I think you structurally outline the in-groups and their functionality but I disagree on the mechanisms around the nature of the group, and its willingness to fight. There are common variables that supersede in-group demographics.
"Hunter gatherers prefer restraint because they understand that violent aggression inevitably exposes them to retaliatory violence. In one study of Amazonian societies, 70 percent of killings were motivated by revenge, and Paul Roscoe reports that his database of over 1,000 military actions in New Guinea small-scale societies shows that 61 percent were revenge based. Our violent proclivities are largely retaliatory rather than aggressive. [Emphasis Mine]"
In The Goodness Paradox by Richard Wrangham, this is called reactive or proactive violence based on whether is was emotionally or logically triggered; but I still think that missed the point. We're all in the ultimate group project called "life" and because we need rules we have government which begat politics (or maybe the other way around?).
But statistically, measurably, culturally and chronologically speaking; retaliation is still the strongest reason for organized group violence. And how one defines tribe determines who the out-group is.
Oh yes, I totally agree. But I'm not talking about aggression...I'm talking about what tactics mobile groups and sedentary groups use in warfare. The Mongols under Genghis Khan were wildly aggressive and many agricultural societies were not. Hunter gatherers were, as you say, largely avoidant of conflict, though in North America, warfare was clearly elevated to a high art.
One variable, either now or in the near future, is drones. They may neutralize mobility and potentially other tactics. This capability may not be fully realized yet, but I can see a world in the not-too-distant future where drones become the ugly equalizer.
I think you structurally outline the in-groups and their functionality but I disagree on the mechanisms around the nature of the group, and its willingness to fight. There are common variables that supersede in-group demographics.
"Hunter gatherers prefer restraint because they understand that violent aggression inevitably exposes them to retaliatory violence. In one study of Amazonian societies, 70 percent of killings were motivated by revenge, and Paul Roscoe reports that his database of over 1,000 military actions in New Guinea small-scale societies shows that 61 percent were revenge based. Our violent proclivities are largely retaliatory rather than aggressive. [Emphasis Mine]"
In The Goodness Paradox by Richard Wrangham, this is called reactive or proactive violence based on whether is was emotionally or logically triggered; but I still think that missed the point. We're all in the ultimate group project called "life" and because we need rules we have government which begat politics (or maybe the other way around?).
But statistically, measurably, culturally and chronologically speaking; retaliation is still the strongest reason for organized group violence. And how one defines tribe determines who the out-group is.
https://thegoodideafairy.substack.com/p/why-do-we-fight-prehistoric-origins
Oh yes, I totally agree. But I'm not talking about aggression...I'm talking about what tactics mobile groups and sedentary groups use in warfare. The Mongols under Genghis Khan were wildly aggressive and many agricultural societies were not. Hunter gatherers were, as you say, largely avoidant of conflict, though in North America, warfare was clearly elevated to a high art.
One variable, either now or in the near future, is drones. They may neutralize mobility and potentially other tactics. This capability may not be fully realized yet, but I can see a world in the not-too-distant future where drones become the ugly equalizer.