NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6422581.stm

'Stone age' labelled 'offensive'
The phrase "stone age" has been labelled offensive by anthropologists who say it should not be used to describe living peoples.
In particular, the Association of Social Anthropologists highlights the way the term has been used to describe tribal and indigenous people.

It also says that "primitive" or "savage" are no longer acceptable terms for such groups of people.

Such terms damage the welfare of tribal people, say anthropologists

"All anthropologists would agree that the negative use of the terms 'primitive' and 'stone age' to describe [tribal peoples] has serious implications for their welfare," says a statement from the anthropologists' professional association.


Well, that's three more phrases - "stone age", "primitive", and "savage".

We're running out of words, folks...

Whats offensive about stone age?

Now what are supposed to bomb people back to?

Oh, for fuck's sake... :rolleyes:

My friend started an Anthropology course last September, and dropped out of it last October. He said he found anthropologists to be gutless and to afraid to make any kind of judgment on the societies they study, thus, according to him, making their whole discipline pointless.

I'm not entirely sure if I agree with him, but I do agree with the anthropologists in this article. It is grossly offencive and imperially-minded to view world cultures on some sort of scale with primitive, rock-eating trogladites on one side and us as the bastion of Civilisation on the other.

Western culture is not superior, it was just through an accident of geography that came to exert dominance over the world and export its own moralities, if the European continent was populated by Aztecs, Mongols, Zulus and Maori, it would be exactly as 'civilised' as it is now.

You can see their point about not using it to describe LIVING people. Nothing wrong with using it to describe people who lived several hundred thousand years ago tho.

Now what are supposed to bomb people back to?

The Dirt Age?

You think a society without politics wouldn't demand people to be politically correct. :p

I'm not entirely sure if I agree with him, but I do agree with the anthropologists in this article. It is grossly offencive and imperially-minded to view world cultures on some sort of scale with primitive, rock-eating trogladites on one side and us as the bastion of Civilisation on the other.
But all those outside Rome are primitive barbarians.

The Dirt Age?

The tool age? Or is that offensive too?:eek:

Considering even judges in our higher courts have referred to my people as 'primitive savages', yeah, I consider it to be highly offensive. This prick wasn't even pretending he was referring to us in the far past...he was referring to us NOW.

Primitive. Savage. Fuck off.

The tool age? Or is that offensive too?:eek:

TooL ftw.

TooL ftw.

Isn't calling someone a "tool" derogatory?

Isn't calling someone a "tool" derogatory?

Shhh.

But all those outside Rome are primitive barbarians.

Rome? A bunch of rambunctious upstarts!!

</Macedonian>

The tool age? Or is that offensive too?:eek:

Tool sounds good, it accentuates the positive aspects of that level of technological advancement. I mean, stones, I've never found a stone that I haven't been able to use - but tools, tools are complex, most tools I can't even make heads or tails out of. So that kinda puts me and these *synonym for stone age* people on an equal intellectual level, which I believe is the intention.

Doesn't Stone Age simply mean that the people of the time made their tools from stone? What is offensive about that? If there are still peoples who make their tools out of stone than they are a Stone Age people. I hardly see it being offensive unless PC nuts don't like having their lack of technology pointed out. I suppose in this case calling anyone to be a Bronze Age and Iron Age etc. people, are also off limits since their inferiority would also be pointed out?

I suddenly have a headache, this stuff is just painful to read about.

Am I the only one who's reminded of that thread Lunatic Goofballs started a while ago?

Want to insult the Amish?

Do it here! It's not like they'll find out. :D

Doesn't Stone Age simply mean that the people of the time made their tools from stone? What is offensive about that? If there are still peoples who make their tools out of stone than they are a Stone Age people. I hardly see it being offensive unless PC nuts don't like having their lack of technology pointed out. I suppose in this case calling anyone to be a Bronze Age and Iron Age etc. people, are also off limits since their inferiority would also be pointed out?

I suddenly have a headache, this stuff is just painful to read about.

Read the damned article. It is not saying the term "stone age" is inappropriate or otherwise inaccurate. It is a perfectly viable term.

It IS saying that the term "stone age" is inappropriate to use to refer to people NOW. It implies unsophistication and savagery. That's the point.

The Dirt Age?

no the Shitty Time

Isn't calling someone a "tool" derogatory?

Not if it's TooL.

Read the damned article. It is not saying the term "stone age" is inappropriate or otherwise inaccurate. It is a perfectly viable term.

It IS saying that the term "stone age" is inappropriate to use to refer to people NOW. It implies unsophistication and savagery. That's the point.

And.... that is what I meant. They can be called a Stone Age people because they are using Stone Age technology. Nothing wrong with that.

maybe y'all ought to think about this instead of just typing out your first thought.

no one has filed a grievance. no one who might be described as "stone age" has complained. read the freaking quote.

now stop and think about it. WHO is going to be described today as primitive, savage or stone age and what are the implications of using those words?

if someone is primitive or savage arent we justified in improving their society so that it is now sophisticated and moral? if someone is primitive, dont we think of them as backwards and stupid? run it around in your head for a while. what if someone called your country primitive and savage? wouldnt you find that a bit insulting?

as the world works to stamp out the remnants of tribal socieities, using words like primitive, stone age, and savage give us license to keep right on with it.

now stop and think about it. WHO is going to be described today as primitive, savage or stone age and what are the implications of using those words?
Primitive would imply that they haven't moved to far from their original state (Hence why it shares the same roots as "primary", meaning first), which would mean they use early tools and tribal systems. Nothing wrong with the word.
Stone Age has alrady been explained.
I can see people complaining about savage, as that seems to have moved from the original connotation (the "noble savage") to a less flattering one (the "savage beasts").

All the same, as a noble savage living primitively in a stone age society, I wouldn't find the terms insulting because, as a noble savage living primitively in a stone age society, I wouldn't understand English or have access to the Internet.

Stone Age refers to their level of technology, it's not a value judgment of the culture.

What idiocy.

Not if it's TooL.
Damn straight. I wish I lived in the TooL age!

The US outing anyone for being a savage, ie regressiveness, is like a new pan calling an old pan black. The new pan might not be black yet, but it's getting there.

You can see their point about not using it to describe LIVING people. Nothing wrong with using it to describe people who lived several hundred thousand years ago tho.

Aren't Stone-Age, Iron-Age and Bronze-Age used to refer to the level of technological development that a society has attained?

If a society is still using stone tools then surely 'Stone-Age' would be the correct term...

Stone Age refers to their level of technology, it's not a value judgment of the culture.

What idiocy.

QFT.

/thread

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6422581.stm



Well, that's three more phrases - "stone age", "primitive", and "savage".

We're running out of words, folks...

Stone Age, Offensive? I had always been taught that it meant the time when the first tools, made of stone, were developed. In other words, it was a step in the development of "civilization."

"primitive
c.1400, "of a thing from which something is derived, not secondary" (a sense now associated with primary), from O.Fr. primitif (fem. primitive), from L. primitivus "first or earliest of its kind," from primitus "at first," from primus "first" (see prime (adj.)). Meaning "of or belonging to the first age" is from c.1526. In Christian sense of "adhering to the qualities of the early Church" it is recorded from 1685. Of untrained artists from 1942."

The only reason the word primitive is offensive is because people have changed the meaning so it now means crude, undeveloped and unintelligent instead of the actual meaning given above.

savage (adj.)
c.1300, "wild, undomesticated, untamed" (of animals and places), from O.Fr. sauvage, salvage "wild, savage, untamed," from L.L. salvaticus, alteration of silvaticus "wild," lit. "of the woods," from silva "forest, grove." Of persons, the meaning "reckless, ungovernable" is attested from c.1400l earlier in sense "indomitable, valiant" (c.1300). Implications of ferocity are attested from 1579, earlier of animals (1407). The noun meaning "wild person" is from 1588; the verb meaning "to tear with the teeth, maul" is from 1880.

Once again, the only offense to be taken from this word derives from implied rather than actual meanings.

Knowing the basics of your language would be nice.

Can I still use paleolithic?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6422581.stm



Well, that's three more phrases - "stone age", "primitive", and "savage".

We're running out of words, folks...


I like the way you distort with the minimum of commentary. It shows you at least try.

You left out this bit of course.......

Such language has been used "as a pretext for depriving such peoples of land and other resources," says the association.

Never have truer words been spoken. "They don't deserve/they never had/they act like/until they learn to" are other phrases used in and round that kind of thing a lot too, I find.

Can I still use paleolithic?

Nope. Paleo = old, which is age-ist, and lithic = stones, which is a thinly disguised referenced to male genitals, which is rude. So that one's out, too.

Normally one tends to find that suggestions of "PC gone mad" are actually trumped up or overblown stories floated by the right-wing media to promote an implicitly racist agenda.
On this occasion, whoever made this suggestion is just an idiot, as many people have said; "Stone Age" refers explicitly to technology. Of course, in the mouths of some idiots it could be used as a derogatory term, but so could "gay" or "black", and they're perfectly valid descriptive terms.
"Barbarian", now that's offensive. Highly offensive and exceptionally arrogant.

