Is there direction to human history?

[justcharlie09]

Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this topic:

Do you think that human civilization is progressing ever forward?

Is it fair to label some societies as "primitive"?

Is progress always valuable?

[HansMustermann]

Well... let me give just one aspect as an example...

Tribal societies are often locked in endemic warfare, with casualty rates (read, chance of an individual to die violently in war instead of old age) going all the way up to 60%. The most peaceful native american tribes, for example, "only" attacked their neighbours once a year.

I dunno, I kinda like the modern world better.

Or lemme give you another example. In the Old Kingdom era of ancient Egypt, if you got past the initial spike of child mortality (and quite the spike it was!) the peak of the deaths-vs-age bell curve was in the mid 30's for men, mid-20's for women. Life expectancy at birth was obviously even lower, i.e., make it low 30's and respectively low 20's, because of that infant mortality spike. The killer for women was birth and birth-related complications.

They married at 12 for the girls and 14 for the boys, so they'd have time to reproduce before the Grim Ripper came along.

Still think we haven't progressed worth much?

Ok, so lemme give a third example:

Because of that disproportion in life expectancy, there were a lot of men left with the perspective of either (A) spending half of their sexually-active life with Mrs Rosy Palm , or (B) go beat someone up and steal their woman.

Warfare for kidnapping women was a major factor for most of the ancient age. As late as 101 BC, when after the Battle of Aquae Sextiae the terms of peace imposed by the Romans on the Teutones included handing over 300 women to the Romans as wives. It's remained memorable because they all committed suicide rather than be raped by the Romans. And heck, the very beginnings of Rome are based on the Rape Of The Sabines, you know?

So, well, dunno... don't you like it more in the modern days?

[Simon39759]

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this topic:

Do you think that human civilization is progressing ever forward?

Pretty much.
It might be too early to make it a rule but, since the beginning of recorded history, knowledge has always been moving forward.
They have been slowing down, like during the so-called dark-aged, but even then, it was not a complete stop. Furthermore, it was a localized phenomenon. China; Byzantium and the Muslim world kept moving.
Once acquired, knowledge is very difficult to lose.

Society itself might crumble down but people will remember and, when the condition get right again, the rise to progress and knowledge will spring back up.

Quote:

Is it fair to label some societies as "primitive"?

Depends.
Primal; primitive, initially means 'first' and, yes, there are type of society that came before our own in the course of history, so this society could rightly be defined as 'primitive', arriving first, or similar to such societies.

That definition of the word 'primitive' of course, should not have the connotation of 'inferior'. These so-called "primitive societies" often are very complex and respectable.

Quote:

Is progress always valuable?

Yes.
Progress opens doors. That's not to say that every door progress opens should be passed through, but that's an option and more option are always better.
You could make the choice tomorrow that you are happier leaving of the land in a medieval society, but it's nice to have the choice to come back if you decide it was a mistake.

But, really, the life of most of our ancestors was short, cruel and brutish. I enjoy my high-speed connection and my morning cappuccino, myself and I enjoy the likelihood of being able to enjoy until I am 80iesh

[justcharlie09]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

So, well, dunno... don't you like it more in the modern days?

Yes, of course.

I'm mainly asking because I've read some writings that suggest "progress" is itself a myth (not the typical definition of "myth") and that there is no direction to history.

A couple of anthropology text books I've read suggest that it is unfair to see human history as a ladder ranging from primitive to technologically advanced. That to do so is to malign indigenous people.

I'm just wondering what other people think. I tend to think there is some truth to progress being a real trend going ever upward... but I wonder if that isn't an illusion along the lines of the idea that houses can only ever increase in value...

No, I like tech and modern life quite a bit.

[plumjam]

More cyclical than anything. There's nothing inevitable about human cultures progressing in knowledge. Knowledge can certainly be lost e.g. the destruction of the library at Alexandria. Our own culture could be seriously regressed by nuclear war, a big meteorite, or the continuing popularity of reality television.
If there was a very advanced human culture, say, 50,000 years ago, what would there be left of it now? Pretty much the stone remnants, megaliths etc.., leading people 50,000 years later to believe that it was a 'stone age'.

[Simon39759]

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

Yes, of course.
I'm mainly asking because I've read some writings that suggest "progress" is itself a myth (not the typical definition of "myth") and that there is no direction to history.
A couple of anthropology text books I've read suggest that it is unfair to see human history as a ladder ranging from primitive to technologically advanced. That to do so is to malign indigenous people.!

