Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Republicans and Limbaugh brewhaha, LA Times Letter

Expand Messages
  • Michael (Frish) Frishberg
    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/ Dear Republicans: You object, religiously, to birth control? Fewer kids may be just what this world needs most.
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 6, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/

      Dear Republicans:

      You object, religiously, to birth control? Fewer kids may be just what this
      world needs most.


      Every one of us has the ability to act morally; it is up to the parishioner
      to do what's right.


      Deciding that certain medical procedures are so sinful that they cannot be
      paid for is total bunk.


      I'm beyond morally outraged, having paid taxes in support of "an elective
      war" in Iraq.


      Please consider that the availability of birth control diminishes the power
      that men have over women.

      I hope that's not too outrageous for anyone's religion.

      *Frish*


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • richardson_mcphillips
      some Republicans object to birth control. Almost all of them object to making me pay for someone else s birth control. Whether everyone has the ability to act
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 24, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        some Republicans object to birth control. Almost all of them object to making me pay for someone else's birth control.

        Whether everyone has the ability to act morally, not everyone does. That's why we have laws against theft, murder, etc.

        Do you get to decide what is "bunk" just by saying it? Or do you have a reason for what you say?

        I agree with your point about the war in Iraq, which is one reason I'm not a Republican. Or wouldn't be, if I lived in your country.

        The availability of birth control does not reduce the power of men over women, except maybe for rapist husbands. It produces a situation where men have more reason to feel free to consider any woman they desire as a possible sex partner, and where men have more reason to feel free of any consequences of that sex. In fact it moves us closer towards that age-old teen-boy fantasy of free careless sex.

        --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "Michael (Frish) Frishberg" <frishberg@...> wrote:
        >
        > http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/
        >
        > Dear Republicans:
        >
        > You object, religiously, to birth control? Fewer kids may be just what this
        > world needs most.
        >
        >
        > Every one of us has the ability to act morally; it is up to the parishioner
        > to do what's right.
        >
        >
        > Deciding that certain medical procedures are so sinful that they cannot be
        > paid for is total bunk.
        >
        >
        > I'm beyond morally outraged, having paid taxes in support of "an elective
        > war" in Iraq.
        >
        >
        > Please consider that the availability of birth control diminishes the power
        > that men have over women.
        >
        > I hope that's not too outrageous for anyone's religion.
        >
        > *Frish*
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • ES
        The freedom of women to plan parenthood, instead of having to choose between celibacy or unplanned parenthood was a major factor if not the major factor for
        Message 3 of 13 , Mar 25, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          The freedom of women to plan parenthood, instead of having to choose between celibacy or unplanned parenthood was a major factor if not the major factor for the recent liberation of women (1970's). Men and women created new rules defining the power of men over women as a direct outcome of women being able to control whether or not to be a parent. The effect has been remarkable. Look up historical birth rates in any country where birth control is freely available and affordable from the time that such birth control became available. When women are able to choose whether they have children they choose to have fewer.

          While it is may be more true that men (and women!) have greater freedom in being able to choose sex partners, it is not true that there are no consequences for the man should things go pear shaped. Even 20 years ago a man could walk away from parental responsibilities, whether married or not. Today a man evading child support will be hounded to the ends of the earth. And as you pointed out, the charge of rape has become easier for women to make.


          --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "richardson_mcphillips" <richardson_mcphillips@...> wrote:
          >
          > The availability of birth control does not reduce the power of men over women, except maybe for rapist husbands. It produces a situation where men have more reason to feel free to consider any woman they desire as a possible sex partner, and where men have more reason to feel free of any consequences of that sex. In fact it moves us closer towards that age-old teen-boy fantasy of free careless sex.
        • grebhsirf2001
          Richardson, the bunk comes from my having more outrage over REAL DEAD PEOPLE, not preventing potential pregnancy, yet I have to pay for that war. And, if
          Message 4 of 13 , Mar 25, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Richardson, the bunk comes from my having more outrage over REAL DEAD PEOPLE, not preventing potential pregnancy, yet I have to pay for that war. And, if birth control is included, insurance rates go down for all of us.

