Assuming a civilized society and a tribal society are in close enough proximity to eachother for trade and the rare few intermarriages, what could motivate the tribal society to remain tribal instead of civilizing as well?Posting dark elves is fine too
>>44443955
Religious and/or cultural restrictions and taboos.
Preserving tradition and thier way of life
The tribals could be nomadic, so picking up civilization would be seen as a waste to them as it would get in the way.
Things like that.
Culture pride, religion, being in an environment that doesn't force them to civilise because there is no real need to.
>>44443955
....Anon, why does "tribal" preclude "civilized"?
This shit is literally what "enthocentric" is used for.
>>44443955
>what could motivate the tribal society to remain tribal instead of civilizing as well?
>implying tribal can't be civilized
I'm assuming you mean living in cities?
Tradition, disdain for outsider culture, a sense of superiority, religion, older generations imposing their values on the newer generations, newer generations legitimately holding their cultural values above outsider values, fear of change, they don't like your stinky civilization, etc
>>44443955
well look at muslims
>>44444187
doh ho ho
>>44444141
Civilization generally refers to a high level of culture. Before it was hijacked by progressives and their fee fees, "culture" was also used to refer to the cultivation (gee, I wonder what the root word for this conjugation is!) of crops, and it is still used that way in a biological/scientific sense. It is therefore accurate to say that a non-agricultural society is, in fact, uncivilized.
It has nothing to do with ethnocentrism, white cossacks and North American indians were uncivilized while Renaissance Italy and the Aztecs were civilized.
>>44444206
stop talking to the liberal filth. Its not like they understand intelligent words.
>>44444202
....... that's not hawkeye
>>44444141
A society is a community of individuals. A culture is the common perspectives and practices of those individuals. A civilization is the shit those individuals create and leave behind. A society without infrastructure(roads, bridges, waterways, dedicated housing structures) is no civilization.
>>44444206
Many North American Indian groups did use agriculture. Maize, beans and squash were major crops but pecans, pumpkins, sage, chives, sunflowers, cranberries, and strawberries are all north american.
This happens all the time irl. Usually the indigenous population will change a few of their habits, such as adopting new clothing or other practical things, but remain mostly the same. They like their society and it's not like a guy who speaks an unknown language and doesn't have any property or skills can just waltz into a city and be successful.
>>44444206
>Level of culture
Lol you haven't even taken an introductory sociology course if you use that phrase. Youre talking about a thing you think you know but have never formally studied
>>44444413
Formal study only shows you don't have confidence in you world view.
>>44443955
Tribal societies can be civilised, anon. The Celts, for example, had very large cities.
>>44444206
This is why you are an idiot.
>>44444413
Well no, I never "formally" studied it, because I PROVIDE WORTH TO THE FUCKING WORLD YOU GARBAGE
>>44444504
Kek.
>>44444141
Tribal society has always precluded civilized culture
the only odd man out there is nomadic culture
>>44444187
shit like this is why I joined ISIS
WE ARE THE RELIGION OF PEACE YOU SHITLORD
>>44444534
>You can't have a civilization based on your genetic relation
Ok kidCivilization doesn't describe size, it describes a societal state
>>44444534
Tribal society is often civilised; the Kievan Rus, Celts, German tribes and the Mongols all prove that. I am thinking that by "tribal" you actually mean "hunter-gatherer", or something.
>>44444547
Hilarious.
>>44444534
Nomadic culture is still built around extended family group tribes though. How is it the odd one out?
>>44443955
Different survival strategies.
Danger, either in the form of deadly weather or enemy groups or magical beasts, are an expected feature of the landscape.
The nomadic tribes survival strategy is to stay on the move, level setting down roots. They leave during the seasons when the weather is worse for safer regions, or they stay one step ahead of hostile armies or wandering monsters that would do them harm.
The city folk take the opposite route, building might walls to protect them and staying behind them. But walls don't protect you from everything, so while they are safer most of the time if anything ever makes it over their walls/smashes their city, most of them are going to die because they are too invested and reliant on passive measures of defense.
