| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Is King Kong a racist movie?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Is King Kong a racist movie?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 May 2011 at 16:49
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Showing primitive cultures as primitive cultures is not racist or even deplorable, simplly the way it is.


I love Tarzan.


Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 May 2011 at 17:17
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

...
Pinguin a man of your age should not be so easy to call out. At least disguise yourself as a sophisticate instead of the predictable defensive reaction you are noted for. Can't you see the folly in my statement and in your response? When you do you will realize the absurdity of your stance regarding colored women as well.


Ridiculus? We aren't talking here about rationalizing tastes. Ask any black man with money what women would preffer, and you'll see most of the time that woman is white. (At least, you had a political career in mind, of course). Everybody wants the white women, including the "discriminated" minorities.


Now you throw out a few more generalizations and accept me to bite. I'm too bright, or perhaps, too stupid for that. What I do know is that I'm having this conversation with a simpleton who is trying to prove a worthless point.


Edited by Seko - 10 May 2011 at 17:17
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 May 2011 at 17:37
Who is trying to prove anything? Who cares to convince you? You assume many things.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 May 2011 at 19:40
As I suggested earlier, this thread should have already been closed by good moderators. Just why let it disolve into a situation whereby one or more respondants dig a hole for themselves and get banned.

It is more or less a "set-up", for some.

It seems that drgonzaga disolved himself from this discussion some time ago. Perhaps he saw the ultimate outcome?

He is very wise.

Ron

Edited by opuslola - 10 May 2011 at 19:42
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 May 2011 at 01:58
Cosign. Close this trap put here by Carcha. 
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2011 at 10:13
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Showing primitive cultures as primitive cultures is not racist or even deplorable, simplly the way it is.
 
Showing indigenous peoples as some kind of savages is racist and also contributes to the justifying of the persecution of them. It becomes so easy to dismiss these peoples rights by just refering to them as primitive, brutal or savage.
 
Just read about one example:
 
 
Film and media contributes to opression by spreading prejudice.


Edited by Carcharodon - 12 May 2011 at 10:20
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2011 at 10:17
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Propaganda. Don't be silly. Some womans are more desirable than others. Period.


 
That is no common rule. There is no objective criteria for beauty, at least not any that separates the races.  A certain kind of women are desirable only in the eye of the beholder. And the eye of the beholder can be influenced by propaganda and other sorts of manipulation.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2011 at 10:24
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Showing primitive cultures as primitive cultures is not racist or even deplorable, simplly the way it is.
 
Showing indigenous peoples as some kind of savages is racist
That's the way you refer to missionaries, and they're indigenous, as are we all. What I said was showing primitive cultures as primitive is not racist, but simply accurate. Showing primitive cultures as not primitive would be simply and straightforwardly lying.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2011 at 10:34
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Showing primitive cultures as primitive cultures is not racist or even deplorable, simplly the way it is.
 
Showing indigenous peoples as some kind of savages is racist
That's the way you refer to missionaries, and they're indigenous, as are we all. What I said was showing primitive cultures as primitive is not racist, but simply accurate. Showing primitive cultures as not primitive would be simply and straightforwardly lying.
 
Strictly speaking there are not really such a thing as primitive peoples since all peoples have undergone some changes or development through their history, they have undergone cultural change, adaptations to special environments, increased their knowledge about their environments and similar. The expression primitive is misleading. Not to talk about the derogatory term "savage".
 
About missionaries: they are a part of a religious imperialism that is quite independant of the race of the missionaries themselves, eventhough much of it (at least in the latest centuries)  has its roots in the western world.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2011 at 15:51
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 That is no common rule. There is no objective criteria for beauty,


I see you act as the owner of the truth... Just like a priest Confused
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2011 at 15:53
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 That is no common rule. There is no objective criteria for beauty,


I see you act as the owner of the truth... Just like a priest Confused
 
So you actually believe that your subjective view of beauty is some kind of objective truth, valid for the whole of humanity?
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2011 at 16:26
Indeed. I believe beauty is objective and measurable.
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2011 at 16:39
Interesting thread. I did not see "The Naked Prey" mentioned, which may be a fiction version of a real incident that happened to Frederick Selous. In any event, one of the opening scenes involves Africans from one tribe happily coating another with mud and roasting him over a fire. GCLE mentioned sacrificing virgins to gods, and I wondered if Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his (possibly virgin) son counted. Certainly the U.S. of the 20s and 30s was more racist than it is today, but I failed to see how that rubbed off on King Kong.

