fbd marriage in germanic tribes?

eh — i don’t think so.

giorgio ausenda in “Kinship and marriage among the Visigoths” and “The segmentary lineage in contemporary anthropology and among the Langobards” thinks yes, although he admits that there’s not much evidence either way. i already posted about the first article here; now here’s my summary of the second one:

ausenda examines the types of marriage, lineage and kinship systems in pastoralist societies that have been studied in modern times in order to infer what these structures may have been like in germanic tribes, since the germanics were also pastoralists. he discusses the father’s brother’s daughter (fbd) marriage system that’s found in the arab world, but he also points out that some pastoralists practice mother’s brother’s daughter (mbd) marriage [pg. 23-4]:

“Endogamous pastoralist populations are those belonging to the ‘Arab sphere’. These populations are considered endogamous because of their preference for patrilateral first cousin marriage, i.e. FBD marriage which, in fact, occurs with a very high frequency.

“Anthropologists explain such alliances in terms of the necessity of maintaining a close cooperation between an individual and his father and brothers for the benefit of the joint property, their livestock, and to further lineage stability.

“Many authors stress the considerable importance that sons have for the furtherance of the household’s pastoral economy. The endogamous practice stems from the fact that ‘the lineage group aims, primarily, at keeping a young woman to betroth her to one of its own young men’. The priority of a close kinsman’s claim to a girl is so stringent that among most populations marriage requests must be approved by close kin to make sure that no closer relative with a claim to the girl may come forward later….

Outside and bordering with the above areas some populations are exogamous, e.g. Central Asian nomads, the Toubou of Chad, Somali nomadic populations. While the features of Middle Eastern and North African endogamy have been carefully studied, the exogamy of other populations has not received a satisfactory explanation. In these cases the prevelant type of marriage is with MBD, i.e. with women belonging to the Mother’s clan, different from the agnatic one. Spencer pointed to this lack of explanation and ventured that the search for a mate outside one’s own group may be due not only to demographic reasons, i.e. lace of a suitable bride in one’s own clan, but also:

“‘…for more positive considerations, such as the need to maintain reliable relationships with other groups in ecologically strategic places, both nomadic and settled.'”

again, ausenda concludes that the pre-christian germanic tribes practiced fbd marriage, but i can’t see that he offered any good reason for his conclusion.

there are a few points that weigh in favor of mbd marriage, in my opinion:

1) that, according to tacitus, there was a strong, almost sacred, bond in early germanic society “between a mother’s son and a mother’s brother” [pg. 10]. mother’s brother? mother’s brother’s daughter marriage? it doesn’t seem like such a stretch to imagine that mbd marriage was pretty common when there was such a strong relationship between a man and his maternal uncle.

2) tacitus also noted [pg. 10]: “‘The larger a man’s kin and the greater number of his relations by marriage, the stronger is his influence when he is old.'” well that sounds like what spencer, quoted by ausenda above, said about mbd marriage and building alliances with outside clans. i talked about this in another post, too — marriages with maternal cousins offer greater alliance building opportunities than marriage with paternal cousins. paternal cousin marriages (fbd and fzd) keep everything and everybody in the same patrilineage. if you want lots o’ alliances and lots o’ extended family members, maternal cousin marriage is the way to go.

the next two points have to do with the status of women in fbd versus other societies. in fbd marriage societies, women have quite a low status — not just your usual secondary status to men (like in most traditional societies) — but really kinda freakishly low. think burqas and honor killings and not being allowed to drive in saudi arabia (altho maybe that’s a good thing!). so:

3) from wiki-p: “The weregild or recompense due for the killing or injuring of a woman is notably set at twice that of a man of the same rank in Alemannic law.” this is exactly the opposite of fbd marriage societies today — in saudia arabia and iran, for instance, the diyya (weregild) for a muslim woman is half that of a muslim man.