"Barbarian", now that's offensive. Highly offensive and exceptionally arrogant.

Actually, it originally meant "bearded ones." I guess that makes me one. :p

Actually, it originally meant "bearded ones." I guess that makes me one. :p

Just because those people hadn't invented the safety razor, why should they be looked down on?

Is homo erectus still acceptable?

Is homo erectus still acceptable?

Probably only to Mrs. Erectus.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6422581.stm



Well, that's three more phrases - "stone age", "primitive", and "savage".

We're running out of words, folks...

Uh...what the fuck?

Read the damned article. It is not saying the term "stone age" is inappropriate or otherwise inaccurate. It is a perfectly viable term.

It IS saying that the term "stone age" is inappropriate to use to refer to people NOW. It implies unsophistication and savagery. That's the point. So if people are using stone tools then…?

Actually, it originally meant "bearded ones." I guess that makes me one. I heard it was taken from the "barbarbarbarbar" noises the Greeks thought foreigners were making - babble, in other words.

You can see their point about not using it to describe LIVING people. Nothing wrong with using it to describe people who lived several hundred thousand years ago tho. Sad that people are so willing to offend their ancestors, but no one else.

... I heard it was taken from the "barbarbarbarbar" noises the Greeks thought foreigners were making - babble, in other words.


That's actually true, but Cluich's explanation is slightly funnier.

Sometimes utterly justified (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519973), as well.

Unjust laws do not a society of barbarians make, or we're all barbarians.

Normally one tends to find that suggestions of "PC gone mad" are actually trumped up or overblown stories floated by the right-wing media to promote an implicitly racist agenda. That's becoming less and less true by the minute, though - which is worrying.

"Barbarian", now that's offensive. Highly offensive and exceptionally arrogant. Sometimes utterly justified (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519973), as well.

Although I doubt the ancient Germanic barbarians did that, so it is offensive to Germans.

So if people are using stone tools then…?
That doesn't mean they can't be sophisticated, while a stone top hat is quite cumbersome, it is still considered an acceptable complication by today's paleolithic man of leisure.

That's actually true, but Cluich's explanation is slightly funnier.

Well, "barba" is Latin for "beard," y'know... ;)

In all seriousness, though, it actually derives from the Greek word "barbaros," for "strange" or "foreign," and was later borrowed by the Romans (as the Romans often did).

Well, "barba" is Latin for "beard," y'know... ;)

In all seriousness, though, it actually derives from the Greek word "barbaros," for "strange" or "foreign," and was later borrowed by the Romans (as the Romans often did).

And it came to mean "strange" or "foreign" because, as Soluis pointed out, the Greeks thought that's what speakers of non-Greek languages sounded like. Indeed, the Romans were barbarians to the Greeks. So were the Egyptians, people of undeniably high culture, and the Assyrians and Babylonians, too. Ah, if they'd only learned to speak a proper language!

Now what are supposed to bomb people back to?
The pub.

The pub.

That's true, the pub's where you go to get bombed. :D Especially on December 7th, in the US, anyway.

That's true, the pub's where you go to get bombed. :D Especially on December 7th, in the US, anyway.

No, for that, you're supposed to go to Hawaii. ;)

No, for that, you're supposed to go to Hawaii. ;)

Ideally, yes, but we make do. :p

Ideally, yes, but we make do. :p

TIKI BAR!!! :D

Whats offensive about stone age?It suggests "backwardness."

The term is not, as some have suggested, merely objectively descriptive. The word "age" in particular is problematic because it frames another society as little more than a period of our own history, which we have superceded. It also suggests that the use of stone tools is merely a "phase" that a society must (or should) "grow out of." It imposes a particular idea of "progress" on people who may not embrace it.

Describing people as "using stone-based technology" is descriptive in some objective sense. Describing them as "being in the Stone Age" carries much more ideological baggage.

Western culture is not superior, it was just through an accident of geography that came to exert dominance over the world and export its own moralities, if the European continent was populated by Aztecs, Mongols, Zulus and Maori, it would be exactly as 'civilised' as it is now.I would take issue with this claim because it still universalizes Western values.

While I am familiar with the argument that conditions in Europe provided greater opportunities for technological innovation, it does not follow that any people who populated that part of the globe would have taken the same path. This would presume that any culture, given the opportunity, would want to. (And innovation was not required by the European climate, since we have evidence of "primitive" human habitation there for thousands of years, even during the difficulties of the last Ice Age.)

I would take issue with this claim because it still universalizes Western values.

While I am familiar with the argument that conditions in Europe provided greater opportunities for technological innovation, it does not follow that any people who populated that part of the globe would have taken the same path. This would presume that any culture, given the opportunity, would want to. (And innovation was not required by the European climate, since we have evidence of "primitive" human habitation there for thousands of years, even during the difficulties of the last Ice Age.)

What? Development isn't a ladder that cultures inevitably climb? *dies*

The tool age? Or is that offensive too?:eek:Yes, it is.

Any term that attempts to identify a foreign culture as falling into a "period" in Western history is inherently offensive because it does not recognize the validity of their own systems of values. We presume that they are "behind" because a certain chain of technological innovation (which happens to be our own) is either: a) necessary, or b) inherently desirable. Neither of these is the case.

Anthropology has taken post-modernism a step too far in it's studies in the field, with systems that increasingly weaken their ability to classify and categorize because some do not perceive it as appropriate. So odd,

When it comes to Academic papers, why not use the least insulting terms? I don't really understand what the fuss is about? Use technically correct terms. Be as much of an asshole as you like on your own time.

Anthropology has taken post-modernism a step too far in it's studies in the field, with systems that increasingly weaken their ability to classify and categorize because some do not perceive it as appropriate. So odd,

I've met a few anthropologists and they are some of the most fucked up people I've ever encountered. And I'm not talking the good kind of fucked up like quantum physicists and research chemists. I'm talking the bad kind of fucked up like psychiatrists and oceanographers. *nod*

Yes, it is.

Any term that attempts to identify a foreign culture as falling into a "period" in Western history is inherently offensive because it does not recognize the validity of their own systems of values. We presume that they are "behind" because a certain chain of technological innovation (which happens to be our own) is either: a) necessary, or b) inherently desirable. Neither of these is the case.

Except what we're doing is trying to understand these cultures, and we have the unavoidable bias of existing within our own paradigm. Our paradigm insists that we study and classify, develop rules and structures. So, how about you drink a nice cold glass of shut the fuck up and stop bitching about our culture.

*Hostility vented*

Describing people as "using stone-based technology" is descriptive in some objective sense. Describing them as "being in the Stone Age" carries much more ideological baggage.

does that mean I can punch someone for saying I live in the post-modern age?

Because that would be awesome:)

Stone Age, Offensive? I had always been taught that it meant the time when the first tools, made of stone, were developed. In other words, it was a step in the development of "civilization."This is exactly what makes it offensive. It reduces other cultures to a "step" in the "development" of "civilization"--our own civilization, that is. It regards them as "behind" because they have not "developed" the same capacities that we have.

It ignores the possibility (among others) that some people might prefer to live in harmony with nature. They might prefer stone tools because when they break you can drop them on the ground and the waste has zero impact on the environment. There might be a thousand other reasons that, given the choice, they do not adopt other forms of technology.

The problem is that we refuse to talk about "types" of technology. We insist on talking about "levels" of technology, taking ourselves as the standard. As if everyone else should be like us. As if they would want to be.

"primitive
c.1400, "of a thing from which something is derived, not secondary" (a sense now associated with primary),Again, offensive because it reduces another culture to "what we came from." It ignores the fact that many so-called "primitive" cultures have gone through quite interesting cultural revolutions over their thousands of years on Earth, that they have developed powerful and compelling philosophies to understand their place in the world. Indeed, it denies that we might have anything to learn from them.

The only reason the word primitive is offensive is because people have changed the meaning so it now means crude, undeveloped and unintelligent instead of the actual meaning given above.No, it is offensive for precisely the meaning given above.

savage (adj.)
c.1300, "wild, undomesticated, untamed" (of animals and places), from O.Fr. sauvage, salvage "wild, savage, untamed," from L.L. salvaticus, alteration of silvaticus "wild," lit. "of the woods," from silva "forest, grove."Do I really need to explain why this would be offensive? Of persons, the meaning "reckless, ungovernable" is attested from c.1400l earlier in sense "indomitable, valiant" (c.1300). Implications of ferocity are attested from 1579, earlier of animals (1407). The noun meaning "wild person" is from 1588; the verb meaning "to tear with the teeth, maul" is from 1880.With the exception of "indomitable, valiant," it astounds me that you would post this as evidence that the term is NOT offensive!!

It suggests "backwardness."

The term is not, as some have suggested, merely objectively descriptive. The word "age" in particular is problematic because it frames another society as little more than a period of our own history, which we have superceded. It also suggests that the use of stone tools is merely a "phase" that a society must (or should) "grow out of." It imposes a particular idea of "progress" on people who may not embrace it.

