You haven't, but Dyani's been saying as much.No one is arguing that any culture is superior...
(you always call out strawmen, but rarely are they so -- especially not my obvious sarcasm... there are other types of fallacies, you know)
You haven't, but Dyani's been saying as much.No one is arguing that any culture is superior...
(you always call out strawmen, but rarely are they so -- especially not my obvious sarcasm... there are other types of fallacies, you know)
Well I would consider them (Native Americans / Aboriginies / Bornean natives / any culture that lived solely off nature) in a way superior. Its only because thats how I feel with them.
From my view they are. They still hunt to survive / gather plants and they have a deep knowledge of their natural surroundings. If we take the example of the Aborigines, they have to know where they have can find water for one thing. They live smack bang in the middle of the desert so water is very important. They can track animals like no westerner can. They know which tree to tap or where in the sand to dig for food. In my opinion, working for your living like this is better. But I'm a technology disliker. I'll use tech but I do wish we didn't depend on so much of it. As soon as the internet/electricty goes boom, those that depend on it may very well suffer a great deal. Aborigines won't. It won't be any different to them. Even those who adapted to the western world that took over could survive off nature.
In a way they are, in a way they ain't. I respect them greatly though, hell our ancestors lived like that its not like tech has been around forever. I fear that we may become too dependant on tech and lose contact with our humble past.
Thats my opinion.
My fault, you should be more specific, though...because I had no idea who you were talking about...I was the one naming several groups of tribal cultures...so I hope you can see how I got the impression that I did.Originally posted by Darkslash
You haven't, but Dyani's been saying as much.
(you always call out strawmen, but rarely are they so -- especially not my obvious sarcasm... there are other types of fallacies, you know)
And it's my lie and I'll tell it how I want! But if your statement was aimed at me, then it could be classified as a strawman due to the fact that arguing that tribal cultures are "superior" wasn't my stance...but since it wasn't in response to me...
Well, certain aspects of other cultures and ways of life exceed our own (such as the ability to live directly off the land) but you have to remember that part of culture is adapting to the natural and social environment. You have to look at each culture with cultural relativism. In our own culture, we don't have to forage and hunt to survive anymore...we developed a vast network and system to provide food to every community in our countries (despite the fact that some citizens still go hungry - no system is perfect). You have to have different skills and knowledge to survive in our society than you would if you had to survive in the Australian Aborigines' society. In doesn't make either society superior...we just have different strengths due to the different environments.Well I would consider them (Native Americans / Aboriginies / Bornean natives / any culture that lived solely off nature) in a way superior. Its only because thats how I feel with them.
From my view they are. They still hunt to survive / gather plants and they have a deep knowledge of their natural surroundings. If we take the example of the Aborigines, they have to know where they have can find water for one thing. They live smack bang in the middle of the desert so water is very important. They can track animals like no westerner can. They know which tree to tap or where in the sand to dig for food. In my opinion, working for your living like this is better. But I'm a technology disliker. I'll use tech but I do wish we didn't depend on so much of it. As soon as the internet/electricty goes boom, those that depend on it may very well suffer a great deal. Aborigines won't. It won't be any different to them. Even those who adapted to the western world that took over could survive off nature.
Ah... I guess thats true.
Its similar to saying a cheetah in the North Pole wouldn't survive, just like a Polar Bear wouldn't survive the savannah... or to be a bit better... a clouded leopard from Brazil swapping with a clouded leopard in Borneo...
I like!
But I lurve tribal communities far better than our community, but I guess thats because I'd value living with nature, as well as off it in a reusable way.
This is the third time I have tried to respond..lol. I keep hitting some keyboard combo that deletes everything I typed....VERY annoying.
Anyways...I was going to say that I too was not referring to what you said Roog. I was responding to the fact that someone criticized modern society because of the value of individual gain and wealth...and then another brought up tribes of people with the attitutde that those tribes were examples of a superior "way of doing things".
Technically, no society can be "superior" unless you give a standard to base that on. However, in most standards...modern society wins out. That is to be expected as it "evolved" and advanced to what it is today FROM that previous style. There would be no massive benefits for returning to that way of life. The human characteristics like greed or lust are still present no matter where you are...they just manifest themselves in different ways...or at best..less often. It all depends on priorities and circumstances. If you are looking at perpetuating the human race, increasing your knowledge of the world around you, making life easier and safer, extending the amount of time you live etc..then modern life surely wins against primitive life.
