Most of human history has been right-wing, following a patriarchal, nationalistic structure.
Humans naturally create social hierarchies, whether within the family or a school lunch table. Humans originally existed as tribal beings who prioritized their own culture and belief system over others, as well as the preservation of that system as superior to others.
Whenever there is a crisis, whether it's famine, war, etc., humans tend to respond by becoming more right-wing. Economic downturn results in xenophobia, such as accusing immigrants of stealing jobs.
Being right-wing seems to come naturally to humans while being left-wing historically involves revolution. Women's suffrage is a left-wing movement fighting against traditional right-wing beliefs. Same for all civil rights movements.
It seems to me that being left-wing is about fighting against human primal instincts. Right-wingers may feel there's nothing wrong with catcalling, those leaning more left may feel there is.
Below is an article that I don't entirely agree with but is still an interesting read on the concept of leaning right:
https://theconversation.com/five-signs-that-you-might-be-rightwing-221930
@vivify said"Human history" is a tiny fraction of our species' existence. And in no way do the majority of societies that have written history equate to our actual Natural State which was to live in small equalitarian bands.
Most of human history has been right-wing, following a patriarchal, nationalistic structure.
Humans naturally create social hierarchies, whether within the family or a school lunch table. Humans originally existed as tribal beings who prioritized their own culture and belief system over others, as well as the preservation of that system as superior to others.
Whenev ...[text shortened]... ncept of leaning right:
https://theconversation.com/five-signs-that-you-might-be-rightwing-221930
2 edits
@no1marauder saidI think we can all agree that pre-historic humans were probably not progressive socialists. There's far more evidence to the contrary.
"Human history" is a tiny fraction of our species' existence. And in no way do the majority of societies that have written history equate to our actual Natural State which was to live in small equalitarian bands.
If you think "equalitarian" (I think you mean egalitarian) bands is our natural state,
how do you explain most of recorded history being the exact opposite?
To be clear: how lived in the past is no indication of how we should live now. The purpose of this thread is not to promote a regressive way of living but to merely understand human nature.
@vivify saidThis article discusses the social structure and other features of bands, the form of human societies predominant in prehistory.https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/HACC_Central_Pennsylvania's_Community_College/ANTH_205%3A_Cultures_of_the_World_-_Perspectives_on_Culture_(Scheib)/08%3A_Political_Organization/8.02%3A_Egalitarian_Societies
Most of human history has been right-wing, following a patriarchal, nationalistic structure.
Humans naturally create social hierarchies, whether within the family or a school lunch table. Humans originally existed as tribal beings who prioritized their own culture and belief system over others, as well as the preservation of that system as superior to others.
Whenev ...[text shortened]... ncept of leaning right:
https://theconversation.com/five-signs-that-you-might-be-rightwing-221930
@vivify saidYour first paragraph is simply wrong. The anthropological evidence is pretty strong that they were what we'd loosely call "communist".
I think we can all agree that pre-historic humans were probably not progressive socialists. There's far more evidence to the contrary.
If you think "equalitarian" (I think you mean egalitarian) bands is our natural state,
how do you explain most of recorded history being the exact opposite?
To be clear: how lived in the past is no indication of how we should live no ...[text shortened]... this thread is not to promote a regressive way of living but to merely understand why human nature.
What is "progressive" is debatable but certainly their decision making processes weren't top down and there was no fixed hierarchical command structure.
Those are unnatural and much of Mankind's history is filled with strife and violence against systems that repress our natural inclination for freedom.
@no1marauder saidLink for this evidence?
The anthropological evidence is pretty strong that they were what we'd loosely call "communist".
From an evolutionary standpoint your statement doesn't hold up. Apes, which include humans, show hierarchies and "alpha males". Our evolution is based on competition for resources, food and reproduction. This is consistent with the majority of human history.
Your article that mentioned the Paiute is interesting, but such societies are outliers, not the norm for human beings.
@vivify saidNo, the Palute are standard examples of bands which was how humanity existed in the Natural State you started this thread making false assumptions about.
Link for this evidence?
From an evolutionary standpoint your statement doesn't hold up. Apes, which include humans, show hierarchies and "alpha males". Our evolution is based on competition for resources, food and reproduction. This is consistent with the majority of human history.
Your article that mentioned the Paiute is interesting, but such societies are outliers, not the norm for human beings.
Our social structures in that State were different from other apes (which BTW are different from each other) . That is an established scientific fact.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidhttps://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201102-did-neanderthals-go-to-war-with-our-ancestors
No, the Palute are standard examples of bands which was how humanity existed in the Natural State you started this thread making false assumptions about.
