Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

New primative tribe discovered in the Amazon

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Author
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: New primative tribe discovered in the Amazon
    Posted: 31-May-2008 at 21:08
Originally posted by Sparten

Of course. You are so right. Let them stay in the jungle, with a life expectancy of 30, dieing of god knows what diseases, with hygine levels from 10,000 AD, let them have no chance of a better life.  
I might be opening a can of worms here but do you think really all people want to live 100 years, in full health, with perfect hygiene, etc.? Yes, you could argue, even if they don't want to, we can give them the opportunity, we'll let them choose. But if we give them this opportunity, we'll destroy their culture forever and we'll take another opportunity from them: that to live as they lived until now.
 
And if the morality and the desire to do good is so high in some, why don't you improve the standards of living of millions of people who are aware of the modern civilization but still do not enjoy high life expectancies, still die of curable diseases, and have low hygiene levels?
Like it was already said, if you decide to "rescue" these people, you might just add few hundreds unhappy people in the "low class" of our society.
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2008 at 21:08
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello to you all

So if these peoples were cannibals, a good chance they are, ....
 
How are you so sure they are cannibals? That's amazing.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

do we leave them eating people up saying "its their way of life?". Enough political correctness, give them real civilization and if they don't want most of its products, like millions of their bretheren still living in the amazon, they have the choice to live as they wish.
 
 
There are 700.000 recognized Indian in Brazil, most of them of recent contact, because Brazil don't recognize but Natives that speak the language and preserve the culture almost intact as Indians. There are at least 40 millions of Indigenous descends in Brazil and most of the White population has at least drops of Indigenous ancestry.
 
In here we are talking about no more than 300 or 500 individuals. The last that are still free from "civilization", so far.
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2008 at 21:15
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


Originally posted by Penguin

Westerner is how Latin Americans call themselves. After all, Iberian cultures are western, and modern Latin America is 99% westerner, with some flavouring Wink

Precisely. If Latin American countries are western. Aren't these tribal people, also technically western?
If not, then we are using western in a cultural sense, and as far as these people are concerned the differences between world-culture and their culture is far more than the differences between world-cultures.

Don't get too fussed about this, just being nit-picky.
 
That's a good question. My answer is simple. Nope, they are not Latin Americans... as yet.
They are Amerindian people that were living peacefully and alone in a territory that, although claimed by a Latin American country, in the practise was outside its rule.
 
Uncontacted Indians aren't Latinos at all. When they are incorporated to "civilization", and they forget theirs tribal dances and native games and replaced them by samba and the t-shirt of the Brazilian soccer national team, then they become Latinos.
 
In any case, in Latin America there is a large number of Indigenous groups that are westernized. They preserve traditions, languages and heritages, but they are undeniable westernized already. They are Latinos, of course, part of an ethnic minority.
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2008 at 21:54
More pictures on Amazonian Indians integrating to the so called "civilization".
 
Here, learning to use a notebook
 
 
Here, already accostummed to western clothes and cameras
 
 
Painting tourists
 
 
 
Indigenous schools in Amazons
 
 
 
(from Argentina)
 
 
(From Venezuela)
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 02:09
Originally posted by Spartan

Of course. You are so right. Let them stay in the jungle, with a life expectancy of 30, dieing of god knows what diseases, with hygine levels from 10,000 AD, let them have no chance of a better life.

Have you ever considered that their medicine may be far better than ours?
What diseases can they cure that we can't? If a undicovered amazonian plant, when eaten, reverses cancer growth they may know about it.

I will promise you one thing, if they are 'civilised' their life expectancy will half. Modern medicine will not improve their health more than radical lifestyle and diet change will harm it.

One of the biggest problems with Aboriginal health is that their metabolisms have not evolved on a starch-milk-meat diet. When their diets swap from native food to western food, their bodies can't cope and develop huge health problems.

It is not as simple as just teaching them a bit and have join society. We should look at this as an opportunity to learn from them. Not the other way around. There is actually very little we can offer them that will improve their lives.
We should learn as much as we can from them before civilisation encroaches and destroys them & their knowledge.

Originally posted by Al Jassas

So if these peoples were cannibals, a good chance they are

God knows how you came to that conclusion.

Enough political correctness, give them real civilization and if they don't want most of its products, like millions of their bretheren still living in the amazon, they have the choice to live as they wish.

