jump to navigation

10,000 years of recorded history? February 13, 2018

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.

I don’t know what what Steve Bannon’s knowledge of patriarchy is, but I can say with little fear of dispute that his understanding of recorded history is a bit rubbish.

Mr Bannon said the award show [the Golden Globes] last month., which saw attendees wear black to support the Time’s Up initiative and female actors make speeches about the need to relegate sexual assault to the past, represented a turning point in history. 
“It’s a Cromwell moment!” Mr Bannon shouted to Mr Green, according to a copy of the text obtained by CNBC. 
“It’s even more powerful than populism. It’s deeper. It’s primal. It’s elemental. The long black dresses and all that – this is the Puritans! It’s anti-patriarchy.”
He added: “I think it’s going to unfold like the Tea Party, only bigger. It’s not Me Too. It’s not just sexual harassment. It’s an anti-patriarchy movement. Time’s up on 10,000 years of recorded history. This is coming. This is real.”

Recorded history he says?

The span of recorded history is roughly 5,000 years, beginning with Sumerian Cuneiform script, the oldest discovered form of coherent writing from the protoliterate period around the 30th century BC.[

And I think it is fair to say it’s not exactly detailed, until we get a fair bit closer to the present.

Anyhow, and I don’t often say this, let’s hope Bannon is right that #MeToo etc is indeed a turning point. Though, other aspects of his thoughts are curious too. Puritans and anti-patriarchy. I don’t think so.


1. An Sionnach Fionn - February 13, 2018

Bannon is a fascinating character. Ideologically odious yet even his opponents, where they have sought out access or help, have found him to be generous and friendly. Bizarre. He seems to be the biggest player of them all, as in playing people. You wonder what is at the centre of him? Is he a genuine alt-right believer or more of a conservative American (ethno-)nationalist? The two overlapping but not quite the same thing.


WorldbyStorm - February 13, 2018

He is isn’t he? Not as smart as he thinks he is but not stupid at all.


2. damonmatthewwise - February 13, 2018

Offensive to the creationist that believe the whole universe is literally some 7800, based on some Rev counting all contents in Bible, and evolutionists who can look at elements and geological in billions of years.

Damon Matthew Wise Âû

On 13 February 2018 at 13:22, The Cedar Lounge Revolution wrote:

> WorldbyStorm posted: ” I don’t know what what Steve Bannon’s knowledge of > patriarchy is, but I can say with little fear of dispute that his > understanding of recorded history is a bit rubbish. Mr Bannon said the > award show [the Golden Globes] last month., which sa” >


WorldbyStorm - February 13, 2018



korhomme - February 14, 2018

The Rev was Archbishop James Ussher. His chronology had the world created on 23 October 4004 BC, in the afternoon. Plenty of others had a go at the chronology, all getting between about 3800 and 4100 BC. Even Newton had a go. But Ussher’s ‘won out’, and is often found in older versions of the King James bible. Ussher was a widely read man; much of his dating came from non-biblical texts


WorldbyStorm - February 14, 2018

And as my late father who was an archaeologist after he was a teacher used to take great pleasure in saying he was Irish too, and completely wrong. But I guess in fairness he tried


3. Dermot O Connor - February 13, 2018

It’s probably a slip. 10,000 years would tie in not with ‘recorded history’ strictly speaking, but with the agricultural revolution, which is seen as the beginning of civilization, settled communities, food surpluses, and hierarchical societies as we understand them. I’m pretty sure this is what he was referring to.

Though the Indus valley shows no physical signs of walls and warfare, and the Minoans seem to have been matriarchal, societies post 10,000 did tend to be patriarchal cultures, moreso than hunter-gatherers, or pre-agri, or whatever label we want to assign the pre-10,000 period… Marx’s “primitive communism”, etc.

On the deep green end of the spectrum, Daniel Quinn’s book ‘Ishmael’ is an account, told by a telepathic gorilla. Not a book that I would expect Mr. Bannon to be familiar with, or to enjoy, even if he was.



Ishmael tells his student that the subject for this learning experience will be captivity, primarily the captivity of man under a distorted civilizational system. The narrator claims to Ishmael that he has a vague notion of living in some sort of cultural captivity and being lied to in some way but he can not explain his feelings.

Before proceeding Ishmael lays some ground definitions for his student. He defines:

Takers as people often referred to as “civilized”. Particularly, the culture that first emerged in an Agricultural Revolution that began about 10,000 years ago in the Near East that has developed into today’s globalized society; this is the culture of Ishmael’s pupil and, presumably, the reader.

Leavers as people of all other cultures; often derogatorily referred to by Takers as “primitive”.

A story as an interrelation between the gods, man, and the earth, with a beginning, middle, and end.

To enact as to strive to make a story come true.

A culture as a people who are enacting a story.

Ishmael proceeds to tease from his pupil the premises of the story (i.e. myth) being enacted by the Takers: that they are the pinnacle of evolution, that the world was made for man, and that man is here to conquer and rule the world. This rule is meant to bring about a paradise, as man increases his mastery of the world, however, he is always failing because he is flawed. Man doesn’t know how to live and never will because that knowledge is unobtainable. So, however hard he labors to save the world, he is just going to go on defiling and spoiling it.

Ishmael points out to his student that when the Takers decided there is something fundamentally wrong with humans, they took as evidence only their own culture’s history- “They were looking at a half of one-percent of the evidence taken from a single culture– Not a reasonable sample on which to base such a sweeping conclusion.”

Liked by 1 person

4. dublinstreams - February 14, 2018

and how is Bannon going to try and co-opt #metoo Times Up etc, just pretend that he has?


5. GW - February 14, 2018

The prehistory of patriarchy is fascinating, and we are beginning to get the tools – archaeological genetics and physical anthropology in archaeology being two of the new ones – to study it beyond the often ambiguous artefact and written records.

I guess Bannon and Dermot above are right in putting the epocal change about 10k years ago when the agricultural and urban innovation began. There is some hardish evidence that (as well as nearly doing for mankind by the health losses from dietary specialisation and disease transmitted from living in close quarters with animals coupled with the need for sanitation becoming a thing), the sexual division of labour at least began then.

There is some work suggesting the female skeletons had the changes expected from habitual hours of work hand-grinding grain which male skeletons don’t have. And at the same time the genetics suggest that the power of mate selection was equally distributed between the sexes in prehistoric and contemporary hunter gatherer groups. The fact that exogamy was not male-dominated (i.e. didn’t have genetically related males acquiring female mates from outside the immediate group) conferred advantages on the group that practised such a pattern over mate selection by a group of related males in a patriarchal structure.

However much of our imagination are still dominated by matriarchal romantics – Marija Gimbutas, Heide Göttner-Abendroth, Engels and Marx, some German fella and in Nietzsche’s wider circle who’s name I’ve forgotten (anyone?), Robert Graves etc – who, with little evidence, project a matriarchal society on the basis of predominance of female images, and an de-patriarchalising reading of corpuses of myth. I’m looking forward to more research with the new tools that might tell us how old patriarchy is in human society, and what sexual politics between patriarchy and matriarchy might have pertained in the past.

But the fact that patriarchy *may* be older and more ingrained than we thought doesn’t mean that we can’t evolve and do away with it in our times.

Liked by 1 person

WorldbyStorm - February 14, 2018

+1 to your last line. It is possible patriarchy is ingrained, but then so were numerous aspects that we have managed to shrug off. One thing that is often forgotten is how incredibly adaptable humans are.


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

%d bloggers like this: