Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8351254" data-attributes="member: 22779">Again, this is a REALLY sensitive subject, so, I'm very much on tenterhooks right now and if I misspeak, please take it in the sense that I'm an idiot, not that I'm trying to pick a fight.In the context of this thread though, we're talking about a division between &quot;primitive&quot; and &quot;modern&quot;.&nbsp; Two groups need not be equal for both to be considered &quot;modern&quot;.&nbsp; By primitive, aren't we describing a situation where a group is so far back that they cannot even understand modern ideas and technology?&nbsp; We might call the people who painted the Lescaux Caves primitive, because, well, they couldn't even conceptualize oil based paints, let alone make them or use them.&nbsp; However, someone who paints NOW in ochre, for example, isn't primitive.&nbsp; They are simply choosing a different tool.The Amish were brought up.&nbsp; The Amish aren't primitive by any measure.&nbsp; The technology they are using might not be modern, but, it's still light years ahead of any paleo or neolithic peoples.&nbsp; They use iron and steel.&nbsp; Heck, Amish people are considerably more technologically advanced than any Renaissance European and we would never describe them as primitive.One has to be careful to not combine economic and social issues with a lack of development.&nbsp; A shark is not a primitive life form.&nbsp; A modern shark is every bit as evolved as you or I.&nbsp; Just because&nbsp; a shark hasn't changed in thousands of years does not make it primitive.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8351254, member: 22779"] Again, this is a REALLY sensitive subject, so, I'm very much on tenterhooks right now and if I misspeak, please take it in the sense that I'm an idiot, not that I'm trying to pick a fight. In the context of this thread though, we're talking about a division between "primitive" and "modern". Two groups need not be equal for both to be considered "modern". By primitive, aren't we describing a situation where a group is so far back that they cannot even understand modern ideas and technology? We might call the people who painted the Lescaux Caves primitive, because, well, they couldn't even conceptualize oil based paints, let alone make them or use them. However, someone who paints NOW in ochre, for example, isn't primitive. They are simply choosing a different tool. The Amish were brought up. The Amish aren't primitive by any measure. The technology they are using might not be modern, but, it's still light years ahead of any paleo or neolithic peoples. They use iron and steel. Heck, Amish people are considerably more technologically advanced than any Renaissance European and we would never describe them as primitive. One has to be careful to not combine economic and social issues with a lack of development. A shark is not a primitive life form. A modern shark is every bit as evolved as you or I. Just because a shark hasn't changed in thousands of years does not make it primitive. [/QUOTE]

Verification