            There can be no "moral objection" to birth control for
            others, it's a medical decision, not up for a vote, and, as I said, up to the parishioner to do what's right for HER.

            I believe, with every vehemency I can muster, that the Faithful are among those who are standing in the way of reality based decision making by just about anyone in control of making things happen.

            Read the book "Delirium".

            I have made a deep study of "morality" and know the following.

            We all are born with a capacity to act morally (almost all, see note).
            EXACTLY ANALOGOUS TO OUR CAPACITY TO ABSORB A LANGUAGE, AND AT EXACTLY the SAME TIME, our language and moral capacities are filled, nicely congruent with the culture within which we're raised.

            The language, in the process of being absorbed, created the set of actions deemed moral in that society, and puts them in so deeply that it's 'second nature' to act morally.

            (Note: Now, there are a slim minority of pure psychopaths that have NO remorse or concern about victims or much of anything. They didn't get born with much of a moral capacity, and must actually LEARN how to act in various situations. They also like to study things, like how to take apart an animal, etc.)

            Those are the outliers.

            Some may consider "Thou shalt not kill" as a direction for morality.

            Consider the following,
            1st degree murder
            manslaughter
            combatant killed in war

            All lead to a death. Not all are immoral.

            So, it's really NORMS, that is, WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY DO, that's important.

            And, NORMS are what laws consider when written, what behaviors do we wish to punish or discourage...

            However, consider that there is a reason to go to war (avenge daddy, secure lots of oil, ride wave of patriotic 911 outrage) like Weapons of Mass Destruction. (Attempt at droll, sorry...what I mean is, the outward "distraction" (perhaps "morality" of women having sex whenever they wish with fewer consequences) but it's really about keeping women from having control over their own bodies.)

            You said:
            "It produces a situation where men have more reason to feel free to consider any woman they desire as a possible sex partner"
            Tell me when that wasn't true? That's the entire problem, too many men believe this, and therefore claim illegitimate power over women...

            In anthropological terms, women gave up being in charge when they demanded men become farmers, but that's a whole 'nuther discussion!

            Frish

            --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "richardson_mcphillips" <richardson_mcphillips@...> wrote:
            >
            > some Republicans object to birth control. Almost all of them object to making me pay for someone else's birth control.
            >
            > Whether everyone has the ability to act morally, not everyone does. That's why we have laws against theft, murder, etc.
            >
            > Do you get to decide what is "bunk" just by saying it? Or do you have a reason for what you say?
            >
            > I agree with your point about the war in Iraq, which is one reason I'm not a Republican. Or wouldn't be, if I lived in your country.
            >
            > The availability of birth control does not reduce the power of men over women, except maybe for rapist husbands. It produces a situation where men have more reason to feel free to consider any woman they desire as a possible sex partner, and where men have more reason to feel free of any consequences of that sex. In fact it moves us closer towards that age-old teen-boy fantasy of free careless sex.
            >
            > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "Michael (Frish) Frishberg" <frishberg@> wrote:
            > >
            > > http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/
            > >
            > > Dear Republicans:
            > >
            > > You object, religiously, to birth control? Fewer kids may be just what this
            > > world needs most.
            > >
            > >
            > > Every one of us has the ability to act morally; it is up to the parishioner
            > > to do what's right.
            > >
            > >
            > > Deciding that certain medical procedures are so sinful that they cannot be
            > > paid for is total bunk.
            > >
            > >
            > > I'm beyond morally outraged, having paid taxes in support of "an elective
            > > war" in Iraq.
            > >
            > >
            > > Please consider that the availability of birth control diminishes the power
            > > that men have over women.
            > >
            > > I hope that's not too outrageous for anyone's religion.
            > >
            > > *Frish*
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
          • ES
            Enlighten me please.
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 26, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Enlighten me please.

              --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "grebhsirf2001" <frishberg@...> wrote:

              > In anthropological terms, women gave up being in charge when they demanded men become farmers, but that's a whole 'nuther discussion!
              >
              > Frish
            • grebhsirf2001
              Perhaps you ve seen ancient female figurines known as Venus Figurines. These represent the goddess of fertility. It wasn t a male god on a throne in the sky,
              Message 6 of 13 , Mar 27, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Perhaps you've seen ancient female figurines known as Venus Figurines.

