Learning from Violence, Part 1: Savage Violence, Uncivilized Love
by Steve ThomasI had ten staples removed from my head today.
They’d been there for almost two weeks. On November 20th my roommate Crystal Hoffman and I were attacked on the street. We were walking home from a nearby bar and had decided to take a shorter route through a somewhat more dangerous neighborhood, because the longer route leads through an area where there are no sidewalks.
As we walked through a short uninhabited stretch ten or more men ran at us, at last three weilding guns. I can’t describe the terror of that moment. I hadn’t been paying attention; I was a little drunk, and occupied by our conversation. Suddenly they were on us, surrounding, shoving, yelling. Before I could respond something cracked me on the head. I realized later it was a gun. They beat us to the ground—there’s no other way to say that; they beat us until we couldn’t stand anymore, and then continued to beat us—pointed their guns in our faces, took our money (all $2.75 of it) and left.
They were children, mostly. None older than eighteen. Some as young as thirteen. Children, that is, by this culture’s standards.
Things are pretty blurry after that. Eventually we arrived at a hospital. We were both beaten pretty badly, our faces and other body parts bruised and swollen. I had a broken nose, damage in my jaw, and a head that had to be stapled back together. Crystal had three broken ribs and a mild concussion. We’re okay now, in case you’re wondering.
Since that night I’ve been trying to make sense of the experience. I’ve been trying to figure out what lessons I can draw from it, so that it wasn’t simply a waste, a pointless random horror.
This is the first of a few pieces I’m going to do on this topic. This is the first lesson I’ve been able to draw.
The whole experience was very tribal. A small group of individuals got together for the purposes of attacking members of another social group. No one was in command There did seem to be a nominal leader, but he lacked the power to command as demonstrated by the fact that two of the ten-or-so refused to hit Crystal. (No one had the same compunction toward me.)
This is tribal warfare, in a nutshell. It’s low-intensity. It’s based on voluntary participation. And it is based on raids and hit-and-run attacks. Lengthy campaigns, mass slaughters, the sheer scale and intensity and horror of civilized war are impossible.
That’s not not to say tribal warfare is enjoyable. My experiences were, as I’ve tried to make clear, horrific, and I’m still recovering from them, physically and psychologically. But I can only imagine that the trauma I’ve suffered was far less than that of seeing your entire village destroyed by warplanes. Though humans, tribal or civilized, are sometimes inclined to intergroup violence, only civilization can carry war to its full extent of mass slaughter. There are two reasons for this: numbers, and hierarchy.
The first is obvious. It takes a population of a million to raise an army of ten thousand, and it takes an army of ten thousand to slaughter a population of a million. As for the second. Warfare is not a pleasant experience. It takes hierarchy to command it. A tribe has no God to order Moses to order the Israelites to slaughter the people of Midian; no Chivington to order his men to “wade in gore;” no Schwarzkopf to order his troops to bury thousands of Iraqi soldiers. Tribes have leaders, certainly, including warleaders. But their power is limited to persuasion. Geronimo was a tribal leader who is rightly remembered as a great warrior. Yet Geronimo’s authority was limited to what he could persuade others to do. In many of his raids against the Mexicans or the Americans he had no more than one or two others accompanying him, and they were free to turn back at any point. Without hierarchy, mass projects are impossible, or at least very difficult. That’s why great public works like monuments and irrigation systems are seen by archaeologists as signs of chiefdom-level sociopolitical organization. Great works include great wars and great massacres. It’s simply not possible to command a group of foragers to annihilate another group, even if the foragers somehow have the luxury of wasting their energy on slaughter.
This picture so far is a little bleak. One might conclude that we’re just “naturally� a violent species, but some of us (some modes of organization) are better at slaking our bloodlust than others. In a way that’s true. No human group has ever been found to be truly pacific. Foragers generally have a much higher murder rate than we do, lacking the state’s monopoly on violence. That includes foragers like the Central Eskimo who did not practice warfare of any kind. That statement isn’t quite accurate, however—the Central Eskimo genuinely did have a very high murder rate. One-third of men could be expected to die at the hands of their tribesmen. But other groups’ high murder rates actually conceal a relative scarcity of murders, because murder rates appear as a ratio per hundred-thousand. In a group of 200, one murder every ten or twenty years still yields a pretty high murder rate. Clearly this doesn’t mean people went about their lives in constant terror, or in a Hobbesian State of War, as some would have it. It is worth noting, though, that interpersonal violence, including homicide, was by no means outside the tribal experience or the tribal citizen’s range of life-expectations.
