Traditions may solve problems, or they could be completely wrong.
And you can usually tell which was which because the ones with traditions that solved a problem usually became extremely powerful.
For two I know off the top of my head, the Jews cleaning rituals compared to most Medieval Christians kept lice at bay, which is why there is a random dead zone in Poland where there were minimal deaths to the Black Plague (which was spread by lice). And the Vikings had a tradition of taking the ash of their ancestors when they were burned on a pyre and adding the ash to their weapon so that they could carry their ancestors into battle. Ash is carbon. Congratulations, you just reinvented steel when everyone else is using iron.
And you can usually tell which was which because the ones with traditions that solved a problem usually became extremely powerful.
I don't agree and my example is the problem. That tribe has been doing that for as long as anyone in their tribe can remember.
Yes, some traditions will stand the test of time, but if you don't scrutinize them, there's a good chance you're not gonna know which ones are the ones you should stop doing. Worse, some problems no longer exist, and you're carrying an erroneous tradition that solves nothing.
And the Vikings had a tradition of taking the ash of their ancestors when they were burned on a pyre and adding the ash to their weapon so that they could carry their ancestors into battle. Ash is carbon. Congratulations, you just reinvented steel when everyone else is using iron.
I feel the need to interject on this because yes the Vikings made steel. Shit steel. Shit steel that most civilizations didn't use because it wasn't much better than high quality iron of the time period. Perhaps "slag". High-grade steel that starts getting used in the middle ages needed better practices than that.
I don't agree and my example is the problem. That tribe has been doing that for as long as anyone in their tribe can remember.
I wasnt speaking in the case of that tribe specifically, and I would argue it continues only because they dont really have any solid contact with outsiders that test their way of life through direct means like you would have seen among tribes on continental masses (where constant fighting means only the strong survive). The same I would argue applies to Native Americans, just because of how spread out they were from each other.
I feel the need to interject on this because yes the Vikings made steel. Shit steel.
To be fair, I wasnt trying to imply it was some sort of extremely high-quality steel. Just that when they were going up against the various Anglo-Saxon and Celtic kingdoms of the British Isles even their shitty steel was better than their crude iron. But there is a reason the Vikings struggled more against the French (as well as their better fortifications) and why the Vikings who took on French methods (the Normans) became the ultimate winners.
I wasnt speaking in the case of that tribe specifically, and I would argue it continues only because they dont really have any solid contact with outsiders that test their way of life through direct means like you would have seen among tribes on continental masses (where constant fighting means only the strong survive).
I don't buy that either. The practice of burning widows in India was continued until the British put a stop to it, but the Indus Valley had a long running civilization with lots of contact. They Maya ate their disobedient vassals. The Assyrians robbed everyone who had any contact with with them, every year, for 4000 years. Now their traditions solved problems as follows: the Indus valley avoided inheritance battles, the Mayans ensured loyalty through terror, and the Assyrians were the only full-scale civilization that existed at the time.
You have to realize that Traditionalism isn't a moral mechanism. Sometimes the problem being solved by tradition is: "How do we support our pedophile leadership?" or "How do we terrorize our vassals into obedience to avoid rebellion?" Traditionalism has no reason to produce a moral answer, just an old one. The question may not even be formed to the benefit of the society, but it's elite. The value of questioning and challenging tradition is to spot those flaws where a tradition is inapplicable, useless, antiquated, or counter-productive. Traditionalism actually has no way of pruning itself of bad ideas once they take root as a tradition, because abandoning the tradition (even if it was for a good reason) is rejected out of hand because it "solves a problem".
And you can usually tell which was which because the ones with traditions that solved a problem usually became extremely powerful.
For two I know off the top of my head, the Jews cleaning rituals compared to most Medieval Christians kept lice at bay, which is why there is a random dead zone in Poland where there were minimal deaths to the Black Plague (which was spread by lice). And the Vikings had a tradition of taking the ash of their ancestors when they were burned on a pyre and adding the ash to their weapon so that they could carry their ancestors into battle. Ash is carbon. Congratulations, you just reinvented steel when everyone else is using iron.
I don't agree and my example is the problem. That tribe has been doing that for as long as anyone in their tribe can remember.
Yes, some traditions will stand the test of time, but if you don't scrutinize them, there's a good chance you're not gonna know which ones are the ones you should stop doing. Worse, some problems no longer exist, and you're carrying an erroneous tradition that solves nothing.
I feel the need to interject on this because yes the Vikings made steel. Shit steel. Shit steel that most civilizations didn't use because it wasn't much better than high quality iron of the time period. Perhaps "slag". High-grade steel that starts getting used in the middle ages needed better practices than that.
I wasnt speaking in the case of that tribe specifically, and I would argue it continues only because they dont really have any solid contact with outsiders that test their way of life through direct means like you would have seen among tribes on continental masses (where constant fighting means only the strong survive). The same I would argue applies to Native Americans, just because of how spread out they were from each other.
To be fair, I wasnt trying to imply it was some sort of extremely high-quality steel. Just that when they were going up against the various Anglo-Saxon and Celtic kingdoms of the British Isles even their shitty steel was better than their crude iron. But there is a reason the Vikings struggled more against the French (as well as their better fortifications) and why the Vikings who took on French methods (the Normans) became the ultimate winners.
I don't buy that either. The practice of burning widows in India was continued until the British put a stop to it, but the Indus Valley had a long running civilization with lots of contact. They Maya ate their disobedient vassals. The Assyrians robbed everyone who had any contact with with them, every year, for 4000 years. Now their traditions solved problems as follows: the Indus valley avoided inheritance battles, the Mayans ensured loyalty through terror, and the Assyrians were the only full-scale civilization that existed at the time.
You have to realize that Traditionalism isn't a moral mechanism. Sometimes the problem being solved by tradition is: "How do we support our pedophile leadership?" or "How do we terrorize our vassals into obedience to avoid rebellion?" Traditionalism has no reason to produce a moral answer, just an old one. The question may not even be formed to the benefit of the society, but it's elite. The value of questioning and challenging tradition is to spot those flaws where a tradition is inapplicable, useless, antiquated, or counter-productive. Traditionalism actually has no way of pruning itself of bad ideas once they take root as a tradition, because abandoning the tradition (even if it was for a good reason) is rejected out of hand because it "solves a problem".