I found this quote attributed to a Chinese of interest: "We have these stories which go far back in our history... Such a story emerged from the Tang dynasty, when a garrison commander, besieged by rebels, found his six hundred man force close to starvation. Instead of surrendering, he first killed his wife and fed her to his soldiers, then one by one killed the weaker men and fed them to the stronger. Finally, his trops were reduced to a hundred. They were overwhelmed three days before relief came. ...this has always been held up as glorious in our history - an example of perfect service to the state!." ...How should it be judged?  You know, in China, we have no tradition of respect for human life. It's simply not in our past."  Shadow of the Silk Road, Colon Thurbon (Chatto & Windus, 2006) p. 27. 

Blatant racism?  Or, insight into the minds that produced the Cultural Revolution?
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2011 at 17:31
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Showing primitive cultures as primitive cultures is not racist or even deplorable, simplly the way it is.
 
Showing indigenous peoples as some kind of savages is racist
That's the way you refer to missionaries, and they're indigenous, as are we all. What I said was showing primitive cultures as primitive is not racist, but simply accurate. Showing primitive cultures as not primitive would be simply and straightforwardly lying.
 
Strictly speaking there are not really such a thing as primitive peoples since all peoples have undergone some changes or development through their history, they have undergone cultural change, adaptations to special environments, increased their knowledge about their environments and similar.
The point is that some have gone through muchb less development than others, socially, culturally, religiously, politically, technologically and otherwise. The lesser ones are called 'primitive' relative to the more developed 'sophisticated' ones. Compared to an F15 a Spitfire is primitive. Compared to a galleon a dugout canoe is primitive. Compared to modern France medieval Italy is primitive. and so on.
 
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 01:34
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

The point is that some have gone through muchb less development than others, socially, culturally, religiously, politically, technologically and otherwise. The lesser ones are called 'primitive' relative to the more developed 'sophisticated' ones. Compared to an F15 a Spitfire is primitive. Compared to a galleon a dugout canoe is primitive. Compared to modern France medieval Italy is primitive. and so on.
 


A diversion, religion is just a superstition, either if it is a pagan belief or a highly structured Abrahamic faith... Anyways, that's my personal belief.

With respect to the other points, tribal peoples had simpler societies, and a reduced number of people, therefore they don't need hierarchies to mantain society under control. With respect to culture, that is shown in the language, and you fool yourself if you believe tribal societies are simpler than so called "civilizations". Language in tribal peoples is very complex, and some "primitive" languages are even more complex and rich than Indoeuropean tonges. Som please, don't talk about superior cultures, or superior thought.

Now, Politically civilizations are more complex, given the fact human groups are larger. Complex governments simply are needed to control masses of people, something irrelevant in tribes.
The only point you have about is technology. And indeed, an F-15 is more complex than a dogout canoe. That's the result of complex of the manufacturing power of societies, manufacturing that is helped by universities, libraries, large financial supply and a large network of material processing, manufacturing, programming and all skills imaginable. However, pick a single individual at random of a society that manufactures F-16 and ask him/her to built by itself a dougout canoe, at the British Columbia native style, and you will see what happens Wink

Short story: yes, the technology is more advanced in modern societies compared with ancient tribal societies. So, please use the terms simple and complex societies, rather than "advanced" or "primitive".

Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 02:37
I will happily ditto the words of our well dressed, finely feathers and insulated, pinguin, above!