4) in all (i think) contemporary fbd socieites, women are required to follow purdah to some extent or another. head covering for women in northern europe, on the other hand, seems to have been introduced by the church. it does not appear to have been a pre-christian practice.

women obviously had a secondary status to men in pre-christian germanic society, but i don’t think they were shut away and were treated so much like “possessions” as women in most fbd societies are.

i’m goin’ with mbd marriage for pre-christian germanic tribes.

why on earth do i care? i dunno. i just got kinda stuck on the topic (in an aspergian sort-of way). i promise i’ll move on to some other groups/topics now! (^_^)

edit: boilerplate and boilerplate 2.0

previously: inbreeding amongst germanic tribes and whatever happened to european tribes?

(note: comments do not require an email. sepll chk opsional.)

Advertisements

20 Comments

  1. “in fbd marriage societies, women have quite a low status — not just your usual secondary status to men (like in most traditional societies) — but really kinda freakishly low. ”

    Seems the case.

    “women obviously had a secondary status to men in pre-christian germanic society,”

    Did they? I’m not implying that the Germanic Tribes were egalitarian by any means. But much of what I’ve studied seems to indicate that women were about as much the equals of men that nature itself would allow. So by sheer virtue of her strength being less than that of a man, in those areas she’s most definitely not equal. Whether this counts for a secondary status I’m unsure.

    It might mean she was not automatically allowed to enter battle. Though some have argued since men were required, this placed them at a lower status than women, since women had a right men didn’t have (the right not to be in battle). And while it is true that the right to enter battle was couched as a benefit for men, hopefully it is obvious to any that the sheer pressure to do so, and the end result that might come when joining battle, makes it clear that it’s not really.

    Now as to other things in society, the Germans had similarities to the Keltoi. Women could own property, decide whom they married, whether they divorced, take their property with them when they divorced, make accusations at court, be heard as witnesses and more. So at least in pre-christian Germania, I’m curious if there were indeed rights they did not have lesser than those of a man, which made them of secondary status. (Perhaps you mean something different too than “second class citizens” as some have claimed them to be.)

    Reply

  2. @aoirthoir – “But much of what I’ve studied seems to indicate that women were about as much the equals of men that nature itself would allow. So by sheer virtue of her strength being less than that of a man, in those areas she’s most definitely not equal.”

    yeah, that’s prolly pretty right — or pretty close, anyway. there are just a couple of things that lead me to believe women had a somewhat lower status than men in pre-christian germanic society: 1) women didn’t get to participate in the “things”, and 2) women were apparently subjected to some pretty harsh punishment for adultery whereas men, not so much.

    on the other hand, being valued at twice the rate for weregild amongst the alemanni — obviously women didn’t have particularly low status, either!

    the unevenness in status doesn’t sound nearly as great — in fact, not even close — as what we see in arab countries today — or any society that has fbd marriage — which is what makes me think that the ancient germans did not practice fbd marriage to any great extent.

    Reply

  3. haha. especially when I checked that Diyya system, I laughed so hard. I guess I wouldn’t even be able to get any money from Diyya as I have no religion affiliation whatsoever and Muslims don’t think Chinese have souls since we don’t believe in any of the brahamic religion.

    Just out of the topic: hey, a recent study showed all-non-blacks are partly from Neanderthals, I bet there were a lot of inter-breeding back then between homo sapiens and neanderthals, that is of course, way before the concept of marriage came to humanity. lol

    http://theslittyeye.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/the-orgy-progy-with-the-neanderthals/

    Reply

  4. @hbdchick

    ” 2) women were apparently subjected to some pretty harsh punishment for adultery whereas men, not so much.”

    Jewamongus posted a link to an article which pretty much explains why that had to be so. It said what I’ve suspected for years. Men die for their children and wives. They die in the field, they die in the hunt and they die protecting them from invading armies. Since the only way to ensure the children they were dying for were actually there own, adultery had to be prevented. The only effective way to actually do that would be to punish women severely. I suspect, had the Teutons had DNA testing facilities, such harsh restrictions might not have been needed.

    “1) women didn’t get to participate in the “things”,”

    What things?