Yes, while were at it I'd assume by this statement you would also agree to a Brazillian invasion of Saudi Arabia too? I mean you have never had the chance to have a carnaval Rio style. Or perhaps a Danish one? Enough political correctness, give them real freedom of speech, and if they don't want its freedom, like millions of their brethern they can migrate to Iran.

Can't you see that you just said the same thing about this tribe, as I said about Saudi Arabia? We're just going to charge in and overwhelm their culture are we?

Originally posted by Spartan

That they undoubtedly are, but civilisation has arisen in far worse areas for humans, the mid east, the south of India, mountains of Greece

Incidentally some of the best places for human habitation.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 08:29
Cannibal holocaust
 
Anyway it doesn't matter, the only way to know if they don't want civilization is to go and ask them not make assumptions from the ivory tower many people live in. These aren't savages for people to come and see, and they will come and see them no doubt like tourists go on safaris, these are people with a primary culture and their isolation, definitely because they were weak against other tribes, is a danger to them. Who knows, if tomorrow one of the new world diseases reaches them they will all die like thousands before. assuming they don't want to use civilisation is absurd. Look how many indiginous peoples around the world who volunterily contacted civilization and decided not to use it, very few peoples indeed.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 09:42
Agreed.
Send a contacted Amazonian Amerindian to meet them so he can teach them about the threat (& benefits) from us, and so we can learn what they have to offer us.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 11:13
Like they would understand anything. Look I would much rather that they  become civilised now, and risk losing their dnaces, warpaint and what not (and who says they have to lose that?) than be protected, only for some enterprising logger or settler (or maybe both)  with little money but lots of ammo to come and claim their land........for good, and make them lose both their culture and then their lives.
 
By the way Omar, if an amazonian plant can cure cancer thats great. Perhaps they do have better medicine than us, but not very likely.
 
If they can have a better tommorrow why not. And please lets keep our jaded sick-of-modern-life, lets reconnect-with-nature theorys to one side. Back in the 1950's the government of Pakistan opened up several districts of Makran, people living a bronze age existance (much more advanced than the subjects of this thread by the way), they were given medicine, vaccinations, access to clean drinking water, schools, roads, modern transport. Still the poorest area of Pakistan. But the people who lived through the change agree it was the best thing that ever happened to them. People very rarely decide against progress of they can help it and never for long. And we want to deny them the benfits of civilisation; and benefits far outweigh the vices and dangers, since their way of life looks quaint to us and in-tune-with-nature, from our computer screens and airconditioned rooms, and we want to "protect" that? Talk about conciet!
 
As it is history has shown that protected natives don't tend to last very long. The Solomon Islanders in WWII were brought into the modern world by the US Army, after 50,000 had died (more than 2/3rd the population).
 
The S Arabia-Denmark theory is also off. Both nations are settles civilised nations in the classical sense (bedoins, roma maybe not settled). The question is one of  culture there. Here we have civilised man on one hand and uncivilsed man on the other. Civilisation is unquestionably better than savagery.
Back to Top
Illirac View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-Jun-2007
Location: Ma vlast
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 526
  Quote Illirac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 11:47
Originally posted by Sparten

Civilisation is unquestionably better than savagery.


What savagery? Because they do not have all the technology the "civilization" has? Savages are the soccer "funs"(hooligans) for example not those primitive tribes...
First resolve and civilize the savages in the civilized world (as are those madmen of soccer "funs"-not everyone is, but many are), and then talk about civilizing the "savages"


Edited by Illirac - 01-Jun-2008 at 11:49
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 14:11
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Cannibal holocaust
 
Anyway it doesn't matter,
 
I am afraid it does matter. The fact is that you associate cannibalism to any people that has very basic technology is shocking.
 
Cannibalism existed probably between the Caribs of the Caribbeans, if we are going to believe Columbus. It was a permanent condition in New Guinea, on which stopped not long ago. It was also very common in societies suffering from environmental break down, like in the Polynesian people of Easter Island. Among westerners cannibalism has also existed in situation of emergency, like the german soldiers sourounded by the russians in WWII, or the case of uruguayan plane that crashed in the andes in the 70s.
 
In any case, being cannibals or not, they deserve respect and protection.
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

the only way to know if they don't want civilization is to go and ask them not make assumptions from the ivory tower many people live in.
 
