Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8336643" data-attributes="member: 82106">No, they are superior BECAUSE THEY HAVE A TECHNOLOGY (knowledge, tools, and procedures) which the supposedly 'more advanced' western 'development experts' didn't have. Nor did they bother to even ask about it, because, like you, they ASSUMED they were 'more advanced' and had nothing to learn from the locals. They learned the hard way through FAILURE that they were wrong! Same with the Masai, British ranchers kicked them off a lot of the range, now the British have given up ranching because they cannot manage the range effectively, but the Masai are still there, and now they're reclaiming the rest of their land. I saw it, I was there. What you are displaying here is simply cultural chauvinism and an arrogant lack of appreciation for what you don't understand and automatically assume is inferior. This is largely because of an ideology which was developed in Europe in the 16th through 19th Century in order to justify exploiting other people, colonialism, slavery, etc. It is worth stepping away from and looking at objectively.Steel can be a better material. If you had the choice of either or both, that would be nice. However, what is a steel blade going to do in the rainforest? Besides rust? You better bring something with you to sharpen it. See what I mean? Nor are we talking about 'equal', we're talking about more or less primitive. I have said a dozen times that primitive vs advanced and more or less effective are two different measures. It may be that you simply won't get the most effective item in every place. That doesn't mean the local culture is unsophisticated. It simply means that they operate under different constraints.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8336643, member: 82106"] No, they are superior BECAUSE THEY HAVE A TECHNOLOGY (knowledge, tools, and procedures) which the supposedly 'more advanced' western 'development experts' didn't have. Nor did they bother to even ask about it, because, like you, they ASSUMED they were 'more advanced' and had nothing to learn from the locals. They learned the hard way through FAILURE that they were wrong! Same with the Masai, British ranchers kicked them off a lot of the range, now the British have given up ranching because they cannot manage the range effectively, but the Masai are still there, and now they're reclaiming the rest of their land. I saw it, I was there. What you are displaying here is simply cultural chauvinism and an arrogant lack of appreciation for what you don't understand and automatically assume is inferior. This is largely because of an ideology which was developed in Europe in the 16th through 19th Century in order to justify exploiting other people, colonialism, slavery, etc. It is worth stepping away from and looking at objectively. Steel can be a better material. If you had the choice of either or both, that would be nice. However, what is a steel blade going to do in the rainforest? Besides rust? You better bring something with you to sharpen it. See what I mean? Nor are we talking about 'equal', we're talking about more or less primitive. I have said a dozen times that primitive vs advanced and more or less effective are two different measures. It may be that you simply won't get the most effective item in every place. That doesn't mean the local culture is unsophisticated. It simply means that they operate under different constraints. [/QUOTE]

Verification