h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

haven't got time to stop so I'll come back later to read all that's been written while I've been away, but just stopped to say:

Street gangs - all about territory isn't it?

laters hootooers

Well, yes. Human beings tend to social animals who sometimes come into resource conflict with others.

*However* that is not the same as saying that humans will inevitably form into packs, that these will inevitably come into conflict with other packs, that the conflicts will be over territory or that these conflicts will inevitably be physical.

All it means is that, as a result of our evolution:
- Humans tend to have various needs (food; sex; possibly territory: 'a place to call your own')
- Humans are social animals that tend to form groups.
- Humans are capable of various strategies for meeting our needs, one of which is to act cooperatively against competing groups.

Thus *depending on circumstances*, street gangs may form. This doesn't mean that they inevitably *will* form. Rather, they tend to form in circumstances in which marginalised adolescent males with time on their hands find themselves in a socio-economic environment in which territory is the only part of their lives over which they are able to exercise control. Far from it being inevitable, there are various things we can do as a society if we wish to minimise street gang behaviour.

(You might like to think of this as an example of the various genes which contribute to gang fighting behaviour are 'Switched On' in certain environments. Prof Steve Jones cites another neat example: traditionally, homosexuality was illegal in the Royal Navy when a ship was pless than 43 days from port. The genes for homosexual behaviour are expressed at a certain point.)

Yes Ed, one of my faults is a lack of patience.

And I get very impatient when I sense that a thread may turn into the usual turning inwards, hyper analytical, non creative mode of communication.

I am strongly by nature a creative type and like change. And I believe in self challenge.

Yes you're right we all write differently. But I think it's good to try to shake things up because I've noticed a lot of people don't contribute to what I call the 'serious threads', and I've a hunch that is because they quickly get dominated by a certain mode of discourse. I suppose you could call me the joker in the pack

And I'm always up for a challenge!

So my post about the White Male stuff wasn't meant simply as a wind up - more an invitation to discuss what the dickens exactly is actually *meant* when people talk about this non-White male perspectives? And is the fact that Picasso ripped off an African mask and didn't understand it actually materially important? Etc. etc.

I'm happy to be disabused of my White Male superiority complex...but too often I see this 'You're a White Male' charge used simply to close off discussion, without anyone explaining what it actually *means*.

> what the dickens exactly is actually *meant* when people talk about this non-White male perspectives? And is the fact that Picasso ripped off an African mask and didn't understand it actually materially important? Etc. etc. <

Oh come on every one knows that Picasso was one of the biggest ego who ever lived. Even my brother, who is in the same mould, and a painter, said to me, "What does one paint after Picasso?"

From my reading and discussions, my understanding is that the exhibition of African art in Paris, gave no indication of the actual context in which these artifacts were originally produced.

Western art has a whole history connected with power...first for the church and later for the 'merchant class' - hnce portability of paintings. Imagery in other cultures has a totally different function and can easily be exploited by Western money. Aboriginal paintings, which are essentially maps concerning hunter gatherer lifestyle have been similarly consumed.

I'm not saying these things shouldn't become part of our culture, but due respect should be more honestly paid to the *context* of their production and purpose and meaning in those societies.

For thousands of years an artist wasn't a named individual, even in our culture. Art had a different function from making the big name of an *individual*.

(And yes I'll also ponder your other points about the 'white male' thing).

Yes. Agreed. Picasso could be a complete dick. A total genius...but a dick.

But what's that got to do with the price of fish? And the way he plagiarised/ expropriated/ ripped off African masks was stunning.

Similarly...yes, you'll get no argument from me that the world is dominated by Western, capitalist power structures. And, yes, this leaves many people marginalised - both in the West (particularly women) and in the third world. You'll also get no argument from me that third world cultural products have been 'consumed'...but the materialist Marxist in me says that their being ripped off over a couple of aboriginal paintings is absolutely trivial compared to the more wholesale ripping off of their labour and resources.

And, yes, it is certainly life-enhancing if we try to understand non-European works of art from their original context. Enriching for *us*, that is. But for the originators, this means squat. It still doesn't put dinner on their table.

*But* I thought the suggestion was that the excluded groups have other *perspectives*, other ways of thinking that differ from the white patriarchy? Frankly...I don't see that. The poor are simply the rich with less money. People in other cultures are just us with slightly different ways.

(incidentally...for us to validly incorporate Roman and Greek elements into our art and architecture - do we have to understand them in the same way that they did? because I doubt that you appreciate the Parthenon Marbles in *quite* the same way as an Athenian worshiper.)