Seems like rubbish to me.
There definitively is a ladder effect and technological levels has been continuously increasing through history.

That has nothing to do with the value of the people in question. Just the fact that knowledge tend to be conserved from one generation to the other and hence to increase through time. We are, as the saying goes "standing on the shoulders of giants".
But this has nothing to do with the 'primitive people' being dumber, just that they have less giants to pile up.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

...And heck, the very beginnings of Rome are based on the Rape Of The Sabines, you know?

So, well, dunno... don't you like it more in the modern days?

.
"Them women were sobbin', sobbin', sobbin' fit to be tied"...

Seven Brides for Seven Brothers.
.
Those good old days!
Glad they're way back there!

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by plumjam

More cyclical than anything. There's nothing inevitable about human cultures progressing in knowledge. Knowledge can certainly be lost e.g. the destruction of the library at Alexandria. Our own culture could be seriously regressed by nuclear war, a big meteorite, or the continuing popularity of reality television.

Every loss of knowledge that has happened in the past has been relatively small in scope and local in effect. The destruction of the library at alexandria, for instance, didn't much affect chinese science.

Moreover, any event that didn't lead to our extinction would likely leave intact enough artifacts of human civilization and science (books, DVDs, etc.) that much of what was lost could be reconstructed. What came after would still be enriched by what went before.

Quote:

If there was a very advanced human culture, say, 50,000 years ago, what would there be left of it now? Pretty much the stone remnants, megaliths etc.., leading people 50,000 years later to believe that it was a 'stone age'.

No, much more than that. For instance, the effects of artificial selection. Unless agriculture stopped entirely corn, wheat, broccoli, dairy cows, dogs, etc. would still exist. Well, maybe not broccoli.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

Yes, of course.

I'm mainly asking because I've read some writings that suggest "progress" is itself a myth (not the typical definition of "myth") and that there is no direction to history.

A couple of anthropology text books I've read suggest that it is unfair to see human history as a ladder ranging from primitive to technologically advanced. That to do so is to malign indigenous people.

I'm just wondering what other people think. I tend to think there is some truth to progress being a real trend going ever upward... but I wonder if that isn't an illusion along the lines of the idea that houses can only ever increase in value...

No, I like tech and modern life quite a bit.

I guess it's hard to make a pronouncement without actually reading the same books.

The gist to anthropology is that, just like with history or even hard sciences, you have to look at what's actually there and how it works, not start from "us = better, them = worse" a priori ideas. Just like, say, in biotech if you're working on a cure for chlamidia, you have to just look at what it is and how it works, not start with a "pah, it's primitive crap compared to MRSA; I wish I was studying that one instead" complaint. In that sense, it's not a bad frame of mind to start without such judgments. Things just _are_, and the researcher must study them as they are.

In another sense, society works. It works for us, and it works for the bushmen, although it's different societies. Both work. What remains for anthropology is to determine how and why.

And, yes, for strictly the scope of anthropology, what matters is what people do, not whether they have flint knives or lightsabers. So strictly for that scope technological progress is less relevant.

But I do fear that it's taken a bit too far by some, and taken as an excuse for anything between moral relativism and a thinly veiled anti-modernism.

The thing is, while from strictly the point of view of "society works" things may be sorta equal, that's a very narrow view of things. And what may be a right frame of mind for an impartial researcher, isn't necessarily the whole truth. It doesn't mean one can't apply other judgments or schools of philosophy to the same situation.

E.g., society works for a modern western democracy and and it worked for chattel slavery societies. But if I look at it through the perspective of, say, utilitarianism, both are hardly equal.

[justcharlie09]

Originally Posted by plumjam

More cyclical than anything. There's nothing inevitable about human cultures progressing in knowledge. Knowledge can certainly be lost e.g. the destruction of the library at Alexandria. Our own culture could be seriously regressed by nuclear war, a big meteorite, or the continuing popularity of reality television.
If there was a very advanced human culture, say, 50,000 years ago, what would there be left of it now? Pretty much the stone remnants, megaliths etc.., leading people 50,000 years later to believe that it was a 'stone age'.

nuclear war, big meteorite or reality TV... ROFL

Yes, I think the "dark ages" are a good example what can and does happen. In pondering what would happen to people if suddenly technogadgets and other advances of modern life disappeared tomorrow...the majority of the current population would probably not be much better than their medieval counterparts...possibly even in worse shape for lack of some practical skills their ancestors possessed.

