I've been doing some thinking...

Originally posted by ketoes13
I have to agree. we "westerners" are pussys. I mean, we have to take a shower every day or else were considered unsanitary.WTF!! Some kids in africa will never take a shower in their life. same goes with india. speaking of which, on of my friends is going on a missionary trip to india to help people with leperosy. if you are interested in donating money to the cause, email or u2u me. you don't have to send money yet cause we got a while before we go.

are u specifically talkin abt showering, or bathing in general. cause lemme assure you, most indians will not touch food unless they have had a bath. its a religious no no. doing anythin before the morning chores (bathing etc) is considered uncouth

To answer the poor guys post, there are white tribes.
Back to pigment and people looking all the same....

I think pigment will become effected permanently given enough time. I also think that because people are (generally) dark in sunny places is because their bodies have been building up a defense system against UV. I am going to assume something here.....The abnormal skin color of out of place people (white in sunny climates and dark in cold climates) is explained by the amount of time they have been there. Given enough time their skin and dna will change over time, is that making sense to anyone ?

Still dosnt explain why ALL animals have pink skin like pigs underneath there fur, feathers...ect. I am still googleing for a tan chicken.

animals have pale skin because their pigmentation is in the feathers or fur etc. thts where most of their melanin is produced.

if u research it, most animals with dark pigmentation occur near the equator. and as we go towards the poles the pigmentation is lighter.

ofcourse for the animal kingdom there are exceptions as many times the benefits of camouflage far outweigh the harm of UV radiation

Actually again the 'bath' depends upon the Tribe in question and does not go for all of them.

AS for animals all having light skin? Horses? Depending on the fur colour that tends to be reflected upon their skin. Cats and dogs again can have either colour skin depending on where they are from as for most animals in fact...

Originally posted by Odium
Actually again the 'bath' depends upon the Tribe in question and does not go for all of them.

is that for me? cause again like i said that most indians will not touch food or do anything without taking their bath first.

Originally posted by Odium
AS for animals all having light skin? Horses? Depending on the fur colour that tends to be reflected upon their skin. Cats and dogs again can have either colour skin depending on where they are from as for most animals in fact...

again like i said. depends on the region where the animal is from, but also camoflage plays a big big role

I wonder why living in harmony with nature in an eternally sustainable and ecologically friendly way is often called 'primitive'. I feel it might be the other way around. The history of the 'civilized' white folk is a litany of exploitation, treachery, genocide, conquest, oppression, consumption, destruction, and vanity. Maybe all these fancy war machines and ironmongery are actually counterproductive, and the more 'evolved' approach is to try to coexist in harmony with others, other people, and other life forms. If we had not broken away from that garden of eden type lifestyle so long ago, maybe the world would not be nearly destroyed.
Something is terribly wrong with our ways, and we choose to debate that point rather than admit we are wrong, in my view.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I wonder why living in harmony with nature in an eternally sustainable and ecologically friendly way is often called 'primitive'. I feel it might be the other way around. The history of the 'civilized' white folk is a litany of exploitation, treachery, genocide, conquest, oppression, consumption, destruction, and vanity. Maybe all these fancy war machines and ironmongery are actually counterproductive, and the more 'evolved' approach is to try to coexist in harmony with others, other people, and other life forms. If we had not broken away from that garden of eden type lifestyle so long ago, maybe the world would not be nearly destroyed.
Something is terribly wrong with our ways, and we choose to debate that point rather than admit we are wrong, in my view.

Oh, you mean live in harmony as in the slash and burn wasteful farming techniques of africans, or the warlords that live there. Oh i got one, how about how your own people captured and sold other blacks to europeans, we sure as hell did not come with nets! lol. Africans are far from living 'harmonously'. The asians live in harmony, as did the native americans, Africans live off exploitation of each other and environment. Lets talk about the fact that some tribes in africa still live in the stone age and have developed little further than the spear, hey at least native americans had a bow and arrow!