    “the unevenness in status doesn’t sound nearly as great — in fact, not even close — as what we see in arab countries today ”

    Yes, well try telling that to a modern Feminist. I challenge the lie of the “patriarchy” constantly when I see it (and of course am banned oft for using facts). Keep in mind that a modern (or Teutonic or Keltoi or Nordic) husband not listening to his wife the instant he walks into the door from a hard day’s work IS as much oppression as being stoned. Even more so in some cases :D.

    “Just out of the topic: hey, a recent study showed all-non-blacks are partly from Neanderthals, ”

    This wouldn’t surprise me and I’d not be surprised if it had anything to do with their greater IQ rates. While Neanderthals are depicted as grunting cave men, their technological remains demonstrate a highly evolved intellectual capability.

    The Slitty Eye, LOVE your name. I might be wrong but it gives the impression you’re proud. Good!

    To be sure Europeans also had a system of laws based around compensation for crimes. But unlike the set prices of the Diyya, the victim determined the price. Sometimes that could include death, even for smaller crimes. But it was almost universally honor paid rather than forced as a penalty. Unlike the machismo of the Arab world where even today honor is based around what people THINK of you, the honor systems of the Teutons, Keltoi and Nordics were based on WHO you were and HOW you acted. This was regardless of whether persons BELIEVED you acted rightly or not.

    Because of this you would have men paying prices for crimes they did not commit, without admitting having done anything. At first I had thought this was to save face. But as I came to understand Common Law better, I concluded it was because they understood someone was a victim, might not be speaking in their right mind, did indeed deserve some kind of compensation, and understood the real villain was either unlikely to be found or perhaps to come forward. So to ease the suffering of the victim sometimes innocent men (or very rarely women) took both the blame and the cost of recompense upon themselves.

    This was possible also because the penalties were not proscribed as in Diyya and unlike Diyya they were rarely harsh (no hands being cut off, death was rare). So because you had lighter penalties, and that which was paid was always paid to the victim or family, you had less of a likelihood that a villain would need to hide. (Because despite innocent men paying the price, often the guilty would come forward). And this kind of thing is almost unheard of in Diyya, If one man is accused of another’s crime, an Arab man who is actually the villain will rarely come forward to “shame” himself and his family. He ignores that the ACT is what did the shaming, regardless of whether others know he did it or not.

    And I am like you in some respects. Though I believe in the Bible and Yahweh, I am Pagan so I believe in and worship the Old Gods as well. For my polytheism I have been told more than once by Muslims “just wait until we take over”. The bemusing thing is this is said to me in places where the left has accused me of being Islamphobic (I never tolerate that word and expose it as ableist). Yet when they see me a polysexual, polytheist, polyamorous, homosexual supporting, polyculturalists (not a multiculturalist) told that I and others like me deserve to die, they suddenly become silent and make no statement whatsoever about the Muslim’s hate. Which proves to me that totalitarian systems really do like each other.

    Reply

  5. To Aoirthoir:

    Thanks a lot for the lengthy thorough explanation. This is really something new to me, as I grew up in a society where people were told that whenever there was connection between conviction and money, it’s unethical and bribery. But I guess such things in China happen more often than the West, just never got morally justified.

    Either way, of course having slttiy eyes is a given fact, I am just mocking myself before anyone else who does it, so that WN could not really bash me for being Chinese. I am proud to be Chinese, and moreover, a smart Chinese who happens to have the opportunity to get in touch with both civilizations. Unlike lots of confusing American or European born/raised Chinese, I was raised in China. And what’s more, I grew up in a Classic Chinese intellectual family. I am proud of my cultural roots for I am fully aware of it and it’s awesome. At the same time I understand Western civilization as that’s pretty much what I was exposed to socially since I left home long time ago. Here is my self-declaration: http://theslittyeye.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/what-constitutes-a-chinese/

    Reply

  6. I would imagine Nordish women probably were clearly sub-equal, but Tacitus and I think other Mediterraneans found the high status and importance of German women pretty amazing, and I may recall that it struck some of them as humorous.

