[KatoabamyHant]

Sometimes one can hear the term primitive (and many other, worse terms to) being applied to different peoples, often tribal and aboriginal peoples. The term originally means something original or primeval. But many time it is used as analogous to underdeveloped, perhaps ignorant and even savage.

I once read a passage in book by a anthropologist which is an anthology with oral and written accounts from different Native American peoples in North, Central and south America. The anthropologist questioned the notion that aboriginal, tribal people were primitive and pointed out that they had a long development, many times with a sophisticated adaption to different environments, creating a mosaic of different ways of living. He also pointed out that the individual in many of these kind of societies has a more varied and multifaceted role and where not so locked up in specialisation or predisposed roles as in more stratified or, so called, advanced societies. He made a comparison with our own modern, western or westernized society where the individuals are more valued just for their ability to produce and create money and profit

As said before, tribal peoples can not be seen as primeval, they have their own special development and adaptation, and when it comes to the role and value of the individual they are both sofisticated and complicated.

Its dangerous to generalize but one dare to say that many of those societies that existed before the big formations of states and later the industrialized societies, and which structures still can be seen among tribal peoples had, and have, a more multidimensional evaluation of the role of the individual. If you see society as a unit consisting of several horisontal structures, then the individual has a role in every: religion, family, artistic expression, agriculture, hunting, handicrafts and so on. In a society where the individual is not specialized in his or her profession, but has a part in the total social activity, the evaluation becomes more balanced; if you are less prominent, yes even if you are totally impossible, in one of the roles then it is compensated by other or maybe even by one single role, The risk to get individuals that are outcasts becomes minimal.

In our western, or westernized, society one of the structures, or more correctly a part of one of the structures, has become the totally dominating, the only measurment of value and have in extreme cases become a philosophical framework.

To have just one norm to value things, Money and economic profit, has caused the other structures to get a flawed function (as art here in many western countries) or no function at all. The structures atrophy and a real primitivisation of man himself sets in. To only have ONE norm of value, and not only for man himself but also for the environment and nature, is indeed primitive and have maybe not occured earlier in any kind of society. Whats your opinion? Are we living in a society that are getting more and more primitive in its values, norms and role of the individual?

[shodulsilfeli]

Anthropologists are nuts. Even ancient Aztecs considered primitive the hunter gatherers that sourrounded the Aztec Empire

[Pelefaifs]

Anthropologists are nuts. Even ancient Aztecs considered primitive the hunter gatherers that sourrounded the Aztec Empire

Some people can be technologically primitive but very advanced when it comes to social relation. Others can be very advanced when it comes to technology but with more underdeveloped social relations, human understanding or understanding of mans place in nature.

[Henldyhl]

Some people can be technologically primitive but very advanced when it comes to social relation. Others can be very advanced when it comes to technology but with more underdeveloped social relations, human understanding or understanding of mans place in nature.

True. But the term "primitive" applies to technological development. Not to human religion. Otherwise Romans would be savages and many natives tribes, civilized.

[HomePageOEMfreeSOFTWARE]

True. But the term "primitive" applies to technological development. Not to human religion. Otherwise Romans would be savages and many natives tribes, civilized.

One can use word in different ways. When it comes to human relations the Romans where indeed savages, and our modern society is also very underdeveloped, and primitive (in the meaning of unsofisticated, not developed) in its human and social relations.

[quack!]

It is not the level of adaptation to your environment that counted for "primitive", it was lack of (then) western modernity that did.

[cialesxtr]

It is not the level of adaptation to your environment that counted for "primitive", it was lack of (then) western modernity that did.

But in todays world one can maybe say that the western lack of adaptation to human needs and to nature is primitive in the sense that it is not developed (or maybe one can say that it has in some cases atrophied).

[M_Marked]

Primitives are people who have a culture that isn't very modernized/westernized. There are people who live in areas of the world that isn't considered very developed, but their country is still modernized.

[AlekseyZubkov]

But in todays world one can maybe say that the western lack of adaptation to human needs and to nature is primitive in the sense that it is not developed (or maybe one can say that it has in some cases atrophied).

"primitive" isn't used in anthropological circles anymore except when using older works as reference. Instead the less "modern" the tribe is, the more "complex" it is apparently. Scientists always want to use a word that shows the opposite of what their readers are accustomed to.

[Allorneadesee]

How do you know if someone is developed in their social relations?

[pobrierce]

Primitives are people who have a culture that isn't very modernized/westernized. There are people who live in areas of the world that isn't considered developed, but their country is still modernized.

I mean not only primitive in a technological way, or in the way that someone is not modernized. I mean on a more deep level, in a societys understanding of human relations and of nature. Seen in such a perspective our western society is indeed primitive in the sense of not developed.

[zlopikanikanz]

I mean not only primitive in a technological way, or in the way that someone is not modernized. I mean on a more deep level, in a societys understanding of human relations and of nature. Seen in such a perspective our western society is indeed primitive in the sense of not developed.

Primitive:

1. Not derived from something else; primary or basic.
2.
a. Of or relating to an earliest or original stage or state; primeval.
b. Being little evolved from an early ancestral type.
3. Characterized by simplicity or crudity; unsophisticated: primitive weapons. See Synonyms at rude.
4. Anthropology Of or relating to a nonindustrial, often tribal culture, especially one that is characterized


I think organize societies are the least primitive. So I guess that would still eliminate some societies, who are not seen as modernized/developed ?

---------- Post added 2010-06-24 at 20:34 ----------

Like I could never view this as primitive:
http://www.uic.edu/depts/ahaa/classe...-head-king.jpg
Even if some in the modernized world think some people in this country are.

[mikajuise]

If someone don't like the term "primitive", it should use the term "tribal" society. Simple.

[maxtp]

"primitive" isn't used in anthropological circles anymore except when using older works as reference. Instead the less "modern" the tribe is, the more "complex" it is apparently. Scientists always want to use a word that shows the opposite of what their readers are accustomed to.

The anthropologist I quoted above also questions the word primitive for those peoples who have been labeled in that way before. He consider the modern society primitive (in the meaning of simple, crude, not developed) when it comes to relations and the role of the individual..

[kenowinnumberss]

The anthropologist I quoted above also questions the word primitive for those peoples wha have been labeled in that way before. He consider the modern society primitive (not developed) when it comes to relations and the role of the individual..

Don't tell me. The antropologist is Swedish.... God, you guys really love magic realism.

[Zarekylin75]

Primitive:


3. Characterized by simplicity or crudity; unsophisticated:

In this way one can view the state of human relations in modern society.

---------- Post added 2010-06-24 at 20:52 ----------

Don't tell me. The antropologist is Swedish.... God, you guys really love magic realism.

His thoughts are based on many years of studies and fieldwork.

[orison]

Well, if he doesn't like the term "primitive", change it for "tribal". It is so simple.

[IdomeoreTew]

Well, if he doesn't like the term "primitive", change it for "tribal". It is so simple.

His meaning was to show that the term primitive as in crude, not developed, better would fit in on certain aspects of the modern western culture.

[AK47rulz]

He is putting some negative meaning in the word that simply isn't there. There's a difference between colloquial use and correct use of the word in the context of peoples. The negative connotation is likely due to the association of the word with peoples who live in a simpler, older fashioned way. He is misusing the word, IMHO.

[Nothatspecial]

The only real "primitives"(as in savage)are the cannibals(by "pleasure"),the Caribbean islands has this stereotype(that it was full of man eating yahoos),it's just too freaky...I guess human sacrifice can also be considered primitive but then again that would make killing people(in general) be primitive.