5 ms·

Yep. There's a great book called Sick Societies that does a great job dismantling the myth of the noble savage. PNG is one place discussed. IIRC, it also contai

Yep. There's a great book called Sick Societies that does a great job dismantling the myth of the noble savage. PNG is one place discussed. IIRC, it also contains some cultures that highly value eating people you betray. The greater the betrayal (as in, you've befriended someone and act in their interests, then kill them), the higher the reward (respect or whatever). Simply by agreeing on some basic human rights, or just being opposed to murder, is enough to show these societies are bad. Interference isn't intrinsically bad, and there's nothing unethical about putting an end to such atrocities. (It might be easy to fall into the trap of committing your own ethical violations while ending atrocities, but it's not required.) The book does a good job of providing solid evidence of the harm these cultures inflict on people.

ivoryst 11y ago
Could the american south of 50 years back included as a "sick society". Just swap "evil witch" with "uppity negro" and exactly the same atrocities were being committed. Labeling whole groups of people as savages or noble is just a lie, and its been used to enslave and dehumanize others through history. We are all capable of being savage or noble, whether you live in a tropical jungle or highrise apartment somewhere.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  Even if you do, it doesn't change the myth of the noble savage. Like the poster was saying, these folks are pining for the good days, before the "white man" came and messed it up. All I'm pointing out is that these societies were messed up well before colonization. (I'd guess that post colonization was nearly always an improvement, but that's unrelated.)
  - ivoryst 11y ago
    > I'm pointing out is that these societies were messed up well before colonization Using your metric of "messed up society" ie the public, condoned torture and murder of "outsiders", the point am making is that all societies are pretty messed up. And when you start labelling whole groups of people that way, thats actually step 1 in the plan to exploit, colonize or commit genocide.
    - MichaelGG 11y ago
      That's fine, all societies may be messed up. That's still opposite the claim that they were good before colonization (noble savage, to repeat myself). And I don't think colonization belongs on the same level as genocide. Having lived in a shitty country, they'd be far better off if they were colonized by a decent country (even today). They might be better off after a genocide, too, but that has a negative effect on everyone that's killed so it's unfair. Colonization doesn't have that issue. The people of said country seem to agree, given their persistence of trying to immigrate to other countries, while expressing a fondness for their home country. If their home country was colonized, they could enjoy the benefits of both. (To be absolutely clear, I'm saying that e.g. Elbonia would benefit greatly by having e.g. Canada peacefully take over their government and run it as a second tier province.)
      - ivoryst 11y ago
        > That's still opposite the claim that they were good before colonization What does colonization mean to you? What value did colonization bring (lets talk factual specifics here) that weren't there before. > They might be better off after a genocide, too So what exactly are the benefits of a genocide?
    - whyIndeed 11y ago
      This article, though, is documenting the manner in which these tribal groups would, rather than merely condone, but instead actively participate communally in the torture and murder of insiders, their own kinfolk. As a thought experiment, what does one do, when entering a room only to discover an entire family, all members old enough to know better, is engaged in depraved incestuous rituals? Moral relativism is always a painful psychological quagmire.
      - ivoryst 11y ago
        Sorry, but what exactly is your point (in plain english)? And I used the term "outsider" to refer to any perceived differences, whether its race, gender, religion, beliefs etc. And yes, some people condone; while others actively participate. I'll repeat, as you seem to have missed mine: every culture, modern or historic, has its fair mix nobles and savages. Tagging a whole group of people as savages is just good old fashioned racism.

ivoryst 11y ago

Could the american south of 50 years back included as a "sick society". Just swap "evil witch" with "uppity negro" and exactly the same atrocities were being committed. Labeling whole groups of people as savages or noble is just a lie, and its been used to enslave and dehumanize others through history. We are all capable of being savage or noble, whether you live in a tropical jungle or highrise apartment somewhere.

MichaelGG 11y ago
Even if you do, it doesn't change the myth of the noble savage. Like the poster was saying, these folks are pining for the good days, before the "white man" came and messed it up. All I'm pointing out is that these societies were messed up well before colonization. (I'd guess that post colonization was nearly always an improvement, but that's unrelated.)
- ivoryst 11y ago
  > I'm pointing out is that these societies were messed up well before colonization Using your metric of "messed up society" ie the public, condoned torture and murder of "outsiders", the point am making is that all societies are pretty messed up. And when you start labelling whole groups of people that way, thats actually step 1 in the plan to exploit, colonize or commit genocide.
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    That's fine, all societies may be messed up. That's still opposite the claim that they were good before colonization (noble savage, to repeat myself). And I don't think colonization belongs on the same level as genocide. Having lived in a shitty country, they'd be far better off if they were colonized by a decent country (even today). They might be better off after a genocide, too, but that has a negative effect on everyone that's killed so it's unfair. Colonization doesn't have that issue. The people of said country seem to agree, given their persistence of trying to immigrate to other countries, while expressing a fondness for their home country. If their home country was colonized, they could enjoy the benefits of both. (To be absolutely clear, I'm saying that e.g. Elbonia would benefit greatly by having e.g. Canada peacefully take over their government and run it as a second tier province.)
    - ivoryst 11y ago
      > That's still opposite the claim that they were good before colonization What does colonization mean to you? What value did colonization bring (lets talk factual specifics here) that weren't there before. > They might be better off after a genocide, too So what exactly are the benefits of a genocide?
  - whyIndeed 11y ago
    This article, though, is documenting the manner in which these tribal groups would, rather than merely condone, but instead actively participate communally in the torture and murder of insiders, their own kinfolk. As a thought experiment, what does one do, when entering a room only to discover an entire family, all members old enough to know better, is engaged in depraved incestuous rituals? Moral relativism is always a painful psychological quagmire.
    - ivoryst 11y ago
      Sorry, but what exactly is your point (in plain english)? And I used the term "outsider" to refer to any perceived differences, whether its race, gender, religion, beliefs etc. And yes, some people condone; while others actively participate. I'll repeat, as you seem to have missed mine: every culture, modern or historic, has its fair mix nobles and savages. Tagging a whole group of people as savages is just good old fashioned racism.