learned ignorance. Read his work and check the huge number of references that prove his claims. And yes, I have read criticisms of his work.
You, as unfortunately too many who seem to value freedom, suffer from "Moral Schizophrenia".
Time to eliminate your contradictions and achieve moral integrity.
Heal thyself and get whole and judge all according to Everything Voluntary Do No Harm.
Let me ask you this: Are there any stateless societies that you think Voluntaryists would benefit from studying?
If we talk about "indigenous societies" in the abstract, we would only be talking about spooks.
No indigenous society, by the way, has ever practiced infanticide on anything approaching the scale on which it is practiced today.
Conspiracy Theorist #1: You're Brainwashed!
Conspiracy Theorist #2: No, you're brainwashed!
Everyone else: (rolls their eyes)
Axe illham Omar ..she married her brother.🤔