That's one reason elevating the education and skill level of the masses ranks as such a high priority in my mind. Reality TV, 2012 on the History Channel and "Ghost Hunter" shows tick me off so much!

[justcharlie09]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Every loss of knowledge that has happened in the past has been relatively small in scope and local in effect. The destruction of the library at alexandria, for instance, didn't much affect chinese science.

Moreover, any event that didn't lead to our extinction would likely leave intact enough artifacts of human civilization and science (books, DVDs, etc.) that much of what was lost could be reconstructed. What came after would still be enriched by what went before.




No, much more than that. For instance, the effects of artificial selection. Unless agriculture stopped entirely corn, wheat, broccoli, dairy cows, dogs, etc. would still exist. Well, maybe not broccoli.

Not broccoli...by necessity or choice?

50,000 years might leave very little to go on, though. Then again, with the sheer volume of material culture a group like ours would leave behind, there would probably be a good chance of stumbling on something that would indicate the advanced level of civilization.

[justcharlie09]

Originally Posted by Simon39759

Seems like rubbish to me.
There definitively is a ladder effect and technological levels has been continuously increasing through history.

That has nothing to do with the value of the people in question. Just the fact that knowledge tend to be conserved from one generation to the other and hence to increase through time. We are, as the saying goes "standing on the shoulders of giants".
But this has nothing to do with the 'primitive people' being dumber, just that they have less giants to pile up.

I have to say, intuitively, I dislike the notion of complete relativism when it comes to anthropology. Some ideas and survival strategies are better than others. Collapse by Jared Diamond seems to suggest this.

I wouldn't say that being primitive equates with being "dumber", either.

[justcharlie09]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

I guess it's hard to make a pronouncement without actually reading the same books.

The gist to anthropology is that, just like with history or even hard sciences, you have to look at what's actually there and how it works, not start from "us = better, them = worse" a priori ideas. Just like, say, in biotech if you're working on a cure for chlamidia, you have to just look at what it is and how it works, not start with a "pah, it's primitive crap compared to MRSA; I wish I was studying that one instead" complaint. In that sense, it's not a bad frame of mind to start without such judgments. Things just _are_, and the researcher must study them as they are.

In another sense, society works. It works for us, and it works for the bushmen, although it's different societies. Both work. What remains for anthropology is to determine how and why.

And, yes, for strictly the scope of anthropology, what matters is what people do, not whether they have flint knives or lightsabers. So strictly for that scope technological progress is less relevant.

But I do fear that it's taken a bit too far by some, and taken as an excuse for anything between moral relativism and a thinly veiled anti-modernism.

The thing is, while from strictly the point of view of "society works" things may be sorta equal, that's a very narrow view of things. And what may be a right frame of mind for an impartial researcher, isn't necessarily the whole truth. It doesn't mean one can't apply other judgments or schools of philosophy to the same situation.

E.g., society works for a modern western democracy and and it worked for chattel slavery societies. But if I look at it through the perspective of, say, utilitarianism, both are hardly equal.

Here's a quote from the book on my desk:

"During the nineteenth century, when the governments of Mexico and the United States were subjugating the Indians of the Greater Southwest, most missionaries, scientists, and politicians believed that human socieities could be arranged on the rungs of a ladder leading from savagery to civilization."


.....


Of course, using any idea to further a policy of subjugation is wrong....but I don't know about tossing out the idea that there is some legitimacy to the "rungs" thought.

Your biotech analogy is a good one. And true, to study objectively, I suppose one dose have to try (to the extent possible) to set aside personal beliefs.

All the same, yes, I do believe this idea can go too far. I think this is especially true of the anti-modern vein of thought. The belief that. somehow, primitive cultures were some sort of Eden and modern society is inherently "sinful"....I'm thinking of anarcho-primitivists when I say this.

[HansMustermann]

Well... Nineteenth century political propaganda was offensive on many levels, and quite frankly missing the mark in the other direction. It was the age of "mission to civilize", "white man's burden" and "manifest destiny" doctrines. And if you think it's bad that they applied to the natives of Africa and America, well, it was applied just as well to China and Japan (before the Meiji Restauration, that is.) Can you believe that China was classified basically as an uncivilized nation? It's true.