There is one advantage to primitive life I can think of. Unlike our environmentalists today...these people actually understand the environment. While our "protectors of Mother Earth" lie, or constantly make inaccurate predictions...while simultaneously assuming that the environment is a weak and fragile thing in constant need of our attention...these people harvest and understand the environment. That isn't to say that there aren't plenty of modern people who understand it just as well. There are still plenty of people who can "live off the land"...and the fact that anyone can learn it via books, etc (plants, animals, poisonous substances, techniques etc) is an advantage of modern society.
The reason I even brought this up is because people often allude to the primitive lifestyle as if that is what we should be living like. As if their life is more desirable and happy. Sure...if that is how you choose to live...good for you..but some people would LIKE to advance....but can't. That life is hard, short, and focused mainly on survival. Everyone was once there...but progress has a direction...and that is FORWARD..not backwards.
~Kiva
Getting back on topic...
I'd just like to point something out that may border on irony, depending on what your response to tis would be, Only-Now. Let's look at what you just said:
Now if I just change a few words around:Originally posted by Only-now
The reason I even brought this up is because people often allude to the primitive lifestyle as if that is what we should be living like. As if their life is more desirable and happy. Sure...if that is how you choose to live...good for you..but some people would LIKE to advance.
"The reason I even brought this up is because people often allude to the religious lifestyle as if that is what we should be living like. As if their life is more desirable and happy. Sure...if that is how you choose to live...good for you..but some people DON'T believe in the same thing."
And there you have the argument I've been trying to make. Would you agree with this new version of the statement as well, or only your original version?
Aww...no one wants to talk to me.....Originally posted by Only-now
Anyways...I was going to say that I too was not referring to what you said Roog. I was responding to the fact that someone criticized modern society because of the value of individual gain and wealth...and then another brought up tribes of people with the attitutde that those tribes were examples of a superior "way of doing things".
And on a side note: when referring to "primitive" cultures, most anthropologists don't describe tribal, empirical, or commercial period cultures as "primitive". Mainly because these cultures can't really be defined as primitive and due to the fact that primitive has a certain negative association to it. There is no set standard among anthropologists in regards to "primitive"...but I do believe the most common definition is that primitive refers to the time before written language. Most anthropologists prefer not to use words like "primitive" or "native" to refer to cultures. Apparently there is more and more support in anthropology that such terms are inadequate and unsatisfactory (Edward Dozier - Year Book of Anthropology: 1995)
Is "undeveloped" more PC for anthropologists?
PC has got nothing to do with it. Anthropologists try to phrase things in as unbiased a viewpoint as possible, seeing as most of them are from developed countries.
I would have said using *developed* and *undeveloped* would have been fair mind. We use more metal tech, they don't sorta thing.
Apparently you fail to realize that different scientific fields consist of certain terminology which tends to change as the specific field grows. Terms such as "primitive" and "native" have been deemed inadequate to describe a culture in cultural anthropology by most anthropologists. My previous post was not meant to start anything over the word "primitive", but rather to educate on a certain aspect of a specific field of science. It's hardly about being politically correct, but rather making sure scientific terms adequately describe what they're supposed to describe.Originally posted by Darkslash
Is "undeveloped" more PC for anthropologists?
The reason why the term "primitive" is not used is because of the negative association of the word and the fact that many cultures consist of complex qualities in many areas even if their technology is deemed "ancient" by our standards. That is why, according to a couple of anthropologists I know, that words such as "primitive" are inadequate when describing most cultures.
Such terms as "undeveloped" would most likely mean that one is looking at another culture in terms of his own culture...ethnocentrism is not usually the best method to go about understanding cultures different than your own...
"Primitive" get the point across on a general scale. Negative connotations, or "bias" should not effect whether or not we use that word. If those are dictating that choice...then we DO have an example of political correctness.
None of us are anthropologists here. We are discussing general cultures ...and haven't broken it down into specific peices. Being that these cultures are obviously less advanced in many ways than modern society...it is perfectly alright to use that term on this forum.
By the way...primitive is also defined as pertaining to something that is "simple" or "unsophisticated" which matches perfectly well with a culture that is just that.
The word is perfectly fit for this discussions. Various definitions point out that it can refer to nonindustrial, tribal, low-economic power, undeveloped, or relate to earlier periods of man's development towards modern society.
I'm tired of arguing about the word usage...as it seems that is all that occurs. AS long as you understand what we mean..and get the point of the discussion...just leave the political correctness and "this-is-the-wrong-term" argument out of it.
