Settled Societies and Conquering Societies: Is There a Difference?
Posted: 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.
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.