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
>
|