    Reply

  7. The Slitty Eye, glad to hear you are proud of your cultural roots. I’m not a White Nationalist and only happened on these blogs from other places (mostly leftist). I’m not a multiculturalist though either.

    In any case in all cases of crimes in the west someone pays and is paid. The difference now is, those of us that are innocent of crimes pay GREAT SUMS (to about the tune of $45k/yr USA) for the incarceration of individuals even for the most petty of crimes. Recidivism is so great as to make incarceration simply untenable. It most certainly does not help the victim at all.

    So requiring a criminal to pay her victim helps ease his suffering and helps her make amends. All without costing everyone else great sums.

    I read your post and it’s interesting. I told my Aunt that I am more Irish than she is. Which of course she of course caused her to gristle. Since she is full and I am half surely she is more Irish than me. So I spoke a few phrases in Gaeilge, brought up the Tuatha, the Tir, and asked her some pointed questions about “the Troubles” and Bobby Sands. Unable to answer even a single question I emphasized my point. So I get, I think, what you are saying about what makes someone Chinese.

    I am curious to find out about Chinese law and culture now. I know Common Law, European History, in particular Irish and Anglo incursions against the Irish. I know a smattering of Middle Eastern history in particular as it relates to the genocide of Pagans, Jews and others at the hands of Muslims. But Asian history I am not terribly educated in. That being the case I wonder if there is anything akin to Common law, or were all things legislated, though I would guess not. If there is any sense that Common Law bore similarities between the Chinese and the Europeans, that would be something worth exploring.

    In any case I’ve bookmarked your site.

    Reply

  8. “I may recall that it struck some of them as humorous.”

    It strikes me as humorous considering what giving the vote to women has unaccomplished. Of course socialism, whether chosen by men or women is a thing with one purpose and one outcome, the weakening of society. It’s just that women tend to vote more often socialist than men.

    Reply

  9. @aoirthoir – They die in the field, they die in the hunt and they die protecting them from invading armies.”

    well, unless you mean the field-of-battle, then germanic tribesmen were not actually dying in the fields ’cause it was the women who did the agricultural work [pg. 11]. this is pretty typical for pastoralist-based societies that don’t use a heavy-plow — the men and boys deal with the herd (and hunting and fighting, like you say), while the women folk do the farming side of it. you don’t get men working in the fields (in northern europe, anyway) until after the introduction of the heavy, moldboard plow ’cause then you need to be really strong to handle that.

    @aoirthoir – “Jewamongus posted a link to an article which pretty much explains why that had to be so.”

    yes, i read that. excellent article! and, yes, i understand the need to prevent adultery on the side of women, but — while trying not to impose any sort of “value judgement” here — i think it’s fair to say that if one of the sexes has more impositions put on it (remember, germanic men could have more than one wife and/or concucbines and could commit adultery with less punishment), then we could classify that group as having a secondary position in society — whatever the reasons for those impositions and whether we, today, feel they were “right” or “wrong” or justified or whatever.

    germanic women were not running the show in pre-christian germanic societies; however, nor were they treated like women in the arab world today. that’s what i’m really trying to get at here.

    Reply

  10. @aoirthoir – “What things?”

    i was referring to the assemblies. freemen could participate in the ‘things’ but not women.

    now, you and i might agree that that was just a good thing (~_^) — but, again, setting aside any value judgements for a sec, having an uneven system like that, to my mind anyway, means that men had a higher status (at least politically) in the germanic tribes than women did.

    @aoirthoir – “Yes, well try telling that to a modern Feminist.”

    i try to stay clear of crazy, irrational people. (~_^)

    Reply

  11. @aoirthoir – “But unlike the set prices of the Diyya, the victim determined the price.”

    no, that’s not correct. at least it’s not correct for all times/places in early europe. the law of the alamanni which i quoted in my post had a set price for the killing of a freewoman — i.e. twice that of a freeman. there are some other set prices for crimes listed here as well.