'Oh, you mean live in harmony as in the slash and burn wasteful farming techniques of africans, or the warlords that live there. Oh i got one, how about how your own people captured and sold other blacks to europeans, we sure as hell did not come with nets! lol. Africans are far from living 'harmonously'. The asians live in harmony, as did the native americans, Africans live off exploitation of each other and environment. Lets talk about the fact that some tribes in africa still live in the stone age and have developed little further than the spear, hey at least native americans had a bow and arrow!'

No, I meant like the Australian Aborigines, who lived a sustainable and eco-friendly way for 40 000 years, being the longest unbroken culture there is. And they didn't even need a roof over their heads to do it. I mean like the local original people where I live who lived here at least 5 000 years ago without damaging the river, the forest, the air, etc, and yet the 'civilized' usurpers have destroyed all three in less than 200 years.
Thats what I mean. I found your post a perfect example of what I meant, thank you for your aggressive attack, it supports my point very well. Cheers

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I wonder why living in harmony with nature in an eternally sustainable and ecologically friendly way is often called 'primitive'. I feel it might be the other way around. The history of the 'civilized' white folk is a litany of exploitation, treachery, genocide, conquest, oppression, consumption, destruction, and vanity. Maybe all these fancy war machines and ironmongery are actually counterproductive, and the more 'evolved' approach is to try to coexist in harmony with others, other people, and other life forms. If we had not broken away from that garden of eden type lifestyle so long ago, maybe the world would not be nearly destroyed.
Something is terribly wrong with our ways, and we choose to debate that point rather than admit we are wrong, in my view.

If you want to look at progress, knowlege, and inventions as being wrong, go right ahead.

But if you're going to try to argue that their way is not primitive, you might want to take a better look at yourself.

Primitive - straight from dictionary.com

# Not derived from something else; primary or basic.
1. Of or relating to an earliest or original stage or state; primeval.
2. Being little evolved from an early ancestral type.

I believe that human beings were created intelligent for a reason. Before humans, all of the other animals had their own attributes that should have made them the most successful animals. There were fast animals, strong animals, tough animals with shells, big animals, small animals, animals that could fly, animals that could swim, etc. etc. But humans were created (Or we evolved if you want to look at it that way) to be extremely intelligent. That's what we have over the other animals. I believe that we should utilize that attribute to it's full potential.

We're the dominant species for a reason.

I wonder why living in harmony with nature in an eternally sustainable and ecologically friendly way is often called 'primitive'. I feel it might be the other way around. The history of the 'civilized' white folk is a litany of exploitation, treachery, genocide, conquest, oppression, consumption, destruction, and vanity. Maybe all these fancy war machines and ironmongery are actually counterproductive, and the more 'evolved' approach is to try to coexist in harmony with others, other people, and other life forms. If we had not broken away from that garden of eden type lifestyle so long ago, maybe the world would not be nearly destroyed.

All those attributes you account to "civilized white folk" can be found in the most "primitive" societies as well. It is most definitely not just white traits. It's called human nature. With technology the destruction just became worse and more complex. You mention a "garden of Eden" lifestyle. Even in the Garden of Eden man (and woman) disobeyed, lied, cheated... From the beginning of time there has been murder, jealousy, etc. Again: It’s called human nature…

@ Rikimaru
You said - "The Asians live in harmony, as did the Native Americans..."
(If your statement wasn't sarcastic: )
I'm afraid I don't know much about Asian history, but there were wars. You think the Great Wall of China was built to decorate the landscape? It was meant to keep the enemy out. And Native Americans didn't live in harmony at all!!! Tribal wars were common.

Australian Aborigines may live in harmony with nature, but the human traits are (were) just as common between them. (I hope Jeremiah25 can help out here, as I don't know much about that culture and/history)...

[edit on 28-9-2005 by Gemwolf]

We're the dominant species for a reason.
misfit.