So I sorta understand their point too.

But just because such notions were used to whitewash evil aggression into looking like some selfless service we're doing those nations, it doesn't mean that the notions themselves are false or imaginary. I mean, (to give another of my bad analogies,) Darwinism was also mis-used in pseudo-scientific attempts to justifiy either might-makes-right attitudes (see, social Darwinism) or racial stereotypes (see, some English pseudo-science "proving" that the Irish weren't even human), but that doesn't mean we should pretend evolution doesn't exist.

Even from an anthropology point of view, you can see a very clear example of progress in how societies evolve to deal with more people and more complexity. Very "primitive" tribes, for example, work mostly by the sole cohesion factor that everyone knows everyone. But that hits a hard limit around 150 people, because of innate size and complexity limits of the human brains. When one of those tribes grows over 150 people, they just don't know how to continue functioning as one group. The group fragments in cliques and eventually simply splits into two tribes. By contrast, we nowadays can function as one country with hundreds of millions of people. Society itself -- you know, the very thing that's the subject of sciences like anthropology -- has evolved.

(But yes, I feel that that point is lost on _some_ anthropologists who focus so much on details that they lose sight of a a bigger picture like that. They spend decades looking at the many details of how a group of 150 Bushmen organize themselves differently than us, but then lose sight of it only working under 150 people.)

That said, and to return to that 19'th century idea, I do feel that the rungs scheme is an over-simplification. Human society is too complex to be neatly arranged like that in a linear fashion. But, again, _my_ personal take is that that doesn't make everything equal anyway.

[dudalb]

Quote:

Tribal societies are often locked in endemic warfare, with casualty rates (read, chance of an individual to die violently in war instead of old age) going all the way up to 60%. The most peaceful native american tribes, for example, "only" attacked their neighbours once a year.

I get so sick and tired of people talking about the "Peace L0ving Native Americans".
In a lot of cases, their whole freaking culture was based on warfare.
THis is not to say the Amerinds were not badly screwed over...they were, no debate about that....the European Descended Americans have no reason to proclaim themsleves morally superior...but let's not idolize pre Columbian America as being some kind of paradise on earth..which some people do.

[imjohn]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I get so sick and tired of people talking about the "Peace L0ving Native Americans".
In a lot of cases, their whole freaking culture was based on warfare.
THis is not to say the Amerinds were not badly screwed over...they were, no debate about that....the European Descended Americans have no reason to proclaim themsleves morally superior...but let's not idolize pre Columbian America as being some kind of paradise on earth..which some people do.

I love the "Native Americans wasted no part of the buffalo, but we waste everything" myth.

Indians used every part of the animal, but they ran whole herds of buffalo off cliffs -- lots of Buffalo meat got wasted that way.

And anyone who thinks we don't use every part of the cow has never seen a modern slaughter operation.

[justcharlie09]

Quote:

Can you believe that China was classified basically as an uncivilized nation? It's true.

I don't doubt it. It's funny to think they could hold that opinion with any level of sincerity, but true.

Quote:

But just because such notions were used to whitewash evil aggression into looking like some selfless service we're doing those nations, it doesn't mean that the notions themselves are false or imaginary

.

That's where my mind is at, because human history does seem show some progress. Not necessarily a perfectly linear form, but some progress.

Quote:

Even from an anthropology point of view, you can see a very clear example of progress in how societies evolve to deal with more people and more complexity. Very "primitive" tribes, for example, work mostly by the sole cohesion factor that everyone knows everyone. But that hits a hard limit around 150 people, because of innate size and complexity limits of the human brains. When one of those tribes grows over 150 people, they just don't know how to continue functioning as one group. The group fragments in cliques and eventually simply splits into two tribes. By contrast, we nowadays can function as one country with hundreds of millions of people. Society itself -- you know, the very thing that's the subject of sciences like anthropology -- has evolved.

Exactly. There has to be some progress so that we can adapt and survive. A culture running around with a loin cloth and planting stick wouldn't work if we applied it to the current human population uniformly.

Quote:

That said, and to return to that 19'th century idea, I do feel that the rungs scheme is an over-simplification. Human society is too complex to be neatly arranged like that in a linear fashion. But, again, _my_ personal take is that that doesn't make everything equal anyway.

