/edu/ - Education

>>18232
Thread now on /edu/ because it's the board meant for these sorts of long term conversations
And the slowness of the board will make it less likely for us to lose the thread to the inevitable forum slide to the bottom of the last page

>>18232
Alright I think we should start again from the first chapter

Last thread anfem flag poster noticed something that had never stood out to me before in the text that pottery developed from woven baskets covered with mud used for cooking

My commentary wasn't worth much, I lost count on how many times I've read this but it far exceeds 10 times and quite a number of those times were in discussion with others so I was just going through the motions

I'll give the Chapter a deep read now and hopefully give you the commentary this great book actually deserves when I'm done

It's always good to save and back up so in case of catastrophic failure of my computer the current draft
"
Social Realism
Dialectical And Historical Materialism
Relation to first paragraph of the Preface to the First Edition, 1884

And it is for this very reason that this thread should be called "Reading Session" not "Reading group"
"

This probably will take a while, so in the meantime any participants in this reading session should read at least up to chapter 1 and feel free to post anything they comes to them at any time in the week

Next week will be chapter 1

>>18365
*anything that comes to them at any time in the week

>>18366
*during

>>18364
Backup checkpoint
"Social Realism
From
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QinYMHLG9Ns
To
https://youtu.be/IjGhLMLVnro
To
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FHbgYeEMe8
Hard to find a copy of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich have hard copy with some annotations somewhere but where
Dialectical And Historical Materialism
Marx is the raw prototype for Social Realism with his stakhanovite labour on the subject of work, just as Engel's is, as the Orthodox christians would say is the archetype
Relation to first paragraph of the Preface to the First Edition, 1884
And it is for this very reason that this thread should be called "Reading Session" not "Reading Group"
"

>>18368
Backup checkpoint
"
Social Realism
From
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QinYMHLG9Ns
To
https://youtu.be/IjGhLMLVnro
To
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FHbgYeEMe8
Look at these beautiful and skilled women at work, it can not be denied for the westoid that they are looking down upon (us) from such a height that if they were in the Yucatan they would be south american wakanda
>bububu-b-but stalinstache Cuba
Yes Cuba is based, but it is an island and can therefore be blockaded
Hard to find a copy of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich have hard copy with some annotations somewhere but where
Dialectical And Historical Materialism
Marx is the raw prototype for Social Realism with his stakhanovite labour on the subject of work, just as Engel's is, as the Orthodox christians would say is the archetype
Relation to first paragraph of the Preface to the First Edition, 1884
And it is for this very reason that this thread should be called "Reading Session" not "Reading Group"
"

Time for your Friday reading session
Chapter 1
The .pdf is in OP
Comment on what you notice no matter how silly or trivial it seems

>>18501 (me)
You did do your reading didn't you?

Comments plz

>>18523
I can't complain too much about it since even I haven't done the reading since I was too busy giving the lovely wife some TLC

My first comment:

>I. Stages of Prehistoric Culture
>MORGAN is the first man who, with expert knowledge, has attempted to introduce a definite
order into the history of primitive man; so long as no important additional material makes
changes necessary, his classification will undoubtedly remain in force.

Refer back here to the comment (unfortunately only a sketch) I made on the first paragraph of the preface

>Of the three main epochs – savagery, barbarism, and civilization – he is concerned, of course, only with the first two and the transition to the third. He divides both savagery and barbarism into lower, middle, and upper stages according to the progress made in the production of food; for, he
says:
>>Upon their skill in this direction, the whole question of human supremacy on the earth
depended. Mankind are the only beings who may be said to have gained an absolute control
over the production of food…. It is accordingly probable that the great epochs of human
progress have been identified, more or less directly, with the enlargement of the sources of
subsistence.
Key point

Are you ready for your Friday reading session tomorrow?

>>18525
>It is accordingly probable that the great epochs of human progress have been identified, more or less directly, with the enlargement of the sources of
subsistence.
He is putting the cart before the horse. Enlargement of the food supply usually happened due to a technological innovation, like irrigation or the plough. This increased the yield and people farming became more productive. More people were born (and survived into adulthood). While the population increased, so did the share of people not involved in food production. This meant that more people could engage in other pursuits, and more of them.

Increased food supply is itself a cause of technological innovation/revolution. The "Agricultural revolution" is itself a technological one. Selectively breeding plants is a kind of technology. Its tools are the shovel, water, soil, wood fencing off areas, various protections against animals and insects, it has a theory, and related knowledge of how it is done.