Describing people as "using stone-based technology" is descriptive in some objective sense. Describing them as "being in the Stone Age" carries much more ideological baggage.

Only if you insist on attaching said baggage, in the case of most people, "Stone age" means the exact same thing as "using stone-based technology", only it uses 19 less keystrokes.

This is exactly what makes it offensive. It reduces other cultures to a "step" in the "development" of "civilization"--our own civilization, that is. It regards them as "behind" because they have not "developed" the same capacities that we have.

It ignores the possibility (among others) that some people might prefer to live in harmony with nature. They might prefer stone tools because when they break you can drop them on the ground and the waste has zero impact on the environment. There might be a thousand other reasons that, given the choice, they do not adopt other forms of technology.


Except, that by choosing this civilizational path, we have come to the conclusion that it is the correct and right one to take, and in doing so we do and will judge other cultures based off of their civilizational choices, much as they will judge ours.

Anthropology has taken post-modernism a step too far in it's studies in the field, with systems that increasingly weaken their ability to classify and categorize because some do not perceive it as appropriate. So odd,Well, I'm not sure this has anything to do with postmodernism.

Anthropologists have acted as leaders in social science for their willingness to consider the serious philosophical issues of a human science, including the ethical implications of "studying" people as "objects" of science.

Anthropologists have come to understand that human beings are also subjects of knowledge, and once you admit that they deserve as much respect as subjects as we do ourselves you need to figure out how to understand them on their own terms. This calls for a radically new conception of how to "do" science, since the methodology inherited from the physical sciences presumes a "knowing subject" who--as you put it--classifies and categorizes the objects of knowledge.

Other social sciences (my own discipline of political science not excluded) should take a page from anthropology on this one.

Except what we're doing is trying to understand these cultures, and we have the unavoidable bias of existing within our own paradigm.How is it unavoidable? As soon as we realize what it is, we give ourselves the option of rejecting it. Our paradigm insists that we study and classify, develop rules and structures.Yes, but as human subjects we have the capacity to think about this paradigm and to decide whether the values it represents are really something we want to stand for. We always have the option to change ourselves... as individuals, as a culture, perhaps even as a species.

So, how about you drink a nice cold glass of shut the fuck up and stop bitching about our culture.Nice to know I touched a nerve!

This is exactly what makes it offensive. It reduces other cultures to a "step" in the "development" of "civilization"--our own civilization, that is. It regards them as "behind" because they have not "developed" the same capacities that we have.

…they are behind though I thought that was fairly obvious

*jumps out of water*

It ignores the possibility (among others) that some people might prefer to live in harmony with nature.

that’s a pretty big assumption to make

Tell you what give us awhile after we kill everything that can be affected by us we will also live in harmony hooray!

The problem is that we refuse to talk about "types" of technology. We insist on talking about "levels" of technology, taking ourselves as the standard. As if everyone else should be like us. As if they would want to be.

Well lets see group A and B both walk around hunter gathering as you do
Then group A discovers you can farm the food and live fairly happily and securely

Who are the smart ones here?

Now what are supposed to bomb people back to?

:D

Primordial soup?

does that mean I can punch someone for saying I live in the post-modern age?

Because that would be awesome:)You should have been doing that anyway. Postmodernism is sophomoric, and actually I don't buy into the notion that we have actually entered a "postmodern age" that can be identified with any philosophical or empirical rigor.

This is why Derrida was so freaked out when he realized that people had him completely misunderstood, leading him to make his "ethical turn" very much AGAINST what had come to be known as postmodern thought.

Well, I'm not sure this has anything to do with postmodernism.

Anthropologists have acted as leaders in social science for their willingness to consider the serious philosophical issues of a human science, including the ethical implications of "studying" people as "objects" of science.

Anthropologists have come to understand that human beings are also subjects of knowledge, and once you admit that they deserve as much respect as subjects as we do ourselves you need to figure out how to understand them on their own terms. This calls for a radically new conception of how to "do" science, since the methodology inherited from the physical sciences presumes a "knowing subject" who--as you put it--classifies and categorizes the objects of knowledge.

Other social sciences (my own discipline of political science not excluded) should take a page from anthropology on this one.

And make it impossible to actually ever draw any conclusions. Sheer brilliance.

…they are behind though I thought that was fairly obviousHow can someone be "behind" in a race he never chooses to run?

Tell you what give us awhile after we kill everything that can be affected by us we will also live in harmony hooray!Umm... are you being ironic? I sure hope so.

Well lets see group A and B both walk around hunter gathering as you do
Then group A discovers you can farm the food and live fairly happily and securely

Who are the smart ones here?Consider that one of the more interesting discoveries of recent anthropology is the fact that the gatherer-hunter lifestyle was/is the most leisurely and healthy, as well as the most sustainable and lasting, mode of existence ever known to human beings.

Words for "toil" and "work" only appear in societies that have made the "great discovery" of farming.

We also have evidence that many gatherer-hunters know how to plant and cultivate, and may do so in small doses, but that they simply do not prefer this mode of life.

This is exactly what makes it offensive. It reduces other cultures to a "step" in the "development" of "civilization"--our own civilization, that is. It regards them as "behind" because they have not "developed" the same capacities that we have.

It ignores the possibility (among others) that some people might prefer to live in harmony with nature. They might prefer stone tools because when they break you can drop them on the ground and the waste has zero impact on the environment. There might be a thousand other reasons that, given the choice, they do not adopt other forms of technology.

If you use only stone tools than you are a Stone Age civilization. It is an accurate description, nothing offensive about it. Besides, I don't see interviews with people from these cultures being "outraged" at the way they are described by others. The only ones who care are PC fanatics and anthropologists looking to make headlines.

And make it impossible to actually ever draw any conclusions. Sheer brilliance.How does it make it impossible to draw any conclusions? The point is that when we do draw conclusions about other people, we should be interested in how they understand themselves as well as in how we understand them from the "outside."

How does it make it impossible to draw any conclusions? The point is that when we do draw conclusions about other people, we should be interested in how they understand themselves as well as in how we understand them from the "outside."

Psychology did away with the concept of understanding people as "how they understand themselves" over a century ago when they did away with introspection, as when we try to take that route, we are faced with the fact that people are notoriously disingenuous with themselves. They don't tell the truth and they lie about their motivations.

Furthermore, when we try to study people on an individual basis, we cannot afford to build an entirely new framework for every society, especially when so many societies have followed a very similar route, just at varying speeds.

How can someone be "behind" in a race he never chooses to run?

:eek: it all makes sense now having children die of easily preventable illnesses is a good thing and the clock is only ticking on every else!

Umm... are you being ironic? I sure hope so.

No I’m actually pointing put that natives in harmony with nature is bullshit

Consider that one of the more interesting discoveries of recent anthropology is the fact that the gatherer-hunter lifestyle was/is the most leisurely and healthy, as well as the most sustainable and lasting, mode of existence ever known to human beings.

No farming algae and having 2.5 children is sustainable

And being forced to hunt or die is not fun to me

Words for "toil" and "work" only appear in societies that have made the "great discovery" of farming.

Hmm work and toil in exchange for a full belly and a high survivability rate in my children whatever shall I pick :rolleyes:

but that they simply do not prefer this mode of life.

Give it time and once the environment goes through a period of more hostility we will then see who doesn’t prefer having large supplies of food eh

edit: dammit why do I always have last post!?

No matter what you say, someone will be offended. Banning words and phrases does nothing to help the situation, and weakens the utility of language. Don't we have enough taboo thoughts already?

'Stone Age' is a useful term, although its origins might not be - the classification system is a lot more complex than the old Three-Age system dictated, and varies from culture to culture. It's a bit criminal that anthropology in highschool has lagged so far behind the real world.

Metal tools are, in general, more useful, easier to create in mass quantities (if you have good tools), and last a lot longer. Further, they can be used to produce stone tools more easily as well. Most cultures have developed some metalworking, and those that haven't developed steel usually adapted (at minimum) a few ways to rework foreign steel into tools they could use.

And AnarchyeL: Actually surviving and thriving beats "living in harmony with nature" any day. When you're dealing with poor-quality tools, spoiled food, and a kid that's dying of dysentery, then you can speak for these people. Not while you're sitting in front of a computer that, ironically, probably killed a couple dozen animals to ultimately produce, powered by electricity almost certainly derived through steel and plastic.

Whats offensive about stone age?

Haven't you seen the Geico commercials?

http://www.tubespot.com/pics/geico-cavemen.jpg

Whats offensive about stone age?

We used to get some very good stone-age when I was in college. Cheap, too, ten, fifteen dollars for a full ounce. :p

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6422581.stm



Well, that's three more phrases - "stone age", "primitive", and "savage".

We're running out of words, folks...

Bah. Taking offense is overrated. People should grow some skin.

Alternatively, we could resurrect dueling. Take offense, take off the glove. Ah, the good ol days...

Actually, it originally meant "bearded ones." I guess that makes me one. :p

Swinnng and a miss.

Origin: 1400–50; late ME < L barbarus < Gk bárbaros non-Greek, foreign, barbarian; akin to Skt barbara stammering, non-Aryan.

The Greeks, upon hearing the language of foreigners, said that it sounded like they were stammering, saying "var, var, var" (remember that the Greek V is the English B..."alpha, vita, ghamma...) instead of real (Greek) words.

Arrogant, yes, but that's the origin of the word. "Barbar" was what they were perceived as sounding like, and they added "-os", which came to English through Latin as "-ous", meaning "full of" or "-like". The Latin suffix "-ian" was added later, giving the word applicability to a person/people.

Yes. I am an etymology geek. I fully own that fact and revel in it.

This is a great step forward for the peoples of the neolithic period.

Swinnng and a miss.



The Greeks, upon hearing the language of foreigners, said that it sounded like they were stammering, saying "var, var, var" (remember that the Greek V is the English B..."alpha, vita, ghamma...) instead of real (Greek) words.

Arrogant, yes, but that's the origin of the word. "Barbar" was what they were perceived as sounding like, and they added "-os", which came to English through Latin as "-ous", meaning "full of" or "-like". The Latin suffix "-ian" was added later, giving the word applicability to a person/people.

Yes. I am an etymology geek. I fully own that fact and revel in it.

O Etymologistical One, beta actually was a "B" sound in ancient times, only became a "V" in modern Greek.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6422581.stm



Well, that's three more phrases - "stone age", "primitive", and "savage".

We're running out of words, folks...

so what do they want... Technology Deficent?

Untill an honest to God Caveman, or stone age denizen, or primitive or savage man comes up to me and politely asks me to stop...

I would take issue with this claim because it still universalizes Western values.

While I am familiar with the argument that conditions in Europe provided greater opportunities for technological innovation, it does not follow that any people who populated that part of the globe would have taken the same path. This would presume that any culture, given the opportunity, would want to. (And innovation was not required by the European climate, since we have evidence of "primitive" human habitation there for thousands of years, even during the difficulties of the last Ice Age.)

Conditions in Europe allow for very productive farming. Very productive farming leads to surplus. Surplus can be invested into other means of production, cities are built, and things develope from there.

If a tribe does not want to develop their land to its full capacity they will be wiped out by their neighbours who do want to develop it. It may not be fair, but as long as cultures are not in a vacuum they are forced to compete or die.

From there, the values that a society adopts are directly dependent on its geographical conditions. An agrarian society is trained to consider their decisions on a seasonal scale, (what should I plant now to feed my family in the winter?), and this breeds conservative thought. Urban societies are trained to consider their decisions in the short term, (who's looking for work so I can buy some dinner tonight?), this breeds radical thought. Once you have densely packed areas of argumentitive radicals, you have two choices, eternal conflict, or tolerant coexistance. The former may win out from time to time but it will eventually be the latter that becomes the glorified ideal.

I maintain that if I were to travel back in time and replace the peoples of Europe with the peoples of other parts of the world, that European values would evolve in almost exactly the same way.

so what do they want... Technology Deficent?

Technologically Challenged?

The US outing anyone for being a savage, ie regressiveness, is like a new pan calling an old pan black. The new pan might not be black yet, but it's getting there.


Way to insert off topic ad hominem anti-US bs. Maybe focusing on the discussion at hand would be better? There are plenty of threads for US bashing.

Using the term Stone Age would be appropriate when discussing the toolkit used by tribal people in many cases. It has no derogatory meaning other than in the heads of politically correct anthropology professors.

O Etymologistical One, beta actually was a "B" sound in ancient times, only became a "V" in modern Greek.

That stands to reason, since the Greek I learned was certainly modern. My Greek ex-fiancee's mother knew Attic Greek, but never spoke it. I never bothered to ask about B/V. What's your source, if I may ask?

Way to insert off topic ad hominem anti-US bs. Maybe focusing on the discussion at hand would be better? There are plenty of threads for US bashing.

Ad nationem, surely?

And AnarchyeL, you seem to have a very misguided view of pre-agrarian society. If a life expectancy of 35, chronic disease and the everyday chance of being eaten is what you consider leisure... well, I'll just keep my swimming pool membership TYVM.

The idea that 'Harmony with Nature' is somehow an admirable goal is a distinctly modern one. And it is distinctly modern because it has only been since the Industrial Revolution that one could afford to think like that without risking extinction.

Aren't Stone-Age, Iron-Age and Bronze-Age used to refer to the level of technological development that a society has attained?

If a society is still using stone tools then surely 'Stone-Age' would be the correct term...

No. They refer to a period of time, not a technological level. To say that a society today is in the Stone Age is incorrect.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6422581.stm



Well, that's three more phrases - "stone age", "primitive", and "savage".

We're running out of words, folks...

The liberals that keep trying to ban stuff because its offensive are like the left wing version of Saudi lawmakers. They're running out of stuff to ban too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6422581.stm



Well, that's three more phrases - "stone age", "primitive", and "savage".

We're running out of words, folks...

And the Irish might find the follwoing very offensive with justification:
Paddy.
Mick.
St. Paddy's day.

Pad·dy /ˈpædi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pad-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -dies.
1. Slang: Often Disparaging. an Irishman or a person of Irish descent.

Mick /mɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun (often lowercase) Slang: Usually Disparaging and Offensive.
a person of Irish birth or descent.

(source www.dictionary.com)

So, one would presume that "Neolithic" is still OK?

So, one would presume that "Neolithic" is still OK?

Not in this context, since it's the wrong word. Neolithic and Stone Age refer to a time period, and thus should not be used to refer to a technological level. The use of Stone Age to refer to a technological level is what is being attacked.

Man, this is going to just destroy the caveman comedy.

After several attempts at producing a longer reply, I have decided that the rampant prejudice and stereotyping in this thread simply are not worth my time. No one seems very interested in turning this into a civil discussion, anyway.

And AnarchyeL, you seem to have a very misguided view of pre-agrarian society. If a life expectancy of 35, chronic disease and the everyday chance of being eaten is what you consider leisure... well, I'll just keep my swimming pool membership TYVM.Okay, I actually couldn't just let this one slide.

In response, I'll simply ask you to read... well, pretty much any anthropological work on gatherer-hunters published in the last twenty years.

Life expectancy? After discounting for infant deaths, about the same as the post-industrial upper class.

Disease? Disease is largely the product of civilization, particularly diseases contracted from domesticated animals and overcrowded, unsanitary conditions.

Why do you think Native Americans were wiped out by European diseases, and not the other way around? Because Native Americans had simply never been exposed to most deadly diseases before.

Being eaten? BEING EATEN?? By what, exactly? Human beings have no natural predators, and so-called "primitives" are exceptionally good at evading the rare starving lion that might try to turn them into lunch. Generally speaking, animal attacks are the result of some human doing something stupid... and it's really only "modern" humans who have forgotten how to behave around dangerous animals.

Fuck, you people are wrapped up in your stereotypes.

Life expectancy? After discounting for infant deaths, about the same as the post-industrial upper class.

Infants dying are still deaths; if anything, high infant mortality is a sign of other problems like disease, poor sanitation and living conditions, and malnutrition. It's hardly a good thing and is a sign of other serious shortfalls in quality of life. A society that has a high enough infant mortality rate to cause its life expectancy to plummet to levels that low is one with serious problems.

A person in one of those societies has a much, much lower chance of surviving to that level as a person living in a developed society. And, unlike developed societies that level can't improve or change.

Disease? Disease is largely the product of civilization, particularly diseases contracted from domesticated animals and overcrowded, unsanitary conditions.

They have problems with diseases as well. That's why infant mortality is so much higher than in developed nations, along with other problems like poor living conditions and food insecurity. So, they have many of the same problems with disease, malnutrition, and poor living conditions but without any of the benefits of civilization like healthcare, medicine, and sanitation. Civilization has enabled more and more of us to escape the things that continue to plague them, and continued advancement enables us to treat and reverse conditions that earlier civilizations would have seen as incurable.

Civilization builds on its prior advancement in an increasingly faster feedback loop of technological advancement with the result being that each successive generation of technology advanced further and in less time than the prior one. That's an evolutionary and societal advantage that hunter-gatherer societies can't even begin to rival.

Why do you think Native Americans were wiped out by European diseases, and not the other way around? Because Native Americans had simply never been exposed to most deadly diseases before.

And that shows that their lifestyle is inherently disadvantageous compared to civilized ones.

Those resistances to disease and the scientific/technical knowledge that civilization spurs have given us and continue to give us a giant advantage over them, and our quality of life benefits significantly as a result. If a given system works better than its competitors it will most likely be dominant.

Whats offensive about stone age?The bronze age? Not quite as bad... it could even be considered an improvement for some people... Hmm... not sure really.

Ad nationem, surely?


Actually, I think it'd be "ad patriam," if my memory of Latin serves.

And the Irish might find the follwoing very offensive with justification:
Paddy.
Mick.
St. Paddy's day.

Pad·dy /ˈpædi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pad-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -dies.
1. Slang: Often Disparaging. an Irishman or a person of Irish descent.

Mick /mɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun (often lowercase) Slang: Usually Disparaging and Offensive.
a person of Irish birth or descent.

(source www.dictionary.com)

A friend of mine at uni actually wrote a very funny letter to our school paper some 15 years or so ago, complaining about how he was offended by the term "paddywagon." Back then, the PC gears were really just starting to churn in a major way, so they printed it. However, when I later spoke with some of the paper's editors, I found that they hadn't gotten that the letter had been intended as satire.

Well, that's three more phrases - "stone age", "primitive", and "savage".
We're running out of words, folks...

These social archaeologists are idiots.

They don't even realise that "stone age" describes a technological level of a society (the level based on stone technology), just as "bronze age" is appropriated to describe a technological society based on the use of bronze, "iron age" is appropriated for the Romans etc up to the "electric age" and the "atomic age".
Social archaeologists should mind about their work and stop talking about modern language.

"Savage" comes through french from the latin "silva" (and its related "silvanus", "silvestris") meaning woods and inhabitant of the woods. It is opposed to "civilized", that comes from the latin "civitas" (city) and "civis" (citizen) - that is, inhabitant of an area that has been transformed heavily to suit human needs and comfort.

I do hate political correctness. Expecially when it comes from ignorance.

Political Correctness offends me and insults my intelligence, so by it's own logic it should now cease and desist. It is no longer politically correct to be politically correct since it offends some people.

Political Correctness offends me and insults my intelligence, so by it's own logic it should now cease and desist. It is no longer politically correct to be politically correct since it offends some people.


I have to agree, I think that political correctness is being taken just a bit to far. I wasn't aware that any actual caveman or men are still alive now so what is the point. Oh and don't tell me it's the cavemen from the Insurance commercial. I believe the real problem here is certain people are trying to use anything they can think of to keep our minds of the real issues of the day so they can further there agenda without interference.

Political Correctness offends me and insults my intelligence, so by it's own logic it should now cease and desist. It is no longer politically correct to be politically correct since it offends some people.


agreed, so all u politically correct correctors ..... :upyours:

They don't even realise that "stone age" describes a technological level of a society (the level based on stone technology), just as "bronze age" is appropriated to describe a technological society based on the use of bronze, "iron age" is appropriated for the Romans etc up to the "electric age" and the "atomic age".


Wrong. Stone Age refers to a period of time, not a technological level.

These social archaeologists are idiots.

They don't even realise that "stone age" describes a technological level of a society (the level based on stone technology), just as "bronze age" is appropriated to describe a technological society based on the use of bronze, "iron age" is appropriated for the Romans etc up to the "electric age" and the "atomic age".
Social archaeologists should mind about their work and stop talking about modern language.

"Savage" comes through french from the latin "silva" (and its related "silvanus", "silvestris") meaning woods and inhabitant of the woods. It is opposed to "civilized", that comes from the latin "civitas" (city) and "civis" (citizen) - that is, inhabitant of an area that has been transformed heavily to suit human needs and comfort.
I do hate political correctness. Expecially when it comes from ignorance.

Well, there it is, it's the French! When will this scourge upon the earth be eliminated? :p

I have to agree about the incredible nuisance Political Correctness has become.

Infants dying are still deaths;Yes, but I don't really consider it a "quality of life" issue. The quality of life is very good for the people who survive past infancy. Those who don't are not in a position to complain.

if anything, high infant mortality is a sign of other problems like disease, poor sanitation and living conditions, and malnutrition.That is an empirical question, and the data is not on your side. Many, many animals have a very high infant mortality rate without also having disease, poor sanitation and living conditions, or malnutrition. The causes are all related to what happens in the first few weeks of life, not thereafter.

A society that has a high enough infant mortality rate to cause its life expectancy to plummet to levels that low is one with serious problems.There is no "logical" question here, this is an empirical question. However natural it may seem to you that infant mortality indicates a low standard of living, the fact of the matter is that anthropologists have discovered a very high standard of living among gatherer-hunters.

And, unlike developed societies that level can't improve or change.You are clearly completely unable or unwilling to accept the fact that not everyone in the world wants to live as you do.

For that matter, in all likelihood not everyone CAN. When Westerners and Americans in particular think about "development," they tend to have this naive idea that everyone else can be "raised up" (so many problems already) to their level. The fact of the matter is that if the wasteful consumer lifestyle of advanced capitalism were really spread to the entire world, the Earth wouldn't last a week. It is completely, inherently unsustainable.

Civilization has enabled more and more of us to escape the things that continue to plague them, and continued advancement enables us to treat and reverse conditions that earlier civilizations would have seen as incurable.At what cost? So more of us survive... to work, and work hard, for most of their lives. While this may be a trade-off that we find very natural, there is nothing objectively "better" about many long lives of toil as opposed to fewer long lives of leisure.

Civilization builds on its prior advancement in an increasingly faster feedback loop of technological advancement with the result being that each successive generation of technology advanced further and in less time than the prior one. That's an evolutionary and societal advantage that hunter-gatherer societies can't even begin to rival.But again, the question is whether they would want to.

And that shows that their lifestyle is inherently disadvantageous compared to civilized ones.No, it shows that they value different things in life.

our quality of life benefits significantly as a result."Quality" is a judgment. It depends on values. Unless you're prepared to rehash the old, tired arguments attempting to establish objective values--even against the immense consensus in economics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and philosophy that value is inherently relative--then you should just drop it.

Yes, but I don't really consider it a "quality of life" issue. The quality of life is very good for the people who survive past infancy. Those who don't are not in a position to complain.

So, it's okay for kids to die of diseases and conditions that are preventable and curable since those who are lucky enough to avoid them can live fairly well?

That is an empirical question, and the data is not on your side. Many, many animals have a very high infant mortality rate without also having disease, poor sanitation and living conditions, or malnutrition. The causes are all related to what happens in the first few weeks of life, not thereafter.

And what causes them to die in those first few weeks?

It must be one of those things since infant mortality is far lower in countries that have good healthcare, food security, and better living conditions than ones that don't. There's a clear relationship there.

There is no "logical" question here, this is an empirical question. However natural it may seem to you that infant mortality indicates a low standard of living, the fact of the matter is that anthropologists have discovered a very high standard of living among gatherer-hunters.

Among those who survive. There are still very large numbers of people dying, and honestly I don't think it's desirable or right that human beings should be sacrificed so that a lucky few can enjoy the benefits.

You are clearly completely unable or unwilling to accept the fact that not everyone in the world wants to live as you do.

If they don't want it, I honestly couldn't care less. More for me.

For that matter, in all likelihood not everyone CAN. When Westerners and Americans in particular think about "development," they tend to have this naive idea that everyone else can be "raised up" (so many problems already) to their level. The fact of the matter is that if the wasteful consumer lifestyle of advanced capitalism were really spread to the entire world, the Earth wouldn't last a week. It is completely, inherently unsustainable.

Well, yeah. But there's a huge difference between that kind of consumer society and a developed country; you can have food security, good healthcare, good living conditions, and economic stability without necessarily developing a consumer society.

And anyways, a consumer society would be their choice. The only reason we have one is because people want it and are willing to work for it...that's a free decision that they've made.

At what cost? So more of us survive... to work, and work hard, for most of their lives. While this may be a trade-off that we find very natural, there is nothing objectively "better" about many long lives of toil as opposed to fewer long lives of leisure.

I don't think that's something anyone can comment on. I hardly believe that allowing children to die so a privileged few can live a life of relative leisure is equivalent to our own lifestyle.

But again, the question is whether they would want to.

If they can't, their societies will end up dying out like other cultures have in the past.

No, it shows that they value different things in life.

Their values are their values and there is no objective measure of their worth, but whether they enable them to compete for the same scarce resources as civilization is another thing entirely; ultimately, we're all fighting for the same things, and those who are better armed for the fight are going to get them quite likely at the expense of those less armed.

"Quality" is a judgment. It depends on values. Unless you're prepared to rehash the old, tired arguments attempting to establish objective values--even against the immense consensus in economics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and philosophy that value is inherently relative--then you should just drop it.

Yes, and the vast majority of people around the world judge our quality of life as inherently better. So, it doesn't matter whether these things are objective or not as long as people want them.

So, it's okay for kids to die of diseases and conditions that are preventable and curable since those who are lucky enough to avoid them can live fairly well?I had this debate in a thread on primitivism some time ago. I'm sorry you missed it, but I don't care to rehash the entire argument here. To summarize, my position was (and is) that while infant mortality is sad and unfortunate, its prevention is not (objectively) sufficient reason to enslave the entire adult race to the thousands of years of toil necessary to produce modern medicine.

(Note that "civilization" did not manage to reduce infant mortality until very, very recently.)

And what causes them to die in those first few weeks?