@ SpiritWolf -- Well, I am not stating that people should not be allowed to state that they believe we should go back to a primitive lifestyle because it is better. They have the right to say that....but I disagree and think it is completely wrong. What we are dicussing here, is that people who do not agree with those who believe that the religious lifestyle is important...or "right" try to supress those people from being able to express it by using the courts etc. Anyone has the right to not believe in God..and express it..just as anyone has the right to believe in God and express it. Anyone can say the primitive lifestyle is better....but I think they are wrong, and was alluding to this trend because many people have political motives that drive that claim.
~Kiva
Well, I have no problem with you using the word "primitive" at all...but your usage of it and also you referring to the life-style as "barbaric" shows your ignorance on the subject.
When you study other cultures...you will find that they are hardly "simple" or "unsophisticated". Again, it comes off to me that you view other cultures from an ethnocentric point of view instead of a cultural relativistic one...Originally posted by Only-now
By the way...primitive is also defined as pertaining to something that is "simple" or "unsophisticated" which matches perfectly well with a culture that is just that.
I admit, I am not a big anthropology buff...but you assume I am ignorant because my word usage has negative connotations. That doesn't mean you are ignorant...it simply hints at the fact that I find those cultures less desirable than my own...as well as the fact that I am countering the claim that my culture is inferior to theirs (which I was arguing against).
It depends on what you are referring to...what your priorities are, and what you wish to accomplish. Since I wish to accomplish a longer life span, an easier life, a greater understanding of the world and universe, less disease, and increased technological advances...and my society "beats" the tribal ones in these areas (and more)....I consider those societies "less advanced" or "simple" in comparison.
~Kiva
Actually, I assume that you're ignorant because you views towards other cultures tend to come off as that way. Your word usage just makes it more apparent because it is used to express your opinion and views on the subject. And the word "ignorant" is not meant as an insult in any way (incase you took it as such)...it just means you're lacking in knowledge. But we all lack knowledge to a point on every subject...I think it would be hard to find a subject where someone knew everything there is to know...Originally posted by Only-now
I admit, I am not a big anthropology buff...but you assume I am ignorant because my word usage has negative connotations. That doesn't mean you are ignorant...it simply hints at the fact that I find those cultures less desirable than my own...as well as the fact that I am countering the claim that my culture is inferior to theirs (which I was arguing against).
It depends on what you are referring to...what your priorities are, and what you wish to accomplish. Since I wish to accomplish a longer life span, an easier life, a greater understanding of the world and universe, less disease, and increased technological advances...and my society "beats" the tribal ones in these areas (and more)....I consider those societies "less advanced" or "simple" in comparison.
~Kiva
Obviously our culture is more advanced in many ways. To consider another culture "simple" by a comparison to our own is ethnocentric and a poor way to view other cultures. It tends to be a close-minded viewpoint.
So, I can't use my judgment to say, "This culture is less technologically advanced than ours" because that would be me expressing ignorance and close-mindedness?
I have no idea where you got that from. What I'm saying is that to view and study other cultures from the perspective of our own is close-minded and the such...that's ethnocentrism. To make observations based on the progression of technology from culture to culture and the differences there-in is not close-minded or ignorant, that's science and observation...What is close-minded, however, is forming generalizations and labeling other cultures based on such observations by comparing it to our culture...just because a culture is not as advanced as ours does not make it "simple", "barbaric", "primitive", etc...like it was mentioned before, such terms are inadequate for describing a culture.Originally posted by Darkslash
So, I can't use my judgment to say, "This culture is less technologically advanced than ours" because that would be me expressing ignorance and close-mindedness?
The ignorant part comes from how one expresses their opinion and the words they use to describe that opinion. Certain words and phrases can say a lot about one's knowledge on a subject.
An example of what I'm saying:
"This culture is less advanced than ours in regards to medicine" - Simple observation based on fact and evidence (hopefully)
"This culture is simple because they are not as medically advanced as we are" - ethnocentric observation using fact to hide an apparent comparison of cultures instead of attempting to understand a culture from the perspective of that culture.