    Reply

  12. @the slitty eye – “I am proud to be Chinese….”

    and so you should be! good grief. china has an amazing history (which i am also very ignorant of, too) and a civilization that has lasted for almost ever. obviously you should be proud to be chinese! (^_^)

    Reply

  13. “well, unless you mean the field-of-battle, then germanic tribesmen were not actually dying in the fields ’cause it was the women who did the agricultural work”

    Fair enough. But I don’t mean just agricultural. Building, felling, creating the fields, moving stones and so on. The tilling and growing would have been the women but the most dangerous heavy work would always be reserved for the men.

    ” i think it’s fair to say that if one of the sexes has more impositions put on it…then we could classify that group as having a secondary position in society ”

    Which I counter by saying since the males had the imposition of more dangerous work, including warring placed on them, that this equaled out. So it didn’t result in a secondary position, but a complimentary. Each, male and female, are rights and responsibilities that were different in certain express cases. This is not to say that there weren’t restrictions on the female. I believe there were and history bears this out. Simply that there were other, even more dangerous restrictions placed on the male. So it was reasonable compensation.

    “germanic women were not running the show in pre-christian germanic societies;”

    Agreed but neither were most men. Elders (males) always held sway. Women actually would be heard though, it was just that the leaders who were typically male (almost always) made the final decisions. I think the reasonableness of this policy is highlighted by the ridiculous rates at which women will vote away their rights, the rights of males, their property, the property of males, and freedom at all expense in favor of a supposed and unrealized safety, willing to sell out their own families for pennies of “support”. In short, women are willing to vote socialist, so they should have no vote.

    Now before certain vanguards get their underthings in a bunch, I also believe that most men should have no vote either. (Do I really have to qualify that since I am a firm proponent of Natural/Common Law?).

    Btw good blog and site. I’m still looking at something to make fun of you over. It’s a bit more difficult than a leftist because you keep stating facts. So do me a favor and say something ridiculous then I can hop on that.

    “i was referring to the assemblies. freemen could participate in the ‘things’ but not women.”

    Well I’ll be Hadesed! How on earth did I not know this?! And alright I’ll agree that gave them less status, but rightfully so (as stated above) (and it seems you might agree).

    “no, that’s not correct. at least it’s not correct for all times/places in early europe.”

    Well yes. Each tribe was entitled to its own laws, though the general laws seemed to follow a pattern of Natural Law. Which seems to be similar throughout the world actually. In any case, there were individual variations. But for the most part the victim was able to determine the price, especially amongst the Keltoi. Some guidelines also might be set here or there, but they weren’t inviolate as amongst the desert peoples.

    Some of these laws were written in later periods. But earlier much of this was handed down, changed over time and as you said place. In addition one can really look to the mythologies (sacred stories) to see set examples. For instance Lugh was I believe 8 years of age? A man brought a complaint to the Ri (king) that his neighbor’s sheep had eaten his crop. The king commanded that the sheep be immediately killed and their meat given to the man to compensate for his loss of food. Lugh expressed disastisfaction with this judgement informing that the garden would grow again the following year but now the sheep would be gone. Why not instead sheer the sheep, give their wool to the wronged man, and next year both would grow again. A righteous judgement from a child, and the house on the side which the Ri stood collapsed, proving it so. I can’t recall but I think they might have made Lugh Ri then.

    So they were less constrained even when they had guidelines that a fine should be this or that. I imagine even in the case of the tribes you mentioned there might be flexibility. Poverty for the offending family, willingness to forgive the debt. But these are mere suppositions based on readings to date of Europeans and Common/Natural law.

    “obviously you should be proud to be chinese!”

    But that’s not going to stop me from making fun of him either. I mean my name is AOIRTHOIR after all.

    Reply

  14. @aoirthoir – “Building, felling, creating the fields, moving stones and so on.”

    just sorta thinking aloud here, but i wonder how much creating of fields and moving stones was done. the germanic tribes moved around a lot, so maybe they were practicing slash-and-burn farming? i actually don’t know. but, if they were, i don’t think (from reading about the slavs) that there’s much preparation done to such fields. you cut down the trees (men’s work mostly), then burn the remnants, then i think you can just plant away — especially if we’re talking about rye. again, i dunno. but i wonder how much men in germanic tribes contributed to the agricultural side of things at all. dunno.

