Re cultural mentions:- I wasn't referrring to their culture but to their technology. 
 
 
Re assumptions:- 1) well, assuming that building spaceships is a worthy cause is self-evident. After all, without spaceflight humankind is eventually doomed to extinction along with all other life on Earth. Arguments against spaceflight tend to fall flat in the face of this fact.
 
2) Re pyramids:- Given the influence of Ancient Egypt on the rest of the Ancient World and the inspiration they inspired in the modern world, it's rather difficult to discount their importance.
 
3) Re writing:- Claiming that heat-transfer technology is the same as inventing writing or gunpowder isn't remotely valid. That does not mean the Inuit are a lesser people. It simply means that because of their harsh environment and their hunter-gatherer lifestyle, they were prevented from achieving some of the gains produced by various agrarian civilisations.

 
Re stagnation:- A society can stagnate in aspects other than language. I was specifically referring to technology. That is, Inuit technology didn't advance to any significant extent since they arrived in the Arctic 1000s of years ago. Granted, they didn't NEED to advance technologically as they were fully adapted to their environment.
 
Rev Margaret Meade:- Meade was one of the biggest frauds of all time in the field of anthropology. Derek Freeman debunked her absurd ideas re Samoan society(though he was rather too polite in calling her work the result of a hoax rather than as the scientific fraud it really was). Her crime was to falsely associate with the Samoans all sorts of trendy views which she felt that Western society should have embraced at the time but hadn't. She was the ultimate  proponent of the "Noble Savage" theory. Here's some info re Meade:-

 

http://www.newsweekly.com.au/books/0813336937.html

 

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/margaret_mead_and_the_samoans/

 

Derek Freeman's book is here:-

 

http://www.amazon.com/Margaret-Mead-Samoa-Unmaking-Anthropological/dp/0140225552



 Re "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.":-

 

I'm afraid that's just misguided. The primary reason why hunter-gatherers never needed to advanced technology beyond the immediate need for survival was because they were fully  adapted to their environment so they didn't feel the need. Neolithic-era peoples, for various reasons, had to advanced in terms of technology or die. Wild tribes, on the other hand have various incentives to avoid setting up settled communities or advancing technology, such as the fact that overpopulation in one specific area greatly lowered opportunities re non-agrarian foods etc. In short, the irony is that their very adaptation to their environment has been the reason for their lack of success re fighting off invading agrarian peoples all over the world. 

 

But that's all by the by. I'm personally very grateful for Inuit culture/society as it helped me to think more favourably re  a raw palaeolithic diet. I just don't like the undue romanticism that some in the raw diet community have re the Inuit or other tribes like the Masai.

 

 

Re William:- given that he is so fond of embracing completely unsupportable theories such as Creationism and the Noble Savage theory, it is perfectly understandable that others might take him to task for this.

 

Geoff

 


> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:42:02 -0800
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Experience with ZC
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> > 

 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/