But napalm was.
And violence is only half of the story. Half of my story, and half of the story of tribal life.
I have written elsewhere of the tribal nature of our relationships, that is, the relationships which are not dictated to or forced upon us by the hierarchy. Our networks of friends, family and acquaintances mimic the structure of the hunter-gatherer band. After the attack, I saw this theory put to the test. I was proven correct as literally dozens of people—friends, family, acquaintances and coworkers—rushed to our aid. In a very tribal way many people (including most of the people I named by pseudonym in the other article) provided gifts of food or money or otherwise rushed to take care of us, to make us feel (and be) safe and secure after our trauma. The violence done to us was paltry by comparison.
Our tribe took care of us, and it did so better than a hierarchy ever could. Because the members of a tribe relate to one another as human beings, not as members of an institution performing a role. When two tribe members interact, each is free to gauge what the other person needs, what they themselves can provide, and to act accordingly. We do this in civilization too—as I’ve just demonstrated—whenever we’re allowed; in all the aspects of our life not dictated to us by the hierarchy. But for most of the important interactions in our life, we depend upon hierarchy deciding what we need and delineating the ways in which we may interact with one another. It’s a system that works great—for massive undertakings like building cities, landing on the moon, and annihilating inferior races. But not for providing for our individual human needs.
But Steve—the objector replies—what about the hospital? That’s a hierarchical organization, and it was there that your wounds were initially treated. Wasn’t that an example of hierarchy providing for your individual needs, and better than a tribe could with all its fancy medical equipment?
There are three replies to this. First, yes, our wounds were treated in a modern hospital, with advanced medical technology. But the same degree of care could as easily have been received in a tribal camp or village. It would be a poor tribe indeed that didn’t take care of its wounded, and the evidence says we’ve been doing so for quite a while. Also, the technology to repair a head wound and allow broken bones to heal is not dependant upon hierarchy.
Second, yes, we were treated in a hospital, by a hierarchy of doctors and nurses who didn’t know us, didn’t care about us, were in fact—ultimately—forced to treat us in order to be paid (by their superiors). No one had any interest in helping us, in particular. We were not an integral part of their lives and their wellbeing, as we would be in a tribal setting and as, in fact, we are to the tribe of our friends and family. This fact was illustrated by the poor quality of the care we actually received. If we had arrived at a tribal encampment beaten and bloody, we would have been cared for just as well or better than we were at the hospital, and I would not presently be looking at a bill for $17,600 (you hear that? In this society, you get fined for being attacked in the streets).
Finally, let’s say the same event occurred in “primitive� tribal circumstances. We were ambushed alone, far from anyone’s camp. And let’s say the enemy warriors had the courage to actually kill us; maybe to take our scalps or heads back to their own encampment. Well, again my point is made. In this scenario the tribal network those boys are part of is also a subsistence tribe, which sent 10 of its warriors out to ambush two of its enemies. If the United States or another civilized nation where to invest the same proportional amount of energy into attacking one of its enemies as the boys’ tribe would have (and did), the headlines would read “Iraqi city wiped off map.� One can argue that, in a tribe of 100, losing two people is as bad as a nation of 100 million losing two million people. To some extent this is true. But there is clearly also a qualitative difference between the impact of annihilating a city and the impact of murdering two villagers.
This is what it comes down to: Violence is always, to some degree, a part of the human experience. So are compassion, love, and mutual aid. We’re very good at taking care of one another, all on our own, without compulsion or space-age technology. But we need civilization to be any good at destruction.
Steve–
Your ability to learn so much from such an experience, and to discuss something like this so candidly and so publicly while you’re still recovering from your injuries is an inspiration.
At the same time, I’m ashamed that I couldn’t help you more than I did.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 November 2005 @ 11:16 AM
So how does one go about establishing a tribe for survival after collapse? Let me emphasize here that I’m talking about a cohesive group which will actually stick together when the shit hits the fan. I’m not interested in a group which will merely engage in idle cocktail party banter and then not coalesce when things go south.
Personally, I’m probably screwed as I moved to a new town where everyone’s a stranger. The few remaining friends are far away and really don’t take the possibility of collapse seriously.
Comment by Peter — 2 November 2005 @ 12:27 PM
Thank you Jason.
Please don’t worry about that. You’ve consistently supported me since the day I met you, and I’ve depended on you over and over. You have nothing at all to be ashamed of.