It must be one of those things since infant mortality is far lower in countries that have good healthcare, food security, and better living conditions than ones that don't. There's a clear relationship there.First, health care is the real key to low infant mortality in the modern world, and it is true that if a society does not have modern medicine it will probably have high infant mortality. But it does not follow from this that it will also have a high rate of adult diseases, the causes of which are separable from the causes of infant mortality. (The fact that health care is key should be obvious from the fact that the United States still has significantly higher infant mortality rates than many comparable countries, the difference being that other countries offer quality, universal health care while the United States is generally willing to let the poor fend for themselves.)

Secondly, as I have already stressed, modern anthropology has shown that gatherer-hunters have very high food security--it is agrarian societies with their dense populations and weather-sensitive food sources that are most subject to famine and drought. Gatherer-hunter societies have very stable populations. It's just that a lot of their children die in infancy, a fact that is true of many, many natural species that do not also suffer from chronic disease or dramatic adult die-offs.

It is perfectly normal for large numbers of offspring to die in infancy. It is much less natural for a species to be plagued by constant disease, and as I have already pointed out the rampant diseases to which humans are subject are the RESULT of civilization. And it's only been in the last two hundred years or so that civilization has been able to treat the very problems it created.

Among those who survive. There are still very large numbers of people dying, and honestly I don't think it's desirable or right that human beings should be sacrificed so that a lucky few can enjoy the benefits.And I don't think that an entire race should enter perpetual servitude to save the lives of those who would have died naturally... and who will ultimately pay off the debt of their salvation by toiling themselves.

But there's a huge difference between that kind of consumer society and a developed country; you can have food security, good healthcare, good living conditions, and economic stability without necessarily developing a consumer society.Agreed. I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page.

And anyways, a consumer society would be their choice. The only reason we have one is because people want it and are willing to work for it...that's a free decision that they've made.Well, but it is not a sustainable society, and it is ultimately one that depends on the exploitation of the rest of the world. Try maintaining a market with cheap consumer goods after the so-called "Third World" manages to become developed enough to negotiate on relatively equal terms.If they can't, their societies will end up dying out like other cultures have in the past.Gatherer-hunter society is the longest-lasting form of economic organization on the planet. It is inherently sustainable, and it will never die out in the course of its own internal logic.

The only reason such cultures have died out is that they have been destroyed by the aggressions of more "civilized" societies. If you're so concerned about the justice or rightness of allowing infants to die a natural death so that the living can live happily, healthfully, and peacefully... then why don't you chew on the ethics of imperialism for a while?

Their values are their values and there is no objective measure of their worth, but whether they enable them to compete for the same scarce resources as civilization is another thing entirely; ultimately, we're all fighting for the same things, and those who are better armed for the fight are going to get them quite likely at the expense of those less armed.If we're all "fighting" for what we want, then how can you ground an argument from justice or fairness about the deaths of infants? From this line of reasoning, if it suits people to live in leisure rather than save some infants, what's wrong with that? If it's acceptable to steal other people's resources because they're "less advanced" or "unable to compete," then how can it possibly be wrong to refuse to concern one's self with infants who die a perfectly natural death?

You are being highly inconsistent in your ethical assumptions here.

Shit, I hate to think what these people would do if they saw a Geico comercial. oh wait...

I'm so going to get this forum sued...

Posting on NSG, so easy a CAVEMAN can do it

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/9307/alanpartridgelh4.th.jpg (http://img341.imageshack.us/my.php?image=alanpartridgelh4.jpg)

I'm so going to get this forum sued...

Posting on NSG, so easy a CAVEMAN can do it
If New Mitanni can do it, a caveman certainly can ;)

I had this debate in a thread on primitivism some time ago. I'm sorry you missed it, but I don't care to rehash the entire argument here. To summarize, my position was (and is) that while infant mortality is sad and unfortunate, its prevention is not (objectively) sufficient reason to enslave the entire adult race to the thousands of years of toil necessary to produce modern medicine.

So it is acceptable to sacrifice a significant portion of your population, condemning them to an early and preventable death, so that everyone doesn't have to work hard? That sounds disturbingly similar to The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas in all honesty.

(Note that "civilization" did not manage to reduce infant mortality until very, very recently.)

But it did. That's the important difference.

First, health care is the real key to low infant mortality in the modern world, and it is true that if a society does not have modern medicine it will probably have high infant mortality. But it does not follow from this that it will also have a high rate of adult diseases, the causes of which are separable from the causes of infant mortality. (The fact that health care is key should be obvious from the fact that the United States still has significantly higher infant mortality rates than many comparable countries, the difference being that other countries offer quality, universal health care while the United States is generally willing to let the poor fend for themselves.)

Well, yeah, but that has more to do with political and cultural factors than anything else; the US could have universal healthcare but for one reason or another we don't. However, that can change if people want it.

And again, adult diseases can be cured and reversed in our society, which is something hunter-gatherer societies can't do. So, unlike them we can eliminate much of our infant mortality but also causes of death in adults.

Secondly, as I have already stressed, modern anthropology has shown that gatherer-hunters have very high food security--it is agrarian societies with their dense populations and weather-sensitive food sources that are most subject to famine and drought. Gatherer-hunter societies have very stable populations. It's just that a lot of their children die in infancy, a fact that is true of many, many natural species that do not also suffer from chronic disease or dramatic adult die-offs.

Hunter-gatherer societites and agricultural ones aren't that distinct. Many hunter-gatherers do farm from time to time to supplement their nutrition and there are cases of agricultural communities reverting to gathering during famine, so the line is pretty blurred at the subsistence level where food insecurity occurs.

And again, I don't see how a human sacrifice at birth can be justified in terms of buying leisure and food security for those who are fortunate enough to survive.

It is perfectly normal for large numbers of offspring to die in infancy. It is much less natural for a species to be plagued by constant disease, and as I have already pointed out the rampant diseases to which humans are subject are the RESULT of civilization. And it's only been in the last two hundred years or so that civilization has been able to treat the very problems it created.

Natural doesn't mean good. I don't think the life of leisure of a privileged few is morally desirable when it is built on the deaths of countless others.

In the end, civilized society has managed both to circumvent the loss of our children as well as the diseases that our civilization has suffered as a result. So, we've improved both our health as well as the number of people who survive to live their lives...the hunter gatherers have done neither.

And I don't think that an entire race should enter perpetual servitude to save the lives of those who would have died naturally... and who will ultimately pay off the debt of their salvation by toiling themselves.

People don't work that hard today. In the developed world, the "work" we do is almost entirely nonphysical; it's mentally draining and stressful at times, but far from a life of toil. Our technology has by and large enabled us to escape that toil and achieve a significant amount of leisure time combined with the benefits of civilization.

Well, but it is not a sustainable society, and it is ultimately one that depends on the exploitation of the rest of the world. Try maintaining a market with cheap consumer goods after the so-called "Third World" manages to become developed enough to negotiate on relatively equal terms.

Prices will rise, and people will have to make do with less until alternative sources of raw materials or more efficient production enables us to meet more demand. That's the way it's been throughout the history of civilization; wood was replaced by coal, which was replaced by oil and gas, which are now being replaced by renewables and nuclear, and so on. We will not be capable of living the same lifestyle we do now, just like cultures did in the past when they exhausted their resources and had to replace them.

Gatherer-hunter society is the longest-lasting form of economic organization on the planet. It is inherently sustainable, and it will never die out in the course of its own internal logic.

Neither will civilization; capitalism will eventually, but like all economic systems it is replaced by a more efficient system capable of allocating resources in the most productive manner possible.

The only reason such cultures have died out is that they have been destroyed by the aggressions of more "civilized" societies. If you're so concerned about the justice or rightness of allowing infants to die a natural death so that the living can live happily, healthfully, and peacefully... then why don't you chew on the ethics of imperialism for a while?

I consider imperialism to be completely and utterly wrong. Fair trade free from exploitation or pressure from government is ultimately the only morally right kind of commerce between groups, and those groups do have the freedom to not do so as well. Forcing someone to trade or deal against their will is no different than slavery.

If we're all "fighting" for what we want, then how can you ground an argument from justice or fairness about the deaths of infants? From this line of reasoning, if it suits people to live in leisure rather than save some infants, what's wrong with that? If it's acceptable to steal other people's resources because they're "less advanced" or "unable to compete," then how can it possibly be wrong to refuse to concern one's self with infants who die a perfectly natural death?

I'm not saying it's acceptable. I'm saying that at present, there are going to be people who will exploit their position of technological and numerical superiority to take what they want from those who are unable to defend. The problem is, hunter-gatherer societies have a very difficult time resisting that exploitation and it will eventually destroy many of them.

You are being highly inconsistent in your ethical assumptions here.

No, I'm simply observing that society is not capable of always reigning in those who would steal what they want rather than trade for it fairly and that can lead to the better equipped taking what they want through force.

It's not right at all, in fact it's a great evil comparable to any of the genocides of the past, but it is happening and it will destroy many hunter-gatherer cultures.