Both sides recognize that the other just wants to survive, but also believe that the other group is going to get killed some day once their luck runs out.
>>44443955
Spite
Test
>>44444444
Receiving reparations from the civilized society with no obligations may encourage the tribal society to stay the way they are.
>>44443955
Simple culture, really. It's not motivation against civilizing that's needed, it's motivation to become civilized that matters. Physical differences may play a large part, for example Bushmen aren't really considered attractive by many civilized cultures, so there's no intermarriage. Then there're all these ideas of time and progress and ownership and such. Desirability of environment and resources as well. If someone lives where there's no metal, no fertile land, nothing desirable like that, then there's little incentive for a civilized society to integrate that people or environment into their civilization. Of course though, there's also the aspect of enmity, if a tribal society is strong enough on a military level to be a threat to civilizations, then it can be hard to reconcile or conquer once hostilities have begun. And the smaller the tech disparity, the harder it would be for the civilization to win.
Also mountains. Nobody wants mountain people, because all they have is goats and shit. And mountain people don't want lowlander shit.
>>44444730
You. I like you.
>>44444617
>Mongols
Mongols, civilized? They are responsible for more genocide and atrocity than you can shake a stick at. They killed everyone in the middle east except for the medieval equivalents to hillbillies and hobos- who simply weren't worth tracking down. They pioneered biological warfare by using trebuchet to catipult dead and diseased bodies into besieged cities.
Seriously, what is it about the pile of burning skulls that tells you that these are nice people?
>>44444107
>Religious and/or cultural restrictions and taboos.
>Preserving tradition and thier way of life
These two are both plenty of reason enough. First thought that comes to mind are the Amish. I know they aren't really "tribal" but they have a distinctly lifestyle than those that live around them. I'm sure there are plenty of other cases of societies like these that exist within/on the edge other larger societies.
>>44444899
>Killing people isn't civilized
>Implying civilizations aren't built upon the corpses of their foes
>>44444899
>Civilization=Nice
Silly Anon, leaving behind a pile of corpses in your peoples wake is the pinnacle of civilization. Everyone knows that.
>>44443955
Assuming a normal society and a poorfag society are in close enough proximity to eachother for trade and the rare few intermarriages, what could motivate the poorfag society to remain poor instead of being successful as well?
>>44444899
Civilized doesn't necessarily mean not triggering. North Korea is most certainly civilized, and yet we treat their structure as outlandish and inhuman. Middle East is civilized as well, no matter how many infidels they behead.
And boy, don't even get me started on civilizations from before 20th century.
>>44445033
Go ask greece
>>44445057
None of those are civilizations, liberalfag.
>>44444259
...So in ten thousand years we retroactively make several countries into non-civilizations?
>>44445080
Greece isn't an independent society, it's a German colony to be stripmined at will.
>>44444899
By your definition, Rome wasn't a civilization you whiny butthurt muslim.
>>44445033
On a more serious note: usually when you realize too late that shit is hitting the fan you find yourself in the position where you actually want to try and fix the problem but, being much too late for that, you're not going to be able to. First thing is that if you had the money to invest in such a way that your economic position would end up better you wouldn't be in such a bad position in the first place. Another great factor is that the population could be against short term sacrifices, even if they would be aimed at long term betterment of their nation. Being near a succesful state wouldn't help, on the contrary it would lead them to believe (at least partially rightly so) that their leaders are just incompetent and it's not up to the lower classes to actually do anything, thus refusing to acknowledge that their lifestyle may be part of the problem.
But since we're talking about motivation, as in the will to deliberately stay poor, a good reason would be that outside aid comes to inject lifeblood, economic or otherwise, to keep the society up and running.
>>44444448
>>44444504
>unironically supporting ignorance over accuracy
>>44445285
ignoring liberal trash is never bad.
>>44445275
The point was to educate the thread that poor tribals are that way because they are inferior. They're not on the same level on a deep personal level. They're less of a person.
>>44445564
>ignoring liberal trash is never bad.
It is always bad. How will you know that something is trash without reading it?