I'm in agreement that it is an over-simplification. It isn't as though we're on some perfectly linear course toward some ultimate destination. All the same, I don't think it is fair to place hunter-gatherer groups on par with modern society. NOT saying we should disparage those groups, but there are definite advantages to higher forms of technology, etc. (modern medicine and transportation).

[justcharlie09]

Quote:

I get so sick and tired of people talking about the "Peace L0ving Native Americans".
In a lot of cases, their whole freaking culture was based on warfare.
THis is not to say the Amerinds were not badly screwed over...they were, no debate about that....the European Descended Americans have no reason to proclaim themsleves morally superior...but let's not idolize pre Columbian America as being some kind of paradise on earth..which some people do.

Peace loving? Maybe some were more than others, but it certainly wasn't the norm--especially whenever populations increased and/or two different populations had to compete for the same resources. Eden my foot. Hobbesian would probably closer to the truth! Not that some portions of modern existence can escape that appellation...

Quote:

I love the "Native Americans wasted no part of the buffalo, but we waste everything" myth.

Indians used every part of the animal, but they ran whole herds of buffalo off cliffs -- lots of Buffalo meat got wasted that way.

And anyone who thinks we don't use every part of the cow has never seen a modern slaughter operation.

It sounds good and assuages some of the guilt for all the genocide, I suppose.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this topic:

Do you think that human civilization is progressing ever forward?

Is it fair to label some societies as "primitive"?

Is progress always valuable?

Two words: Life expectancy.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

I'm in agreement that it is an over-simplification. It isn't as though we're on some perfectly linear course toward some ultimate destination. All the same, I don't think it is fair to place hunter-gatherer groups on par with modern society. NOT saying we should disparage those groups, but there are definite advantages to higher forms of technology, etc. (modern medicine and transportation).

Well, although we're otherwise in full agreement, and although I've made the same mis-understanding in my first message: I think we should separate the notions of technologically primitive, and of a primitive culture, for the scope of discussing anthropology.

Since the only quote I have to go by is about that 19'th century rungs quote, I should probably mention that that justification -- along with "mission to civilize" or "white man's burden" -- were not about tech level. You know, it wasn't, "our guns are rifled, so it's right for us to enslave them." They tried precisely to whitewash such a might-is-right attitude as a mission to bring civilization to those people, not just technology. That sorting them into rungs didn't say "those guys don't have railways", but really that they're savage uncivilized barbarians, and us poor white men are doing them a favour by civilizing them at gunpoint.

For example a _major_ objection of the first colonists, and doubly so of the first missionaries, was the (mis-conception of) "matriarchy" about the hunter-gatherer tribes. It wasn't that those indians didn't have guns, it was that they didn't keep their women on a leash, like proper civilized christians did. Never mind that those same women could expect being kidnapped and raped once or more in their lives, and generally had no choice but to be the nookie providers of whoever was the meanest with a tomahawk. But they were allowed to talk back! Even in public! Why, that's like being ruled by women! They must be so primitive and uncivilized that they didn't even discover yet what a woman's proper place is, or how to put her there!

Needless to say, it fell to us poor white men to civilize them about that.

Potlatch is another classic example that the civilizing white men sought real hard to eradicate. Going all the way to giving prison sentences for giving stuff away, worse than you'd get for stealing the same stuff. But, hey, we had to force some civilization into them that way, if all else failed.

Potlatch basically was an indian custom and festival, in which one's prestige and social status depended on how much one gives away, not on how much wealth one hoards and flaunts. They'd get together and actually give gifts to each other, just to show what they can afford to give away. And whoever couldn't afford to give anything, at least sang and danced for free, and got some recognition for that.

The notion that someone might actually dis-respect you for your hoarding money, and actually have more respect for the dirt-poor tribesman who worked to make a canoe to give away as a gift... well, it didn't quite go well with the Europeans. It was judged as extremely stupid, for a start: I mean, why would you want to give people stuff instead of trying to swindle them out of their own stuff?

But it was not just that. It was also judged as something barbaric and primitive. Those people were judged as, basically, too uncivilized to understand the proper attitude to wealth. And again we poor white men had to selflessly take it upon us to civilize them.

(The idea of making a name and prestige via charity would occur to rich europeans later too, ironically. You know, for a custom they originally judged as barbaric and uncivilized.)

That's the kind of thing that anthropology concerns itself with, rather than medicine and transportation.

And, to its credit, it did do a good job of popularizing the idea that if some custom is different from ours, it doesn't automatically make it worse or more primitive.

