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

Introduction and ramble

Expand Messages
  • dragoondelight
    Hello Everyone, In introduction, I have no credentials as such, but I have been interested in nomadic peoples for a long time. Most currently I have been
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 6, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Everyone,

      In introduction, I have no 'credentials' as such, but I have
      been interested in nomadic peoples for a long time. Most
      currently I have been exploring the Cheyenne Indians, Picts,
      Scots, Irish and now the Gothic peoples. My emphasis is on
      comparisons and statements, often treated trivially, but
      which recur in various places and times. You may regard my
      ideas as 'wild speculation', no problem.

      On 'Slave and Slavery'. For current discussion, these have
      developed too much current cultural baggage and malprops.
      In studying any culture the term is used much too often as
      a generalization and study of this segment of societies is
      flawed thereby.

      My suggestion is to discard the use and examine the central
      institution it comes from. Simply, the idea of 'political
      control'. Human dominance is a political system and most
      central to almost every human society.

      My model is to separate the leaders and the 'lead' at every
      opportunity that can be found. The use of several societies
      then allows for more effective comparison and some rather
      'stunning' comparisons.

      When 'slavery' arouse, my interest was stimulated that it
      was/is to easy to bend the social functions of individuals
      to fit this generalization.

      In the Cheyenne culture, captive males were limited to very
      small children, no males. Captive females occupy a larger
      segment and when you check what tasks they occupy and the
      protections afforded them you find a gradation ranging from
      almost abject servitude to great influence.

      The captive male child was most equivalent to that occupied
      by the orphaned male adolescent. They provided services to
      some leading male and could attend total mobility from a
      dependent status to become a functional independent unit
      leader in society. Some argument against this can be found
      in white captives, and the Mexican captives, both of which
      show influences of their own 'captive treatment of individuals
      in society' and most clearly were influenced by the very
      active Commanche models. The Commanche model frequently
      adapted male captives into a 'herder drone' or a 'suicide
      warrior' model. Sorry for this digression.

      In my comparison though the Cheyenne captive/orphan model
      shows obvious similarities to the 'fosterage' system of the
      Norse Gaelic Culture of the time of Somerled to Thorkill.
      The Somerled type of 'fosterage' apparently has an ancient
      heritage and continued to relatively recent times. In fact,
      it developed a reversal role for many chief's sons, who were
      fostered by loyal retainers.

      To belabor the point, the orphan and male captive treatment
      is theses societies show their economic position is political
      and cultural. The political support system becomes a building
      block to use in examining the structure of peoples. My point
      is subservience and 'service' is to easily categorized as
      slavery. The one time visit of an individual minimalizes the
      relative relationships. Hence slavery is seen, when it may not
      exist as such.

      Quick, more current examples would be the Blackfoot 'multiple
      wife/squaw' marriages in which non-leading females were economic
      slaves of the fur trade. A Gaelic example of the economic
      termination of the 'fosterage' system is the 'broken men and
      clans'. So, economic utility to support 'leadership types'
      is the building block of society. Prime examples can be found
      in current elitist society today.

      So these comparisons go from Cheyenne, almost modern world, to
      the Norse Gaelic, almost tribalistic chieftainship. This makes
      me believe that the Nordic connection is rather simple to use
      in the Gothic/Germanic Roman era and by extension to almost any
      political group of the 'civilization eras'. Argumentatively, I
      do NOT include the Chinese cultures (not enough personal data
      comparisons made), though I would the Mongolic nomads.

      Having made a political empirical model for human behavior and
      discarded the use of 'modern cultural taint' of the use of 'slave/
      slavery. I did see some hints that offer some interesting chains
      of thought.

      http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=slave

      Notice this part: *orbu, from the PIE base *orbh- (also source
      of orphan) the ground sense of which seems to be "thing that
      changes allegiance". This hit me like a stone.

      Most wildly/unfounded, but open to further study/thought.
      "The Slavic words for "slave" (Rus. rab, Serbo-Croatian rob,
      O.C.S. rabu) are from O.Slav. *orbu, from the PIE base *orbh-
      (also source of orphan) the ground sense of which seems to be
      "thing that changes allegiance" (in the case of the slave, from
      himself to his master). The Slavic word is also the source of robot".

      This usage of words brought me to a further questioning thought.
      Simplistic and febrile at best, but I lept from Slav to the Khazar
      culture by the comparison of rab/rob to rabe/i in current Jewish
      use. Backwards comparison is the Khazars converted to Judaism and
      shared much of the territory of the semi-nomadic Slavs. This is
      heavy speculation, but nags me by the data supplied by Wolfram in
      "History of the Goths" of "Wulfila" and christianity. I have
      'issues' with his depiction of this individual, the Jewish religion,
      and the concurrent political scheme set of the Gothic political
      system he presented.

      Feel free to dismiss any/all of this. Not having an 'academic
      credential' to hang this thought stream on, I am more interested
      in the negative viewpoints than positive.

      I have been most stimulated by parts of the discourse on the Goths
      and of course, disagree as much as agree, with much of it. Still,
      I am inclined to believe the 'barbarity' of political leadership
      systems and that simplicity has led to a 'freer movement' of
      individuals versed in it, not the languages/cultures. Thus, I can
      readily believe that 'individual' Gothic types freely migrated
      throughout their world and heavily influenced the future by taking
      political leadership. The barbarian deals with basic realities,
      while the philosopher, historian and religious types taint their
      observations with cultural models that bend the truth.

      Thanks, DragoonDelight (used primarily as my personal name is the
      same as another in the group and this allows hopefully for no name
      conflict statements).
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.