Oh please. Would you guys stop ranting about how religion (at least Christianity) is persecuted in this country? People in this country couldn't suppress Christianity if they tried. A more attainable and logical goal is to try to get Christianity to stop attacking other groups and stop trying to work their religious beliefs into the legal system.Originally posted by Only-now
@ SpiritWolf -- Well, I am not stating that people should not be allowed to state that they believe we should go back to a primitive lifestyle because it is better. They have the right to say that....but I disagree and think it is completely wrong. What we are dicussing here, is that people who do not agree with those who believe that the religious lifestyle is important...or "right" try to supress those people from being able to express it by using the courts etc. Anyone has the right to not believe in God..and express it..just as anyone has the right to believe in God and express it. Anyone can say the primitive lifestyle is better....but I think they are wrong, and was alluding to this trend because many people have political motives that drive that claim.
~Kiva
True. There is always the matter of 'not-under/overlooking' something. To All > Let's stop using the phrase ignorant; or at least use the denotation somewheres more sparingly.. I find it troublesome when reciprocated between two members.Originally posted by lion_roog
I think it would be hard to find a subject where someone knew everything there is to know...
Obviously our culture is more advanced in many ways. To consider another culture "simple" by a comparison to our own is ethnocentric and a poor way to view other cultures. It tends to be a close-minded viewpoint.
Thanks.
♩ "Summer's going fast, nights growing colder.
Children growing up, old friends growing older.
Freeze this moment a little bit longer.
Make each sensation a little bit stronger." ♩
@ SpiritWolf -- I'm not going to stop presenting what is actually occuring. I wouldn't compare the "persecution" to the level that blacks endured or anything...but there is definitely a bias towards supressing Christianity by people who hold your viewpoints, or similar ones. Those who are either driven by anti-religious motives, or political motives (many times both combined) believe that somehow...Christianity will become the state religion if people are exposed to it...and thus, there have been plenty of legal cases, complaints etc...where Christianity was the target. We are just going to discuss the same things again. We are a democracy..and if the large majority of our citizens are Christians..and vote on those beliefs...then you will have to deal with their decisions. If you disagree, you can challenge it with the legislative system. Instead, many people challenge the laws or issues they don't like by using the court systems to dictate policy regardless of the actual law. I am not saying that if something truely is unconstitutional, that you cannot challenge it in court...but that is not what is occuring. They challenge it because they WANT it to be unconstitutional...and regardless of whether it is, the courts can apparently "find" that it is.
@ Roog -- I understand what you mean...and I do not view other cultures as less than my own. I have respect for the unique customs, rituals, religions, techniques, etc...that other culture exhibit. However..when I refer to their people as "primitive"...I am referring to the technological, medical, philosophical, scientific etc. They are less advanced in these areas...which more cleary means..that our culture was once in their "position" but we PROGRESSED to where we are today. The word "primitive" can be defined as rerferring to an earlier stage of development. Their lifestyle IS an earlier stage in human development, simply because we have advanced past that lifestyle in many key areas. So...no, their cultural differences are not primitive to our own, just different (though one can argue that certain practices like human sacrafice, or certain governmental practices are less advanced than others). However, their are many areas in which our society is more advanced than theirs, and thus they are living at a "primitive" stage of human development.
I don't believe that comparing cultures is a bad thing. There has to be a reference point. Of course, at the same time...studying cultures independently has benefits as well. However, we are not studying cultures here. I was responding to the attitude that was presented here (and that is present in many circles currently) that somehow their lifestyle is what we SHOULD be living like. It is impossible not to compare their culture to ours when that is the very topic I am responding to. That attitude, of the simple, hunter-gatherer lifestyle being better comes from many places. Distaste with capitalism and industry (and thus individual wealth etc) is one motivation for this attitude. So...I responded to that attitude with my belief that our current advancements in these key areas are beneficial and important...and that it would not be a good thing to return to a time in which we did not have these things...such as in the tribal groups. I do not like the attitude that a less advanced, tougher, more painful lifestyle is better because someone is dissatisfied with various aspects of our current lifestyle. Challenge those things directly, instead of championing the return to a time without the advancements and benefits we have today.