"Simple" Regards,

Edited by opuslola - 13 May 2011 at 02:38
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 02:42
Who says that primitive societies have to be simple? They can be very complex, and still far enough behind the more advanced societies to have earned the term 'primitive'.

As for religion being 'just' a superstition, the same can be said for much of the 'social sciences'. Some very intelligent and capable human beings are religious believers, just as some Agnostics and Atheists are dolts. After all, the Mayan calendar was developed in response to a perceived religious need, and one can hardly term it 'primitive'.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 02:55
complex societies can be very primitive. The fact that the Third Reich had the more advanced rockets, doesn't mean it wasn't an evil society. Don't tell me Spartans were very "advanced" in humanitarian terms. Don't tell me Roman Circus was a "civilized" activity.

So, please, to avoid confusion, restrain from using the term "primitive".


Edited by pinguin - 13 May 2011 at 02:57
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 11:25
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

The point is that some have gone through muchb less development than others, socially, culturally, religiously, politically, technologically and otherwise.
 
Not less development, just another kind of development. A high level of technological or organisational complexity is not always the most developed alternative. Instead one could argue that such societies lose some of their sofistication conserning mental, adaptational and psycological issues.
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 13:58
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

The point is that some have gone through muchb less development than others, socially, culturally, religiously, politically, technologically and otherwise. The lesser ones are called 'primitive' relative to the more developed 'sophisticated' ones. Compared to an F15 a Spitfire is primitive. Compared to a galleon a dugout canoe is primitive. Compared to modern France medieval Italy is primitive. and so on.
 


A diversion, religion is just a superstition, either if it is a pagan belief or a highly structured Abrahamic faith... Anyways, that's my personal belief.
All that's relevant here is that the develop over time. Even superstitions evolve. Monotheism is a much later, moe sophisticated concept than animism.
Quote
With respect to the other points, tribal peoples had simpler societies, and a reduced number of people, therefore they don't need hierarchies to mantain society under control. With respect to culture, that is shown in the language, and you fool yourself if you believe tribal societies are simpler than so called "civilizations". Language in tribal peoples is very complex, and some "primitive" languages are even more complex and rich than Indoeuropean tonges. Som please, don't talk about superior cultures, or superior thought.
I didn't suggest primitive cultures were less complex, merely that they are more primitive - i.e. are aat an earlier stage of development. That development may well be in the directiion of simplification - Cubism is for instance a much more sophisticated concept than typically Victorian or Renaissancec painting and also much simpler.
Quote
Now, Politically civilizations are more complex, given the fact human groups are larger. Complex governments simply are needed to control masses of people, something irrelevant in tribes.
The only point you have about is technology. And indeed, an F-15 is more complex than a dogout canoe. That's the result of complex of the manufacturing power of societies, manufacturing that is helped by universities, libraries, large financial supply and a large network of material processing, manufacturing, programming and all skills imaginable. However, pick a single individual at random of a society that manufactures F-16 and ask him/her to built by itself a dougout canoe, at the British Columbia native style, and you will see what happens Wink
Again I didn't mention complexity. If you think the concept of dugout canoe came after the concept of the F15 you're out of your skull.
 
(Also the last sentence is pointless: take an individual at random from, say, the UK population, ynd you could teach him to make a dugout a lot faster than you could take an Amazonian tribesman and teach hin to build an F15. For a start one person or even ten couldn't build an F15.}
Quote
Short story: yes, the technology is more advanced in modern societies compared with ancient tribal societies. So, please use the terms simple and complex societies, rather than "advanced" or "primitive".
But I don't mean 'simple' and 'complex'. I could possibly use 'earlier' and 'later' as with the palaeolithic and the neolithic, but the trouble with that is that primitive and sophisticated cultures exist at the same ime in different places. Some societies have changed more than others. The less they have changed the more primitive they are. Again that has nothing to do with complexity.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 14:05
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

The point is that some have gone through muchb less development than others, socially, culturally, religiously, politically, technologically and otherwise.
 
