I'm assuming most of you have, like me, given up on seeing any real survival issues on the show "Jericho". I'm still watching only because DD likes it. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Anyway, last night they had some bad guys harrasing the town and the townsfolk had mixed feelings about what to do with one of baddies that they had caught. The gamut ran from "string him up" to "give him stuff in hopes he'll stay away".

This caught my eye because I had recently read an essay on how vigilante deathsquads have been a necessary part in the formation of every government, wether it be democracy or despot. It was quite an eye opener.

To quote:
But death squads are rational, in their own horrible way. They may prove, as they did in Latin America, to be a pretty effective method of wiping out implacable enemies of social order and preparing the way for democratic and law-abiding government. In living memory almost every decent and legal regime in Latin America was preceded by a chaotic period in which ordinary men armed themselves with guns, said goodnight to their families, and went out in groups to kill some local dissident. That period was a bit further back in the past for the French, the English, and the Americans. But no nation can be shown to have reached the rule of democratic law without it. The work of the vigilantes is the hideous and dark crime that Socrates and the Greek tragic dramatists hinted must underlie all civilization. That crime is indeed a crime, and its perpetrators must stand trial for it, whether before God or some human tribunal. But it is possible that true civil self-government can only be established with its aid."

The article DID NOT give it's blessings to vigilante deathsquads. Please read it before jumping on me. <img src="/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Going back to "Jericho" and tying it into the Equipped boards, how would you handle someone causing violent disruptions to you during a long-term survival situation?

-Blast, finding something to occupy his time instead of pacing and hyperventilating

I don't recall any reports of death squads in 1776.

With all due respect, whose version of history have you read, the winners or the losers? I do remember my high school history teach talking about violent attacks upon those who supported the king of England. A quick search turned up this list of vigilante justice against people loyal to the crown. Some of the incidents described on that page were court-ordered but many other were common folk taking up arms to dispatch loyalists trying to undermine the new country.

Another good essay is this one, at least up until it starts raving about a new revolution. <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

-Blast

It does indeed depend on perspective. Take Ethan Allen of the American Revolution. To us native Vermonters he's a local home grown hero. To the British and British supporters of his time he was a home grown terrorist. We won the war, we get to decide who to idolize and who to vilify.

I would disagree with the author you quoted on the death squad issue. George Washington & his men didn't go around executing innocent British families. They fought the British soldiers. In fact they let thousands of British loyalists leave Boston when they could have easily slaughtered with the cannons they had pointed down on them. Maybe there was some terriorist type activities that I'm unaware of but most of the history I know is fighting amongst soldiers.

This, or something rather similar to it, even underlied the Rennaissance. What with the likes of the Sforzas, the Medicis, etc, -Poisoning and otherwise Bumping Off their Rivals, -in order to get on Top themselves, -Machiavelli and his Machiavellism, etc.

But here and in your Examples, -Just because it Always or Near Always may happen this way, -Doesn't mean it Neccessarily *Must* Always happen this way!

Just because we as Mankind may "Always" go a Lower Road toward a Goal, -Doesn't mean that a Higher Road or Avenue doesn't also Exist! [color:"black"] [/color] [email]Blast[/email]

Oh, -Both the Loyalists and Patriots did Plenty Enuff such stuff!, -to each other! [color:"black"] [/color] [email]Malpaso[/email]

I have really enjoyed the show - though I do have to keep telling myself this is TV & TV shows usually have some hokey moments. Not to mention the stuff that is inaccurate.

However, there has been plenty of survival related stuff.

Hawkins was aware of the coming danger & grabbed his family & fled the big city. (The folks who were wise & fled New Orleans are an example of modern real world survival thinking) Fleeing danger is the best course of action.

Hawkins PC was prepared for an EMP blast when nothing else in town was. Hawkins lectured his daughter to refill the bathtubs with water after she took a shower because they didn't know when the power would go back out. The glow lights he had stocked up, etc.

Another example is the town looting the abandoned locomotive for food supplies. All the bartering that is going on even if some of it is with the bad guys.

I think they have painted a much more rosey picture of what it will be like, but again it's TV. Oh, BTW, who is mowing all the grass around town? <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

George Washington and many others certainly did Fight Cleanly and Honorably. (Though the Britts might Beg to Differ!, -in our Firing from behind Trees, Native American Indian Style!). But a Good Enuff *other* Individuals on our Side, (and probably their's too), -Certainly *Didn't* always Fight so Cleanly or Honorably! [color:"black"] [/color] [email]Micah513[/email]

“With all due respect, whose version of history have you read, the winners or the losers?”

Well said, well said. All history is subject to whose side you view it from.
I must have been an odd child, because I never bought in to what I was taught in school e.g. that the founding fathers of this country were “Great” men of high moral and ethical values, they were human and had flaws like all the rest of us.

Good points on the survival aspects of the show. I guess I'm disappointed in that it seems to me the writers are leaving out a lot of the hardships. Everyone still looks very clean. Occasionally they talk about having nothing to eat but potatoes or the pumpkin, but it still seems like everyone/thing is too *clean*. I still am measuring against the book "Alas Babylon", which always seemed the most realistic portrayel of hardships and solutions.