Today's reading is.
>II. The Family
.pdf is in the OP page 17

>>18565
What do you think of the "gay uncle" theory?

>>18566
Possible

>>18567
ever wonder why your thread isn't gaining traction?

>>18568
Not really no
I don't concern myself with the opinions of people who don't read books

>>18569
It's a paradox. The only reason I ever read a book is because of the threat of a beating if I left the house after 6pm. There was zero electronic distractions allowed. Why would the neighborhood children playing outdoors until 10pm, developing interpersonal skills, be interested in developing the habits necessary to "read" throughout life. The concept of reading as I think you're defining it only existed notionally, where the man of the house retired to his study after dinner to attend to his correspondence and read. Or when some people worked 9-5 and habitually went to bed at 10pm to read for an hour before sleep. I saw more people actually reading on the Lisbon metro than anywhere else, sometimes political and philosophical stuff. Honestly, I couldn't read in that environment, just too much noise and movement. Outside of distraction free live-in environments, like weekend retreats or something, I can't see people arranging their lives in the way that is necessary to read for an hour a day and retain the information
>I don't concern myself with the opinions of people who don't read books
I used to agree. It's pretty isolating though

>>18569
I read books. I've read The Origin (who hasn't? it's also taught in anthropology classes). If you want people to discuss the work, you have to put some effort into it. For example,
>>18566
>>18567
That is all you have to say about that? No other opinions on the "gay uncle" theory?
>>18561
This one you didn't answer.
Comments plz

>>18572
>I've taught anthropology
Right so take over then
Or at least ask better questions

>>18572
>>18594
I ignored the second question because I thought it was moronic
The process is clearly mutually determined but food production beats technology in effect
A plough on the tundra is useless, a salmon run creates a stratified society with slaves

>>18595
Modern anthropology goes out of it's way to ignore this, I noticed Graeber doing it early on in his final book before I got bored and stopped reading it

>>18571
Anyway sorry I wouldn't be so cranky if you'd engaged with the text
We're only on Chapter 2 peeps u can catch up
Then just one chapter every Friday
Maybe make a comment? :^)

Read comrades read
How are you ever going to get through Capital otherwise

>>18595
>The process is clearly mutually determined but food production beats technology in effect
You cannot have increased food production without technological innovation. Yes, planting seeds into the ground/farming is a technological innovation.
>>18594
>>I've taught anthropology
It's ironic you're the one telling people to read. I said the book is taught in anthropology classes, I don't know why you're acting like we must dissect every chapter of Origins to reveal its secrets.
>A plough on the tundra is useless, a salmon run creates a stratified society with slaves
What? You're not making any sense. I used to think you're pretending to be old, but now I think you actually might be. Stop rambling, gramps.

>>18599
>>A plough on the tundra is useless, a salmon run creates a stratified society with slaves
>What? You're not making any sense. I used to think you're pretending to be old, but now I think you actually might be. Stop rambling, gramps.
Are you illiterate?
Is that why you refuse to read books?

>>18602
If someone doesn't understand what you have written, the onus is on you to explain. Responding with an insult only makes you look unsure in what you said. If one understands or knows a concept, then one is able to explain it in several ways, otherwise it just seems like the person is repeating what they read/heard without fully grokking it.

Why would someone build a plough in a tundra? Salmon don't live in all parts of the world. Your statement is simply stating the obvious. Aztecs living in swamp/marsh area never invented the wheel, because it doesn't make sense in a place without many roads.

The plough is not the only advancement I mentioned, there's also irrigation. Then there's also the simple "trick" of covering irrigation canals to reduce water evaporation in dry places.

Some argue that any large technological undertaking in ancient history (like irrigation), requires a centralised (hierarchical) State, that could manage the various experts, knowledge, technology, materials, labour force, to complete the large project. Is that what you meant with the salmon run comment?

Do you wish to explain what you meant? What is obvious to you, may not be obvious to others, as we don't live inside your brain.

>>18602
>Is that why you refuse to read books?
Also, why do you keep saying that like you're the only person on the planet who reads books? Btw, your choice of The Origins as a book to be discussed shows you either don't actually read or read basic, Marxist 101 texts from some "essential communist works" from some chan list. A person who actually reads would have chosen a contemporary work that could be discussed through a Marxist lens. Off the top of my head Graeber's book would have been a better choice, you even mention it here: >>18596 . But another, shorter work may have been even better, such as
Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia or like I mentioned Radkau, Nature and Power. Or if you wanted some "communist" text, maybe a discussion of Tronti's Workers and Capital.

