Where do the primitive white cultures live?

reply to post by vox2442


Both of these accounts describe an Ireland subjugated by ruthless capitalists.The country they describe was a giant plantation where the people were slaves 'on the land their forefathers conquered' to quote an American statesman.
No reference is made to things like Newgrange or Dun Aenghus or Lebor Galann Eireann.The ancient Irish were anything but primitive.
As for non white primitive cultures, I think they have undergone social devolution due perhaps to some calamity,possibly the great deluge or the Ice Age.Africa and South America are both home to some awesome ancient but extinct civilisations.But today the indigenous populations seem to exhibit none of the sophistication to be found in places like Mach Pichu.
If a massive global catastrophe occurs again,we will most likely see a descent into ignorance by most human groups.Only a fraction of today's knowledge would be retained and would quickly be misunderstood, corrupted, misapplied or lost completely.
In such a scenario, the group that manages to retain the most knowledge would ultimately end up in the driving seat until the next big shake up.Sounds kind of familiar doesn't it?

I think what you really meant was "primitive civilizations" which would imply more of a technological bases. The use of technology does not necessarily have a basis in advancement if culture. Culture is more if an interpersonal situation based on bonds and social makeup. In which case civilizations like the Inca or Tibet had fairly advanced cultures. While still being king states they both had a greater social balance and distribution of wealth, work, and power.

I would define advancement as a evolution out of animalistic behavior through the use of human/universal consciousness. However most "white" culture is not advanced. A social hierarchy is an animalistic behavior trait. You can observe it in the wild, where as egalitarianism is not very often observed in the wild. It takes consciousness to overcome animalistic behavioral patterns. While we have an advanced technological civilization today a across the globe we don't have an advanced culture.

Double

Originally posted by Movescamp
reply to post by tom502

 

Dear god really? We are all privy to opinion but that is just crazy like the post above you. Dig wells? Carpentry?
There is a science out there called anthropology. It's either physical or cultural. Both apply here. First of genetic differences are miniscule. In fact the largest genetic difference in the human race is between australlian aborigine and Central Africans. They actual way "civilization" came about was the hoarding of resources by a group of elites. It's called political scale culture and it can be observed from pre European Hawaii to Europe. A group of Elites lead by a king decides the recourses are his or hers and then establishes a chain of command or pecking order. In most modern culture a commercial scale culture, corporations hoard resources and sell them back to you using your wages as a commodity. Both of those things can be observed as animalistic pack animal behavior. It can be argued that the philosophy of domestic scale culture is elevated. Where as it is egalitarian. The resources belong to everyone and are not sold or hoarded.

As far as "primitive" the word is somewhat ethnocentric. From a tribal percpective primitive is seen as a culture that "poops where it eats" or wipes out the local ecosystem. The first part meaning poisoning the drinking water. Sustainability is a philosophy and the main short sighted modern belief is that it is not a choice but do to underdeveloped culture. Completely false. Many of these cultures have advanced knowledge of ecology, herbalogy, local astronomy, and subsitance farming, and weather. Many tribes use "permaculture" which has been mistaken for a lack of farming. The other note is while civilizations come and go domestic scale culture lasts tens of thousands of years for the very reason of sustainability and population control. They have an advanced knowledge of how many people the environment can sustain.

Tribes are also in control of their domestic daily lives which we are not. We must sell our labor to survive which means doing others bidding and loosing control of our domestic lives.

Just wanted to point out the situation from a scientific perspective.

THANK YOU worth reposting

reply to post by Movescamp


Yes dig a well and make a primitive pump so you are not forced to drink contaminated water and get sick....happens to be quite a useful thing.

Basic building skills so that you can build a dwelling that is strong spacious and allows one to live in comfort...also quite a useful thing.

Farming skills which allows you not to waist your day foraging and agriculture which allows you to have abundant food i.e. so you are not dying from hunger and die at a relatively young age with disease.

Also there are massive differences in races, not genetically but terms of IQ e.g. the average (yes I stated "average" Japanese has an IQ of 105 whilst the average person in Equatorial Guina has an IQ of 59, almost half the intelligence of a Japanese person.

Lookup a chart for country's and IQ and you will find that those with the highest IQ are most technologically advanced whilst those with the lowest IQ are most primitive....yes I know some wont like this but my job is not to make you feel comfortable, rather to say it as I see it.
www.longcountdown.com...

reply to post by LUXUS


While i appreciate the debate I have to call ignorance on your part.

