Geoff,
I appreciate your frank disclosure of your reasons for reacting to 
comments that suggest an idealization of primitive lifeways. Yes, you 
did refer to the "noble savage theory," and my take on your use of the 
term "savage" was not an appropriate reading of that part of your post. 
I was letting my personal issues interfere with my understanding. I 
bristle at the denigration of HG populations because one of my distant 
forebears was Metis ( a great grandmother). Further, some of my family 
members are native North Americans, and I know them to be just as 
capable as anyone else. Yet, as a culture, we have a long and shameful 
history of mistreating these people. Many of the stereotypes associated 
with the justifications for that harm are, or appeared to be, reflected 
in your post attacking William.

Because I have lived in quite primitive settings, I'm not a big fan of 
those living conditions. Because I know many Native North Americans, I 
don't place them above anyone else. However, neither do I imagine that 
they are lesser, either on a cultural or an individual basis. Your 
contributions to this thread  have repeatedly asserted the culturally 
superiority of agricultural societies based on the invention of writing 
and the construction of the pyramids. You later introduced the 
technology of space ships. Your assertion is that these "advancements" 
could not have happened without agriculture. This assumes that
1. these changes are desirable;
2. that somehow the construction of the pyramids made a large 
contribution to human culture;
3. that the invention of writing is somehow superior to the discovery of 
a number of principles navigation, heat transfer and conservation, and a 
host of other features of the Inuit culture.

I don't want to elevate any culture above any other. Every human culture 
is dynamic and complex, which is reflected in their language, and change 
is the opposite of stagnation.  When you assert that the Inuit culture 
stagnated, you fly in the face of pretty good evidence of linguistic 
change.

Further, by Margaret Meade's definition, the people you are calling 
civilized are the most barbaric - and on many levels.

As for your assertions that the evolution of technology could not have 
happened any other way than it did, your perspective is limited by  your 
own inability to imagine an alternative.

Estimates of population of the Americas prior to the European 
"discovery" mostly hover between 50 to100 million. It is not a definite 
number. However, my point was that the claim for having  "discovered" 
the populated continents of the Americas is arrogant and egocentric. 
Clearly these continents were actually discovered by the inhabitants at 
the time of Columbus' arrival. I'm ignoring the brief but earlier Danish 
arrival because that isn't part of the paradigm I'm opposing. 

I have no problem if you disagree with William. I take issue with asking 
others to ignore him. He is as entitled to his opinions as you are to 
yours.

Best Wishes,
Ron


>