>lol becuz its liberal
So? How do you know that liberalism is bad without reading it?
>>44445092
Let me guess, your definition of "civilization" has "inhabitants have lily-white skin" built into it, doesn't it?
>>44445620
Because he's a /pol/ack, and is therefore completely infallible.
>>44444141
Civilized usually implies urban.
Think of the difference between Rome and German tribes.
>>44446131
German tribes were urban. Celtic tribes were very urban.
What was your point again?
>>44443955
I can't give you a justification given the parameters to impose (assuming I can't make up fantasy bullshit to justify it) but if you are interested in the real world understanding of why people resist 'civilization' then 'the art of not being governed' might interest you, if you can tolerate academic writing.
>>44444504
Back to /pol/
>>44443955
Generally the answer is that the "uncivilized" group has a lot of traditions pertaining to their lifestyle and no real incentive to abandon them. Why bother building houses and farming when you can just follow the buffalo herd and gather all the fruits and vegetables you need?
Plot twist; the tribe originally at some point in the past, were civilized and lived in cities, but they came to hate the life and have disdain for civilization and city living. So they went back to nature, and vowed never to return to that life.
>>44447311
This never, ever happens. This is because cities = massive population that cannot be supported by "getting back to nature", and you can't just get rid of that population.
You'd have to have some kind of cataclysm in the backstory.
>>44447391
No not like the whole city or civilization just said fuck it and went back to nature. Like a small portion of them, enough for the tribe.
>>44447456
That makes more sense.
>>44447169
Houses are nice. Not having to follow a bunch of shitty buffalo everywhere is nice.
>>44447541
Why was the average life expectancy of the Romans several decades lower than that of stone-age man, then?
>>44443955
Tradition & Religion. Simple
>>44447595
>[Citation needed]
Pretty sure sewers and medicine helped them out a lot.
>>44447595
It wasn't.
>[citation needed]
>>44444206
>>44444259
>>44444534
This is all completely incorrect from any academic point of view in the last ~30 years.
But of course /tg/ is the going source of anthropological study, isn't it.
It's simple. Civilization/cities don't let them practice /ss/.
The tribe knows where their priorities lay.
Because if you stop being tribal you don't get delicious raid cash, tribal CBs, and the option to spend prestige for ridiculous numbers of free light infantry.
>>44445564
>I'm too lazy to study something that isn't STEM
>waaaah liberals who have spent years doing research are all retarded
Yep, your average "conservative."
>>44447747
>/ss/
>Tribal confirmed DYEL
Thanks Rippetoe, keep those dirt jockeys in line
>>44447655
>>44447672
I misremembered it; they lived for about seven years longer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Variation_over_time
>>44446241
I came into the thread to recommend this book but anon beat me to it. It's a good look at what you're talking about anon.
>>44447844
This is not a true conservative. The right wing is a wing of peace. Those who advocate ethnic cleansing are not true conservatives
>>44448034
Kekd
Retards saying "Islam is the religion of peace" are almost as bad as people who dismiss all academia out of hand
>>44443955
A lot of tribes are not made of tribes that got stuck in time, but renegades who actively ran away and refused civilization.
>>44448112
You're a fucktard if you don't read people with whom you disagree. I personally fall somewhere on the right, but I quite enjoy, for example, Foucault.
>>44444444
lads
Wow, /tg/ is so left wing it hurts... but then again, there are a bunch of creepy pedophiles in here who want to pretend to be women or wolves or furries or otherkin or other deviant shit, so I shouldn't be surprised it extends to their politics. Emperor protect us.
>>44443955
People are inherently tribalistic and can only process a maximum of 100 individuals as people. Everyone else is an animal.