First off well water. Tribes are very knowledgable of land scape. They settle around clean water springs or streams. We are the ones poisoning our well water. Natural immunities of parasites keep tribal people from getting sick until we started poisoning water with chemicals. Which brings me to genes.

Genetically tribal people are stronger. They have used natural selection to weed out bad genes. People with bad eyesight for instance die out. It is a cozy lifestyle that allows negative or faulty genes to continue breeding.

IQ is no genetic marker. It has to do with education. Just like most modern people would die spending a week in the woods. Is that intelligence. Nope learning. It just so happens japan has one of the best school systems in the world. Any correlation?

Buildings all tribes have structures to keep them warm. Some of the most innovative structures ever built are from nomads. Yurts Teepee etc. No tribal people just die from exposure because they are to dumb to build structures. Your worldly ignorance shows onthat one.

Foraging. The average work week of a domestic scale culture is 14 hours. Divided by Seven is 2 hours a day. That's a lot less time than you spend working to but food. Having a collective mass of people doing the work drastically cuts down on time. Like I said permaculture is often used. Which is letting plants grow wild with other plants all helping each other grow.

Mabey they have been interbreeded into the rest of the current primitave tribes. So to prove it all 1 would need to do is check ALL primitave locations and see if by blood sample if there is any blood relations inside the blood of any current primitaves. Good question

P.s. There is almost nothing in an I.Q. Test that actually tests the definition of the word intelligence. It is a highly debatable it's usefulness at all and most modern science shies away from trying to measure in points intelligence. For instance the physician who smokes, the Nobel prize winner who's life is in shambles, etc. There is currently no test or evaluation for intelligence. A tribal person for instance may immediately understand how to use a flashlight or rifle to hunt. Which is adaptation. One sign of intelligence. Where as a software engineer may not be able to hunt at all.

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


It's all been done. The research is most likely there. For instance Hawaii was based on a hierarchy where the more powerful the leader the closer the kin. King and Queen were brother and sister. Because of the strength of their genes they had no birth defects. However if they had kept breeding the lack of genetic diversity would have lead to birth defects. The way the state was structure though was not lineage based.

reply to post by The Sword


Forty years ago trailer parks were mostly white and near military basses the parks had a large number of military families.

Over the past 40 years the culture and diversity has changed so that today most parks are inhabited by Mexican, African American and low class whites.

I consider myself an authority on the subject of mobile home communities a s I owned and operated one of the largest parks in the south east for 39 years.

I sold it in Jan, of 2007 as I could see what was coming for the real estate industry.

LAPLAND




KURDS

reply to post by Movescamp


Really, so IQ which stands for "Intelligence Quotient" isn't actually a measure of intelligence, what then is it a measure of and why do all smart people have high IQs?

Are you saying there are those with low IQs which are actually extremely intelligent but we just cant sense there intelligence?

Intelligence is not the same thing as knowledge, you go to school to improve your knowledge but you cannot improve your IQ by by going to school. So no the reason Japanese have high IQs is not due to schooling. At most you can improve your IQ by very little, certainly not double it!

As for Scientists shying away from discussing this matter, it is due to social tensions it causes and is thus avoided to keep everyone happy bunny's

reply to post by JustCurious1


jokes aside. Umm whites arent the only people who have taken part in slavery. EVERY RACE has done that.
so. bunk.

And lots not forget who the instigators of slavery are.

reply to post by LUXUS


No it's be because neuroscience and pyschology have evolved. For the last 15 years nobody takes I.q. Seriously. There are many reasons why none of them being social pressure. You are dead wrong about knowledge not effecting I.q. If you were actually in the field and not just an arm chair expert you would know why. It has been discovered the physical brain actually changes based on environmental observations. There are also studies on I.q. Effects of education as well as studies on test taking. The I.q. Test based on it's own terms can fluctuate 15 points alone based on the test takers anxiety level. You should look up the word intelligence then debate with me what and how the iq test proves for intelligence. So does the fact that there are tests for demons by the catholic church mean demons are real? What about the word group white supremacy. Because those word grouped together exsist does that mean it's true?

Adaptation is a sign of intelligence but its not on the test. The person who figured out genetics had an iq of 115. Hardly a genius. But persistence and curiosity lead him to his conclusion. Those are also both signs of intelligence by definition yet the test doesn't test for those.

