Where do the primitive white cultures live?

reply to post by LUXUS


We are all of the human "race". Racial divisions are actually not as plentiful as many modern people think. For a long time, there were only three recognized "races" (subdivisions) of people - White, Black, and Asian. Fairly recently, Aborigines were added as a different race. So, in a sense, you are both correct.

Back to the OP's topic, the question wasn't "who is better", but what could have lead to their being no remaining primitive peoples among a certain sub-race, if you will, being the whites of basic European descent. Not as a statement of superiority, but purely from an anthropological point of view.

As many have stated, this surely came from the harsher conditions faced, and the need to advance, simply to survive.

Originally posted by Movescamp
reply to post by Turiddu

 

I think you are basing way to much on a few books. Anthrolpology being a very expanding and relatively new field ch[snip]

edit on 7-1-2011 by Movescamp because: Error

Wait, what? Anthropology is nothing close to a "new field". Some modern interpretation, based on cultural ideas instead of science might be new, but the field isn't, by a long shot.

Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by Movescamp

 

No tribal wisdom is what is handed down within a tribe and often never commuted to writing, that teaching I presented to you comes from the American Indian tribe, it is their teachings about the history.

One day the scientists will discover Atlantis under the ocean and it wont be held as fiction but fact.

Are you a follower/adherent or respecter of Madame Blavatsky and/or Edgar Cayce?

What -exactly- does your "tribal wisdom" tell you??

Do you have information/theories/wisdom concerning Mu/Lemurria/Atlantis/Keftiu/Thule and/or Vril? Do you know anything of Ireland, Antarctica, the Bahamas, Thera, Santorini or the most recent South Pacific theory?

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Modern Anthropology is less than 100 years old. Before the 1920's the British (who invented modern anthropology) were using anthropology to learn how to best occupy ancountry without violence. It wasn't real anthropology like we have today. There are sparks of anthropology through out history but not very scientific and no agreed principles. Darwin wrote anthropology but it wasnt scientific it was very biased. He didn't even think the domestic scale cultures of south America were the same species.

It wasn't until the 50's it became a defined science with a set of parameters for observation.

So yeah compared to other science it pretty darn new.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Anthropological question? I think not. Primitive? Define that in anthropological terms. The whole point of anthropological study is to not use bias. Primitive is a biased word.

Also it is not politically correct to use actual science. You however just say stuff that fits your argument.

It has 100 percent been shown that the brain changes physically through expierance. Just like how PTS deforms the brain physically the opposite is true for growth. The science you speak of is similar to holding onto the idea the earth is flat. The studies you are talking about are from the 60's before the equipment or knowledge was even available. You need to read things before speaking. Read a lot of sources not just ones you agree with. Luckily I have had the training to do that. The Emic and Etic percpective carries over to research. The more inherently biased you are the less likely you will be to achieve discovery.

I don't think you have the knowledge to be saying the things you are. They are in opposition to leading research and scholars throughout the world. I know you can hide behind some liberal propeganda of political correctness but that's allyou are doing. MRI and other advanced technologies have not been available for research until recently. These research teams take years to do studies.

Try reading before you write. I have 4 years of active duty specifically specialized in identifying culture as an analyst and six years of college in anthropology. There is nothing you are going to teach I haven't heard before in armchair expert arguments. There are others that have posted with anthropology backgrounds I disagree with but I understand it's opinion. In your case you are just speculating and hiding behind a conspiracy.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Mr Headshot
[snip]
I'm Native American, ...

Do you realize that calling American Indians, Amerinds, "" is actually pretty racist and superior-sounding? I am Native American - I was born here, and so were my parents, their parents, etc. Using that term for a racial group isn't accurate. Happen to have a bit of what I call Indian blood (meaning American Indian), too, but that doesn't make me more or less "native American" than any other native of this nation.

'Native Americans' seems a whole lot more appropriate than calling them 'Indians'. And I think it's a little off to criticize someone for how they self-identify. In this part of Canada, the term 'First Nations' is the norm...or 'Aboriginal People', or 'Indigenous People'. Some self identify as 'Indian'. Tough to keep track, but respect is the key.

reply to post by EssenSieMich


Sorry, Mich, I'm in a bit of a hurry & haven't yet read your entire thread- forgive me please, if this has been said already- I would venture to guess that one reason that primitive white cultures have disappeared is that they were exterminated before they developed writing, and now no one knows that they ever existed at all. There are shreds of evidence left of two cultures that I know of; one is the Guanches of Tenerife in the Canary Islands, who were almost wiped out by the Conquistadors of Spain when they first arrived in 1402. The few of the Guanches that survived intermarried with the Conquistadores & the genetic markers can be found in Tenerifans of today.

The second might possibly be Minoan Cretans who escaped the volcanic explosion of the isle of Santorini by sea over 3600 years ago; there is evidence that they made it to the area now known as the Carolinas in North America & intermarried with Native Americans there. Once again, genetic markers have been found in the descendants, as well as linguistic roots in the old languages of some Native American tribes known to have always lived there. I learned this from two books that were written in the 1960s by Peter Kolosimo- "Timeless Earth" & "Not Of This World", the only books of his that were translated into English.

I'll close by saying that there is no gene for race, & that the people of the Earth are actually all one big family. A geneaologist friend showed me that once one researches any one particular family back six generations or so, that one begins to see that everyone on Earth really is related to everybody else!

The answer to the OP question is this:

The primitive white culture in the world is America and Europe.

What makes you think this modern white so-called "civilized" world is not primitive when people starve to death in the billions and the so-called modern civilized world sits back and lets it happen!

THIS MODERN WORLD IS AS PRIMITIVE AS THEY COME

EVEN ANIMALS FEED THEIR OWN KIND!

reply to post by RomaMayLi


Oops, almost forgot- there are pyramids on Tenerife; no one knows who built them or if the Guanches (who were blonde & blue-eyed for the most part) were descended from the builders. Pyramids are found all over the Earth & seem to point to a once world-wide culture of many races, that descended into barbarism due to a world-wide cataclysm; evidence for this cataclysm is still being collected today with modern geological methods & the evidence points to a polar shift of Earth that disrupted everything on the planet.