Daniel Quinn is a colossal fool

[Cyclotron]

Seriously. The idea that a society purposefully sets out to make a "culture," or abstains from doing so, is preposterous. This man's writings are like a resurrection of debunked Enllightement obsessions with the "noble savage." Yeah, sure, those pre-agricultural societies could have made an advanced agricultural civilization, but they decided not to because they're smart like that, not like those foolhardy and selfish farmers.

Sure, human interaction - specifically, the interaction of "civilized" man with the natural world - is different than how animals interact with that world. But rather than attributing this to the difference between humans and other animals, he attributes it to the difference between two mindsets of humans. Has it occured to him that the reason agricultural societies seem more exploitative of the environment is that - gasp - agricultural societies have more people, and thus impact the environment to a greater extent?

And that's not even mentioning his bizarre appropriation of biblical legends to support his views. In CivNation's clusterf*ck of a thread, Odin mentioned the view he has that the story of Cain and Abel is some broad parable about herders and farmers - or, in Quinn's wording, "takers" and "leavers." What, exactly, is the support for this point of view? When right wing Christians dig out arcane quotes from Deuteronomy, we laugh at them, but when Daniel Quinn starts using bible stories as proof of his bizarre cultural revisionism, everyone gives a sage nod and passes the peace pipe around, discussing how we need to abandon our "taker" mentality. Bullsh*t.

The book "Ishmael" is ignorant, masturbatory garbage. Discuss.

[Spiffor]

This is the first time I even hear of Daniel Quinn, so I won't be judging his book.

However, the Cain and Abel story looks like a symbolization of agriculture vs hunting-gathering. That's an important transition all traditional agricultural societies went through (which is why it is featured in Genesis, aka the history of the world according to the Hebraic tradition).

I don't really see why you raised Daniel Quinn when Odin talked about Abel and Cain. Odin used the socio-historical context of the story to show that the Bible is not to be taken literally. Quinn seems to use quotes of the Bible to make some point about non-agricultural societies in general. Those are two very different points, whose only similarity is that they cite the same example (and God knows that the Bible has been beaten to death acrss history when giving examples)

[Sava]

Daniel Quinn... medicine woman

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This is the first time I even hear of Daniel Quinn, so I won't be judging his book.

His book is called Ishmael, and to be fair it's worth a read, though I think it's rubbish.

However, the Cain and Abel story looks like a symbolization of agriculture vs hunting-gathering. That's an important transition all traditional agricultural societies went through (which is why it is featured in Genesis, aka the history of the world according to the Hebraic tradition).

The story of Cain and Abel could easily be about something else. You could take the view of some racial scholars, who compare Cain's "mark" with dark skin, and say that the story is about the darker people being cast out by God. I'm not saying that's true, but it seems equally likely. The story could also be expressing God's favor for the herding lifestyle, but not neccessarily the conflict between the two - the old testament God seems to routinely favor burnt animal offerings.

I don't really see why you raised Daniel Quinn when Odin talked about Abel and Cain. Odin used the socio-historical context of the story to show that the Bible is not to be taken literally. Quinn seems to use quotes of the Bible to make some point about non-agricultural societies in general. Those are two very different points, whose only similarity is that they cite the same example (and God knows that the Bible has been beaten to death acrss history when giving examples)

The only time I've ever heard that argument before was in Quinn's books. If people have arrived at that conclusion seperately, well, then my comment was off-base.

[GePap]

Cain was the farmer though, and Able the herder- after all, God spurned veggies for some bloody goodness.

Oh, and who the hell is Daniel Quinn, and is he important enough to even get bothered about?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh, and who the hell is Daniel Quinn, and is he important enough to even get bothered about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Quinn

I don't know if he's important anywhere else. But I meet people all the time at college who think he's got some unique perspective on stuff, and we should all read his books, they're the best ever, man.

[Elok]

I'd never encountered Daniel Quinn, but my problem with all such theories is that they are just stories wrapped around available information to fit it, with nothing in particular to distinguish them from any other such story except the degree to which they fit our own prejudices.

There's a tool used by shrinks to analyze patients which I believe is called the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). You're shown a complex picture and you're supposed to make up a story about the people and objects shown therein to "explain" why they're arranged in the way they are/how they got that way. The explanation invariably is more illustrative of the speaker's own deeper feelings than of the picture "explained." For example, I am presented with a picture of a kid crying while holding a violin; I then surmise that the kid is disappointed by his inability to master it after long practice. All that tells you is that failure and disappointment with myself is an issue with me.