                These represent the goddess of fertility. It wasn't a male god on a throne in the sky, but a pregnant woman, bringing forth life.

                About 15000 to 8000 years ago, our hunting and gathering ancestors were getting better at what they did, as they domesticated wolves and aurochs (cattle) and other animals and performed "horticulture" (not agriculture) by nurturing certain trees they visited each year, etc.

                What that meant was live birth pregnancies were up, as the population was better fed.

                If a woman had a 18 month old to carry, and then got pregnant and had two kids to carry, she can't afford to get pregnant again, no way to keep all three kids while on the road...breast feeding being somewhat of a contraceptive, but not very effective...and only two teats after all...

                Spiritual life in such a tribe was based on a Mother Goddess, represented by the figurines. Life itself was counted by seasons, not by months, since the cycle of life was congruent with animal migrations and other seasonal changes to plants and animal availability. So the fertility of all the plants and animals were celebrated and anticipated, since that's what they needed for food.

                There were no gods in the sky, every plant, rock and tree had a spirit inside, and mostly we ran around and said stuff like, don't fall on me please, and please have plenty of baby goats running around nearby this year, etc.

                The women basically went on a sit down strike, and said: "We'll give up being the spiritual leaders, as long as we don't have to carry our children around...so figure out a way we can stay put instead of walking around carrying stuff and kids etc."

                We can observe what happened in the story of the Old Testament.

                Garden of eden, no farming needed. and then, oops, the WOMAN messed up and the man had to take over...but they were both booted out of eden, into the life of farmers...and the story of farming is the story of civilization, since only by farming and food storage can such large populations of humans coexist in the same place.

                I'm sure we've discussed on this forum how the agricultural revolution was the beginning of the end for us all, as the huge population increase has happened because of this.

                The OT itself is a CALENDAR. Calendars aren't needed by hunter gatherers, they are needed by FARMERS...who have to know quite precisely the best time to sow and reap.

                The advent of farming is also the advent of more serious "division of labor" as specialist at producing various objects useful to city life are making things available...

                The hunting gathering folk, when they made camp, make it in a circle. The chief maybe in the middle tent (or whatever habitation they created), with the tribe arranged in a circle around him which was a physical representation of the political reality, the chief was the leader, but basically everyone was equal.


                The new rectangular arrangement of buildings was due to having to build grain storage, so might as well use the wall as part of a house, and so on, until city blocks are recognizable even 4000 or more years ago.

                Igloos were popular in the arctic since a circular dome contains the most space inside with the least amount of ice blocks needed.

                Square storage made more sense in early farming communities, since they can then share walls.

                The political structure of early agricultural societies changed the way a settlement looked too, now the chief is at the top of the hill, and those who are subjects are in square houses, and streets that leave rectangular patterns, with the price rising the higher on the hill one slept. Things are no longer equal, as labor and capital are not evenly distributed.

                There are also sites where the round houses were superceded by the square ones, and then reverted back to round when drought hit hard enough to thwart agricultural pursuits for example.

                That's about 12,000 years of pre-history, hope you liked the story.

                --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "ES" <everiman@...> wrote:
                >
                > Enlighten me please.
                >
                > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "grebhsirf2001" <frishberg@> wrote:
                >
                > > In anthropological terms, women gave up being in charge when they demanded men become farmers, but that's a whole 'nuther discussion!
                > >
                > > Frish
                >
              • ES
                ... Nice story, but at odds with what we actually know about pre-industrial cultures. First, we can only speculate the meaning of ancient prehistorical
                Message 7 of 13 , Mar 28, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "grebhsirf2001" <frishberg@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Perhaps you've seen ancient female figurines known as Venus Figurines.
                  ----------------
                  Nice story, but at odds with what we actually know about pre-industrial cultures. First, we can only speculate the meaning of ancient prehistorical artifacts, and there is no need to to divine yet more allegory from biblical mythology, because we can, (or have) observe(d) hunter gatherers, horticulturists (slash and burn type farming) and early fully agricultural societies.

                  Hunter gatherer women were (are) pretty good at birth control, maintaining their population well below what the environment could sustain.