Well, I can't disagree there. We are the dominant species, and aren't we doing just a fine job of setting an example. It is the mob rules, herd mentality, lowest common denominator usually being the end result.

I am clear on the fact that the most cunning, most devious, most warlike, most destructive species won out. Of course it would. And within that species, whatever group it was that excelled in warfare, weaponry, deception, treachery, sociopathic unemotional killing, and cold, endless exploitation of their victims won out among humanity.
So, in my view the worst behaved, most unethical, most dishonest, most heartless, most uncivilized, most barbaric savages ended up in charge. And since they had killed off a goodly portion of the more pacifistic cultures, they did as they pleased, like a kid in a candy store. With a bazooka. It is no surprise to me that society is degenerating by the year, how could it not?
I will stick with what I said before, and support the idea that the Australian Aborigines were far, far, more 'civilized' than this present hierarchy. Will we have been able to say we preserved the natural world 40 000 years from now? How about 40 years from now.

But humans were created (Or we evolved if you want to look at it that way) to be extremely intelligent. That's what we have over the other animals. I believe that we should utilize that attribute to it's full potential.

Herman

I read once that some Native Elders taught that humanity's power of reason was not a blessing, but a curse. It set us apart from nature, and made living in harmony with nature much harder. I like that view. If we had only interpreted the Bible's Genesis instructions slightly differently, I think we'd have been fine. But I see it having been accepted and taught that we indeed 'have something over the other animals.' I totally disagree. We have not created this world, we are part of it. Like Chief Seattle said, we did not create the web of life, but are just one strand within it. If Adam and Eve had only interpreted their instructions as being that they had 'stewardship' over other animals, instead of 'dominion', which is what we were taught we had, then we might have actually looked after the place. Instead we trashed it. Really smart. I would take a blade of grass over an M60 any day.

Originally posted by ketoes13
I have to agree. we "westerners" are pussys. I mean, we have to take a shower every day or else were considered unsanitary.WTF!! Some kids in africa will never take a shower in their life. same goes with india. speaking of which, on of my friends is going on a missionary trip to india to help people with leperosy.


(mod edit to remove comment made that was against site T&C )

[edit on 22-9-2005 by pantha]

Im afraid i find my self asking WTF?, so by being clean and having good hygiene that makes westerners 'pussys' is that right? I just think that keeps you healthy, i mean yeah, lets take the african kid who has never had a bath for example, How many diseses do you want to bet he has?
I mean africa breads some of the most deadly and fearsome viruses known to man. Ebola, HIV, and there are plenty more... They say they got aids in africa from eating monkeys infected with it, stop and think about that, wouldnt HIV be killed if they cooked the meat? That means they eat raw monkey meat, (eating species closely related to you isnt real bright anyway), same reason cannibalism causes a form of mad cow disease.
This is well known in new guinea where cannibalism is common. Maybe its just me but i'll be a common westerner and live longer thanks.

Check out the aids origins thread. It appeared following a mass vaccination program that the west carried out in sub-saharan africa in the 50's. Instead of dying of AIDs, you are far more likely to be shot in the US than in Africa. And another point about hygiene, in some countries they would find westerners lacking hygiene if they saw you eat something with your left hand, since that is not done there. And there are many new studies linking dirt to immunity in children. Kids who played in the dirt developed stronger immune systems than the squeaky clean indoor kids who end up more susceptible to asthma, allergies, etc. I love dirt, there is a big difference between dirt and hygiene.

www.aidsorigins.com...

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Well, I can't disagree there. We are the dominant species, and aren't we doing just a fine job of setting an example. It is the mob rules, herd mentality, lowest common denominator usually being the end result.

Setting an example for who? The animals?

I am clear on the fact that the most cunning, most devious, most warlike, most destructive species won out.

All species were devious and warlike, but humans had intelligence. That is why we won out.

