# On Hospitality in the past and present - what happened?



## William Howard 2 (Sep 30, 2017)

“Just think of all the hospitality we enjoyed at the hands of other men before we made it home, and god save us from such hard treks in years to come. Quick, unhitch their team. And bring them in, strangers, guests, to share our flowing feast.” (The Odyssey. Book 4, ll. 38-42)

From the Greek Homer to the Hebrew Old Testament to even as far back as ancient Egyptian mythology, hospitality, or kindness to strangers, was an essential shared obligation in ancient culture. So what happened? 

It's been suggested that ancient people valued kindness to strangers out of a mutual need to survive in an age without fast transportation before the advent of widespread urban development. Vast wild areas surrounded tiny pockets of civilization would have been dangerous for any traveller. Or would it have? It would make as much sense, considering the large expanses of wilderness, to hunt and forage as one needed, without the need for involvement from others. No doubt such skills would have been second nature to most people at that time. 

I think the quote from the Odyssey is the the best lead into ancient Man's thought process. In a manner very reminiscent to "the wheel of fortune" (rota fortunae) by later philosophers, and possibly even Hinduism's "Bhavacakra", Homer seemed to suggest that ones fortune, or there standing in life, is always on fragile terms. The journey of Odysseus, from a great King after the sac of Troy, to a lowly old beggar when reunited with his kingdom, could illustrate this over arching plot. Throughout the Odyssey, the two themes of kindness to strangers and the hand of fortunae work hand in hand, definitely expressed during the climax of the story - the old beggar king made anew to slay his terrible hosts, perhaps also dealing out a karmic justice. 

We also find hints of this "karmic", or cyclical nature of fortunae expressed in the Phaedrus and Republic of Plato at a much latter time. 

Putting this all together, we find a ethic of treating strangers based on a understanding of the fragility of success, and a understanding that not only can another's position in life be diminished, so can ours at anytime. A second reason may be a hidden or unknown value "concealed" in a lowly outward appearance, illustrated by Odysseus being disguised as a beggar. Old Testament scripture reflects this ideal -

"Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it."

Considering how entrenched the ethic was tied to how ancients understood fate, it could also help explain why such beliefs are no longer practiced in modern Western cultures. With a belief that one has total control over ones life, such ideas must have created a corresponding negative attitude towards those who, in the past, would have been seen as just visited by chance. Without the belief that strangers have something worthwhile to contribute, so must have a ethic of kindness been replaced with one of hostility. Strangers are to be feared, for the potential to do harm outweighs any benefits they could give.


----------



## Drengor (Oct 1, 2017)

I'm plenty friendly to strangers. I usually find myself in the role of stranger and very often am treated well, helped, or at least not hindered.

A fear of the damage a stranger can cause should not lead to hostility, but rather caution. Those who visit hostility on strangers who haven't warranted it are not succumbing to some global shift in perspective, but are just hostile individuals. Best to stay clear.


----------



## William Howard 2 (Oct 9, 2017)

palmazon said:


> My experience & observation have taught me most humans' hospitality is limited only by their means


Ancient peoples means were presumably much much less then today, yet hospitality was a prized ethic. Today we have tremendous excess, thanks to industry, but we have, as a whole, a greatly impoverished sense of compassion. By that logic, we should have more hospitality because our collective means are greater. But we see the opposite. 

A friend of mine does work in Africa, and he makes a point each time he flies in to remind me of the hospitality he's given there, and the extreme lack of one in the United States. Statistically the United States has the greatest concentration of wealth to be able to afford hospitality, yet we see it's policy is very brutal.


----------



## Desperado Deluxe (Oct 9, 2017)

Because the people with the most wealth have it handed to them and they assume the same for everyone else. They take for granted that their social status is inherent.


----------



## William Howard 2 (Oct 10, 2017)

Gaucho Deluxe said:


> They take for granted that their social status is inherent.


I like that. It's kinda like we subconsciously assume that another person has had the same circumstances as we have. It's like we think everyone else is just like us. 

That definitely could explain why people and cultures with means don't share it, but it leaves a question about how that ball got rolling in the first place.


----------



## Cracker (Oct 11, 2017)

Go to any soup kitchen or homeless shelter


----------



## Desperado Deluxe (Oct 13, 2017)

William Howard 2 said:


> I like that. It's kinda like we subconsciously assume that another person has had the same circumstances as we have. It's like we think everyone else is just like us.
> 
> That definitely could explain why people and cultures with means don't share it, but it leaves a question about how that ball got rolling in the first place.


it all started in the 50s post wwII when everyone was poor and couldn't afford the modern conveyances such as washing machines and refrigerators that the old bomb factories were now mass producing. because nobody could afford these things they invented the whole down payment pay us later charge you interest crap. inevitably this system makes the rich richer poor poorer. and because people are too stupid to boycott this crap its where were at today.