                  The powerful female goddesses we actually know of are typical of agricultural societies, representing fertility for a culture that grows things. As you say, hunter gatherers tended to be animists, they did not have hierarchical gods and goddesses with one being more powerful than the rest. We don't know what the purpose of the ancient venus figurines were, they may not have represented goddesses at all.

                  Ethnographers, explorers, missionaries etc., coming into contact with hunter gatherer and horticultural economies always report a rigid division of labor between the genders, in other words most cultures have a fairly strict definition of women's and men's roles and tasks within that culture. Because a lot of this information was gathered by scholarly men from Europe (in other words geeky white guys), they (the geeks) automatically assumed that whatever the women did was not valued as highly as what men did, and that women they observed were always inferior to men, even though what was women's work in one culture might have been men's work in another, or more important then men's work for survival. (An example, in Huron society women were the horticulturists, in Yanomano society men are horticulturists.)

                  Some feminist anthropologists challenged the above assumption that women were always inferior, and were able to show that some cultures valued their women more than had been assumed by their male colleagues. They proposed that women in a culture are valued for the contribution they make to the group for survival and prosperity. Although there is not 100% agreement within the anthropological world the feminists were able to show that in some cultures ,including agricultural and horticultural, women were valued equally to men.

                  Your point about the negative side of practicing agriculture is well known and the topic of much discussion, and those who have looked at the cost and benefits of agriculture are still wondering 'what the f*ck were they thinking?' trading the carefree and relatively abundant econonomy of the hunter gatherer for the squalor of grubbing in the dirt all day and sharing a hut with pigs at night (as in swine). I suspect this mystery could be solved like a crime, for it was. 'Sui Generis', who benefits? says the investigator, and it wasn't the farmer or his wife.
                • Alan Thomas
                  So who are you implying benefited? ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Message 8 of 13 , Mar 28, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    So who are you implying benefited?

                    On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM, ES <everiman@...> wrote:

                    > **
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "grebhsirf2001" <frishberg@...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Perhaps you've seen ancient female figurines known as Venus Figurines.
                    > ----------------
                    > Nice story, but at odds with what we actually know about pre-industrial
                    > cultures. First, we can only speculate the meaning of ancient prehistorical
                    > artifacts, and there is no need to to divine yet more allegory from
                    > biblical mythology, because we can, (or have) observe(d) hunter gatherers,
                    > horticulturists (slash and burn type farming) and early fully agricultural
                    > societies.
                    >
                    > Hunter gatherer women were (are) pretty good at birth control, maintaining
                    > their population well below what the environment could sustain.
                    >
                    > The powerful female goddesses we actually know of are typical of
                    > agricultural societies, representing fertility for a culture that grows
                    > things. As you say, hunter gatherers tended to be animists, they did not
                    > have hierarchical gods and goddesses with one being more powerful than the
                    > rest. We don't know what the purpose of the ancient venus figurines were,
                    > they may not have represented goddesses at all.
                    >
                    > Ethnographers, explorers, missionaries etc., coming into contact with
                    > hunter gatherer and horticultural economies always report a rigid division
                    > of labor between the genders, in other words most cultures have a fairly
                    > strict definition of women's and men's roles and tasks within that culture.
                    > Because a lot of this information was gathered by scholarly men from Europe
                    > (in other words geeky white guys), they (the geeks) automatically assumed
                    > that whatever the women did was not valued as highly as what men did, and
                    > that women they observed were always inferior to men, even though what was
                    > women's work in one culture might have been men's work in another, or more
                    > important then men's work for survival. (An example, in Huron society women
                    > were the horticulturists, in Yanomano society men are horticulturists.)
                    >
                    > Some feminist anthropologists challenged the above assumption that women
                    > were always inferior, and were able to show that some cultures valued their
                    > women more than had been assumed by their male colleagues. They proposed
                    > that women in a culture are valued for the contribution they make to the
                    > group for survival and prosperity. Although there is not 100% agreement
                    > within the anthropological world the feminists were able to show that in
                    > some cultures ,including agricultural and horticultural, women were valued
                    > equally to men.
                    >
                    > Your point about the negative side of practicing agriculture is well known
                    > and the topic of much discussion, and those who have looked at the cost and
                    > benefits of agriculture are still wondering 'what the f*ck were they
                    > thinking?' trading the carefree and relatively abundant econonomy of the
                    > hunter gatherer for the squalor of grubbing in the dirt all day and sharing
                    > a hut with pigs at night (as in swine). I suspect this mystery could be
                    > solved like a crime, for it was. 'Sui Generis', who benefits? says the
                    > investigator, and it wasn't the farmer or his wife.
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • ES
                    Given that in the agricultural societies we know about, the actual work of farming was performed by peasants or slaves, just about everybody who was not a
                    Message 9 of 13 , Mar 29, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Given that in the agricultural societies we know about, the actual work of farming was performed by peasants or slaves, just about everybody who was not a peasant or slave. Chiefly priests and the land owning aristocracy, and to a lesser degree, the middle classes who still had to work, but not as hard, for better compensation. I remember reading that the typical hunter gatherer only required to set aside about 20 hours a week for 'work'. Peasants and slaves were expected to work from sun up to sundown, which probably rarely happened, but an agricultural society typically has a fair sized leisure class, people who do no work at all, something that is not found in hunter gatherer society, with the possible exception of the very old and very young.