Not less development, just another kind of development.
All things change including human societies. Some change more than others. The more they have changed the more developed they are. I don't see how anyone in their right mind can deny that.
 
Some organisms that eventually evolved into humans. Amoebas stayed much as they were. Huans are more developed - less primitive - than amoebas.
Quote
 A high level of technological or organisational complexity is not always the most developed alternative. Instead one could argue that such societies lose some of their sofistication conserning mental, adaptational and psycological issues.
 
 
You can't lose sohistication. The increase in sophistication may lead to a decrease in complexity of course - see the examples I posted to pinguin. A society that has gone through an industrial revolution and then reverted to an agrarian state (not that that has happened yet) is more developed, and less primitive than one that never had the industrial revolution in the first place.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 14:50
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

All things change including human societies. Some change more than others. The more they have changed the more developed they are. I don't see how anyone in their right mind can deny that.
 
Well, the so called primitive peoples also change, even if their change can sometimes be more subtile and not as easily discernable, especially if you just watch for size of society or technical changes. There are many visually not so discernible adjuustments and developments that often not are counted by those who are biassed by western ethnocentrism.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You can't lose sohistication. The increase in sophistication may lead to a decrease in complexity of course - see the examples I posted to pinguin. A society that has gone through an industrial revolution and then reverted to an agrarian state (not that that has happened yet) is more developed, and less primitive than one that never had the industrial revolution in the first place.
 
A society can indeed loose mental, phsycological and societal sophistication while  they grow and develop a technological complexity.
 
But if you just look at he world through biassed western glasses of ethnocentrism you fail to understand that.


Edited by Carcharodon - 13 May 2011 at 15:38
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 15:35
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

(Also the last sentence is pointless: take an individual at random from, say, the UK population, ynd you could teach him to make a dugout a lot faster than you could take an Amazonian tribesman and teach hin to build an F15. For a start one person or even ten couldn't build an F15.}

How many F15 has you build?

Now, how many individuals have build F15?

Remember that F15 aren't build by individuals but by networks of industries and legions of workers, that make piece by piece the millions of components of a F15.

So, please, don't get confused
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2011 at 10:53
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

(Also the last sentence is pointless: take an individual at random from, say, the UK population, ynd you could teach him to make a dugout a lot faster than you could take an Amazonian tribesman and teach hin to build an F15. For a start one person or even ten couldn't build an F15.}

How many F15 has you build?

Now, how many individuals have build F15?

Remember that F15 aren't build by individuals but by networks of industries and legions of workers, that make piece by piece the millions of components of a F15.

So, please, don't get confused
 
That's exactly my point. It takes a much higher degree of sophistication including co-operation between myriads of people, and the need for written records and advanced mathematics to build an F15. An individual man can be trained to make a dugout canoe all by himself. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2011 at 10:57
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

All things change including human societies. Some change more than others. The more they have changed the more developed they are. I don't see how anyone in their right mind can deny that.
 
Well, the so called primitive peoples also change, even if their change can sometimes be more subtile and not as easily discernable, especially if you just watch for size of society or technical changes. There are many visually not so discernible adjuustments and developments that often not are counted by those who are biassed by western ethnocentrism.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You can't lose sohistication. The increase in sophistication may lead to a decrease in complexity of course - see the examples I posted to pinguin. A society that has gone through an industrial revolution and then reverted to an agrarian state (not that that has happened yet) is more developed, and less primitive than one that never had the industrial revolution in the first place.
 
A society can indeed loose mental, phsycological and societal sophistication while  they grow and develop a technological complexity.
No they can't. Of course if you used words for their meaning you'd realise that, but someone like you who only uses words as emotional triggers and political slogans irrespective of meanings would of course not realise it, because you're not interested in making sense, just preaching.
 
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" - Leonardo da Vinci.
 
Quote
 
But if you just look at he world through biassed western glasses of ethnocentrism you fail to understand that.
That example of propagandist hyperbole pushes you over the brink into gabbling sheer nonsense.