Maybe one could draw parallels between what happened in 1968 and what is happening today.

But nah, for that you have to be interesting, think creatively and not be boring. Your schtick of calling everyone "son" and pretending like you're the only one on the planet who knows about books or reading got very old very fast. All you seem to know how to do is copy-paste chapter headings and insult people for their perceived lack of reading. Maybe nobody wants to read your boring-ass 19th century books Did you consider that possibility Mr. Book-Reader?

>>18607
>y keep saying that?
To provoke you to keep you engaged

I'll read the rest later but here have another provocation; The lion share of funding for anthropological research in the West has come from DARPA and other Military Industrial Congressional Complex sources.

This has a major influence on what is taught and the focus of research.

More importantly though, here's a question why does the bloodthirsty washington burgroid do all this funding?

>>18613
>The lion share of funding for anthropological research in the West has come from DARPA and other Military Industrial Congressional Complex sources.
Unironically, big if true. Of course, there could be nefarious reasons for that. The other reason is that US govt. funds a bunch of shit, so there's bound to be research done for research sake and not towards an imperialist US goal. Besides, it's not like anthropology requires a nuclear reactor or a particle accelerator, it doesn't costs that much to pay a couple 70-80k salaries a year and keep a few university departments open.

I'd also like to see a breakdown of this funding. Are anthro. departments and research funded directly through grants or indirectly through university funding?

>>18614
>Are anthro. departments and research funded directly through grants or indirectly through university funding?
The second. Stalinface is, of course, full of shit.

>>18615
Did you just add a term I didn't use there to win an argument son

>>18615
Anyway why are you blustering like a student who didn't do the reading and rocks up to the tutorial?

For those who are interested "Human terrain" I think the term was

>>18616
>>18617
>>18618
>>18619
it's a nothinburger and you sound like a schizo.

>>18620
>Wikipedia
Everybody point at this man and laugh

>>18621
show us your source
>inb4 David Icke

>>18635
Look son you've already played your hand and it's a shit one
I hope you're not the anon earlier who claimed to have taught anthropology given this was a big controversy in the field.
I mean that would just be embarrassing if it were having to look up Wikipedia about it and all.

As for the evidence, I present to you that It's even mentioned at all in wikipedia as evidence that it is indeed real.

Next you'll be telling me nonsense about how the American biological weapons deployment on civilian populations in the Korean war is a nothing burger allegation, yes?

I still haven't read that wall of text you posted btw

>>18655
>It's even mentioned at all in wikipedia as evidence that it is indeed real.
>>18621
>>Wikipedia
>Everybody point at this man and laugh
This you?

Nobody is disputing whether it exists or not. You said DARPA directly funds anthropological research, while Wikipedia says the Anthropological Association was against the program, meaning DARPA did not seriously fund any anthropological research, just some interdisciplinary think tank that also included some anthropological stuff in it.

You don't seem to know what you believe or what you're trying to say, you only know that you are right and smarter than everyone else.

Feel free to post any kind of source any time to support your claims.

>>18674
It's cool. The ability to read paragraphs and the accompanying extension of your attention span comes with practice and time. Don't worry, champ, you'll get there. And one day you'll even be able to read books.

>>18852
No you see, it is far more insidious than that, I'm just going to keep replying with jerky comments that don't involve anything more than skimming what you wrote until you make one comment that is on topic for this thread

Since you aren't that smart I'll explain; That means reading to chapter 2 or beyond and making one comment relevant to the text.

Then I'll go back and engage properly with your writing.

https://zeroanthropology.net/
Unless they've deleted the old articles there should be more about human terrain here

>>19003
>Since you aren't that smart I'll explain; That means reading to chapter 2 or beyond
I find it funny that you think The Origins is some difficult text, inaccessible to the dumb masses. The Origins is a high school-level work, it took me a day to read it lol. There isn't anything in it to crack one's head over. In fact, it's dry, and a poor choice for a reading group.

There also isn't much to say. I'm not an anthropologist, I don't have any original studies or primary research that I can bring out to corroborate or dispute The Origins. "Yup, sounds about right, moving on," is the thought most people have while reading Origins.

I bet the next book will be Capital or State and Revolution. You have no imagination, you're a boring person. No amount of insults or pretending to be smart will change that. "Being smart" is not a personality, wannabe nerd.