                      >"So who are you implying benefited?"
                    • Alan Thomas
                      So how did the peasant/slave class get created? I ve read the same kinds of things about hunter-gatherers (my father was an anthropology professor), but I
                      Message 10 of 13 , Mar 29, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        So how did the peasant/slave class get created? I've read the same kinds
                        of things about hunter-gatherers (my father was an anthropology professor),
                        but I have a hard time picturing how the system began--why people would
                        switch to living life on the bottom tier rather than just going off and
                        doing their own hunting/gathering. Once a few generations passed and they
                        didn't know anything else, and had lost the knowledge of how to live off
                        the land, they were stuck; but I'm unclear on how the transition would have
                        happened.

                        On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:18 AM, ES <everiman@...> wrote:

                        > **
                        >
                        >
                        > Given that in the agricultural societies we know about, the actual work of
                        > farming was performed by peasants or slaves, just about everybody who was
                        > not a peasant or slave. Chiefly priests and the land owning aristocracy,
                        > and to a lesser degree, the middle classes who still had to work, but not
                        > as hard, for better compensation. I remember reading that the typical
                        > hunter gatherer only required to set aside about 20 hours a week for
                        > 'work'. Peasants and slaves were expected to work from sun up to sundown,
                        > which probably rarely happened, but an agricultural society typically has a
                        > fair sized leisure class, people who do no work at all, something that is
                        > not found in hunter gatherer society, with the possible exception of the
                        > very old and very young.
                        >
                        >
                        > >"So who are you implying benefited?"
                        >
                        >
                        >


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • ES
                        Slash and burn horticulturists are somewhat nomadic, needing to move every few years, as the soil gets used up. But in a few places in the world, it was not
                        Message 11 of 13 , Mar 29, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Slash and burn horticulturists are somewhat nomadic, needing to move every few years, as the soil gets used up. But in a few places in the world, it was not necessary for horticulturists to continually move and disturb the environment as in those places it was disturbed naturally and regularly, such as on the flood plains of rivers. In those places horticulturists did not have to move every few years and established more permanent settlements and life was easy because everybody still shared in all the work.

                          Now this is pure speculation on my part, but what if a tribe of happy horticulturists living permanently on one of these river banks, say the Tigris or Euphrates, Yangtse, Ganges, Nile, any of the rivers running down the western slope of the Andes, were conquered by a warlike but lazy tribe of hunter gatherers, enslaving them, and making them do all the farm work (which the conquerors don't know how to do anyway). The warriors elevate their status above everybody else, warlords become kings, warriors become land owning managers, idle play becomes astronomy and technologies, priests specialize in controlling the population through divine laws that maintain status quo, surplus goods lead to trade and a merchant class, etc. etc.. Farming is shitty if you are peasant but wonderful if you are not, as it frees the every one but the farmer up from having to chase food in favor of doing more amusing things.