So it is acceptable to sacrifice a significant portion of your population, condemning them to an early and preventable death, so that everyone doesn't have to work hard? That sounds disturbingly similar to The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas in all honesty.There is a significant moral difference between "sacrificing" someone and allowing him to die through inaction.

If the actions required to save someone were particularly limited or easy, perhaps, we might hold someone accountable for negligence to act--but even then we would probably regard this person as having committed a lesser crime than the individual who intentionally kills someone.

More importantly, at some point the extent of the efforts require absolve me from ethical responsibility. I am sure there are many children dying in South America right now who could survive if I really went out of my way to help them. It would be commendable of me to do so, but given the personal sacrifice involved few people would hold me morally accountable for their deaths.

Now, if I'm living in a gatherer-hunter society and lots of my babies are dying, you want to tell me that if my entire civilization enslaves itself, in a few thousand years we can reduce infant mortality... and you want to call it a moral wrong to say, "no thanks"? Seriously?

But it did. That's the important difference.So how would you have justified an objective preference for civilization 500 years ago? Would you have told them that it's all worth it because in a few hundred years we would start saving babies? You can neither explain nor justify the historical turn towards civilization without assuming a bizarre teleological principle that subsumes every aspect and moment of civilized life as directed toward one extraordinarily narrow range of its effects. As if "all this" has been so that we can save infants from death.

And again, adult diseases can be cured and reversed in our society, which is something hunter-gatherer societies can't do.You're not paying attention. Adult diseases are extremely rare among gatherer-hunters, because their society lacks most of the causes of disease.Disease is caused and spread by proximity with domesticated animals, crowded conditions, unsanitary conditions; and, especially in the last few hundred years, constant exposure to toxic pollutants.

Hunter-gatherer societites and agricultural ones aren't that distinct. Many hunter-gatherers do farm from time to time to supplement their nutrition and there are cases of agricultural communities reverting to gathering during famine, so the line is pretty blurred at the subsistence level where food insecurity occurs.Blurry lines are lines nevertheless--and the fact of the matter is that the gatherer-hunter mode of existence (and it is gatherer-hunter, not hunter-gatherer, since we have come to understand that their primary activity is gathering) is the more sustainable and the more resilient against vicissitudes in the food supply. You are right that some occasionally plant a few vegetables to supplement their nutrition, but they do not farm as a major source of food. You can call this "agrarian" about as well as you can say I "farm" because I have an herb garden.

When "primitive" agrarian societies face a crisis, however, their "reversion" to the gathering mode is extremely violent: many weaken and die because gathering cannot support their numbers

But, I guess you just chalk this up to the "risk" involved in beginning the long trek towards one day saving babies.

People don't work that hard today. In the developed world, the "work" we do is almost entirely nonphysical; it's mentally draining and stressful at times, but far from a life of toil.You're universalizing your own values again. Even within post industrial societies, some people prefer physical labor to intellectual work. You cannot tell them that they are "wrong," that intellectual labor is objectively less draining, alienating, or enjoyable.

More importantly, by comparing mental labor to physical labor you attempt to avoid the point: the real question is between laboring and not laboring, and whether it is reasonable for a society to strongly prefer a life of true leisure. Personally, I happen to enjoy the intellectual labor that I do, and I do not prefer such a life of leisure--but I cannot begrudge it to those who do.

Our technology has by and large enabled us to escape that toil and achieve a significant amount of leisure time combined with the benefits of civilization.So, at best it's a compromise. But what right do we have to tell other people that they "must" or "should" compromise? Isn't there some dignity in standing up for principle, in refusing to sacrifice their core values to peripheral (to them) interests?

I consider imperialism to be completely and utterly wrong. Fair trade free from exploitation or pressure from government is ultimately the only morally right kind of commerce between groups, and those groups do have the freedom to not do so as well. Forcing someone to trade or deal against their will is no different than slavery.Well, now we're getting somewhere.

My point in this thread has been that using words like "Stone Age" bolsters imperialist ideologies even when the people using the term do not intend it to do so. Ideologies are transmitted and reproduced through mental frames that are constructed through language. In this case, the aspects of a culture to which we call people's attention (their type of technology, described as a "level" of technology) affect how they subconsciously evaluate them.

The problem is, hunter-gatherer societies have a very difficult time resisting that exploitation and it will eventually destroy many of them.That is undoubtedly true. But that does not mean you can tell them that our way of life is "better." It may be difficult to imagine, but what you have to accept is that they may prefer not to exist rather than to be like us.

Don't pay attention.

Elric would last no longer than twenty seconds in a hunter gatherer society. Seriously.

Elric would last no longer than twenty seconds in a hunter gatherer society. Seriously.Did I say otherwise?

Did I say otherwise?

So you basically advocate your own death?

Isn't calling someone a "tool" derogatory?
Indeed.

Aren't Stone-Age, Iron-Age and Bronze-Age used to refer to the level of technological development that a society has attained?

If a society is still using stone tools then surely 'Stone-Age' would be the correct term...

Well, it is more commonly used as a term for specific periods of time, but yes you are more or less correct. The real problem is is that people correlate "Stone Age" and "Primitive" as being unintelligent.

Savage, on the other hand, is a terrible word that in no way even remotely describes most of the people it is applied to.

You can see their point about not using it to describe LIVING people. Nothing wrong with using it to describe people who lived several hundred thousand years ago tho.
Well, if the people in question use stone tools, then "Stone Age" is entirely accurate.

So you basically advocate your own death?No. Putting me in a gatherer-hunter situation might be a lot like taking any domesticated animal and releasing it to the wild. They often have great difficulty adapting and surviving to their new environment and way of life. There's nothing surprising about that.

I'm not "advocating" gatherer-hunter lifestyle, at least not in this thread. I am merely arguing that we have no right to claim that our way of life is "objectively" better.

Indeed, to reverse your argument, gatherer-hunters who have been brought into civilization also have difficulties adapting. Many of them succumb to addiction (e.g. alcohol) or depression.

So I don't see how the ability or inability to transfer radically from one mode of life to the other is of any relevance here.

Well, if the people in question use stone tools, then "Stone Age" is entirely accurate.Why not "Stone-based technology," which would be much more value neutral.

As I have already stressed, the real problem here is the word "Age." It attempts to reduce other cultures to a "stage" in our own development. It takes our progress as "primary" or "essential" or "given" and measures everyone else by their relationship to us.

Gatherer-hunter societies have very stable populations. It's just that a lot of their children die in infancy, a fact that is true of many, many natural species that do not also suffer from chronic disease or dramatic adult die-offs.
The kids normally die in infancy because of: poor living conditions, disease, starvation or weather. They do not normally just die on the spot - cot-death being an example, which is really very rare.


It is perfectly normal for large numbers of offspring to die in infancy. It is much less natural for a species to be plagued by constant disease, and as I have already pointed out the rampant diseases to which humans are subject are the RESULT of civilization. And it's only been in the last two hundred years or so that civilization has been able to treat the very problems it created.
You think that other species in the world don't suffer from widespread disease? Seriously?

This is exactly what makes it offensive. It reduces other cultures to a "step" in the "development" of "civilization"--our own civilization, that is. It regards them as "behind" because they have not "developed" the same capacities that we have.

It ignores the possibility (among others) that some people might prefer to live in harmony with nature. They might prefer stone tools because when they break you can drop them on the ground and the waste has zero impact on the environment. There might be a thousand other reasons that, given the choice, they do not adopt other forms of technology.

The problem is that we refuse to talk about "types" of technology. We insist on talking about "levels" of technology, taking ourselves as the standard. As if everyone else should be like us. As if they would want to be.

Again, offensive because it reduces another culture to "what we came from." It ignores the fact that many so-called "primitive" cultures have gone through quite interesting cultural revolutions over their thousands of years on Earth, that they have developed powerful and compelling philosophies to understand their place in the world. Indeed, it denies that we might have anything to learn from them.

No, it is offensive for precisely the meaning given above.

Do I really need to explain why this would be offensive? With the exception of "indomitable, valiant," it astounds me that you would post this as evidence that the term is NOT offensive!!


What if you dropped the "Age" which is the part that is suggestive of a period of development? So you'd have a stone-tool culture or an iron-tool culture, etc. Much like we have a Christian culture or Muslim culture or democratic culture, etc.

It seems that there are ways to express the same things without the idea that one must develop past their current status.

The word primitive, in my estimation, is unsalvagable. In most cultures, when the term is used it is not accurate as they have moved past the roots of thousands of years ago in multiple ways, just not the ways that are important to us.

Why not "Stone-based technology," which would be much more value neutral.

As I have already stressed, the real problem here is the word "Age." It attempts to reduce other cultures to a "stage" in our own development. It takes our progress as "primary" or "essential" or "given" and measures everyone else by their relationship to us.

Apparently, I'm a couple of posts behind. I agree.