The answer is they want it. That's very easy to see. Once they get in contact with the "civilized" people, theirs consummer instinct awake. Our moral principles of the value of money, the importance of luxury, the necessity to have servant to our service, the ambition, the need to succeed, all awake suddenly in them and they are quite soon incorporated to the rat race.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

These aren't savages for people to come and see, and they will come and see them no doubt like tourists go on safaris, these are people with a primary culture and their isolation, definitely because they were weak against other tribes, is a danger to them. Who knows, if tomorrow one of the new world diseases reaches them they will all die like thousands before. assuming they don't want to use civilisation is absurd. Look how many indiginous peoples around the world who volunterily contacted civilization and decided not to use it, very few peoples indeed.
 
Al-Jassas
 
I agree on that. Civilization is inevitable. Let's minimize the shock, though.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 14:20
Originally posted by Illirac

Originally posted by Sparten

Civilisation is unquestionably better than savagery.


What savagery? Because they do not have all the technology the "civilization" has? Savages are the soccer "funs"(hooligans) for example not those primitive tribes...
First resolve and civilize the savages in the civilized world (as are those madmen of soccer "funs"-not everyone is, but many are), and then talk about civilizing the "savages"
 
I agree with Illirac.
First, it is very sad Sparten still used the term savage", used for so long time as an excuse to exterminate Native Americans.
 
Second, what you mean by civilizations are inquestionably better?
 
Nazi Germany was a Western Civilization! It was very advanced technologically, with the best science available... all used for mass destruction. Wasn't it savage? Wasn't savage for them to exterminate million of people in concentration camps, and in the hollocaust? Wasn't savage for Europe to exterminate 50 million people to fix phylosophical differences?
 
Tell me about savages!
 
More than anything, uncontacted Natives and innocent people, that have its own culture and that has lived in isolation. In case of contact it is the duty of the most powerful culture (ours) to protect the weak. That's the way to show ours civilization is not savage anymore Wink
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 01-Jun-2008 at 14:21
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 14:38
Originally posted by Sparten

Like they would understand anything. Look I would much rather that they  become civilised now, and risk losing their dnaces, warpaint and what not (and who says they have to lose that?) than be protected, only for some enterprising logger or settler (or maybe both)  with little money but lots of ammo to come and claim their land........for good, and make them lose both their culture and then their lives.
 
 
There is a small point in here. The fact that they are isolated from the westerners don't mean they are isolated from other Indian tribes!
 
As the matter of fact 800.000 Amazonian Indians in Brazil are addopted to that society and live between two worlds already. Between those tribes you will find almost everything this "new people" has, like the way of painting, the dress, the house making, botany and traditions. That's already preserved and being preserver by the Brazilian state and several ONGs. The indigenous movements in Brazil also exist and are getting more power each day.
 
So, let's not be concern about losing a theoretical heritage, but about saving people.
 
 
Originally posted by Sparten

If they can have a better tommorrow why not. And please lets keep our jaded sick-of-modern-life, lets reconnect-with-nature theorys to one side. Back in the 1950's the government of Pakistan opened up several districts of Makran, people living a bronze age existance (much more advanced than the subjects of this thread by the way),
 
 
Please, explain me in what way they were much more advanced? How many read and write, instance? Did they know the toilet? Did they have clocks?
 
 
Originally posted by Sparten

they were given medicine, vaccinations, access to clean drinking water, schools, roads, modern transport. Still the poorest area of Pakistan. But the people who lived through the change agree it was the best thing that ever happened to them. People very rarely decide against progress of they can help it and never for long. And we want to deny them the benfits of civilisation; and benefits far outweigh the vices and dangers, since their way of life looks quaint to us and in-tune-with-nature, from our computer screens and airconditioned rooms, and we want to "protect" that? Talk about conciet!
 
That's true. But the transition has to be well directed. Otherwise you will end up in far west towns like there are many in the Amazons.
 
 
Originally posted by Sparten

... Civilisation is unquestionably better than savagery.
 
Some civilized people, like Hitler, behaved worst than any "savage".
 
More civilized people has died in wars, than all the victims of the "savages" of the world.
 
Religion, and particularly "foundamentalism" is a lot risky than any shamanistic belief. In fact, killings in name of religion are part of our "civilized" way of living.
 