----------



## William Howard 2 (Oct 13, 2017)

palmazon said:


> This is all anecdotal - I can only give my impressions; regardless, I've encountered plenty of 'well-off' folks who tend to believe they're the standard, generalizing their own experience. Conversely, a lot of hard-up people I've met carry on as though they're the only ones who have ever struggled.


Damn good point. That does present a problem. I wonder if both ideas can be squared together in any way? We have two distinct ideas - 

1) the self used to measure others by its own qualities - we assume others are like us (Egalitarian?)
2) the self used to elevate itself over others - we assume we are uniquely situated in life (Elitist?) 

What could be a single underlying principle that connects these two ideas? 

I think in both cases, there is no actual attempt to understand others. It seems for both examples the lens is completely focused on the self, though for some reason, it produces two very different outcomes. Why?

I don't think that this off topic at all. Understanding what goes on in a individual level, as well as the larger overarching history is very important to getting a full picture of how and why people do the things they do. What I miss in my writing is how something relates on a personal level, and that only gives half a picture (I think).


----------



## William Howard 2 (Oct 13, 2017)

Gaucho Deluxe said:


> it all started in the 50s post wwII when everyone was poor and couldn't afford the modern conveyances such as washing machines and refrigerators that the old bomb factories were now mass producing. because nobody could afford these things they invented the whole down payment pay us later charge you interest crap. inevitably this system makes the rich richer poor poorer. and because people are too stupid to boycott this crap its where were at today.


Very interesting. Just finished a lecture called "Debt: The First 5000 Years". In this Greaber makes the argument that the idea of debt, and all the economic baggage that comes with it, is not a modern convention (as I was told in school), but older than recorded history. The ideas of loans and credit, for him, was as commonplace for ancient people as it is today. 

He made some good points. I forgot how in The Republic the book opens up with a theory "justice is paying your debts and being honest". He also noted the Sanskrit word for "sin" is also "debt", as well as the Aramaic one. I liked how he summed up this belief that ancient people had - "we have a debt to the God's and we must pay it". He also related a Buddhist story about a "loan shark" that sort of gets a bad reincarnation. Credit is abstracted in this way as a promise to pay one back. 

So how does this relate to the post world war 2 economy and your point? I know in school my Marxist and Socialist professors made a point to emphasize that credit is a new thing in the history of Man, and credit is disruptive and unnatural. Before that, according to them, we bartered and traded for real things using real goods. So if Greaber is right, it would mean that the use of credit to buy goods is not a new idea, so these modern problems must be of a root that goes back longer and deeper, much earlier then post ww2 (?)


----------



## Cracker (Oct 15, 2017)

I would think the hobo culture started around the great depression in the united states. People were definitely more open to helping hobos because there wasn't such a huge divide culturally, there were no "dirty kids" with face tats lol. And most hobos were travelling for work not because they have a substance abuse problem, or want to avoid societal responsibility (Not saying that is why all hobos travel today). There used to be the hobo code marking the road ways leading to town to help other hobos but the huge change in the culture is why the code is now dead.


----------



## William Howard 2 (Oct 15, 2017)

Cracker said:


> I would think the hobo culture started around the great depression in the united states. People were definitely more open to helping hobos because there wasn't such a huge divide culturally...


Its really interesting that the ancient Sumerian word "amargi", the first word for "freedom", literally meant "return to mother". The idea is that things were so bad in Sumeria that they literally had a large population of "hobos", and that in order to bring them home ("returning to mother") they had to enact special reforms and charity. I would still argue that hospitality exceeded in ancient Sumeria compared to what it was in the 30's because the Sumerian government proceeded to give total "clemency" (complete forgiveness of debts, a "clean slate") to its homeless population, whereas the Great Depression New Deal reforms and the culture associated with it only made it so debts could be paid easier through work, not erased completely. 

Your second point was interesting. "People were more open to helping hobos because there wasn't such a huge divide culturally". I wonder if it's really saying that we only help others who are most like us. 

That reminds me of Palmazons and Gauchos points. I think Palmazon showed well that how closely another person is to us is not the deciding factor on how we treat them (strangely).


----------