~Kiva
How do you not see the absurdity of what you're saying here? The majority of US citizens are Christian. Christians therefore hold the largest vote and have the largest voice than any other religious group in the US. People "like myself" are not trying to ban Christians from practicing their religion, we're asking that they stop forcing their religion upon everyone else. It's not a matter of being "exposed to" Christianity. I don't care about that. I care about one religion being given more respect and attention and voice than any other, which is what happens with Christianity in this country despite our supposedly being a secular nation.Originally posted by Only-now
@ SpiritWolf -- I'm not going to stop presenting what is actually occuring. I wouldn't compare the "persecution" to the level that blacks endured or anything...but there is definitely a bias towards supressing Christianity by people who hold your viewpoints, or similar ones. Those who are either driven by anti-religious motives, or political motives (many times both combined) believe that somehow...Christianity will become the state religion if people are exposed to it...and thus, there have been plenty of legal cases, complaints etc...where Christianity was the target. We are just going to discuss the same things again. We are a democracy..and if the large majority of our citizens are Christians..and vote on those beliefs...then you will have to deal with their decisions. If you disagree, you can challenge it with the legislative system. Instead, many people challenge the laws or issues they don't like by using the court systems to dictate policy regardless of the actual law. I am not saying that if something truely is unconstitutional, that you cannot challenge it in court...but that is not what is occuring. They challenge it because they WANT it to be unconstitutional...and regardless of whether it is, the courts can apparently "find" that it is.
It's not enough that only recently were
Also, don't even try to claim that atheists are unfairly using the court system against the poor innocent Christians. You're painting a very skewed picture here. Do I need to bring up the number of cases where Christians brought cases to court to try to force their beliefs into the school system or to try to make themselves exempt from laws which others were required to follow? What's even worse, is they frequently win these cases despite the fact that it's in direct conflict with the ideas this country is supposedly based on.
Additionally, try being an atheist in this country and then talk to me about unfair treatment or bias based on belief. There is a ridiculous amount of discrimination against atheists here, which goes from employers not hiring an applicant all the way to actual violence. Many Christians have no idea how good they have it. People walk on eggshells around their beliefs and are overly polite about them because that's what's socially acceptable in this country, but tell someone you're an atheist? Suddenly they think you're a Satanist, immoral, anti-Christ, arrogant, poorly raised, rebelling against society, etc. I have been called each of those things on countless occasions by people of religious faith when they find out I'm an atheist. People want to save you, they ask where your parents went wrong in raising you, they accuse you of trying to destroy/oppress religion, more or less like you're doing right now. If I were to say, "Christian belief is based on ancient mythology which is contradictory within itself and contradictory of observed scientific fact, therefore anyone who believes everything in the Bible as literal unquestionable Truth is either ignorant of the facts or in denial," I would be yelled at for being rude or intolerant in most social circles. But if someone were to say, "Atheists are wrong. They're blinded by their arrogance and just can't except the Truth of God because they're too stubborn or ignorant to open their eyes," most people wouldn't say a thing in protest. Our society doesn't seem to consider it important to grant the same respect to atheists as they do to Christians because the majority of our society thinks the Christians are right and the atheists are wrong...so who cares if they're human beings too, and have just as much validity for their beliefs as anyone else...they're not Christian, not even religious at all! So they must be bad, immoral people not worth the same level of respect or open-mindedness.
Seriously, Christians whining about persecution in this country is like a teenager in a rich family whining about how his parents are so mean because they won't buy him a cell phone and a pony.
It's not enough that our president is devoutly Christian and tried to amend the constitution to reflect his religious beliefs. It's not enough that for years Christians have gotten a large portion of their holidays off whereas only recently are -some- schools allowing people of other faiths to stay home on their holidays. It's not enough that most public businesses/facilities only recognize Christmas around the holidays and decorate specifically for that, it's not enough that the majority of US citizens are Christian and have therefore been able to influence the laws of this country to reflect their beliefs. It's not enough that some schools actually provide Creation textbooks instead of traditional biology texts or that a movement was passed a few years ago to have stickers placed in a large number of biology texts stating "Evolution is only a Theory" for a period of time. None of that's really enough for some of you guys, is it? You want more more more more.
What do you want, exactly? Should atheists not be allowed to protest when they feel a religion has an unfair hold over the country? Do you want a national religion? Should the school system teach kids that Christianity is the right path? Would you like a shiny new sports car and your own private island with that pony? If you're that unhappy with freedom of speech, freedom of (and from) religion, and the idea of a secular nation, I'd say go move to England, but ironically, despite their having a national religion, they're more religiously tolerant than this country is. I think you'd get quite a culture shock if you tried living in a number of other countries and realized just how lucky Christians are here to have so much power.
And I expect you'll probably come back and say, "I'm fine with atheists speaking their views but they need to do it through the proper channels in the legal system! (but again, should Christians be exempt from this?)" sure, I'm fine with that, but that's not all you're arguing. You popped into this thread saying you agree with the OP that this country isn't religious enough, you're arguing that Christians are actually persecuted, treated unusually poorly, or biased against in this country and anyone saying that has never really looked around them or put themselves in any other group's shoes.