Of course it would. And within that species, whatever group it was that excelled in warfare, weaponry, deception, treachery, sociopathic unemotional killing, and cold, endless exploitation of their victims won out among humanity.
So, in my view the worst behaved, most unethical, most dishonest, most heartless, most uncivilized, most barbaric savages ended up in charge.

Now you can't really believe that. I don't know if you're speaking of human vs. animals, or tribals versus progressive, intelligent people. Either way, your logic seems very flawed. Look at the animals, they survive off of literally hunting down and eating one another. Nature has every devious element that you can possibly think of as a way of hunting down prey utilized. The reason that they don't seem as bad is because they don't really think about it. They don't have emotions like we do. They simply exist to eat and reproduce. It's 100% survival of the fittest, and luckily humans have evolved above that. Look at handicapped people. If it weren't for our growth development as intelligent beings, do you think they would survive!? In nature, animals with disabilities (Do they even exist anymore!?) are weak, and they're hunted down and killed by other animals. But among humans, we have emotional compassion for them (Same with the elderly), and we protect them and give them special services. And don't even get me started on tribal people. You think if they knew how to use a grenade launcher, they wouldn't use it? We started out at the same level as them, and look how far we've evolved. You seem to view success and technological advancement as a bad thing. Like another member mentioned, the majority of tribal people are far more warlike than even us! The tribed are all pitted against each other, members of one tribe are sold to another as slaves, they kill each other and make sacrifices to their Gods. If they had the technology we had, we'd be lucky if anyone in the world was still alive. Can you imagine if the tribal people of Africa somehow got their hands on nuclear weapons?

They did not pursue the development of the atom bomb, which is a point in their favour. I can tell that we view this topic from completely opposite sides. If one tribe in the distant past excelled at conquest, and was more focussed on developing ever deadlier weapons than other tribes, then it follows that they need only to carry out their conquests in order to inevitably vanquish, oppress, and exploit all the other tribes. Africa is a great example. We are directly responsible for the 50 000 kids in the developing world who die every single day from lack of basic medical care and food. It is the result of policies which allowed us to profit from their resources, labour, and agricultural land, while at the same time ensuring that they became dependent on us. Instead of them growing a variety of food crops which would have fed them, the developers, investors, and bankers 'encouraged' them to grow monocultural crops. So the whole area would be growing coffee, or bananas or whatever, and then whenever there was a drop in the price of the one source of their income, we profitted and they died. It is the same thing that led to the Irish Potato famine, although in that case they did grow different crops in Ireland, but they were all earmarked for consumption elsewhere. So the Irish starved. It has been a consistent pattern in every colonized region of the world. To the victors went the spoils, and to this day, they still do. If you consider the lifestyle of an Australian Aborigine to be primitive, that is your choice. It is not mine. I see the successful achievement of living in a way that is environmentally and ecologically sustainable forever to be far more advanced than to be able to make things 'blow up real good.'

In nature, animals with disabilities (Do they even exist anymore!?) are weak, and they're hunted down and killed by other animals. But among humans, we have emotional compassion for them (Same with the elderly), and we protect them and give them special services. Herman

You have obviously not studied animal behaviour very closely. In some animal groups, the elderly are fed by the younger ones if they do not decide to leave and releave the others of the burden of feeding them. If a flock of geese is migrating and one gets injured and can't continue, did you know that another goose will stay behind with them? I have seen emotions of every kind in almost all animals, from anger to jealousy, to joy, to shame, to fear, to compassionate and loving parental guidance. In the jungle the food chain is a necessity, and predators need to kill or starve. We are far more vicious, we kill each other in far greater numbers for far less urgent reasons. There are only a handful of animals that kill for sport. By far the most eager one is man. We are the utimate recreational killer. No other species takes as much joy in hunting as man does, we hunt for fun, while they hunt out of necessity. bg13


And don't even get me started on tribal people. You think if they knew how to use a grenade launcher, they wouldn't use it? We started out at the same level as them, and look how far we've evolved. You seem to view success and technological advancement as a bad thing. Like another member mentioned, the majority of tribal people are far more warlike than even us! The tribed are all pitted against each other, members of one tribe are sold to another as slaves, they kill each other and make sacrifices to their Gods. If they had the technology we had, we'd be lucky if anyone in the world was still alive. Can you imagine if the tribal people of Africa somehow got their hands on nuclear weapons?

