6 ms·

Does she use "us" to refer to Indian society, or humanity in general (minus other primitive tribes, presumably)? What parameters do you base "advancement" in th

by Jun8 10y ago

Does she use "us" to refer to Indian society, or humanity in general (minus other primitive tribes, presumably)? What parameters do you base "advancement" in this case, e.g. is the Sentilenese socially "far ahead of" US society in general? How about, say, Ethiopian or Navajo societies? Once we start thinking about the diversity of human experience I think we can see such statements as examples of the Noble Savage sentiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage)

goda90 10y ago
Perhaps too much emphasis is being put on technological and cultural advancement when thinking about these things. It may be that a tight knit, homogenous society has fewer problems in general and thrives as long as outside influence doesn't overwhelm it.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  I think that maybe not enough emphasis is put on technological advancement. Cultures tend to look pretty similar to each other on any given technological level. There's a case to be made that it's technology that drives social structure, not the other way around.
ChrisDutrow 10y ago
> I think we can see such statements as examples of the Noble Savage sentiment I think considering all primitive societies to be "noble" is probably not accurate. Probably most of them had serious issues. My impression (which is just from reading various material over the years) of these small tribe-size communities is that some of them evolve very advanced social structures - where there is low violence and high compassion. The emotional side of me "likes" this. But also my intellect suggests that more harmonious/supportive communities are probably stronger and more productive. Other communities diverge into states that I consider to be "sick" perversions of what communities "should" be like. Things like honor killings and it being ok to sell your nieces and nephews into the slave trade are things I would personally consider sick and I hope they are sub optimal from a survival perspective. If I had to guess, I'd say a big reason she considered them socially advanced was the matriarchal component. I speculate that its hard to develop a matriarchal society because men tend to be more aggressive and physically stronger. However, my impression is that matriarchal societies tend to be less violent and more harmonious. It could be argued that less violence and more harmony are components of a more optimal social structure.

by Jun8 10y ago

goda90 10y ago

Perhaps too much emphasis is being put on technological and cultural advancement when thinking about these things. It may be that a tight knit, homogenous society has fewer problems in general and thrives as long as outside influence doesn't overwhelm it.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
I think that maybe not enough emphasis is put on technological advancement. Cultures tend to look pretty similar to each other on any given technological level. There's a case to be made that it's technology that drives social structure, not the other way around.

ChrisDutrow 10y ago

> I think we can see such statements as examples of the Noble Savage sentiment I think considering all primitive societies to be "noble" is probably not accurate. Probably most of them had serious issues. My impression (which is just from reading various material over the years) of these small tribe-size communities is that some of them evolve very advanced social structures - where there is low violence and high compassion. The emotional side of me "likes" this. But also my intellect suggests that more harmonious/supportive communities are probably stronger and more productive. Other communities diverge into states that I consider to be "sick" perversions of what communities "should" be like. Things like honor killings and it being ok to sell your nieces and nephews into the slave trade are things I would personally consider sick and I hope they are sub optimal from a survival perspective. If I had to guess, I'd say a big reason she considered them socially advanced was the matriarchal component. I speculate that its hard to develop a matriarchal society because men tend to be more aggressive and physically stronger. However, my impression is that matriarchal societies tend to be less violent and more harmonious. It could be argued that less violence and more harmony are components of a more optimal social structure.