    @aoirthoir – “So it didn’t result in a secondary position, but a complimentary.”

    sure. i don’t actually disagree with you. what i was just trying to get at was a way to compare the status of women in germanic tribes (which i think were based on mbd marriage systems) versus other sorts of tribes like arab tribes (which are based on fbd marriages systems). as we all know, women in arab (and other fbd) tribes do not have a whole h*ckuva lot of freedoms. now, maybe the arab system is complimentary in its own way, too, but what i’m interested in is how the tribal systems differ. sounds to me that germanic women were treated in many ways with much more respect as valuable members of the community rather than as mere possessions. i find that interesting — and i want to know why. (^_^)

    @aoirthoir – “Agreed but neither were most men.”

    sure. there was hierarchy in all directions.

    @aoirthoir – “Women actually would be heard though….”

    yes, tacitus mentions this and he thought it was quite remarkable.

    Reply

  15. @aoirthoir – “…but the most dangerous heavy work would always be reserved for the men.”

    this is not to take away at all from all the dangerous tasks men had (including war and everything), but there is one dangerous thing that i think should be added to the women’s tally and that’s child-bearing. lots of things can go wrong there and lots of women used to die during childbirth. which is why, i think, the valuation for women amongst the alemanni was so high (twice that of men) — you don’t want to lose too many of the baby makers!

    Reply

  16. @aoirthoir – “Now before certain vanguards get their underthings in a bunch….”

    you don’t really have to worry about that sort around here. they haven’t found this site (yet), so this is still a safe haven. (~_^)

    @aoirthoir – “I’m still looking at something to make fun of you over. It’s a bit more difficult than a leftist because you keep stating facts. So do me a favor and say something ridiculous then I can hop on that.”

    oh, i’m sure THAT will happen — sooner rather than later! (~_^)

    Reply

  17. @aoirthoir – “But for the most part the victim was able to determine the price, especially amongst the Keltoi.”

    you know, i know next to nothing about the keltoi. next group to learn about!

    i wonder if what you’re saying about people being able to set their own blood price was the way it worked before the laws were written down. ?? maybe the fixed prices came in to play once people started writing their laws down. hmmmmmm.

    Reply

  18. HBD Chick,

    Well there would also be the building of any lodges or domiciles, not to mention listening to the women complain about how you had built it :D. That’s a danger right there.

    ” now, maybe the arab system is complimentary in its own way, too, but what i’m interested in is how the tribal systems differ. ”

    And I get what you’re saying. I think in the case of the Arab it was even more dangerous for the men. The reason the fornication/adultery/rape laws in desert lands are so harsh isn’t because of the women specifically, but because unlike the Europeans there really were a LOT of criminals running around. A LOT. These were men whose sense of honor ultimately was based on if anyone FOUND OUT about the crimes they committed. If they could avoid that their honor was intact, which is no honor at all (cultural tolerance be damned as far as I am concerned).

    So if a daughter left her father’s house she chose to step away from his protections. Especially since she would have to sneak out. She became unmarriable, which meant her care was forever at his cost. Highly unfair when she could have simply let him protect her. Thus the reason you end up with rape-marriage laws. But the fellow doing the raping was BOUND FOR LIFE to her, he could not divorce. At least in Torah. In fact the word translated rape so often may simply have been fornication. But it was called rape because in their societies the crime of rape was a crime against father/husband not against women (unlike the Europeans).

    Still this isnt to say it was a tolerable situation for the woman. Any righteous father might have not liked it, but since persons travelled so little he might have just thought that was the way of the world. And it most certainly was far inferior the the culture of the German tribes and definitely the Keltoi. But even so there were restrictions on women that the Europeans had and not on the men. Since so many were greatly interested in war they likely did not view the need to be vessels of war as a restriction on themselves. I am curious if we have any thoughts from women of the period about the situation.