>>19006
Interesting site. Although nothing to corroborate your claim:
>>18613
>The lion share of funding for anthropological research in the West has come from DARPA and other Military Industrial Congressional Complex sources.
>This has a major influence on what is taught and the focus of research.
Do you want to point me to the relevant article? Of course not, Mr. Reader. You read the headlines of articles and make your own conclusions. You read so fast that you don't even read.

>>18674
I still haven't read
>>18524
>I haven't done the reading
y i k e s

Our humble correspondent still doesn't get it, anthropology is so underfunded a few adventures in Afghanistan visiting villages to figure out who to black bag, I'm sorry I mean gather valuable information on the human terrain is the lionshare of $$$

So back to Engels
>Reconstructing thus the past history of the family, Morgan, in agreement with most of his colleagues, arrives at a primitive stage when unrestricted sexual freedom prevailed within the tribe, every woman belonging equally to every man and every man to every woman.
Sounds strikingly like bonobos doesn't it?

>>19010
>Sounds strikingly like bonobos doesn't it?
OK, and? Do you have a point?

>>19011
Yes.
Read the .pdf in the OP to page 20 to get it

>>19014
>the thread is just disguised incel shit
shoulda known tbh

>In a letter written in the spring of 1882, Marx expresses himself in the strongest terms about the complete misrepresentation of primitive times in Wager's text to the Nibelangen: “ Have such things been heard, that brother embraced sister as a bride?” To Wagner and his “ lecherous gods” who, quite in the modern manner, spice their love affairs with a little incest, Marx replies: “ In primitive times the sister was the wife, and that was moral.”
Ooh yes, oooh. Loving this book.

>>19015
Y are you schizo posting?

>>19016
Well done, you read a footnote on page 98
The following footnote of course is
>NOTE in Fourth edition: A French friend of mine who is an admirer of Wagner is not in agreement with this note. He observes that already in the Elder Edda, on which Wagner based his story, in the OEgisdrekka, Loki makes the reproach to Freya: “In the sight of the gods thou didst embrace thine own brother.” Marriage between brother and sister, he argues, was therefore forbidden already at that time. The OEgisdrekka is the expression of a time when
belief in the old myths had completely broken down; it is purely a satire on the gods, in the style of Lucian. If Loki as Mephisto makes such a reproach to Freya, it tells rather against Wagner. Loki also says some lines later to Niordhr: “With thy sister didst thou breed son.” (vidh systur thinni gaztu slikan mog) Niordhr is not, indeed, an Asa, but a Vana, and says in the Ynglinga saga that marriages between brothers and sisters are usual in Vanaland, which was not the case among the Asas. This would seem to show that the Vanas were more ancient gods the Asas. At any rate, Niordhr lives among the OEgisdrekka is rather a proof that at the time when the Norse sagas of the gods arose, marriages between brothers and sisters, at any rate among the gods, did not yet excite any horror. If one wants to find excuses for Wagner, it would perhaps be better to cite Goethe instead of the Edda, for in his ballad of the God and the Bayadere Goethe commits a similar mistake in regard to the religious surrender of women, which he makes far too similar to modern prostitution.
One could also point out the customs of the Egyptian royals here.

The footnote following this reads
>There can no longer be any doubt that the traces which Bachofen thought he had found of unrestricted sexual intercourse, or what he calls “spontaneous generation in the slime,” go back to group marriage. “If Bachofen considers these punaluan marriages ‘lawless,’ a man of that period would consider most of the present-day marriages between near and remote cousins on the father’s or mother's side to be incestuous, as being marriages between blood brothers and sisters.” (Marx.)
Fascinating, it seems Marx's views on this developed over time, but going back to the first footnote we could and see whether it is in Volume 46 of Marx's collected works.

If these things are too salacious, I can start a reading session on say Vitruvious just for you ok?

Anyway a promise is a promise, I'm going to read the earlier off topic writings in the thread and engage them thoughtfully, I'm not promising research most responses will be off the cuff.

>>18566
>What do you think of the "gay uncle" theory?
Already said it was possible, and I have some further speculations, but this is beyond the scope of this thread, if you desperately want to have a some wild speculations about the evolutionary development of homosexual behavior, you can start your own thread.

>>18561
Already addressed this here >>18595 but I'll expand a bit you argue that an increase in food supply is due to technology let's expand the definition of technology a bit so that finding new sources of food counts so your argument is entirely correct.
Nevertheless even giving this the development of new technology is neccesary but not sufficient for "great epochs of human progress" rather it is the increase in food supply itself; Therefore Engels' point stands.

