Ethiopian News, Current Affairs and Opinion Forum
Naga Tuma
Member+
Posts: 5496
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 00:27

Settled Societies and Conquering Societies: Is There a Difference?

Post by Naga Tuma » 30 Nov 2022, 18:48

Can it be argued that there is a discernible difference between the cultures of settled societies and conquering societies? I couldn't get an answer to this question that has been in my mind for a while now. This comes after observing some discernible differences in the culture I grew up in and that in which I have been living.

May be the question has already been studied and concluded and that since I am not a formal student of social science, I have been ignorant about it all along.

Conquering and settlements may be as old as it gets in the history of humanity. A simple case in point is the root of the English word war (ዌረረ፣ ወረራ,) which may be another African word.

If I remember correctly, some of the earliest civilizations sprang out of settlements on river banks. Two cases in point are the Nile Valley and the Indus Valley civilizations.

If Europe was a frontier to conquer when the Nile and Indus Valleys were to settle in and start and advance civilizations, is it possible that the departure for the tendencies to become settled societies and conquering societies may have started then, at least among a good swath of humanity?

If this is a conjecture that can be substantiated, it appears to me as the factor that can explain, at least partly, the cultural contrast I seem to have observed.

If Europe was a frontier to conquer back then, the British Isle was one of the farthest frontiers to reach, which in turn suggests the strongest tendency of retention of the culture of conquering. Excepting the settled societies of the Americas that had already built the Aztec civilization, if Europe was a frontier to conquer, the Americas was the next frontier to conquer by people from Europe, the closest geographic proximity. Furthermore, if the medieval anarchy in Europe may be reminiscent of conquering Europe, could America's violent history be also reminiscent of conquering America?

If people from the British Isle had one of the strongest retained tendency to conquer, could it be natural that they become the more dominant group in the newly conquered continent of North of America?

The weak side of the strong tendency to conquer is getting stuck with it unwittingly, especially if the settled societies have developed superior cultures. In the antiquated culture of conquering societies, the conquered are the vanquished to never rise again. In their eyes, the Native American is to never rise again and see them in the eyes.

I remember hearing a while back that the French who came to America confided in Native Americans that what was being done to them was by the British. I do not know about the veracity of this historical account or claim. If it is substantiated, does it suggest that the French are relatively a more settled society in Europe than the British?

There is another story that I can't get my mind around yet. What explains China's public refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and America's human rights cries in countries all around the world even as its domestic violence history bears witness to the contrary?

Would it be farfetched to imagine that conquering societies are protective of their bounties and scheming for more bounties while settled societies are deliberative of their future, their destiny? What else can explain an evident scheming for appropriating somebody else's discovery?

The urge to be dominant in the culture of conquering societies is to lose the wisdom to fit in the culture of settled societies. Sooner or later, the world will become a settled planet simply because it has a limited space for humanity and the rest to exist on.

I remember Elon Musk's awkward dance in China a few years ago. He may have thought a market of more than a billion population for his urge to gain more bounties for his business. In retrospect, the boy of Apartheid has now become American Communist Party's figurehead by becoming its richest man on the planet. Once more, by America's Communist Party, I mean its community of talkers. It has had me believe that such figureheads are successful individuals in business. I do now know if the Chinese watched that awkward dance in bewilderment.

I am not sure if these simple examples give some substance to my suggestion that there is a discernible difference in the cultures of settled societies and conquering societies. Once again, this is if the suggestion can be substantiated.

Another simple example to substantiate it is an observation I heard from an Ethiopian friend years ago, which I have also been observing from time to time. I have found that it is a habit of many Americans to ask you where you are from. Such a question doesn't come for me naturally.

Whenever I am asked, I answer it naturally, telling them that I am originally from Ethiopia. Then, when I ask one where one is originally from, one also tells me the State that one is from. If one looks Caucasian and says I am from Utah, I continue the conversation by saying to one that he or she doesn't look to me a Native American. Needless to mention that the name Utah comes from Ute people of Native Americans. Some of them quickly understand the conversation and explain from where in Europe their ancestries came. I have also met some who quickly get offended and distance themselves from Native Americans.

That brings up even more clues about the difference between settled societies and conquering societies. Settled societies have natural affinity to the land on which their ancestors have lived for generations, the soil from which they ate, and the soil in which their remains got buried for generations. I do not think that there is a bigger evidence for this clue than Stanley Tucci's searching for Italy series on CNN that reminds you of the land of Galileo and Da Vinci, among others. Speaking figuratively, the discoverer of America is now the searcher for Italy so many centuries later.

The bounty of conquering can give a false sense of luxury. Then again, what is luxury if it is divorced from heritage. Could it become a source of ignorance that is perpetrated by its policy makers?

Back in 1997, I remember an American man picking up a local paper in Denver, scanning it for a little bit, and utterly saying in good faith that American policy makers do not inform the public in terms of daily news. After scanning the headlines, he asked questions to the effect if news didn't happen that day in different parts of the world. Ironically, he took time to read one of the pieces of news in the paper in which I was quoted with one sentence about gaining education and he turned to me to appreciate it.

I do not know if the contrast between material and knowledge can be paralleled to that between the values of conquering and settled societies. Yes, even the antiquated habit of conquering societies needs some level of knowledge and knowledgeable people to lead it, However, is it as visionary and as farsighted as the deliberations of settled societies.

Naga Tuma
Member+
Posts: 5496
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 00:27

Re: Settled Societies and Conquering Societies: Is There a Difference?