Our social structures in that State were different from other apes (which BTW are different from each other) . That is an established scientific fact.
territoriality has deep roots in humans. Territorial conflicts are also intense in our closest relatives, chimpanzees. Male chimps routinely gang up to attack and kill males from rival bands, a behaviour strikingly like human warfare.
I would love to believe humans are naturally egalitarian but most evidence suggests otherwise.
@vivify saidOur evolution was based on the forming of groups which could collectively obtain what individuals could not. But individuals will not willingly remain in a group if they feel their interests are inadequately provided for.
Link for this evidence?
From an evolutionary standpoint your statement doesn't hold up. Apes, which include humans, show hierarchies and "alpha males". Our evolution is based on competition for resources, food and reproduction. This is consistent with the majority of human history.
Your article that mentioned the Paiute is interesting, but such societies are outliers, not the norm for human beings.
@vivify saidWe're not chimpanzees.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201102-did-neanderthals-go-to-war-with-our-ancestorsterritoriality has deep roots in humans. Territorial conflicts are also intense in our closest relatives, chimpanzees. Male chimps routinely gang up to attack and kill males from rival bands, a behaviour strikingly like human warfare.
I would love to believe humans are naturally egalitarian but most evidence suggests otherwise.
It's highly doubtful there were many "territorial" disputes among prehistoric bands. The entire world wide human population was measured in tens of thousands and resources were vast.
What evidence there is strongly suggests that cooperation between bands was the norm. For one thing, it was the only way the incest taboo could be maintained i.e. by "marrying" off the young to members of other bands ( which then created familial ties between the bands).
I'm sorry, but evolutionary arguments support my position not yours.
@vivify saidHumans diverged from the line that led to chimpanzees and gorillas 6.5 to 9.3 million years ago.https://www.amnh.org/explore/news-blogs/research-posts/fossil-apes-human-evolution#:~:text=Humans%20diverged%20from%20apes%E2%80%94specifically,end%20of%20the%20Miocene%20epochĺ
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201102-did-neanderthals-go-to-war-with-our-ancestorsterritoriality has deep roots in humans. Territorial conflicts are also intense in our closest relatives, chimpanzees. Male chimps routinely gang up to attack and kill males from rival bands, a behaviour strikingly like human warfare.
I would love to believe humans are naturally egalitarian but most evidence suggests otherwise.
It's hardly surprising the species would exhibit fundamental differences given that fact.
@no1marauder saidThat's an oversimplification. Leaving a band or tribe is not so straightforward.
Our evolution was based on the forming of groups which could collectively obtain what individuals could not. But individuals will not willingly remain in a group if they feel their interests are inadequately provided for.
In primitive times the primary interests of any individual were survival. Individuals whose "interests" weren't "adequately provided for" had risk losing the protection of that group if they left, whether from dangerous animals or other humans. Individuals may put with going through periods of hunger, abuse from other humans, etc., in order to have the protection that band affords.
It wasn't like switching gyms if you didn't like it. Individuals will indeed remain if it means basic needs like protection or food are met.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidThat's the point of the article: that such traits are not fundamental "differences" but similarities.
Humans diverged from the line that led to chimpanzees and gorillas 6.5 to 9.3 million years ago.https://www.amnh.org/explore/news-blogs/research-posts/fossil-apes-human-evolution#:~:text=Humans%20diverged%20from%20apes%E2%80%94specifically,end%20of%20the%20Miocene%20epochĺ
It's hardly surprising the species would exhibit fundamental differences given that fact.
Both our ancestors and closest relatives show natural tendency for domination over others. Enviornmental pressures made this unavoidable.
@no1marauder saidFrom that BBC article:
We're not chimpanzees.
It's highly doubtful there were many "territorial" disputes among prehistoric bands.
Warfare is an intrinsic part of being human. War isn’t a modern invention, but an ancient, fundamental part of our humanity. Historically, all peoples warred. Our oldest writings are filled with war stories. Archaeology reveals ancient fortresses and battles, and sites of prehistoric massacres going back millennia.
The entire world wide human population was measured in tens of thousands and resources were vast.
This is another oversimplification. What resources are you referring to? Oil? Farmland?
Humans had to learn to use resources. Prior to that, "resources" were animals, vegetation, water and land. Some places were more fertile than others or less useful during certain times of the year (like rainy seasons, dry seasons, etc.). This fact led to competition for resources.