>>44443955
1) Joining an expanding civilized society rarely works out as a net gain to the tribal society that joins it
2) In many ways a tribal society may have more individual freedoms and mobility than root members of a civilized society, especially a feudal one
3) Cultural norms and values of the tribal society may not be preserved in the civilized society
4) The members of the tribal society may be treated badly and be a disadvantaged minority in the civilized society
5) There may be large language or communication barriers between the societies
6) The tribal society may be difficult to access geographically to and from the civilized society
7) The tribal society may be specifically composed of exiles from the civilized society, or have adapted over time to resist being civilized
8) It can be to the advantage of both societies if there is room for the tribal society to exist on the fringes of the civilized society, from both social and economic points of view
9) They may have seen what happened to previous tribal societies that joined the civilized one
10) The skills involved in living in the tribal society may not be easily transferable to those required in the civilized society
All of these factors and more may be in play to some extent. It is rarely as neat a thing as you are proposing OP.
>>44448249
Nigger the kind of right-wing shit that passes here today would have been mocked and derided on the 4chan of 5 years ago. This is not and has never been a static site. Put up and actually argue your points or STFU.
>>44444253
Astute observation, Mr Anon. Now who is it?
Agriculture is hard and boring.
If you're a hunter-gathering, you probably won't up and join it. Especially if you're a hunter-gatherer with fantasy perks like more common fruits/vegetables in the wild and magic to find them easily, heal wounds, etc.
>>44448189
Exactly.
I disagree with a lot of postmodern anthropological theory in the sense of it leaking into archaeological research, but I still read it anyways because it's important.
>>44448249
>people with an understanding of modern academia=furries and pedos
>>44446188
He is mistaking "tribal" with "nomadic hunter-gatherers"
>>44444899
Mongols ha a clear strategy behind their mass murder. Completely slaughter one city, wait a bit - the next dozen or so will surrender without a fight.
Rome did practically the same.
Post more brown elves/native girls
>>44444161
I fucking love narguile sisha.
>>44443955
Remember remember, the Native Americans.
>>44446108
yes it does dumbfuck!
>>44446879
back to tumblr where the ignorants live! ;)
>>44444206
>ITT: Things that make anthropologists die inside.
Civilization refers to urban societies, and has been hijacked for centuries by people who just want a word for 'the opposite of inferior barbarian foreigners'.
Urban societies are different from other societies (from an anthropological viewpoint, which is the only real viewpoint your should use if you're studying cultures) because they a) have hierarchical social order and b) possess specialization of labor.
Take your impotent rage at liberals and use it to actually learn shit rather than search for kindred spirits on the internet, anon.
>>44447728
>This is all completely incorrect from any academic point of view in the last ~30 years.
Yes, but that's a liberal progressive fee-fee fact, so people are too busy being edgy to listen. They won't risk being a mindless sheep who thinks mainstream thoughts.
This topic reminds me of the Amish if they decided early on that tribal society was their gods vision for them.
The more "civilized" civilization would have to respect their lifestyle and not just take their "God given" land. In exchange for some great furs and tribal arts, music andpuregirls.
>>44447391
It could be done in response to some sort of cataclysm or other devastation.
What I would assume happens is that the civilized culture eventually either assimilates or exterminates the tribal society who are presumably agrarian or nomadic and have a much lower population density.
But before this happens they could live in comparative peace for centuries. Like for instance the way it went down in North America.
It only requires one party to not feel any pressing need to conquer the other's lands, and the other guys to realise that if they migrate to the cities they're going to be giving up the society of their equals for being regarded as barbarians-turned-proles. Undoubtedly a certain amount of trading will go on, but there's a lot of steps between incorporating guns you buy from the outlanders into your way of life and building cities and factories of your own.
>>44447391
Good thing cataclysms are common as fuck in fantasy fiction. And having a traumatic event like that in your history provides good justification for an almost religious taboo against the old ways. It'd be like if the story of the tower of babel was literally true, you couldn't blame people for having a strong reaction to tall buildings.
>>44453657
>It only requires one party to not feel any pressing need to conquer the other's lands
Or just difficulty in doing so. Or difficulty in keeping those lands conquered and preventing migration from its own lands.
>>44453193
Nah, civilized women are the pure ones who pretend not to want sex. Tribal girls are massive sluts who don't mind when their tribe gang rapes them.
>>44443955
>motivations
Possibly? Nihilism.