                          All the empires for which there are documented records, Persians, Romans, Mayans, Incas, Normans, European colonizers, The Mongols who conquered China to become the Yuan and Manchu dynasties, we see a relatively small but highly militarized group establish an empire over a much larger area and population, resulting in the conquerors becoming an administration, enslaving or otherwise compelling the conquered to work for them while they party, perform pleasant high status tasks and live off the avails. Eventually they party themselves into oblivion and the next barbarian horde moves in.


                          --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > So how did the peasant/slave class get created? I've read the same kinds
                          > of things about hunter-gatherers (my father was an anthropology professor),
                          > but I have a hard time picturing how the system began--why people would
                          > switch to living life on the bottom tier rather than just going off and
                          > doing their own hunting/gathering. O
                        • Alan Thomas
                          Makes a lot of sense! Thanks. Puts me to mind of how the Normans conquered England in 1066 and made themselves lords and ladies, and by a few hundred years
                          Message 12 of 13 , Mar 29, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Makes a lot of sense! Thanks. Puts me to mind of how the Normans
                            conquered England in 1066 and made themselves lords and ladies, and by a
                            few hundred years later most people had forgotten that this was a foreign
                            people who came in and conquered the native population by force, and
                            thought of the aristocracy as just a "higher class" of fancypants rich
                            people rather than as the descendants of conquering warlords.

                            On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:48 PM, ES <everiman@...> wrote:

                            > **
                            >
                            >
                            > Slash and burn horticulturists are somewhat nomadic, needing to move every
                            > few years, as the soil gets used up. But in a few places in the world, it
                            > was not necessary for horticulturists to continually move and disturb the
                            > environment as in those places it was disturbed naturally and regularly,
                            > such as on the flood plains of rivers. In those places horticulturists did
                            > not have to move every few years and established more permanent settlements
                            > and life was easy because everybody still shared in all the work.
                            >
                            > Now this is pure speculation on my part, but what if a tribe of happy
                            > horticulturists living permanently on one of these river banks, say the
                            > Tigris or Euphrates, Yangtse, Ganges, Nile, any of the rivers running down
                            > the western slope of the Andes, were conquered by a warlike but lazy tribe
                            > of hunter gatherers, enslaving them, and making them do all the farm work
                            > (which the conquerors don't know how to do anyway). The warriors elevate
                            > their status above everybody else, warlords become kings, warriors become
                            > land owning managers, idle play becomes astronomy and technologies, priests
                            > specialize in controlling the population through divine laws that maintain
                            > status quo, surplus goods lead to trade and a merchant class, etc. etc..
                            > Farming is shitty if you are peasant but wonderful if you are not, as it
                            > frees the every one but the farmer up from having to chase food in favor of
                            > doing more amusing things.
                            >
                            > All the empires for which there are documented records, Persians, Romans,
                            > Mayans, Incas, Normans, European colonizers, The Mongols who conquered
                            > China to become the Yuan and Manchu dynasties, we see a relatively small
                            > but highly militarized group establish an empire over a much larger area
                            > and population, resulting in the conquerors becoming an administration,
                            > enslaving or otherwise compelling the conquered to work for them while they
                            > party, perform pleasant high status tasks and live off the avails.
                            > Eventually they party themselves into oblivion and the next barbarian horde
                            > moves in.
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@...>
                            > wrote:
                            > >
                            > > So how did the peasant/slave class get created? I've read the same kinds
                            > > of things about hunter-gatherers (my father was an anthropology
                            > professor),
                            > > but I have a hard time picturing how the system began--why people would
                            > > switch to living life on the bottom tier rather than just going off and
                            > > doing their own hunting/gathering. O
                            >
                            >
                            >


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • ES
                            Thank you, some of my thinking on this comes from Theory of the leisure class by Thorstein Veblen, which is a hilarious read, and you can download it for
                            Message 13 of 13 , Mar 29, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thank you, some of my thinking on this comes from "Theory of the leisure class" by Thorstein Veblen, which is a hilarious read, and you can download it for free from the Gutenberg Project and load it on your e-reader or smart phone.
                              http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search.html/?default_prefix=all&sort_order=downloads&query=Theory%20of%20the%20Leisure%20Class

                              --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Makes a lot of sense! Thanks.
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.