Social differences so huge like we see today are only possible thanks to civilization. That way, a few priviledged people have everything they want in life, and armies of servants in theirs service, while some other people has to find food in garbage cans. What a great civilization we have!
 
Only civilized people has to be kept on alcohol and drugs permanently so they forget theirs condition.
 
 
I love civilization LOL
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 15:06

This superiority complex really needs to be adressed.

In my opinion, these people arn't bloodthirsty, ignorant, stupid savages living in 10.000 BC. They are an advanced society, adapted for living in the worlds largest rainforest, who have managed to survive in an environment for centuries or even millenias where the so-called "advanced civillised" humans can't suvive for a week!
 
Instead of jumping on our moral high horse claiming its our duty to civillise them, lets take a more objective look.
 
Some of the arguments were regarding life expectancy, well just look at parts of sub-saharan Africa in which it is below 50-40 years including some developed/developing countries like South Africa.
 
We are advanced in our living conditions, however, put in the middle of the Amazon rainforest and its us who would be the primitives! In comparison, the same would be true if we stuck somebody from this tribe in New York, thus trying to change their way of life actually would make an advanced peoples, primitive.
 
These people are no primitives. They infact have alot to teach us, they co-exist with nature and have acquired the secrets of the plants, animals and trees in the forest. Many medical advances are due to ingrediants found in the natural world, some of which have been found in the big rainforests. We don't even know what else lies there, what amazing cures and finds there are.
 
We could learn a thing or two about living, respected and learning from nature from these guys.
 
What would be the great benefit to these people about so called civillising? they would be duped into thinking big cities are paved with gold, the young would move to cities, the old would stay in the forest, the young experiencing a culture-shock and realising they are actually the most impovrished people will turn to drugs, alcohol, crime, prostitution, live in ghettos and contribute to an already big gang problem. The great knowledge of the forest will be lost, their languages will be lost.
 
They would be the biggest loosers and add to the misery of society for the urban poor and rich alike with their social problems. Remember, not everybody in our societies is living a privaledged life, not everybody has time to write on AE, in Inner city london its claimed 30% of people live below the poverty line, now this is London, in the big cities of Brazil its even worse, these people will end up in the favalles.
They will be taught how to sell drugs, extort money, rob and lead a life of crime and no opportunities, they won't like some seem to think be Harvard educated doctros, professors and scientists living in nice appartments with the latest technologies.
 
Currently they have a succesful way of life, are some of the most advanced people in the world when it comes to jungle dwelling and knowledge of nature and have a unique society.
 
Why do you think their lives are so terrible because they don't watch Oprah, eat fried chicken and chips and get plastered on a friday...
 
 


Edited by Bulldog - 01-Jun-2008 at 15:17
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 15:31
Some examples about how Amazonian Indians and theirs allies are fighting for theirs rights to theirs lands using modern technologies,
 
 
 
And Peru,
 

10 million acres charted by consulting elders’ tales as well as GPS receivers

 
By Alan Boyle
MSNBC

Jan. 23, 2003 - Ten million acres of the Amazon rain forest have been charted in detail for the first time with the help of breechcloth-clad Indians toting GPS receivers, as part of an innovative effort to back up their land claims.

The mapping project, unveiled Thursday at the Brazilian Embassy in Washington, brought together four tribes of the northeast Amazon as well as the Brazilian government’s Indian agency, the nongovernmental PPTAL initiative to map indigenous lands and the Virginia-based Amazon Conservation Team.

The regions that were demarcated, the Tumucumaque Indigenous Park and the Rio Paru d’Este Indigenous Land, amount to a territory as big as the Netherlands. They’re just west of the world’s largest tropical park, and are occupied by the Apalia, Wayana, Tirio and Kaxuyana tribes.

Before the two-year project began, the only comprehensive maps of the Indian reserves were based on satellite and aerial photos, showing rivers and mountains but little else, said Vasco van Roosmalen, the Amazon Conservation Team’s Brazil program director and field director for the project.

“The Tumucumaque has 2,000 indigenous names that have never been recorded,” he told MSNBC.com.

But the map, festooned with symbols to mark hunting trails and holy places, is more than just a curio.

“The white men have the Bible and other books to teach their kids about their ancestors. We now have our map to teach our children our history,” Apalai chief Joao Arana was quoted as saying in an Amazon Conservation Team report on the project.

