Where do the primitive white cultures live?

This is not meant to be a thread suggesting that any one particular race is any better or any worse than any other particular race. The intention of this thread is to simply ask a legitimate question. As all races of mankind are equal, why do we not have primitive cultures composed of the White race? In every other race of mankind there are representative cultures that range from the most primitive to the most advanced, but for the White race alone the primitive groups that time has somehow missed do not seem to exist. There are no groups of White people living in the middle of some jungle somewhere living a stone aged existence, they all seem to be living in first world civilizations? Even the mountain man, log cabin dweller types came from the first world civilizations before they opted to live a more rustic existence, but a pure primitive culture of White people doesn't seem to exist. Why is that? I'm sure they must have existed at some point, were they killed off by other races to the point of complete extermination? Where are they? or Where have they gone?

Australia hahah

There are rural areas in the USA (and I'm sure rural areas in Australia, and Europe) where Caucasians choose to live quite primitively. Most other "primitive" cultures are still primitive because of geographical isolation, along with a lack of available resources. Caucasians came about in western Europe, with the advantages of cereal grains, cattle, sheep, and rich farmland. It enabled our culture to store food, so our ancestors didn't have to spend 100% of their time in search of food, allowing them to specialize in other technologies other then food.

America wasn't it?




Jokes aside,
with my very brief knowledge of history I would take a guess at it being because the "white man" was the race that suppressed others into servitude & slavery thus keeping other race's cultures back while we progressed.

reply to post by EssenSieMich


Have you forgotten about republicans?

Perhaps because us 'whites' are more war-like in sociological nature, less attuned to physical nature, lovers of comfort even to the detriment of 'others,' have accumulated the wealth of our conquests, and are totally self-absorbed in consumerism and as such we gravitate toward civilization?

It is an interesting question, but I'm pretty sure someone smarter will show up with an answer that has eluded us.

reply to post by EssenSieMich



You obviously have never heard of a hillbilly. Did you think Deliverance was a joke? Hills Have Eyes?

'Cuz it aint, hoss.

You've got your Genome Project mixed up with Tribalism.

Well, a hundred years ago you would have said "Irish" or "Polish."

I remember the Picts being said to be the last primitive, tribal white group. There aren't anymore I imagine.

What do you mean by primitive? Some might say those of us living in a culture based on consumerism and materialism are pretty darn primitive, while those living in cultures focused on family and taking only what one needs are way more civilized.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
What do you mean by primitive? Some might say those of us living in a culture based on consumerism and materialism are pretty darn primitive, while those living in cultures focused on family and taking only what one needs are way more civilized.

Sounds like several hundreds of thousands or millions of years of boring until the Sun explodes or the Earth turns into a giant ice ball while we evolve into squirrels to suit our environment.

The native European tribal cultures were all largely wiped out by centuries of successive invasions. I understand that little is known of them.

I recall reading a story some 15 years back about a colony in rural virginia, where until the introduction of paved roads they were still speaking elizabethan english, Up until that time they had little contact outside of their region.

this story suppossedly took place in the 10's or 20's.

it may have been south carolina.

i apologize i have no link, i just remembered it.

reply to post by EssenSieMich


If you look at the term "white" in a scientific sense, as "Caucasian" then the answers are easy to find...

Pacific islanders, South Americans, etc.

~Heff

An interesting question, and one that was hotly debated up to about 100 years ago. After the great leveller that was the industrial revolution - and the more recent technological revolution - it became a little harder to make the call. But the debates were there - Herbert Spencer and a number of his supporters (the origin of Social Darwinisim and the phrase "survial of the fittest") contended it was the Irish at the bottom of not only the "white" segment of humanity, but at the very bottom - in terms of social, cultural and technological development and the innate capability of developing any of those things.

A couple of my favorites:

The time hath been, when they lived like Barbarians, in woods, in bogs, and in desolate places, without politic law, or civil government, neither embracing religion, law or mutual love. That which is hateful to all the world besides is only beloved and embraced by the Irish, I mean civil wars and domestic dissensions .... the Cannibals, devourers of men's flesh, do learn to be fierce amongst themselves, but the Irish, without all respect, are even more cruel to their neighbours.
- Barnaby Rich, A New Description of Ireland, 1610

In all countries, more or less, paupers may be discovered; but an entire nation of paupers is what was never seen until it was shown in Ireland. To explain the social condition of such a country, it would be only necessary to recount its miseries and its sufferings; the history of the poor is the history of Ireland.
- Gustave de Beaumont, French visitor, 1839

...of course, it's all rubbish. If the stories that persisted about the inadequacies of Irish Blood that circulated in Herbert Spencer's time were true, I would most certainly be sitting here trying to eat my keyboard rather than type on it.

reply to post by EssenSieMich


Long hanging fruit jokes and self flagellation aside...

Not a bad question. Perhaps if we asked this question, say, 200 years ago we might have some ready examples. But today? Just the sheer small number of primitive peoples still alive and kicking today paints a picture tailor made for armchair anthropologists and pseudo scientists to get busy with the BS.

It probably has something to do with the low numbers (by comparison) of white people in the world, where they came from - Europe, and the lack of wilderness (read: opportunity to really live wild/primitive) in Europe. Sure there are still lots of people who live close to the earth but that is vastly different by definition. There are hillbillies living in in Appalachia but they do not meet the same definition/criteria of tribes still existing in say, the Amazon Basin as they have for 1000's of years.

I did see a movie once with Daryl Hannah playing a cave woman (primitive culture, sure). I thought there was definitely an upside to those circumstances

As has been wisely pointed out, the words "civilization" and "culture" are often mixed up, and given different meanings and connotations, again as has been pointed out, who is more "civilized" the slaves of the cities growing uncontrollably and without any thought or understanding of exponential growth, or some groups living in small communities based on values and communion than in violence and over competitive predation in imaginary contexts.

ever heard of the eastern European nations? some parts in Check republic, or in the Ukraine, the Amish, and the ultra-religious protestant groups living in the backwoods of Atlanta and rural America, but specially the poorest Europeans such as the Rom Gypsies and several other similar groups, in the Himalayas that are indeed Aryans and dont look nothing like the nazi thought they would be.

One could even argue that the Chinese are in fact the dominant people on earth, and in fact the most advanced are in asia, not in America or europe.

Where do primitive cultures live?
In reality tunnels that have been plagued by lies, non sustainability of the resources it ravages, living in violence from gangs, family and the government, the primitive white cultures destroyed the ancient world for its resources, and gave very little back, if you have any doubts you can ask the millions that died in the Americas, the millions that died in India, and the millions dying in Africa, cause the barbarians just want to keep craping in golden outhouses...

reply to post by EssenSieMich


WTF?

I'm struggling to believe that your question is genuine.

Surely you jest...?

People evolved skin pigments (and other traits) based on where they lived and how much sun they were exposed to. So beyond things like albinism you would not ever have had white indigenous people in jungles or near the equator. Same goes the other way. No indigenous black skins in Europe.

The whites of Europe and it's fringes were just lucky to be in the right place at the right time. It also helps to have a continuous, back to back series of states and empires for thousands of years where knowledge isn't completely lost between them nor time reset to zero. Yes you could argue that there are exceptions to this but they are mainly due to migrations.

...Oh...um I get it now. You were joking and the joke is on us! You are the primitive you have been describing, ha ha very good move along.

Well the Saami people of northern europe are kind of nomadic hurders still if that counts, I am not calling them primative but I usumed what you meant was people who lived a pre agreculteral lifestyle. en.wikipedia.org...

Walmart?