"Barbarian", now that's offensive. Highly offensive and exceptionally arrogant.

cos trouser wearing peoples are an endangered minority.

personally for me, i do not see a problem with using the word stone age in a true statement. the problem comes with the way people perceive what it means. if we simply change the word then over time the perception will change back to what it was with the original term. its no different with how derogatory terms changed over time that where used to indicate the race of someone who's ancestry was that of someone from Africa. the only way that this cycle can be broken is if the perception of the majority of people (idiotic people anyways) changes.
but then again i am just a board 15 year old

personally for me, i do not see a problem with using the word stone age in a true statement. the problem comes with the way people perceive what it means.No, you cannot simply cut up denotation and connotation and insist that a word only "means" one of them. That's not how language works.

There are lots of ways to describe the objective fact that a culture uses stone tools, but only one of them is particularly offensive. They may all "mean" the same thing to the extent that they describe the type of technology that people use, but the term "Stone Age" does more--it implicitly reduces a culture to a stage in the development of our own.

It is grossly offencive and imperially-minded to view world cultures on some sort of scale with primitive, rock-eating trogladites on one side and us as the bastion of Civilisation on the other.

Even if they do live in the exact same way primitive man did thousands of years ago? That doesn't make them primitive? Or can we just not say it?

[QUOTE=Greyenivol Colony;12402105]
Western culture is not superior, it was just through an accident of geography that came to exert dominance over the world and export its own moralities, if the European continent was populated by Aztecs, Mongols, Zulus and Maori, it would be exactly as 'civilised' as it is now.

Yeah, because they wouldn't still be about twenty years from inventing the wheel. This ain't about looking at none Western countries and looking down our noses at them- this is about classifying those people who have not moved on.

If we're talking about offensive I have a Chinese friend who calls me "the chocolate man" all the time, he ain't joking either- am I supposed to not be offended by that?

But I'd love to be called a primitive, stone-age savage. The stone-age is awesome! IN fact, if all my plans and schemes fail, I'm going to create a stone-age tribe of hermits and throw rocks at strangers who visit our forest. :D

But I'd love to be called a primitive, stone-age savage. The stone-age is awesome! IN fact, if all my plans and schemes fail, I'm going to create a stone-age tribe of hermits and throw rocks at strangers who visit our forest. :D


But others, who have not forsaken the bulldozer, automatic rifle and hand grenade will come to your forest, saying "These savages are living in the stone age"....Its the circle of life....

So it is acceptable to sacrifice a significant portion of your population, condemning them to an early and preventable death, so that everyone doesn't have to work hard? That sounds disturbingly similar to The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas in all honesty.
No one suggested that. The fact is if you wish to cast such a spin on things, then all societies do this. We sacrifice significant portions of populations condeming them to early and preventable death all the time rather than say doing away with all motor vehicals, banning the sale of foods that cannot be reasonably construed to fit in with a healthy balanced diet, banning any sport where the liklihood of death or injury is increased, civil rights, heck any number of things. The difference between what Anarchyl suggests and what you accept as justified and desirable sacrifices, is that you are encultured to accept those sacrifices made regularly in your society as 'normal' and are encultured to veiw other kinds of sacrifices as objectionable.

But it did. That's the important difference.
It increased it too. So far it increased it for a longer period of time and over greater distance than it has reduced it. At this point it still has increased infant mortality to a greater extent than it has reduced it and we have at least as much reason to believe this will continue to be the case, as we have to conclude otherwise.

Well, yeah, but that has more to do with political and cultural factors than anything else; the US could have universal healthcare but for one reason or another we don't. However, that can change if people want it.
Can it? Which people? And why if it's better wouldnt they want it already (and if they want it already and will have it if they want it, why dont they want it already)? If they dont want it already, why wouldnt they if it's inherently better? If it's not inherently better, where does that leave all your arguments that rely on it being better?

And again, adult diseases can be cured and reversed in our society, which is something hunter-gatherer societies can't do.
Nonsense. Some adult diseases can be cured and reversed in our society, some cannot, some dont even arise in hunter-gatherer societies and some that do arise can be treated by some or more of the societies at issue.

So, unlike them we can eliminate much of our infant mortality but also causes of death in adults.
Unlike them we have more causes of death in adults so we'd need to eliminate more just to break even.

Hunter-gatherer societites and agricultural ones aren't that distinct.
You misunderstand the terminology.
Many hunter-gatherers do farm from time to time to supplement their nutrition and there are cases of agricultural communities reverting to gathering during famine, so the line is pretty blurred at the subsistence level where food insecurity occurs.
Hunter-gatherer/pastoralist/agriculturist etc are not inconsistent with supplimentation, they refer to the predominate means of obtaining subsistence. To be honest I have no idea why you think it's immediately relevent or significant in terms of the discussion to this point.:confused:

And again, I don't see how a human sacrifice at birth can be justified in terms of buying leisure and food security for those who are fortunate enough to survive.
No one suggested as much. What is suggested is that it isnt necessarily better to universally sacrifice any particular thing if it would prolong life or avoid death to do so. I dont see why this is so alien to you as a concept (even if the detail is unfamiliar), after all, you probably know plenty of people who apply the same concept in regards to their views on motor vehicles.


Natural doesn't mean good. I don't think the life of leisure of a privileged few is morally desirable when it is built on the deaths of countless others.
Which is a strawman. The leisure isnt built on the death of anyone, rather the prolonging of some lives is purchassed through near universal, long-term, currently indefinate (and possibly permenant), curtailment of the leisure.

In the end, civilized society has managed both to circumvent the loss of our children as well as the diseases that our civilization has suffered as a result.
No it hasnt. We are presently perhaps in a lull (which isnt to say that disease doesnt kill plenty of us moderns living in our civilised modernity) in regards to the storm of diseases predicated on the (apparently necessary) processes and functionings of civilisation, at least in terms of our perception. Your interpretation of this seems incrediable and isnt believable without substantiation.

So, we've improved both our health as well as the number of people who survive to live their lives...the hunter gatherers have done neither.
You have not demonstrated that we have improved health in a general over-arching sense. Nor that whatever improvement may exist is equal to or greater than the cost of achieving it.

People don't work that hard today. In the developed world, the "work" we do is almost entirely nonphysical; it's mentally draining and stressful at times, but far from a life of toil.
'Nonphysical' isnt here or there unless you can substantiate how and why it is relevent. Let me just say that plenty of people consider mental exercise more arduous and burdensome than physical exercise. In the developed world we work a lot more hours to achieve our livliehood than hunters and gatherers were found to work in order to achieve their livliehood. While many of us may preference office work to gathering mongongo nuts, that doesnt mean the lesser hours it takes a Ju/'hoansi women to accomplish her livelihood are necessarily more arduous or burdensome to her than our typical forty hour week of work is to us.

Prices will rise, and people will have to make do with less until alternative sources of raw materials or more efficient production enables us to meet more demand.
Or until everything collapses much as occured with the Greenland Norse, or early Easter Islanders.

That's the way it's been throughout the history of civilization; wood was replaced by coal, which was replaced by oil and gas, which are now being replaced by renewables and nuclear, and so on. We will not be capable of living the same lifestyle we do now, just like cultures did in the past when they exhausted their resources and had to replace them.
The history of civilization is a history or societal collapse. In more cases than not the society didnt find a work around, it collapsed.

Neither will civilization;
Actually civilisations have repeatedly 'died out' or collapsed.

capitalism will eventually, but like all economic systems it is replaced by a more efficient system capable of allocating resources in the most productive manner possible.
Where'd you buy that crystal ball?

I consider imperialism to be completely and utterly wrong. Fair trade free from exploitation or pressure from government is ultimately the only morally right kind of commerce between groups, and those groups do have the freedom to not do so as well. Forcing someone to trade or deal against their will is no different than slavery.
Really? The problem is that you've already minimised the undesirability of slavery where it prolongs life. If freedom isnt worthwhile where it might prevent the prolonging of life then arguably forcing someone to trade or deal against their will is no problem if in doing so one prolongs someone's life...

I'm not saying it's acceptable. I'm saying that at present, there are going to be people who will exploit their position of technological and numerical superiority to take what they want from those who are unable to defend. The problem is, hunter-gatherer societies have a very difficult time resisting that exploitation and it will eventually destroy many of them.
What you appeared to be positing was some correlation between 'advancement' 'betterment' and the capacity to 'exploit one's position' in a manner that indicated the one is advanced and their society is better if they can and do exploit their technological and numerical advantages.

No, I'm simply observing that society is not capable of always reigning in those who would steal what they want rather than trade for it fairly and that can lead to the better equipped taking what they want through force.
Really, because it certainly appeared you were also positing value judgements that preferenced the exploiters as socially advanced, and denigraded the exploited as backwards and lesser, based solely on the fact that one can exploit and the other is not able to resist the exploitation.

It's not right at all, in fact it's a great evil comparable to any of the genocides of the past, but it is happening and it will destroy many hunter-gatherer cultures.
None of which proves that hunter gatherer societies are lesser or less advanced. One of the greater threats to humanity are the far more primitive (than us) and not necessarily in any way better entitites known to us as viruses. It's not necessarily true that because A can destroy B, A is more advanced and/or better than B.