Iq can be changed ( I don't believe in the whole iq thing) but studies show education over time, especially early on changes iq. So you are really just speculating and googling editing to fit the argument. When doing research try looking at the studies done by reputable people. Or wait is there a giant conspiracy by all scientists who disagree with you?

whites (as far as I know, with very few exceptions) are from Europe. for various regions that part of the world (like the Mediterranean before) tended to be more homogenous.
the 'third world', generally Africa, South America and southern Asia, is very fragmented by climatological and topological features (the iconic jungles, deserts, rain forests, etc). thus in southern hemispheres there were more, and more isolated, pockets of subcultures, some perhaps literally still unknown to modern science.
the isolation led to less development for some groups while protecting these groups from the more developed neighbors. much 'culture clash' ocurred, of course, but while most 'culture clashes' in Europe ended in the 14th-15th centuries (if not sooner), many of the fragmented south-of-the-equator groups could avoid such contact. said clashes happen today, such as in Brazil (developers of the rain forest impacting locals).

the book 'Guns, Germs and Steel' by Jared Diamond explores the divergent development of cultures.

en.wikipedia.org...

highly recommended for study on this subject.

reply to post by Movescamp


Your explaination totally explains why Malaria has impact the genetics of tribal peoples through selection advantage for a modified trait. They were clearly resistant the whole time based on their essential tribal purity.

Earlier posters had it correct. One, there still is the remnants of a "primitive" white culture in Europe, the Saami of Lappland, and some related groups in far Northern Russia, proving that they were there at one pont.

By all accounts, the ancient Germans and Celtics lived in a manner not far off from the Native Americans, they certainly were closer to the Indians than to civilized folk. But most white 'primitive' cultures were wiped out long ago by the encroaching Roman civilization and its successors.

You see a similar pattern in the Middle East. There are no hunter-gatherer cultures anywhere in the Middle East, unless you want to count desert nomads on the margins of civilization.

Your question should be more about Civilization versus Uncivilized cultures, and how the sweep of history has been one relentless war and conquest by civilizations of previous wilderness areas and cultures. It's not a racial thing at all.

Originally posted by Movescamp
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13

 

It's all been done. The research is most likely there. For instance Hawaii was based on a hierarchy where the more powerful the leader the closer the kin. King and Queen were brother and sister. Because of the strength of their genes they had no birth defects. However if they had kept breeding the lack of genetic diversity would have lead to birth defects. The way the state was structure though was not lineage based.

Ever occur to you that the lack of birth defects aren't due to their superior genetic, but because they killed those children?


People's inability to put 2 and 2 together and realize that in many cultures throughout time with population replacement rates of 2 to 4 children WITHOUT BIRTH CONTROL METHODS AVAILABLE, you would have to assume that basic infertility has been the norm to not realize how many children died of complications and disease, and how many children were killed after birth.

Originally posted by blah yada
reply to post by vox2442

 

Both of these accounts describe an Ireland subjugated by ruthless capitalists.The country they describe was a giant plantation where the people were slaves 'on the land their forefathers conquered' to quote an American statesman.
No reference is made to things like Newgrange or Dun Aenghus or Lebor Galann Eireann.The ancient Irish were anything but primitive.
As for non white primitive cultures, I think they have undergone social devolution due perhaps to some calamity,possibly the great deluge or the Ice Age.Africa and South America are both home to some awesome ancient but extinct civilisations.But today the indigenous populations seem to exhibit none of the sophistication to be found in places like Mach Pichu.
If a massive global catastrophe occurs again,we will most likely see a descent into ignorance by most human groups.Only a fraction of today's knowledge would be retained and would quickly be misunderstood, corrupted, misapplied or lost completely.
In such a scenario, the group that manages to retain the most knowledge would ultimately end up in the driving seat until the next big shake up.Sounds kind of familiar doesn't it?

Why do you think that the Residential School scheme in North America was established so quickly, and worked its magic on destroying their culture so well and with such efficiency?

Because it had been being used and refined in Ireland for the previous 400 years. They were literally experts on it by the time they got to North America with it. And it had clearly worked wonderfully in Ireland.

Haven't read the entire thead, but I was struck by a couple of the early posters who nominated the Irish as the most recent surviving group of primitive whites. Not the present day Irish, of course nor the Irish of the last few generations. But, in reading, I was quite shocked to read that many of the Irish of the 1700's were quite a different lot from the Irish of the post industrial revolution period.

I'm sure this wouldn't apply to every single Irish person of the period, but it seems that in the early 1700s, many Irish were still living in huts and going around barefoot.

Please keep in mind that today, many people would consider that vacation.

Isolation, racism, and militarism are responsible for survivals of primitivism. Left to their own devices, and with a little help from welcoming friends, most homo sapiens are quick studies, who take to civilization like ducks to water.