Edited by gcle2003 - 14 May 2011 at 11:02
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2011 at 14:58
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
That's exactly my point. It takes a much higher degree of sophistication including co-operation between myriads of people, and the need for written records and advanced mathematics to build an F15. An individual man can be trained to make a dugout canoe all by himself. 


But that doesn't make the tribal peoples primitive societies, but just SIMPLER societies.
It is only a matter of scale. The so called "progress" in a very real sense, nothing more than technological advances and the development of large organizations. The individuals from a tribal society and from the modern world are about the same in degrees of intelligence and "moral" values.
That's at least, the conclusion of the anthropologists, linguits and other specialists that have studied tribal societies.
Of course, in a tribal society you don't have the "Dr. Who" TV series... but you have legends told by the shamans. You may not be able to study aerodynamics, but perhaps you have to know to build and hunt with a boomerang.... And one of the pleasures of life is precisely this: discovering the amazing richness of the tribal societies. The hidden treasures only experts, and some enthusiastics know.

For instance, when I listen to the song of the Ostrich, in Mapudungun, with the beating of the kultrun, I am transported to the Wenu Mapu (heavens) and met Gnechen in person (God)





Edited by pinguin - 14 May 2011 at 14:59
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2011 at 19:06
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
That's exactly my point. It takes a much higher degree of sophistication including co-operation between myriads of people, and the need for written records and advanced mathematics to build an F15. An individual man can be trained to make a dugout canoe all by himself. 


But that doesn't make the tribal peoples primitive societies, but just SIMPLER societies.
The point is that the F15 societies developed out of the dugout societies. That makes them more developed and less primitive. I will grant that if a society develops to F15 status and then decides to move on to a simpler state, that simpler state would be more developed than the F15 one.
 
It's necessary to distinguish between stages of development in which A precedes B , and therefore A is more primitive than B, and variations in complexity in whuich A is more complex than B, but not therefore necessarily more developed/less primitive.
 
A mud hut is more primitive than a skyscraper because the skyscraper uses techniques completely unknown to the builder of the mud hut.
Quote
It is only a matter of scale.
No. It's a matter of which came first.
Quote
The so called "progress" in a very real sense, nothing more than technological advances and the development of large organizations. The individuals from a tribal society and from the modern world are about the same in degrees of intelligence and "moral" values.
That's at least, the conclusion of the anthropologists, linguits and other specialists that have studied tribal societies.
What on earth has morality got to do with it? Morality has absolutely nothing to do with being primitive or not. Intelligence has noting to do with it either (as long as you're talking about homo sapiens - other species in the genus may have had different intellectual capabilities).
Quote
Of course, in a tribal society you don't have the "Dr. Who" TV series... but you have legends told by the shamans. You may not be able to study aerodynamics, but perhaps you have to know to build and hunt with a boomerang.... And one of the pleasures of life is precisely this: discovering the amazing richness of the tribal societies. The hidden treasures only experts, and some enthusiastics know.

For instance, when I listen to the song of the Ostrich, in Mapudungun, with the beating of the kultrun, I am transported to the Wenu Mapu (heavens) and met Gnechen in person (God)
All that is totally irrelevant to the question of development/primitiveness. The pentatonic scale is more primitive than any diatonic one simply because diatonics (and others) historically developed out of pentatonics. That has nothing to do with the quality of the music (which may be terrible or beautiful in any scale) or the ability of the singer: it's simply a matter of history.


Edited by gcle2003 - 14 May 2011 at 19:08
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2011 at 23:58
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

The point is that the F15 societies developed out of the dugout societies. That makes them more developed and less primitive. I will grant that if a society develops to F15 status and then decides to move on to a simpler state, that simpler state would be more developed than the F15 one.


Depends on what you measure. Take for example the brutish regimes of the dictatorships of Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot, and I can assure you any tribal society was more civilized than those bunch of brutes.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It's necessary to distinguish between stages of development in which A precedes B , and therefore A is more primitive than B, and variations in complexity in whuich A is more complex than B, but not therefore necessarily more developed/less primitive.
to move on to a simpler state, that simpler state would be more developed than the F15 one.