Comment by Steve Thomas — 2 November 2005 @ 12:33 PM
Hey Steve –
Its so very good to see you back:-)
I read your email after the attack and felt… dumbfounded. There were no words that would not sound trite and impersonal, so I said nothing. Being so far away, there was nothing I could DO, so I did nothing. But know that your experiance impacted me even though I could not find a way to reciprocate… if that makes any sense.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 2 November 2005 @ 12:52 PM
Who can answer this? It’s something very few of us have lived through. The best we can do is look to 1. what social groups served humans outside of civilization and 2. how humans have responded (successfully and unsuccessfully) to civilization when it has lost its legitimacy. Two lessons that come to mind are: in the case of collapse, people will do best when they already have an alternative to return to. So the Solomon Islands didn’t collapse into violence when the central government fell apart; instead, the people simply returned to the tribal system of keeping peace. If they have to invent a new system, there’s a good chance that there will be a violent interrim. New Orleans demonstrates that in response to sudden collapse, people will kill one another–but they will also work together and form tribes.
If we already have a tribe–a group of people who have agreed to work together–we won’t have to spend time forming them. These tribes’ survival value will be further enhanced by the degree to which they have the skills and resources to survive independant of the hieararchy. Of course, this is all inference; no one can answer your question with absolute certainty.
Comment by Steve Thomas — 2 November 2005 @ 12:53 PM
I wonder if people in your (and mine) situation could go by the way of Rambo.
Learn to survive alone for a while. Find existing tribe after collapse and try to marry into it, dazzling them with an array of useful survival skills. Tribes are likely to suffer unusually high casualties first few months or even years after collapse, and hopefully they would not decline able replacements.
Very few people would want to live alone for years, but I fugure, it’ll take only a year or two, before one can find a tribe willing to take one in.
Comment by _Gi — 2 November 2005 @ 1:08 PM
Now is the tme to find your tribes. Make them, if you have to. When collapse is fully upon us, those tribes will become increasingly xenophobic. The Tribe of Anthropik is open to the possibility of new members at the present, though we don’t exactly accept resumes. But once we’re out in the woods, it’s going to be a good deal more difficult to convince us to let you stay with us.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 November 2005 @ 1:13 PM
The point I wanted to make is that it’s easy for everyone to make enthusiastic commitments over group breakfasts at IHOP. But when the shit hits the fan people quickly forget such commitments and decide to go with another strategy for survival.
There’s also the question of what to do with the elderly and the young. Do you simply abandon your 80 year old widowed mother? What about young kids? Do you allow couples with young ones into your tribe? Families will slow movement down. These types of considerations could deplete your tribe dramatically when it comes time to high tail it into the wilderness.
These are just a few practical concerns about tribal formation.
One other thought, since even basic necessities will be scare, why share this info with the world via this site? Wouldn’t it be wiser to keep mum while making quiet preparations? That’s how you make money in the stock market: insider knowledge.
Comment by Peter — 2 November 2005 @ 1:54 PM
This is not surpising.
At this point, new members for you would start to constitute a liability, if their survival skills are non-existing. Ofcourse, you figure you might have enough time to train the newbies, and you might be lucky to attract an odd experienced survival expert who will be psychologically compatible at least with some of you.
This liability of untrained members (they’ll be helpless like little children in the woods, but will eat like adults) is bound to increase all the way to collapse and a fair bit beyond. Since you only know a proximate date of collapse, and your departure will likely be rather sudden, at some point not far in the future, your tribe will have to settle for the members it already has.
Once you are in the woods, it will take you a long time to trust anyone who is not of your tribe.
For your safety, you will have to assume that everyone you encounter is hostile, or starving, or mad.
Yet, for at least a generation or two, I predict that you will always welcome fresh blood, if you feel it is safe to do so.
But how can one make a tribe? A tribe is organic, it is not forged, it grows out of relationships and friendships. A tribe is not a platoon, one cannot form a tribe by sheer force of will. Making a tribe is beyond my individual capacity. I am neither Aaron, nor Cicero, I have no chance to persuade people obsessed with normalcy of civilization. I don’t even want to accept the collapse myself. Denial runs deep.
Wait till we get to Anger.
Most members of your tribe know about what is coming. They have accepted it. They are preparing for it.
All other tribes of primitivists, existing and yet to form are in the same predicament as you. They cannot afford to expand their numbers with people unwilling to start preparing immediately.