Though, of course, we're still in agreement that it sometimes does go _too_ far with that idea.

[justcharlie09]

Quote:

Well, although we're otherwise in full agreement, and although I've made the same mis-understanding in my first message: I think we should separate the notions of technologically primitive, and of a primitive culture, for the scope of discussing anthropology.

I'm thinking more along the lines of technologically primitive vs. technologically advanced when I talk about advantages--not culturally advanced. Culture itself is always up for debate. Sorry my language was sloppy and neglected to make that distinction.

Quote:

Since the only quote I have to go by is about that 19'th century rungs quote, I should probably mention that that justification -- along with "mission to civilize" or "white man's burden" -- were not about tech level. You know, it wasn't, "our guns are rifled, so it's right for us to enslave them." They tried precisely to whitewash such a might-is-right attitude as a mission to bring civilization to those people, not just technology. That sorting them into rungs didn't say "those guys don't have railways", but really that they're savage uncivilized barbarians, and us poor white men are doing them a favour by civilizing them at gunpoint.

Oh, I know. But, there were definite advantages to having rifles vs. stone-age weapons. Really, most of human history is a might-makes-right situation. I don't agree with it as a just way of deciding things, but the idea that he with the bigger gun/best aim wins does seem to hold at least *some* water.

Quote:

For example a _major_ objection of the first colonists, and doubly so of the first missionaries, was the (mis-conception of) "matriarchy" about the hunter-gatherer tribes. It wasn't that those indians didn't have guns, it was that they didn't keep their women on a leash, like proper civilized christians did. Never mind that those same women could expect being kidnapped and raped once or more in their lives, and generally had no choice but to be the nookie providers of whoever was the meanest with a tomahawk. But they were allowed to talk back! Even in public! Why, that's like being ruled by women! They must be so primitive and uncivilized that they didn't even discover yet what a woman's proper place is, or how to put her there!

It wasn't just the colonists. Some of those attitudes persisted well into the 20th century BIA decisions regarding women and property rights. As for being "nookie providers" and baby-mills... don't get my feminist side started on native or middle eastern or african or euro or any culture on that point.

Quote:

Needless to say, it fell to us poor white men to civilize them about that.

Withholding comment for fear of Chernobyl-like meltdown.

Quote:

Potlatch is another classic example that the civilizing white men sought real hard to eradicate. Going all the way to giving prison sentences for giving stuff away, worse than you'd get for stealing the same stuff. But, hey, we had to force some civilization into them that way, if all else failed.

Eh, yes and no. http://www.answers.com/potlatch I used to have a link for a more in depth article on the history of slavery in general, but the potlach involved both giving and destruction. In some cases, this also meant the destruction of the property known as slaves. Not saying the Euro-settlers would have necessarily cared about this human rights abuse (as they seemed fond of human rights abuses in general) but there may have been more to their complaints about the ceremonies than just the "giving" nature of it.

Then again, maybe it was. It would be interesting to find out more about the topic.

Quote:

Potlatch basically was an indian custom and festival, in which one's prestige and social status depended on how much one gives away, not on how much wealth one hoards and flaunts. They'd get together and actually give gifts to each other, just to show what they can afford to give away. And whoever couldn't afford to give anything, at least sang and danced for free, and got some recognition for that.

I'm not so sure, being a certain status and not having anything to give sounds like it could have gotten a person into trouble. Any time you have a big event like that which is important to a culture there's usually some social sanction for not following it. Could be wrong, just sayin'.

Quote:

The notion that someone might actually dis-respect you for your hoarding money, and actually have more respect for the dirt-poor tribesman who worked to make a canoe to give away as a gift... well, it didn't quite go well with the Europeans. It was judged as extremely stupid, for a start: I mean, why would you want to give people stuff instead of trying to swindle them out of their own stuff?

I must admit, on the surface, it does sound very nice and altruistic. The first time I heard about this ceremony was in a social psych class.

Quote:

But it was not just that. It was also judged as something barbaric and primitive. Those people were judged as, basically, too uncivilized to understand the proper attitude to wealth. And again we poor white men had to selflessly take it upon us to civilize them.

The specific reasons given for "civilizing" the natives probably changed from day to day, but the overall reality was probably more a matter of "our group is better" and creating a virtually non-human "other" to easily eradicate... I'm sure the sky being blue would have also provided sufficient reason to "civilize" the natives

Quote:

That's the kind of thing that anthropology concerns itself with, rather than medicine and transportation.