If they live in a generally inhospitable territory, the very idea that things could ever possibly get better for them through any action of their own might just not compute.
So.... anybody got any more tribal/savage elves?
>>44457861
I've got snek
>>44458002
>Rattlesnake lamia
Would actually, while looking cool, would not be comfortable to cuddle with at all. Rattler scales are often ridged and course. Personally I'd rather go Cottonmouth, Milksnake, cornsnake, glass lizard, or some matter of python as a tribal Snek waifu.
Or Cottonmouth swamp naga wenches, that's fine too.
>>44457861
You could try looking for pics of Bosmer.
>>44446131
You mean how the Roman Tribes gathered into a Tribal Assembly and elected a Tribune, while the German Tribes were essentially self governing and went to war against each other?
>>44453193
Amish aren't tribal, their society is based on voluntary association with a congregation rather than blood ties, and people can change congregation if they disagree with their bishop's interpretation of the Ordnung
>>44443955
>what could motivate the tribal society to remain tribal instead of civilizing as well?
-Ethnospecific cultural atavism. Real world example: niggers
-Religious fanatism. Real world example: Islam
-Enviromental pressure. Many traits associated with ''civilized society'' (urban dwellings, agriculture) might not be possible in some given areas. Real world example: nomadic cultures in arid/arctic climates.
>>44444206
>fee fees
Post disregarded, come back when you don't type like a /pol/lack.
>>44444504
Why do I feel like that "worth" is in the tax you pay when you spend your neetbux or whatever it is /p9l/ calls them nowadays
>>44459462
>Broken Pot Boy claimed that Hard Shield was one of those, but everyone went hungry when no one could cook a shield
wut
>>44459462
What in the actual fuck
>>44459577
The best part is that doesn't even answer the question of why he doesn't acknowledge the "kid?" as his own. He just keeps babbling about something totally unrelated.
>>44443955
Ignorance, fear, and inability to escape traditional social paradigms are generally the reasons societies don't progress technologically or socially. That and exploitation by other, more advanced, societies.
>>44447391
>You'd have to have some kind of cataclysm in the backstory.
You mean something like the fall of Rome, of the great urbanized cultures in Cambodia, fall of Göbekli Tepe etc...
These kinds of falls of great urbanized societies happened many times across our history, the reasoning behind them frequently being a lot more mundane than one would assume. In case of Göbekli Tepe it was destruction of forestation through overintensive goat-keeping, in case of the Ankor culture it was even more bizzare - their agriculture collapsed because the complex system of stone moats providing water for the agriculture was washed away by water currents causing the water levels to drop...
Simple. They are not agricultural. No agriculture, no civilization. Historically, people who could survive and thrive on hubting&gathering would not choose agriculture over that.
Now you just need a good reason why the civilized people don't steal their hunting ground and turn it into farmland.
>>44459908
You do realize that farming and hunting and gathering are not the only two existing forms of subsistence, right?
>>44444413
>you can only talk about a topic if you have formally studied it
>only, what, 1% of the population is allowed to talk about culture
Gee, I sure hope you don't ever talk about physics, psychology, or any of the other topics you haven't formally studied, you fucking retard.
>>44460209
To be honest, the concept of "culture levels" is something that anyone with highschool education should know to be bullshit. It's not that you have to have formal education in social anthropology or sociology (or philosophy, or psychology, or cognitive sciences, or history, or archeology, all of which actually actually tackle the problem of naive social evolutionarism) to know this point of view is flawed: it's that you really have to somehow grow up completely and utterly isolated from ANY kind of social theory of the last 120 years to still adhere to this kind of theory.
>>44460229
Then say that, instead of grabbing for a retarded appeal to authority that only makes you look like an aloof, insecure asshole. That way people can actually have a discussion.
But then you would also have to tackle OP's flawed question, because the entire question shows that he doesn't seem to understand that "civilisation" and tribalism aren't mutually exclusive, or that the "uncivilised" society might not even have a choice in the matter.
The response was smarter than the question, really.