Comment by _Gi — 2 November 2005 @ 1:57 PM
There’s book coming out in December called Relocalize by the founder of the Post Carbon Institute. The book recommends forming local groups called “Outposts” to plan for community survival. Someone called a meeting here in town, a few people showed up, and then the thing evaporated. I arrived in town after that meeting and tried to get info. The leader of the local Outpost doesn’t even respond to my emails.
Comment by Peter — 2 November 2005 @ 2:18 PM
I’m doing it by tried to build a ’sustainable community’ (in the intentional housing movement). The pitch is this:
“The Little Foot Coop is an intentional living community (also termed an ILC, ‘eco-village’ or co-housing community) for twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) families set in or near Topanga Canyon, Southern California. In brief, it is designed to provide a comfortable, community-oriented setting with reduced reliance on the public grid, providing its constituents’ basic needs in terms of shelter, water, sewage, power, and food through alternative and sustainable means. Its intended target demographic is those interested in a safe, civically minded place they can live, raise a family, and grow old comfortably.”
This attracts the people around me, who are not primitivists, and others of similar mind; it’s our exposure to this project that melds us into a closer unit — and hopefully one day, a tribe.
The future’s uncertain but I have to hope and I have to work hard on trying to forge the social ties that will solidify under stress into something strong.
Oh, quick sideline — why Topanga Canyon? Urban edge environments, while potentially exposing us to the danger of a collapsing city, ‘feel’ more comfortable to people not yet ready to step out of civilization. However, when properly chosen, there is wilderness still to step on. The Santa Monica Conservancy holds a lot of land that people with the right knowledge can simply disappear into.
One last interesting thing about L.A. — while a collapse would be wicked, the fact that L.A. is so spread out will make it difficult for post-collapse gangs to survive for long. A sad but notable fact.
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 2 November 2005 @ 3:02 PM
re: the article
Gods, Steve — I’m sorry to hear about what happened! I hope for the speediest recovery on all parts for you and Crystal.
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 2 November 2005 @ 3:04 PM
“There’s also the question of what to do with the elderly and the young. Do you simply abandon your 80 year old widowed mother? What about young kids? Do you allow couples with young ones into your tribe? Families will slow movement down. These types of considerations could deplete your tribe dramatically when it comes time to high tail it into the wilderness.”
It’s easy to forget our old when we are in our early twenties.
Comment by Peter — 2 November 2005 @ 6:13 PM
Considering that it was Paleolithic forager tribes that invented the very notion of taking care of the elderly, and complex societies that keep trying to abandon them, I’m not seeng much of a problem here.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 November 2005 @ 6:24 PM
So we’ll carry them around with us on stretchers?
Comment by Peter — 2 November 2005 @ 6:33 PM
That was often done, yeah. If they can still walk, you just move slowly. While actually foraging mostly involves walking, that’s not an activity the elderly would really be involved with. So, there’s moving camp. That’s infrequent enough to get around.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 November 2005 @ 6:41 PM
We’ll do what we have to, Peter, depending upon the situation. Why on earth wouldn’t we?
Comment by Steve Thomas — 2 November 2005 @ 6:44 PM
Besides, who better to teach the kids? Hell, if you’re a paleolithic human who managed to get old enough to loose the ability to move quickly you must know something worth keeping around.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 3 November 2005 @ 2:37 AM
Considering that your average 60 year old !Kung man is f’ing ripped and could probably run a marathon through a brick wall.
Foragers don’t really “get old,” apparently: they just fall down one day.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 3 November 2005 @ 9:05 AM
I was thinking of people who grew old in our civilization. It’d be tough for someone who’s 80 today to pack a knapsack and head out into the wilderness.
Comment by Peter — 3 November 2005 @ 11:46 AM
Not all of us…
Comment by JCamasto — 3 November 2005 @ 1:40 PM
This article has stayed with me since I first read it.
It really rams the point home why man had to create god and religion. Tell people not to kill and most will comply but a few won’t. Tell them that god said they mustn’t kill and the compliance rate goes up to 99% or better.
The Collapse and Post-Collapse periods will certainly require religion.
Perhaps we should start drafting a new version of The 10 Commandments?
1. Thou shall not allow corporations to take over the world.
2.
What else?
Comment by Peter — 3 November 2005 @ 9:44 PM
2) Thou shalt not invent rules. Follow only the laws of nature written on the leaf of every plant, the strand of every hair, every feather, and every scale. If you question what the law is, look to the flower and be in awe.