That is a very simple, and unsofisticated, way to look at history, that was developed in the 19th century, when civilizations were classified according to darwinist criteria.

Progress haven't happened in a linear fashion, but in a spiral. There have been many complex societies in history of mankind where brutality, degeneration or decadence has predominated; starting from Sodoma and Gomorra Confused
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


A mud hut is more primitive than a skyscraper because the skyscraper uses techniques completely unknown to the builder of the mud hut.


Indeed. You can say that some technologies are more primitive than others. However, you should project that upon societies.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


No. It's a matter of which came first.


What comes first? That's not really a very solid argument at all. I will put you an example. The symphonic orchestra came before than the electronic rock band. Would you say that the rock band is more sophisticated than the "primitive" symphonic orchestra, only because the late come first?

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

What on earth has morality got to do with it? Morality has absolutely nothing to do with being primitive or not. Intelligence has noting to do with it either (as long as you're talking about homo sapiens - other species in the genus may have had different intellectual capabilities).


Because the term "primitive" as synonims like: brutes, uncivilized, savages, troglodites, etc.
That's why the moral component is absolutely important, and why the term "primitive" should be
avoided.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


All that is totally irrelevant to the question of development/primitiveness. The pentatonic scale is more primitive than any diatonic one simply because diatonics (and others) historically developed out of pentatonics. That has nothing to do with the quality of the music (which may be terrible or beautiful in any scale) or the ability of the singer: it's simply a matter of history.


Pentatonics? Yes, most tribal peoples and ancient cultures had pentatonic scales. Even more, the peoples of the Americas, almost lacked the string instruments as much as they lacked the wheel Confused

But that's not the point. Nobody denied the peoples of the Americas lagged behind Europe in technological and scientific development. The point simply was that even though, they got a very complex culture worth to appreciate.

For instance, a stylized modern version of theirs music. By the way, what you listen AREN'T trumpets.










Edited by pinguin - 15 May 2011 at 00:03
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2011 at 02:13
Are today's Mapuches primitive? Or are they playing a role no less hypocritical than that of all those Germans playing at being Wild West Indians? For one, within the context of Anthropology a primitive society is one removed from industrial endeavor, observing the primary characteristics of a tribal culture (with all of its proscriptions of non-group action) and possessing a low level of economic complexity. "Simpler" is hardly a synonym for primitive since the former can apply to any cloistered monk far more aptly than to any Yanamamo embroiled in the intricacies of kinship relations! Primitive carries validity solely as a referential to economic and industrial complexity. The minute a Mapuche chooses to reside in Santiago, he is no longer a primitive and one might say their existence as a primitive ceased the moment they embraced Christianity and became a part of a larger group with far broader understandings.

Edited by drgonzaga - 15 May 2011 at 02:43
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2011 at 02:27
You have a point there. The Mapuches of today don't have the same culture than 500 years ago. That culture evolved with the influences of the Europeans. Even at the countryside, they use the ox, sheeps and melt sylver at the Spanish style. You are correct on that.
However, there are many traditions that were kept, more or less, in pure state.
The Mapuche peoples could go in trucks and vans to theirs Guillatuns, but they still preserve in a pure state a language and a beliefs system. If you compare them to contemporary Mayas, Quechuas and Aymaras, for instance, you'll see the difference. Religious syncretism wasn't accepted by Mapuches, and they struggled to preserve theirs own "memes" alive and well, and have succeed.

One thing I admire the most of Mapuches is that they rejected Christianity. Today, there are still these fanatic protestant missionaires, trying to sale them the "Truth" in easy monthly payments, but although they have convinced some, theirs beliefs system hasn't been affected. Let's hope in a not very late date, that European superstition go to the garbage can, together with the "evil eye", the flying witches, the bleedings, the belief in the Devil, and other irrelevant ideas we got from the Old Continent LOL


Edited by pinguin - 15 May 2011 at 02:47
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.