Image:%20Tumucumaque
The region that was mapped includes the Tumucumaque Indigenous Park and the Rio Paru d'Este Indigenous Land in northeast Brazil. Those areas are just west of Tumucumaque Mountains National Park, the world's largest tropical park.

The map also serves as an Amazonian zoning guide, indicating the location of villages, resources and even a strictly protected “no-hunting” zone in the middle of the tribes’ lands.

“Based on their map, the four tribes of this reservation will be able to better organize and develop their resources,” Rubens Antonio Barbosa, Brazil’s ambassador to the United States, said in a statement. “And they have prepared it wisely; the location of the widely coveted medicinal plants they know so much about — many of which have been illegally taken abroad from the Amazon rain forest — is not revealed in the map.”

Van Roosmalen said the map proves that the four tribes occupy the entire territory, which will help in the political fight against gold miners seeking to gain a foothold in Indian-controlled lands. It could also help build the case for economic development in the region.

“In terms of management and politics, the map is very important,” he said.

The map also served as an exercise in community-building. Before the project, the tribes tended to keep to themselves in separate territories within the Tumucumaque region. “When they came together to do this map, they saw that this was really one area,” van Roosmalen said.

Image:%20Map%20detail
Symbols on the Tumucumaque map indicate rivers and mountains, inhabited and unoccupied villages, hunting trails, natural resources and sites of spiritual importance.

Cartographers trained the Indians to use the satellite-based Global Positioning System to match up landmarks with latitude and longitude, then gave them maps to fill in. Those maps were refined during two rounds of data-gathering over six months.

“The whole methodology is getting the knowledge that they have in their heads and getting that on paper,” van Roosmalen said. “They would go out into the villages with a blank, large sheet of paper ... then they would sit down with the elders, the hunters, the fishermen, filling in the legend and constructing the map.”

The resulting maps were digitally cross-checked with data from other tribes as well as satellite imagery and past mapmaking attempts. It was a “very inexpensive project,” costing less than $1 million, van Roosmalen said. Financial support was provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

The Tumucumaque project was inspired by a smaller-scale effort to map Tirio territory across the border in Suriname — and in turn, the Amazon Conservation Team hopes the latest results will set the stage for more ambitious plans to map 100 million acres of indigenous reserves in other parts of the Amazon.

Ethnobotanist Mark Plotkin, president of the Amazon Conservation Team, said such reserves are often the crown jewels of biodiversity in the Amazon. He noted that the Tumucumaque region harbors the headwaters of several major rivers that feed the Amazon.

“When the Indians say that the headwaters of a great river is sacred, and when the government of Brazil says they must protect their watersheds, they are essentially speaking the same language,” he said. “We all have a stake in perpetuating these resources. The map is a win-win situation for everyone concerned.”

© 2008 MSNBC Interactive


Edited by pinguin - 01-Jun-2008 at 15:32
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 17:33
The above example that pinguin gave is what I am talking about. Let modern technologys help them. If they want to keep their old way of life after they have been civilised all power to them, its their choice. But keeping them in savagery is downright unacceptable.
 
 
On the term savage/savagery, I am amazed (or maybe I should not be) at the pious chest thumping "horror he called them savage" which is very convinient since you can attack the person not the argument. It is also ignorant, savage is the opposite of civilised, which is exactly what they are, uncivilised. So when you say uncivilised, it means the same thing as savagery. They are savages of that there is no doubt. They are not "bad people" whatever that means in this context, not Nazis. Uncivilised? Definatly.
 
 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/savage
Originally posted by The dictionary, something many people here should read more often

]
1. fierce, ferocious, or cruel; untamed: savage beasts.
2. uncivilized; barbarous: savage tribes.
3. enraged or furiously angry, as a person.
4. unpolished; rude: savage manners.
5. wild or rugged, as country or scenery: savage wilderness.
6. Archaic. uncultivated; growing wild.
–noun
7. an uncivilized human being.
8. a fierce, brutal, or cruel person.
9. a rude, boorish person.
10. a member of a preliterate society.
 
 


Edited by Sparten - 01-Jun-2008 at 17:36
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 18:10

I dont' agree. Savage has the connotation of evil, cruel, bad, rotten, etc.

Even the term "uncivilized" is more appropiated, givien that "civilized" only means a member of an urban society. So, in some sense, farmers aren't "civilized", and also aren't hooligans that deserve the name "savage".