The slavery that tribal people practiced is lightyears more humane than the horror show that was slavery in US and Canadian history. In every case that I have read, the captured enemies and enemies' wives and children were assimilated and in a few years accepted as part of the tribe, marrying and living as equals. Even in biblical times, every seven years, all slaves were set free. And the slavery wasn't based on race in those days, racism was not yet so popular. The slavemasters of the 17 to 1800's USA did not see their slaves as even human......... what a terrible thing that is alone. In Canada, the First Nations were declared 'persons', and given the right to vote..............in .........1960! Before that they were considered subhuman. I stand by my earlier posts. They were the true civilized people, and thats why we killed em all, cuz we could. We are the savages, we even initiated scalping, which few textbooks dare to mention, preferring to focus on the retaliatory scalping that was done in return. In tribal societies, it was a fundamental principle that nature must survive, or we die. In our society that is just as true, but we decided to ignore that one.

actually the development of a society is dependant upon various factors like ease of living (in the area where the society exists) contact with other cultures etc.

africa or australia are mostly isolated. so their contact with other cultures was non-existant. hence the lack of development. look at europe. they developed after the dark ages caus eof the contact with arabs during the crusades. the arabs in turn developed cause of the contact they had with india.

i am not taking anything away from the europeans or the arabs but external contact is a very important factor.

the aboriginies could have been fighting each other for centuries and still they would not develop greatly because they have no external contact

thts the way of civilization. an idea from here, an idea from there, and voila we have the pyramids

so war is not tht much of a factor, yeah but war with another culture will do wonders

again i agree with the statement tht dirt and being dirty are 2 different things. the parameters for cleanliness are different in every society and u cannot judge a ppls cleanliness in general terms.

Originally posted by Herman

We started out at the same level as them, and look how far we've evolved.

u were luckier than them. simple

Originally posted by Herman
Like another member mentioned, the majority of tribal people are far more warlike than even us! The tribed are all pitted against each other, members of one tribe are sold to another as slaves, they kill each other and make sacrifices to their Gods. If they had the technology we had, we'd be lucky if anyone in the world was still alive. Can you imagine if the tribal people of Africa somehow got their hands on nuclear weapons?

i wont even comment on this statement. it reaks of ignorance

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Check out the aids origins thread. It appeared following a mass vaccination program that the west carried out in sub-saharan africa in the 50's. Instead of dying of AIDs, you are far more likely to be shot in the US than in Africa. And another point about hygiene, in some countries they would find westerners lacking hygiene if they saw you eat something with your left hand, since that is not done there. And there are many new studies linking dirt to immunity in children. Kids who played in the dirt developed stronger immune systems than the squeaky clean indoor kids who end up more susceptible to asthma, allergies, etc. I love dirt, there is a big difference between dirt and hygiene.

www.aidsorigins.com...

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]

Do you know why they dont eat with their left hand?

They didnt develop atom bombs? This is almost a completly different subject and the reasons for developing it are light years beyond 'tribal warfare'. People blame the west(in particular america) for such things, How easy it is to forget Adolf Hitler and make America the bad guys. Do you not remember the eugenics program? Nazi germany was so far ahead in many fields it is a scary thought(particularily if your non-white) what could of happened. The atom bomb was really the result of fear that the nazis would get one first. Had that happened, combined with their rocket technology they would have been unstopable. But again you have the common hatred of america in place of the logical guilty partys. Race was a big part of Nazi policies. They believed the White race was the master race, and had it not been for other whites stopping them, they would possibly rule europe and other parts of the world, yet we americans are the racists

[edit on 29-9-2005 by Rikimaru]