Just my humble suggestion.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 3 November 2005 @ 11:01 PM
Peter,
We don’t create rules. We create myths. We create living legends that show them what it was like in the middle of the collapse, even though they had never been there.
And we forge stories of what their destiny can be, if only they listen to what the World provides to them.
Comment by Anonymous — 3 November 2005 @ 11:03 PM
Steve: sorry to hear y’all got jumped. If you like, I can provide a few urban survival tips that might help you if anything similar ever happens. Rule Number One: Stay ALERT! Rule Number Two: when venturing out after dark, get a simple, loud signaling device (a police whistle works well). If you’re outnumbered and under attack by obviously superior forces, RUN YOUR ASS OFF and BLOW THAT WHISTLE for all you’re worth. They might give up pursuit just because of witnesses. Remember, most street thugs are pretty lazy (an instinct that ironically encourages efficiency): they’d rather steal or deal than work… but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re stupid. Speaking objectively, the EROI for hunting (and mugging) is pretty good: the predator generally makes out with more than they used up getting there. This doesn’t mean I necessarily agree that this is a healthy lifestyle or self-image…
I’m intrigued by your statement about various social structures and potential for violence. Yeah, tribes don’t make napalm: they don’t have the industrial base… but they wouldn’t be above USING IT. Look at Africa, post-WWII: it’s awash in the old guns we replaced in the “first world”, and tribal chiefs will bankrupt the tribe trading cows for M-16s nowadays.
You can expect much the same in an American collapse if people return to a tribal culture… though I suppose it’ll only hold out as long as the ammo does. Then you’ll get a tribe that knows how to “reload” bullets, primer and powder into empty brass casings, and the other nearby tribes will become sattelites of that tribe, dependent on them for protection.
What I ask is: how do you strip ALL the technological, industrial civilizations of their industry base and ensure a level playing field for those who’re playing along with yer plan? Honestly, were I a megalomaniacal dictator, I’d happily pretend to be going along with such a scheme until everyone seemed disarmed… and then come out, guns blazing, to conquer the world.
Much easier to to get the peoples of the world to embrace the idea of controlled violence, that there’s a time and place where violence is correct and necessary, and that time and place is not beating people down in the streets for $2.75… or bombing a nation for billions in oil profits flowing to the same pockets.
Look to the flower in awe… and the tiger in terror and fascination. The ONLY “rules” are Learn from All, and Adapt or Die. As to corporations… you’re not looking high enough up the food chain. Look to the banks: they control the companies, the government, and public opinion through the media.
Comment by Tar — 18 November 2005 @ 4:47 PM
Indeed, Africa is a prime example. Tribal cultures shattered by the violence of civilized colonialism, awash in bloodshed with civilized weapons, as a consequence of civilized encroaschments against them. The turmoil in Africa is the legacy of colonialism–the very essence of civilization itself.
If the question is a technical one, you’ve already set up the conditions. It’s a systemic problem, so its solutions must also be systemic.
The only way you’ll ever end violence, is if there’s no incentive in it. Not building up artificial disincentives, like, “if you do, we’ll beat the ever-loving shit out of you.” Take away the incentive itself. Make violence a stupid idea.
We have lots of fossil and archaeological evidence for violence after the Neolithic, but none before. Why is that?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 18 November 2005 @ 5:32 PM
“Honestly, were I a megalomaniacal dictator, I’d happily pretend to be going along with such a scheme until everyone seemed disarmed… and then come out, guns blazing, to conquer the world.”
Tar,
You are such a cynic!
Comment by Peter — 18 November 2005 @ 7:54 PM
Had you grabbed the biggest one and smashed him one in the teeth, the little tribe of moolies would have scattered.
Of course, you DIDN’T do that, guilty white liberal that you are.
You’re just lucky they didnt run a train on your girlfriend while they made you watch.
Comment by You're a wuss, steve — 25 November 2005 @ 1:42 PM
Uh, right.
It’s especialy intimidating cause this is the internet.
Comment by Steve Thomas — 25 November 2005 @ 4:53 PM
That is unbelievably disgusting.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 25 November 2005 @ 8:56 PM
Just when I think I’ve had all I can stand of latte liberals, somebody like the Nov. 25 guy comes along and shows how much worse conservatives are. Thanks for not deleting that, Jason, so that everybody can see what sort of mindset listening to AM Hate Radio produces.
That 18K medical bill would likely cause a lot of working people who work jobs with no benefits to end up out on the streets.
Comment by Thomas Rondy — 10 September 2006 @ 1:16 PM