Post by Naga Tuma » 15 Dec 2022, 17:27

In the news yesterday was outgoing Oregon governor Kate Brown calling capital punishment both dysfunctional and immoral.

I just can't help asking once more when the concept of ጉማ was first established in Africa. It is a concept in which there is reckoning among the settled civil society that humans have the right to punish in kind and that the right for capital punishment is left to the Almighty. It doesn't mean rational humans can never get emotional. It means the response is in kind to condemn aggressor thereafter.

The concept of ጉማ, which is widely known in cultural folklore, has appeared for a long time to be one of the anecdotal markers of civilization.

What explains the difference in the timing of the same reckoning? One happened in an ancient time and the other is happening in this era.

Tiago
Member
Posts: 2020
Joined: 30 Jul 2018, 02:09

Re: Settled Societies and Conquering Societies: Is There a Difference?

Post by Tiago » 15 Dec 2022, 18:53

The british never like to be called colonizers. They reserved the word "settlers" exclusively to be used in the context of conquering a land and making it suitable for their existence.
They always try to put the violence,displacement and genocide that invariably come with settling in someone's
land under the carpet .
Today these settlers call none europeanss slaves,immigrants,aliens etc the whites who go to other countries to live and work are also called "expatriates",
Never immigrants. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Settlers are in my opinion, what we call today " refugees '
People who fled their country because of religious persecution and war or in search of food .
The european settlers were nothing short of outright robbers.

Naga Tuma
Member+
Posts: 5496
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 00:27

Re: Settled Societies and Conquering Societies: Is There a Difference?

Post by Naga Tuma » 17 Dec 2022, 15:43

Did you write robbery? What is wrong with robbery when you are stuck in the ancient era of hunter gatherer? Did you think there aren't people who want to live and lead in this era with the mentality of that era? You can rob something as big as a continent or something as big as a discovery and walk ጎንበስ ጎንበስ። You can then fly to the moon and have it all for yourself. After that, you can also fly to Mars and have it all for yourself.

Naga Tuma
Member+
Posts: 5496
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 00:27

Re: Settled Societies and Conquering Societies: Is There a Difference?

Post by Naga Tuma » 29 Dec 2022, 19:16

The more I think if there is a discernible difference between settled societies and conquering societies, the more it becomes obvious to exist. In addition, the more it appears to explain humanity's long history.

How was it that an Indian man who can say Sanskrit was colonized for long by a British man who can't say Karma?

How was it that an Italian man who wanted to conquer a country beyond the seas that was defeated once decides to sharpen his spears to come back decades later to conquer again the same country beyond the seas? More importantly, how was it that the independent country that defeated the conqueror the first time stopped sharpening its spears at the same pace and gets caught off guard when the defeated conqueror came back to conquer again? Is it possible that the defendant was from a settled society as opposed to a conquering society and settled in his independent country with the mentality that the wanton aggression was settled the first time it occurred and forever? Having laid down its spears in favor of law making, the settled society debates about government under the rule of law. On the other hand, the conquering society is in a continuum state of sharpening its spears with the goal to maintain a superior edge even it leads to self destruction.

What appears to make this thesis even more valid is that there is evidence that the settled society decided to retire governing by the force of spears in ancient times in favor of governing by law. It is not hard to imagine that kind of reckoning in ancient times must have come from some experience of the ferocity of war. It may also partly explain the fierce rise against aggression that came from beyond the seas.

ሴረ ቱማ, which means making law, in front of laid spears has long been a cultural ritual as is saying ሰላም or Shalom. The British man could also say sincere or sincerely in formal exchanges for a few centuries now.

If there is a discernible difference between settled societies and conquering societies, how is it that one group gets stuck in the mentality of civility and the other in the mentality of conquering. This is not to suggest that civility isn't superior.

If the British man who can't say Karma colonized for long the Indian man who can say Sanskrit, how could he do that? Is it possible that geography has been the best natural friend and likely to be the worst natural enemy of the British colonizer?

I grew up hearing the assertion that Columbus was the discoverer of America. I did not second guess it when I heard it at a young age. I could only feel the pain of the Native American when I heard one of them speak at a conference back in 1997 that before the conquerors arrived, they owned a continent and that after they arrived, they lost it.

A high school song in America that asked how one can discover a place where people were already living invalidated at a moment's notice what I heard at a young age.

The British man saw a continent in his backyard, across the Atlantic ocean, and called it a melting pot while wishing to have everyone in it speak only English. He had the relative advantage of geographic proximity. Sooner or later, the country is going to become a settled place under the rule of law. Under the rule of law, the melting pot is bound to unravel as the most diverse place.

Much respect to the self-respecting Spaniards that have settled in the Americas. On the other hand, the Whitey Spaniardy in the Americas are also going to ask who the last Spaniard American President it was who said Feliz Navidad from the White House. The French in the Americas could also ask who the last American President was that said Joyeux Noël from the White House. The German could ask who it was that said Frohe Weihnachten from the White House. The list goes on. The sky won’t fall if the White House reflects the diverse languages and heritages of the constituents of the country.

Funneled to the continent were treasures from around the world, including brains and science. Scientists found value in it only to discover that generally speaking, scientists mean well but then mean people step in. Einstein meant well when he discovered that matter can be changed into energy. Mean people used it against the people of Japan.

If that is the case, why would or should scientists want to settle amid a conquering society instead of a settled society if the settled society gets its house in order for its scientists to thrive in? That is the sharpening that settled societies everywhere need to practice.

Post Reply