The idea of 'primitive cultures' historically was used to intimate that certain groups were closer to animals, hence sub-human, and usurp them out of their land.
Wiki says "The term is generally no longer used in mainstream writing as it is widely considered racist and many groups, including Survival International, have campaigned to stamp it out. The term continues to be used in everyday speech among older inhabitants of former colonial powers and by far right groups, particularly those with a white supremacist ideology."
Many (most?) US-icans from 2013 are unable to grow their own food, find clean drinking water, build tools and shelter, hunt, fight etc. Primitive is a judgment against the technology or skills required to survive in the world you inhabit on a daily basis. So if it is has racist undertones and is entirely non-descriptive / non-meaningful.. why use it?
Edit: In response to child comment (thanks), to make clear I was referring to the parent comment, not the article. It was the characterisation of 'superior technologies' and 'primitive' people I was responding to.
You are right, that doesn't. But history won't remember that. History will consider the powerful and the victorious as right. There's no Karma checker.
History may now be being written by different people than in previous eras. In oz, 100 years or so of pro British army brainwashing was undone with one line in one movie.. shoot straight, ya bastards.
I humbly disagree with you though. There are many instances where heinous acts by the powerful have gone unpunished. Many of them by the US and Britain. They have had no repercussions on the perpetrators because of power.
This is the Digital Age, not the age of the scribes. History will be laid out in much more excruciating, and correct, detail. People might have to do some work to find the right pieces in the sea of information, but it will be there for those that want to know the truth.
Particularly bad.. incentivisation schemes create proxies for success and inevitably get gamed. Why bother with all the hard stuff when you can shortcut your way to success?
Good incentives are life really.. look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I believe most people work because they have to, but most people who work hard, work hard because they want to. The pay off is growth, progress, self-actualisation.
As an aside, this is why I question the whole gamification thing. The best games life-ify the game. Why would you want to remove meaning and complexity from work?
and my old man was forced to write right handed.. i am not sure what they called the method where the teacher would crack your knuckles with a yard stick if you messed up, but that is how he was taught. most perfect, effortless bloody handwriting of anyone i knew. with either hand.
learning can be painful. not learning might be worse.
Your father was abused into better handwriting and I feel sorry for him. Similar or better results can be achieved with patience, a kind word and a good instructor.
Huge public works projects that served a helpful purpose involved the death of countless workers in the past (I.E. the Panama Canal). We're grateful the end product exists, but who would tolerate a lock or dam that consumes that many lives today?
Just because things "were", doesn't mean they should "still".
It is taken on faith by the media because these statements ARE TRUE until proven otherwise in the courts! You think these sorts of attitudes are confined to management? If the guy on the ground thinks it is true, it is true. And especially as they are guys that are highly unlikely to be investigated and with whom the courts can be extremely lenient.
I fully understand that this is case of little boys playing cops and robbers and making the rules up as they go.. but they are playing with real guns.
If you're looking for ways to contribute, have you considered Wikidata? It's a new project, the environment is supposed to be very collegial and one of the goals is to enable people to make contributions without requiring too much time or subject matter knowledge.
i object to the characterisation of such opinions as strong.
they are not strong, they are weak. weak for their justification, weak for their referencing and weak for the world view which informs them.
Wiki says "The term is generally no longer used in mainstream writing as it is widely considered racist and many groups, including Survival International, have campaigned to stamp it out. The term continues to be used in everyday speech among older inhabitants of former colonial powers and by far right groups, particularly those with a white supremacist ideology."
Many (most?) US-icans from 2013 are unable to grow their own food, find clean drinking water, build tools and shelter, hunt, fight etc. Primitive is a judgment against the technology or skills required to survive in the world you inhabit on a daily basis. So if it is has racist undertones and is entirely non-descriptive / non-meaningful.. why use it?
Edit: In response to child comment (thanks), to make clear I was referring to the parent comment, not the article. It was the characterisation of 'superior technologies' and 'primitive' people I was responding to.