Ed, check your email.

Well this is pretty much a discussion that will go nowhere because for whatever reason, such people *never* post on h2g2. You and I can *ank over the ins and outs of all this 'til the cows come home...

let's leave it eh until a few other sorts of people from such cultures actually post on threads like this. Why they don't is a far more interesting question to me.

okay Ed, I've thought a bit about the white male thing and decided I don't feel comfortable discussing it here.

I'll get back to you when I feel safer and more comfortable on a h2g2 thread that discusses such an issue and actually contains a more representative group of the general population, such as I encounter in my every day life.

From what I have seen on TV, read in serious science books and publications, man, Homo Erectus and his predecessors was violent, competitive and territorial for thousands of years befor he descended onto the plains in Central Africa. Most of us just keep the feelings under lock and key.

'g'

See, Effers...what you're saying is a counsel of despair. You seem to be saying that only non-white, non-males can ever articulate their perspectives. I'll certainly agree that they're the authoritative source. But on the other hand...to my mind you're treating them as 'Other' - peculiar aliens whose views are so unfamiliar that they can't even be properly expressed in White Male English.

To me - White Male though I may be - this comes over as a cop-out. It's reminiscent of what Edward Said called 'Orientalism' - treating anyome East of the Med as an incomprehensible exotic. This is possibly not what you intend - but it's what you seem to be amounting to.

Furthermore...I can point you to any number of alternative voices, ranging from Rabindranath Tagore to (who I've just been reading) Chinua Achebe who *do* express their unique perspectives in Western artistic forms.

Plus - why do you assume that you are better placed to talk about such things than I? Where's the embarrassment factor in discussing them with me? Are you assuming that you're more multicultural than I am?

>>From what I have seen on TV, read in serious science books and publications, man, Homo Erectus and his predecessors was violent, competitive and territorial for thousands of years before he descended onto the plains in Central Africa. Most of us just keep the feelings under lock and key.

So...if they were irredeemably violent...why didn't they wipe one another out?

I suggest that we (or H. Erectus) are neither violent nor peaceful. We're *adaptable*. We act in various ways, according to the current circumstances. If we act the right way - we survive. Probably in settled communities without overwhelming environmental stress, we'll tend to be peaceful because this seems to be the best way to get on. But sometimes...we'll pick up cheap machetes and hack away at our neighbours.

So which of these is 'natural' behaviour?

>See, Effers...what you're saying is a counsel of despair.<

Well here's a non bit of despair...****off

Well, hey, you raised the subject. Apologies for thinking you weren't just wittering.

or should I say a bit of non despair.

<cross. I never witter; and most particularly don't twitter..

>But for the originators, this means squat. It still doesn't put dinner on their table. <

I disagree that putting dinner on the table is the be all and end all. I've seen the masses of aboriginals wandering around Alice Springs in an alcoholic haze. Why? Not because they haven't been given state hand outs to put dinner on the table...but because their way of life and whole cultural meaning perspective has been ripped from them. So they prefer to spend the money getting wasted. I've seen the little old aboriginal women sitting in back rooms in the art galleries around Darwin, that flogs dot paintings to tourists...I bought one myself...but you should see the depressive demeanour of these women. These women can put plenty of dinner on the table, rather than searching for wichity grubs, roots and fruit.

Try talking Marxism beaulocks to one of them, Ed

But the problem in Australian Aboriginal society is not specifically that their culture is de-valued, but that they do not have meaningful economic roles. Yes, that impacts their cultural life - broadly speaking, this is what's meant by 'Alienation'. But the solution is *not* simply to say 'Oh, I think your stories about the dreamtime are simply marvellous.' That's just a simplistic, easy, liberal, art school cop-out.

Neither is the solution for them to back to their pre-capitalist hunter-gatherer lifestyles. Surely? Nice though it might be for us comfortable, modern folk to keep them as living museum pieces.

But what *might* help is to give them opportunities to make a living. In Marxist jargon, this would be 'access to the means of production.' Sort out the material and let people define their own culture.



As for 'Marxist beaulocks'...I can't quite work out if your saying that my specific views are beaulocks, or whether vaguely Marxist interpretations as a whole are beaulocks. Presumably not the latter. I somewhat gathered from a previous mention that you didn't know much about the topic and didn't want to.

>that's just a simplistic, easy, liberal, art school cop-out.<

You clearly have no conception what it's like doing a fine art degree at Goldsmith's then

Not as hard as working, I'll be bound.