Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Jul 2002 04:26:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5508 times
|
| |
|
|
>
> Because "tribes in the stone age" is a severe value judgement. It
> implies that they exist along a continuum that has us at the "good"
> end and them at the "primitive" or less developed end. That's the
> core of development theory.
I had no idea that Stone Age was an unpc term. I must update my civilization
terminolgy lexicon. Mabye metallurgically challenged? Not preferring alloys?
Archae/anthro 'gists have been the worst ambassadors and tomb raiders since
recorded history. But trying to erase the term Stone Age due to it's
possible emotional distress it may inflict on those people who exist in that
state is pretty grasping. I don't call sewage holes manholes anymore, I call
them public access holes ;-) but I'm not about to adapt this ridiculous
restraint.
> that X or Y people are, implicitly, less human than industrial states.
> It ignores that not becoming industrial indicates a different path,
> not a "more primitive state." I'm not denying that there are groups
> of humans who live materially unsophisticated lives, but I defy the
> characterization "stone age" as implicitly making a value judgement
> about those peoples' basic humanity. That's my problem with it,
> at the core--that "stone age" is a bankrupt and morally suspect
> descriptor.
>
> A reading suggestion for a really good (and accessible) book on the
> characteristics of anthropo/archaeological research were before WWI
> and why they were implicit in the domination and subjugation of
> people--often horribly brutally--by Europeans and their proxies,
> take a look at Annie Coombes's _Reinventing Africa_; there are
> others I can recommend for specific issues in geography and
> ethnology.
thankyou I'll take a look at that =)
> The "spirit capture" by photography is a far cry from not under-
> standing the representative value of a photograph, though. I
> read the latter in your comment, not the former. I'm aware of
yes, that's all that I could reference without digging through my bookshelf,
not that your not worth the effort of course =D~~ This exchanging of
cultural objects even goes on today. The creators of the Rubik's cube when
the were developing the Rubik Magic or Flat, gave it to a small Chinese
village to disassemble and reassemble. And no, I don't have a citation for
this but is this an example of post-modern aggressive racist displacement?
cheers, Joseph
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) The big problem with it has little to do with the "emotional distress" it supposedly places on people (I said nothing about this, so I'm not sure where you got it from). It has to do with the fallacious logic that the creation of this linear (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Because "tribes in the stone age" is a severe value judgement. It implies that they exist along a continuum that has us at the "good" end and them at the "primitive" or less developed end. That's the core of development theory. And it's (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