True. As a psych major (soon to flee to informatics), and one who generally accepting as fact that people as a group and cultures in general tend to be irrational (crazy) at heart... I put more of my focus on the materials used. Focusing too hard on the people would just further my disillusionment with mankind as a whole.

Quote:

And, to its credit, it did do a good job of popularizing the idea that if some custom is different from ours, it doesn't automatically make it worse or more primitive.

Though, of course, we're still in agreement that it sometimes does go _too_ far with that idea.

No, there is something to be said for not automatically dismissing the beliefs/values of others. Many times there is something to be learned--if only not to do it yourself. Blending new successful strategies in with your old ones or better understanding why some things work better for others, etc... all good things.

My problem remains with the "it's all universally good" attitude....or the "bad whitey never did anything right so I'll take anything from any other culture as good" way of viewing the world. In short: going too far.

No, I wouldn't have us go back to a 19th century view of "primitives" vs. "sainted modern Western culture"...not at all.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this topic:

Do you think that human civilization is progressing ever forward?

Is it fair to label some societies as "primitive"?

Is progress always valuable?

Do you mean progressing forwards in an absolute sense (i.e. always going forwards) or more as a general trend over time?

I don't think in any given moment every facet of society is always advancing, but if you look at our timeline, we're undeniably advancing. The old stall or backtrack along the way really means little, in the scheme of things.

[icerat]

define "progress"
define "direction"

I'm not sure if either has any sensible meaning when talking about human culture(s) as a whole

[justcharlie09]

Originally Posted by icerat

define "progress"
define "direction"

I'm not sure if either has any sensible meaning when talking about human culture(s) as a whole

progress in terms of ability to adapt/survive (not necessarily in a social sense)

direction as in a general trend (not necessarily linear) toward aforesaid advancement in the ability to adapt/survive through knowledge of the way the world works, tech, etc.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by icerat

define "progress"
define "direction"

I'm not sure if either has any sensible meaning when talking about human culture(s) as a whole

Would you rather live in Sweden (or any country) 500 years ago or today?

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this topic:

Do you think that human civilization is progressing ever forward?

Is it fair to label some societies as "primitive"?

Is progress always valuable?

Robert Wright's book Nonzero (excerpts of which you can read at the link) argues that there is a general historical direction towards greater and greater numbers of mutually beneficial cooperative relationships. Conflict is a zero-sum or negative-sum game. At least one side loses in a conflict, and even the winner may be injured. Cooperation however is a nonzero positive sum game in which both sides can benefit. So if people who learn to cooperate with each other do better over the long run than people who use violence, in the long run there might be a direction toward more and more cooperation and less conflict.

[HansMustermann]

Ah, well, that _technology_ progresses, that's pretty clear. Just saying that that's probably not what that quote was about

[Rairun]

I think there's been a misrepresentation here regarding the fact that evolutionism has been debunked in anthropology. When anthropologists say that there's no ladder from primitive to civilized, they don't mean there's no accumulation of knowledge and such. They only mean that there isn't only one ladder whose steps all civilizations climb.

If a small tribe in the Amazon forest ends up evolving instead of disappearing, they are unlikely to become what we are today. I think that's really all anthropologists mean. I know it sounds obvious now, but apparently people used to think that Western civilization was some sort of template for an advanced society.

[justcharlie09]

Originally Posted by Rairun

I think there's been a misrepresentation here regarding the fact that evolutionism has been debunked in anthropology. When anthropologists say that there's no ladder from primitive to civilized, they don't mean there's no accumulation of knowledge and such. They only mean that there isn't only one ladder whose steps all civilizations climb.
If a small tribe in the Amazon forest ends up evolving instead of disappearing, they are unlikely to become what we are today. I think that's really all anthropologists mean. I know it sounds obvious now, but apparently people used to think that Western civilization was some sort of template for an advanced society.

That makes sense. Again, it is hard to take that away from some of the reading material on the topic. Mainly because I've become so familiar with the folks who ooh and ahh over primitive societies as some kind of eco-Eden. Not necessarily in this book, or course, but in some of my volunteer work, etc.

So, when I hear certain things my mind has an auto-response of "oh no, not this again." Now, if I could just get my knee to stop jerking, maybe I'll notice more of what is actually being said in these anthropology texts...