    “yes, tacitus mentions this [that women would be heard] and he thought it was quite remarkable.”

    I do too, despite my great willingness to hear women.

    “but there is one dangerous thing that i think should be added to the women’s tally and that’s child-bearing. lots of things can go wrong there and lots of women used to die during childbirth. ”

    Yes. Perhaps yet another reason for the impetus to regulate women’s adultery, because they might waste that breeding time with a weaker male than they had married (speculative on my part). But it is unquestioned I think that life then was a dangerous time for all persons. Though the life span averages weren’t what we think. Old age was still 50 or 60 years. The appearance that persons were living to 20 or 30 years was because of averages. Infant mortality was high which significantly lowers the average lifespan of a person. (This isn’t to claim MOST people lived to 50 or 60 either).

    “so this is still a safe haven. ”

    I am less interested in safe and more interested in deuling words. Of course using facts tends to get Aoirthoirs band in leftist spaces. Which of course proves the very things we’re saying.

    “you know, i know next to nothing about the keltoi. next group to learn about!”

    Keltoi = Celts. It’s the Greek word for them and almost conclusively proves that it was not said SELT, the French with this as with all things can be damned. It’s KELT to my dying breath.

    “i wonder if what you’re saying about people being able to set their own blood price was the way it worked before the laws were written down.”

    Maybe. The mythologies give us evidences that these things were not fixed. At least at one stage. I’m actually highly oppositional to legislation. The Constitution that so many are fond of was passed illegally and though it denied all rights to the Federal not explicitely granted, and reserved all those to the people and the several States, it also didn’t explicitely illucidate other rights that had been in the Articles (right to travel without papers etc). The Articles of Confederation required UNANIMOUS vote to change, but the Constitution was made De Facto once it reached a certain number of votes, though it was not unanimous.

    Most persons are completely unaware of the Articles anyhow…much less other important issues like the Fiat money system, international banking system, Uniform Commercial Code, Common/Natural Law, their RIGHT to declare their own rights, the difference between legislation and precdent, the ridiculousness of statements like “legislating from the bench” because that’s HOW are laws were made you Nimrods, Sovereign Immunity, the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights (including again the right of return) and numerous other points of Law and how we arrived from THERE (the past) to HERE, with so many Acts enacted that don’t ACTUALLY apply to any of us. Not to mention the sheer viciousness in Acts such as “The Violence AGAINST Women Act”, notice it is not called PREVENTION of Violence against Women Act. Or the grand daddy of them all, the Every Child Left Behind Act.

    Alright done ranting, but yes the more we know about the history the more we understand the limitations that are supposed to be enforced upon our EMPLOYEES who think themselves our superiors…Once we start enforcing those limitations in full, then the rest of their house of cards just blows away. Kind of like the French run away when you say BOO!

    Reply

  19. To Aoirthoir: Thanks for the interest in China. As I am no expert in laws in general, I could not really provide you with any further elaboration on that matter. However, what I could tell you is that Chinese society has been running smoothly for thousands of years on the Confucianism dogma and principles. Social norms and structure played an important role that is probably similar to law and religion in the past. Of course, by China I always refer to the good old China with Classic Chinese culture. Modern China is a weird hybrid. Little resemblance could be found thanks to the devastation of our own classic culture by our own people. But of course, vernacular/folk Chinese culture survives, but that’s not really my interest.
    To hbd Chick: I definitely think so. I think the word confidence is more appropriate. Either way, I think only European civilizations and Sinosphere civilizations (including China, Korea, and Japan) are fully capable of achieving modernity and socially embracing modern civilization. I would like to give hope to India, but so far I wouldn’t say so.

    Reply

  20. The Slitty Eye, thanks for the comments. I am definitely interested in degrees in Chinese culture of the sort you are talking about. Especially to see any Natural Law correlations between the Europeans. And we Irish who apparently weren’t white or European until like the 1950s or so.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s