The term "primitive" perhaps is more appropiated, because it shows the difference in TECHNOLOGY between simpler and more complex societies. However, the term "primitive" also has the connotation of backwards in the genetical darwinist sense. It is therefore a term of racist sides.
 
Even terms like "stone age", "bronze age" and "iron age" people are obsolete because they don't show reality. In fact, in Africa there were tribal people that were in the Iron age at contact, while in the Americas there were very advanced civilizations, like the Mayas, who where in the stone age, with writing and advanced math. Even more, others living in the Bronze age, like the Incas, were analphabets! And when one realize Teotihuacan build its civilization saling obsidiane, one start to think those metalurgic terms don't mean a thing.
 
Personally I preffer terms more descriptive, than the so load names of "savage" and "primitive". They are member of "simpler cultures", or better, of tribal societies or tribal communities.
 
Tribal people is the right term, I believe, to distinguish of people that belong to more complex societies.
 
With respect to savages, perhaps thugs, hooligans and above all, Nazis, deserve the name better. These are soccer hooligans, for instace.
 
 
There Maras from El Salvador are a lot more savage than any tribal people. These are real savages, and not the innocent tribal peoples.
 
 
 
And these "civilized" savages dominated Europe for a decade.
 
 
Even more, not all tribal people act the same. Most were very peaceful people, but also there existed brutish groups, like the ancient Jibaros who were headhunters (now reformed).
 
 
But most tribal peoples weren't headhunters or cannibals, and they weren't savages. Don't confuse the groups.
 
And if you mean "member of a preliterate society", then most human beings belonging to the human civilizations up to 1950 were "savages". What a curious definition. Even more curious given the fact that still today, although most learn how to read and write, most has already forgotten. Not many people read books these days and a lot less write it. From all practical terms, the members of our civilization are still savages, aren't they? Wink
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 01-Jun-2008 at 18:20
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 18:17
Reductio Ad Hitlerum strikes again. It is the Nazis crimes that condemn them. They are condemned for what they did, not what they are. Savage is a completely appropriate word to use in the circumstances. They are savages. They are not Nazis.
 
 
By the way, civilised dose not mean urbanised, true, urbanisation is a feature of civilisation, but civilised people are not necessarily urban.
 
 
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 18:24

Savage is an archaic term with pejorative connotations.

The theory, civillised is good, non-civillised is not, in my opinion is out of date and a simplistic way of thinking.
 
Civillisation, ie socities which practice agriculture and have settlements and cities are ofcourse an example of human development. However, it is a development based on factors of the environment, civillisation does well where it can be supported, however, a lifestyle based upon consumption and a disregard of nature would fail in extreme regions, like desserts with no major rivers or rainforests as large as the Amazon.
 
These peoples of the Amazons are advanced in their environment, they do not need us to meddle in their affairs telling them they are savages and their way of life in unacceptable. To some they may appear backwards, however, I would like to see them live in the rainforest for a few months and then make such a statement.
 
The tribe have adapted to their environment brilliantly.
 
I don't see how their quality of live will be improved by fooling them about how great our civillisation is and letting them move to urban ghetto's where they will become a broken improvrished people.
 


Edited by Bulldog - 01-Jun-2008 at 18:25
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 18:25
Originally posted by Sparten

Reductio Ad Hitlerum strikes again. It is the Nazis crimes that condemn them. They are condemned for what they did, not what they are. Savage is a completely appropriate word to use in the circumstances. They are savages. They are not Nazis.
  
By the way, civilised dose not mean urbanised, true, urbanisation is a feature of civilisation, but civilised people are not necessarily urban.
 
 
You better study the topic and find out. I am afraid you aren't using the right definitions.
 
Nazis, hooligans, al-qaeda and maras are savages. Those Amazonians indians are just tribal peoples that have a simple culture.
 
Civilization only mean a culture of cities.
 
If you mean "civilization" is something sacred, or a "more advanced" stage of human development. Think once again. Get informed that after the Holocaust, Hiroshima and the savages of WW II people really has changed its way of thinking about OUR rotten global civilization.
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 18:33
I'd go one step further in that I don't think their culture is simple. IMHO they are one of the most advanced human socities regarding their environment, they have adapted to living in a harsh jungle environment and have a vast knowledge of natures uses which could benefit our modern medicene today.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.121 seconds.