Same principle works here, I imagine, only less psychological. Quinn, or whoever, likes to think certain things about the development of human society, and the story of Cain and Abel could be seen as a fable supporting that view. I think there are problems with that (Cain is accursed afterwards, and shown as the progenitor of certain tribes rather than of the whole human race), but whatever. In the absence of substantial evidence for such theories, they are at best a variant on Kipling's Just So Stories. A fun "explanation," in lieu of any other, but not conclusive.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
The story of Cain and Abel could easily be about something else. You could take the view of some racial scholars, who compare Cain's "mark" with dark skin, and say that the story is about the darker people being cast out by God. I'm not saying that's true, but it seems equally likely.

Hardly. If you'd actually read the story, you'd see the mark is given to protect him from getting slain by anybody after he's made an outlaw.

[GePap]

Wait, you take this guy's stuff seriously!?

Maybe someone should tell Mr. Quinn that no animal species would volunterilly surrended any lifestyle that assured them sufficient food and water for themselves and their offsprings.

When tribalism provides for more resources than attempts at agriculture, people will become tribal (specially true in areas marginal at best for agriculture). If not, they will become and remain agriculturalists, and food surplus means population surplus, means urbanism and civilization.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Hardly. If you'd actually read the story, you'd see the mark is given to protect him from getting slain by anybody after he's made an outlaw.

But that doesn't change the fact that he was given the mark because of God's anger. And, whether you like it or not, it's been used widely in a racial context. I don't have cites for this on hand, so you'll have to settle for a wikipedia blurb.

Historically, however, many Christians have interpreted the Biblical passages so that the "mark" is thought to be part of the "curse". In 18th century America and Europe, it was commonly assumed that Cain's "mark" was black skin, and that Cain's descendants were black and still under Cain's curse. Accepting the theory that the Christian God had cursed black people, many Christians used the racial curse doctrine to justify racism and the enslavement of people of African ancestry. Others have used the curse as a Biblical justification for anti-Semitism.

Sure, that's modern day stuff. But projecting this back in time onto the Old Testament makes just as much sense as overlaying Quinn's story of Farmers vs. Herders.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Daniel Quinn is a colossal fool

Originally posted by Cyclotron
The book "Ishmael" is ignorant, masturbatory garbage. Discuss.

QFT. I had to read this ****ing crap for school. Not only are his arguments inane, but most of his actually biology is simply wrong.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by GePap
Wait, you take this guy's stuff seriously!?

I wouldn't, but for the fact that I meet so many people who think he's the savior of the world or something.

Maybe someone should tell Mr. Quinn that no animal species would volunterilly surrended any lifestyle that assured them sufficient food and water for themselves and their offsprings.

When tribalism provides for more resources than attempts at agriculture, people will become tribal (specially true in areas marginal at best for agriculture). If not, they will become and remain agriculturalists, and food surplus means population surplus, means urbanism and civilization.

You're right. Somebody should tell Mr. Quinn that.

[Kuciwalker]

Humans are not Malthusian - FACT

owned, Mr. Quinn

[Winston]

Who's going to make a joke about misspelling 'Quick'?



No, really,

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


But that doesn't change the fact that he was given the mark because of God's anger. And, whether you like it or not, it's been used widely in a racial context. I don't have cites for this on hand, so you'll have to settle for a wikipedia blurb.

Historically, however, many Christians have interpreted the Biblical passages so that the "mark" is thought to be part of the "curse". In 18th century America and Europe, it was commonly assumed that Cain's "mark" was black skin, and that Cain's descendants were black and still under Cain's curse. Accepting the theory that the Christian God had cursed black people, many Christians used the racial curse doctrine to justify racism and the enslavement of people of African ancestry. Others have used the curse as a Biblical justification for anti-Semitism.

Sure, that's modern day stuff. But projecting this back in time onto the Old Testament makes just as much sense as overlaying Quinn's story of Farmers vs. Herders.

I didn't say the interpration hasn't been done, I denied it made sense. Nobody familiar with the story could conclude that the mark of Cain was a curse. That many Christians have concluded so only proves that Christians, as a rule, don't read the Bible, which is hardly news.

Now, I'm not familiar with Quinn's interpretation, but I assume it's a variant of the idea it's about the rivalry between herders and farmers (a very real issue in the ancient Mid-East), and since part of the "point" of the story seems to be that God prefer herders over farmers, I'd say that such interpretations actually make a modicum of sense.