I didn't call them "savages". I was referring to the " noble savage" theory, which is described here:-
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage
 
As for the term "savage", after checking with online definitions, here's three:-
 
"
barbarian: without civilizing influences; "barbarian invaders"; "barbaric practices"; "a savage people"; "fighting is crude and uncivilized especially if the weapons are efficient"-Margaret Meade; "wild tribes" or 
"
without civilization; primitive; barbarous a savage tribe".Oh and this one is more of interest:-
 
"Of or pertaining to the forest; remote from human abodes and cultivation; in a state of nature; wild; as, a savage wilderness. "
In other words "savage" in this context simply means lacking in (ie settled) civilisation.
 
Before I answer the various points, I should make clear my own personal reasons for utterly despising the whole noble savage theory. When I first investigated more natural diets, I became a fan of Weston-Price's  noble-savage-inspired nonsense which purported to claim that the lives of hunter-gatherers were absolutely idyllic and 100% healthy. On closer inspection of studies/reports, I found that, actually, their lives were pretty grim in most cases, contrasting Weston-Price's ludicrous claims. More to the point, I found Weston-Price's claims that hunter-gatherer diets were all 100% healthy to be absolutely bogus. I did the usual WAPF-inspired rubbish such as eating raw dairy , eating lightly-cooked meats etc., which did absolutely nothing for my own health and just ruined it further. So, I have firsthand experience of how blindly accepting that hunter-gatherer contributions were 100% perfect, is a foolish notion.
 
Re stagnation:- The definition of stagnation is of something that remains unchanged for long periods. Now, hunter-gatherer societies  have indeed remained almost wholly unchanged over the millenia. That is no doubt because they were more in harmony with their environment than settled peoples and had worked out a system which worked well  for them so there was no need for change.
 

 

Re mention of paleolithic/spaceships:- The USA and the Soviet Union were all agrarian societies, not palaeolithic ones. In other words, if they hadn't switched to an agrarian lifestyle, they would never have been able to develop their society to the point of building spaceships. Of course, one could argue that a hunter-gatherer lifestyle such as that of the Inuit was ideal and "better" than agrarian societies in terms of the environment etc,. But if one judges the various societies in terms of what is advantageous re survival re survival of the fittest, one finds that hunter-gatherer tribes cannot compete with settled societies - one only has to look at the current plight of the Bushmen in Botswana as a typical example.
 

 

re native american population:- Figures given for pre-columbus population in the Americas as a whole, range anywhere from 8 million to 112 million. No one has an accurate idea of what the population was.

 

Re "You seem to imagine that 
> western culture is the only meaningful culture and that cultural 
> development can only occur when it is congruent with western culture."

 

Given that I was mocking William's attempt to denigrate Middle-eastern civilisations, I can hardly be described as merely pro-Western. Besides, I'm more of a fan of the ancient world such as Rome, Carthage, Ancient Greece, Ancient Persia etc. I loathe modern western culture/civilisation.

 

I suggest to you that you used it as a subtle 
> device for getting the term "savage" into the conversation.

 

That is just absurd. Besides, the Noble Savage theory I was talking about did not originate from the Inuit, but from settled peoples like William, and before him Tacitus etc., who overly idealised wild human tribes. At any rate, in case you really haven't heard about the Noble savage theory, I suggest you check the wikipedia article above.


re comment:-  > I don't recall William mentioning the "noble savage theory" so how do 
> you know he is a proponent of it?"  Actually, William has repeatedly mentioned various aspects of the Noble Savage theory in the past such as his splendidly absurd notion that palaeoman just sat around all day , not doing much exercise , living in a state of bliss, with wild animals dutifully just wandering into traps. He likes to ignore the emphasis on hunting and a general harsh life led by palaeo tribespeople, among other issues.

 I mean I realise that people like William are brought up on substandard Hollywood movies such as Dances-With-Wolves or Avatar, so naturally have a starry-eyed view in favour of the Noble Savage theory. But one does have to have a sense of proportion.

 

 

Geoff
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/