[steve s]

Originally Posted by John Jones

Two words: Life expectancy.

Two more words: Toilet paper.

Steve S.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

That makes sense. Again, it is hard to take that away from some of the reading material on the topic. Mainly because I've become so familiar with the folks who ooh and ahh over primitive societies as some kind of eco-Eden. Not necessarily in this book, or course, but in some of my volunteer work, etc.

So, when I hear certain things my mind has an auto-response of "oh no, not this again." Now, if I could just get my knee to stop jerking, maybe I'll notice more of what is actually being said in these anthropology texts...

Well, the phenomenon isn't new and in fact it existed long before there even was such a thing as anthropology. E.g., the same 19'th century that you mentioned, also saw the rise of the Gothic Romanticism in which the craphole that was the Middle Ages got glorified as some golden age of the past. And to a good deal of rejection of the modern science and technology, in favour of some idealized past that never worked that way.

And in the 20'th century we had major stuff like Tolkien, who essentially opposes an idealized idyllic pre-industrial agrarian society to the ravages of all-out industrialism.

Or we still have plenty of people who aim at a different point with their past utopia that never was like that, namely all the Renaissance fans and their Ren Faires. An age which was devastated by disease, where a whole Europe and its culture turned depressive and obsessed by death, an age which saw the rise of religious fundamentalism, pogroms, witch hunts, brutal religious wars, etc... yeah, that's got to be some golden age to pine for. And, oh looky, let's pretend we're happy and well fed crafters, never mind that in that age the majority of people going into that line of work would spend the rest of their life as little more than slave labour for the master. I mean, as "apprentices." Yeah, that was a fun time.

So, yeah, it being such a widespread phenomenon, it's a bit inevitable that some would try to use anthropology to make that point. There has to be _some_ intersection.

But then similarly, Behe tried to use genetics to make the ID point, and that hardly is the fault of genetics itself.

[justcharlie09]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Well, the phenomenon isn't new and in fact it existed long before there even was such a thing as anthropology. E.g., the same 19'th century that you mentioned, also saw the rise of the Gothic Romanticism in which the craphole that was the Middle Ages got glorified as some golden age of the past. And to a good deal of rejection of the modern science and technology, in favour of some idealized past that never worked that way.

And in the 20'th century we had major stuff like Tolkien, who essentially opposes an idealized idyllic pre-industrial agrarian society to the ravages of all-out industrialism.

Or we still have plenty of people who aim at a different point with their past utopia that never was like that, namely all the Renaissance fans and their Ren Faires. An age which was devastated by disease, where a whole Europe and its culture turned depressive and obsessed by death, an age which saw the rise of religious fundamentalism, pogroms, witch hunts, brutal religious wars, etc... yeah, that's got to be some golden age to pine for. And, oh looky, let's pretend we're happy and well fed crafters, never mind that in that age the majority of people going into that line of work would spend the rest of their life as little more than slave labour for the master. I mean, as "apprentices." Yeah, that was a fun time.

So, yeah, it being such a widespread phenomenon, it's a bit inevitable that some would try to use anthropology to make that point. There has to be _some_ intersection.

But then similarly, Behe tried to use genetics to make the ID point, and that hardly is the fault of genetics itself.

True. Although, I like the Ren Fair. There's something delightfully kistchy and horribly out-of-place about a "European" Ren Fair held in the middle of cacti, mesquite trees and creosote bushes. Since it's essentially right down the road from us, we just go for the spectacle, not the history. For that, we hop over to the museums or the petroglyph park or look at some of the local Anasazi ruins.

No, it isn't the fault of anthropology. I'm a firm believer that there weren't any "good old days" where everything was peaches and cream.

[I Ratant]

De Tocqueville was quite taken with the American focus on money for its own sake, in the early 19th Century.
It's that drive to get all of it that helped America become a world leader.
Now that the infection has spread, it appears there's cultures more adept at collecting money.
"Made in ......(many places other than the US)...".
That's progress over there, but it doesn't benefit the species all that much, when considering the working conditions in relation to advancing anything.

[dafydd]

If there's a direction,is there a desination?

[Wowbagger]

The "direction", if there could be said to be one, is dictated by natural selection, and its related processes.

Learn about the fundamental principals of evolution, and then how they have applied to human history, and you will know the "direction" of human history.