Basically you went off on an irrelevant tangent with faulty reasoning. If you can find another source of livelihood for the sake of the children, please don't teach. Thank you.

That's enough for now, I'll continue at my leisure.

>>18524
Referring back to
>I. Stages of Prehistoric Culture MORGAN is the first man who, with expert knowledge, has attempted to introduce a definite
order into the history of primitive man; so long as no important additional material makes changes necessary, his classification will undoubtedly remain in force.

>>19010
So we've had our suggestive, confirmation of Morgan.
Key point to note on the matter:
* For several million years of evolution humans, chimps and bonobos were effectively an interbreeding population similar to the populations of African baboons, (a similar situation occured during the evolution of Homo sapiens).
Here we have a confirmation of the hypothesis.

Now
From page 19
>That vertebrates mate together for a considerable period is sufficiently explained by physiological causes – in the case of birds, for example, by the female’s need of help during the brooding period; examples of faithful monogamy among birds prove nothing about man, for the simple reason that men are not descended from birds.
There is additional material here to address, Engels' notes in the text that the pairing habits of the other apes are unknown.
We now know that gibbons are monogamous interestingly enough probably because they fill a similar ecological niche to songbirds

So it's friday are you up for an interesting read
I'm polishing off chapter 2 then moving on to chapter 3 but if you want to start from the beginning or even read ahead and ask questions on the way feel free

I promise I won't bite your head off if it's related to the book

Assuming I can find a copy; I'll be reading Vitruvius in parallel in the background so if Origin of the Family is too much I'll happily answer questions on that for you.

>>19048
Found a copy of Vitruvius
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/20239/20239-h/20239-h.htm

Final point on page 44 before moving on to Chapter 3
44
>Let us, however, return to Morgan, from whom we have moved a considerable distance. The historical investigation of the social institutions developed during the period of civilization goes beyond the limits of his book. How monogamy fares during this epoch, therefore, only occupies him very briefly. He, too, sees in the further development of the monogamous family a step forward, an approach to complete equality of the sexes, though he does not regard this goal as attained. But, he says:
>>When the fact is accepted that the family has passed through four successive forms, and is now in a fifth, the question at once arises whether this form can be permanent in the future. The only answer that can be given is that it must advance as society advances, and change as society changes, even as it has done in the past. It is the creature of the social system, and will reflect its culture. As the monogamian family has improved greatly since the
commencement of civilization, and very sensibly in modern times, it is at least supposable that it is capable of still further improvement until the equality of the sexes is attained. Should the monogamian family in the distant future fail to answer the requirements of society … it is impossible to predict the nature of its successor.

Background reading.

>>19911
More background, this time part of Engel's intellectual environment.

Should get back to this I suppose.

Well that was a nice holiday, now back to work.

Should have done this at the beginning my apologies.
From the Preface to the fourth edition, page 10
>[…]
>Here Morgan takes the field with his main work, Ancient Society (1877), the work that underlies the present study. […]
>[…]
Bolding mine.

The book in question.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45950
Also attatched as an .epub

It is now friday somewhere in the world.
You are planning on reading a book this weekend?

Chapter 3 page 46
>2. The gens deposes the sachem and war-chief at will. This also is done by men and women jointly. After a sachem or chief had been deposed, they became simple braves, private persons, like the other members. The tribal council also had the power to depose sachems, even against the will of the gens.
Notice that unlike in bourgeois dictatorships, in actually existing proletarian dictatorships representatives are subject to recall.

>All the members of an Iroquois gens were personally free, and they were bound to defend each other's freedom; they were equal in privileges and in personal rights, the sachem and chiefs claiming no superiority; and they were a brotherhood bound together by the ties of kin. Liberty, equality, and fraternity, though never formulated, were cardinal principles of the gens. These
facts are material, because the gens was the unit of a social and governmental system, the foundation upon which Indian society was organized…. It serves to explain that sense of independence and personal dignity universally an attribute of Indian character. xvi
I do have my issues with Graeber, but here a turn to him is apt.

Graeber is well worth reading, I'll find .epubs or .pdf's in a bit hopefully.

If anybody has Graeber .pdfs and would dump them here that would be much appreciated.

As Graeber says the europeans did not invent the enlightenment, you can trace its origins back to Native Americans

Fug

Bit late, but I'm going to keep grovelling through Chapter 3, there's always more depth with this book.