****SPOILER ALERT*****
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
It seems pretty well established that Hawkins knew what was coming. The question is whose side was/is he on.

-Blast

Recently I watched a documentary about the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. If some of you may recall, while Katrina response was going on, there were widespread reports of murder, rape, robberies and break-ins. What I understood from that program, is that in the aftermath of Katrina, crime, such as murder rate, actually went down, not up. To top it all off, media was reporting rumors, not news.

Emergency medical personnel at the scene later reported that they treated lots of cases of dehydration, exposure and people missing their medications, but NO injuries related to physical/sexual violence. To put this in perspective, one of the reports at the time, mentioned that the pharmacy of Charity hospital was robbed by a gang of armed marauders who stole narcotics. Chief medical doctor of Charity hospital in New Orleans who was interviewed on this program, mentioned that he first heard about the pharmacy robbery on the radio while he was talking to the pharmacist at the hospital pharmacy!

To get back to the article about Death squads and Jericho. I think that "medium"-term disasters (weeks to month), will not last long enough to produce Jericho-like or Iraq-like scenarios. Am I worried about Death squads in the long run? Yes. But for them to be formed there needs to be a relatively long-term disaster (month to years), something like a nuclear war, a sudden global warming, or a "revolution" of some sort. An all-out nuclear war is highly unlikely in our days. A nuclear terrorist attack on one of the cities may happen, but not a Cold War style total annihilation.
Now global warming and "revolution" are different stories...

I guess what I am trying to say is that people, me included, tend to exagerate and imagine things. We should learn from history and facts:

"Some maintain that after an atomic attack America would degenerate into anarchy an every- man-for-himself struggle for existence. They forget the history of great human catastrophes and the self- sacrificing strengths most human beings are capable of displaying. After a massive nuclear attack starvation would afflict some areas, but America's grain-producing regions still would have an abundance of uncontaminated food. History indicates that Americans in the food-rich areas would help the starving. Like the heroic Russians who drove food trucks to starving Leningrad through bursting Nazi bombs and shells.7 many Americans would risk radiation and other dangers to bring truckloads of grain and other necessities to their starving countrymen. Surely, an essential part of psychological preparations for surviving a modern war is a well- founded assurance that many citizens of a strong society will struggle to help each other and will work together with little regard for danger and loss."
Above quote taken from Nuclear War Survival skills

Definitely agree with them making it look too easy. They should be looking pretty grimy by now or if not then they should show how they are heating water over a wood stove & jerry rigging a shower, etc.

but that is TV! <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

I have found the show to be introducing a somewhat TABOO subject to the general population in a dramatic format, slipping little bits of practical information in here and there, much as a Dean Ing novel (ie: You will Survive Doomsday) does. It IS too little, too late, but anything that gets the general population to wake up from their "zombie-like stupor" is, to me, a positive contribution to the American society, at large.

Any society requires order. Without it society cannot function. Normally that operates by what is generally termed "Rule of Law". If a situation occures in which ROL is no longer able to operate, it follows that Ordinary Decent Citizens (yes, I capitalised that deliberatly because that is a title that should be worn with pride) must either band together and be prepared to impose that order, or be prey for those individuals who consider their fellow man to be, shall we say, dinner.
Villigante or Posse Commatus is a logical way to deal with the situation.
If a "Bad Guy" does move in and try to take over by a process of violence and intimidation, then measured force becomes your only realistic option. Bribing them to go away does not work. Danegeld does not get rid of the Dane. The certainty that he will get hurt - or killed- will.
If you do choose to hang him, be certain that he gets a fair trial first. That is very much the first step back to ROL. You do not want the alteratives.

Well put. Last nights showed rocked with all the gun fighting!

Everyone has heard of lynching in its most terrifying and malevolent form but the name actually comes from a fellow who came home after the Civil War to find no law enforcement in town. No sheriff, no judges no marshall to take prisoners to. Just a lot of scared people being terrorized by various forms of crime. So he organized people together, arrested criminals, tried them and metted out a variety of punishments including, but not restricted to, hanging. Law and order were restored. But because of a few people angry about being punished Judge Lynch went down in infamy. Unfortunately his name is now synonimous with racial murder.

I don't think societies need men in black masks executing people in their beds, but an ad hoc court backed up by a stocks and gallows, maybe so.

Vigilantism usually gets a bad rap but it is sometimes necessary.

The Battle of Athens, TN

A Mozambique triple-tap and a Christian burial.

I only watchewd this program once, and keep missing it since. It response to Washington fighting cleanly;
HE may have, for the most part, fought honorably. But, people took things into their own hands. Look what happened in New York during that time. There were midnight raids against Loyalists, kidnaping & killing them, as well as burning Loyalist businesses. To the point where the fires got out of control, causing more damage than expected. I recently read a book about Washington's march & fight through Trenton, NJ, and it was enlightening, to say the least. Washington, according to what the author wrote, was VERY concerned about the quality of his troops, with their penchant for vigilantism and constant desertions. Unfortunately, I have forgotten the name of the book. But, it is rife with stories of how the patriots treated Loyalists, and "suspected" Loyalists.