3 ms·

Whether one culture is more "primitive" than another is indeed a disputable value judgement. But there is no dispute that the culture of the Yanomamö is vastly

Whether one culture is more "primitive" than another is indeed a disputable value judgement. But there is no dispute that the culture of the Yanomamö is vastly different from the culture of modern industrial societies. There's nothing racist about asking why that might be. By the way, the word "primitive" occurs exactly once in the article, in a non-central context.

dogma1138 4y ago
It’s not a value judgment, things like writing systems, time keeping, and various societal structures can be objectively measured since they have an impact on how large a given culture or society can be. This war over words and language really needs to stop. Anthropology moved from using savages to primitives and now has more and more terms that eventually mean the same thing.
rayiner 4y ago
No, it’s not a matter of mere “difference.” Societies that don’t have computers and space ships and cars are more primitive—they live more like humans did originally, and like animals still do—than societies that have those things. It’s a tremendously bad idea to lose sight of the that. Whether “primitive” is the same thing as “bad” or “good” is indeed a value judgment. There’s certainly benefits to a primitive lifestyle (lesser rates of chronic diseases, etc.)
- radford-neal 4y ago
  Yes, in a technical usage of the word "primitive" sometimes encountered in discussions of evolution, it refers simply to something that comes early. For instance, one might ask whether a trait shared by two species is "primitive", meaning it was present in their common ancestor, or instead evolved independently in the two species. There is no value judgement there. However, in non-technical discussions, "primitive" is often taken to mean "not as good", which is indeed a value judgement, and that's the usage meant in my comment.

dogma1138 4y ago

It’s not a value judgment, things like writing systems, time keeping, and various societal structures can be objectively measured since they have an impact on how large a given culture or society can be. This war over words and language really needs to stop. Anthropology moved from using savages to primitives and now has more and more terms that eventually mean the same thing.

rayiner 4y ago

No, it’s not a matter of mere “difference.” Societies that don’t have computers and space ships and cars are more primitive—they live more like humans did originally, and like animals still do—than societies that have those things. It’s a tremendously bad idea to lose sight of the that. Whether “primitive” is the same thing as “bad” or “good” is indeed a value judgment. There’s certainly benefits to a primitive lifestyle (lesser rates of chronic diseases, etc.)

radford-neal 4y ago
Yes, in a technical usage of the word "primitive" sometimes encountered in discussions of evolution, it refers simply to something that comes early. For instance, one might ask whether a trait shared by two species is "primitive", meaning it was present in their common ancestor, or instead evolved independently in the two species. There is no value judgement there. However, in non-technical discussions, "primitive" is often taken to mean "not as good", which is indeed a value judgement, and that's the usage meant in my comment.