>>44460249
>or that the "uncivilised" society might not even have a choice in the matter
Not in the scenario presented: there clearly exists an urban civ nearby, and generally there would be inclination to swallow up the nomadic neighbours and their land.
So there needs SOME reason for status quo to exist.
Barring terminology, that is what he is asking for.
>>44459622
It's from Glorantha, the southern continent where history trends backwards. People used to live in cities but don't anymore, and dinosaurs are new creatures.
For the individual answers, you've got "son of the hawk got more food from farming than all of the women put together got from gathering, but whatever it is he grew gave everyone gas, so we decided yup hunter-gathering is the way to go", something i don't really understand myself either but some dude claimed another dude was his son and that was traumatizing for some reason? cooking a shield might mean hardening the leather for a shield though, which is why that tribe has to enchant them. And then you've got "when the evil-anthropologist-wizard-empire's horse nomad puppet state was around (because a man on horseback and his horse collective have six legs, hence six-legged-empire) riding horses ourselves didn't help us fight them, but they eventually all died anyways (because grasses don't grow very well in that continent, so they needed to import hay by sea, and for a couple hundred years sea travel was magically impossible)"
>>44460249
I was not the person who made the original post you were complaining about, but again: where the do you actually live that an introductory course to sociology is not part of BASIC highschool education?
Yeah, OP's question is flawed, plenty of other people have acknowledged that. >>44444206
sure as fuck isn't smarter than the inherently flawed OP's inquiry - it's actually even dumber than OP managed to be. Just re-read it again and notice how it convinently conflates the term "civilization" with the term "culture" without batting an eye, it's painful to read.
>>44460271
>and generally there would be inclination to swallow up the nomadic neighbours and their land.
There most certainly would not be. There is no reason why an urbanised society would have the inclination to "swallow up" the nomads, that literally makes no sense. If anything, a propensity towards the opposite motion - the nomads invading and trying to colonize the urban evironment had historical precedents, but never vice versa.
What the fuck would the urbanized society do with the nomads and their land? Do you have any idea how nomadic social and economical models work?
Pro-tip - nomadic and urbanized societies coexisted side by side through out the entire history, and the only problem from that was ALWAYS - WITHOUT EXCEPTION the nomads attack and endangering the urbanized societies - 20th century not withstanding.
>>44460271
Uh, because nomads tend to be scary warlike motherfuckers, for one thing.
>>44460294
>where the do you actually live that an introductory course to sociology is not part of BASIC highschool education?
Uh, where do you live that it is? Because this is literally the first time I've even heard of this.
>>44460329
>Uh, where do you live that it is?
Central Europe? The fucking point of highschool education is to give you introductory insights into most existing academic fields so you could make a well informed decision to chose the field of your liking. We have a subject literally called "Introduction to social sciences", among others. Within the four years curriculum, there's a year dedicated to economy, a year dedicated to law and economy, year dedicated to sociology and anthropology and year dedicated to philosophy.
You really don't have that? That seems to me completely missing the whole point of highschool education.
TLDR, but I'd be tempted to say the ''less civilised way'' (as in not city-bound one) would probably be a thing of freedom and somewhat carelessness. Trade would surely be a big thing for useful and fancy stuff that requires higher tech, and cities could use people who know where to get the useful stuffs of the wild/world.
>>44460351
No, it seems like you're the odd one out, and you're being a condescending prick about it, too. And the point of high school certainly isn't to give insight into something only 10% of high school students will end up doing. Are you sure you didn't go to some sort of atypical high school?
>>44460385
That is a fucking state-imposed standardized curricullum and it works the same for all the neighbouring countries as well. And again: what fucking shithole you live in where only 10% of highschool students go to University?
I thought the country where I live was a bit backwards one, with only about 60% of high school students aiming for Uni (actually around 80% on better schools). People who don't intend to continue to college don't go to high schools here, they go for technical middle schools.
For the last time, where the fuck do you live? Because I'm looking at american highs school standards, and there, with their legendary poor high school education standards, have something called NCSS - national standards for social studies for high school education. Similar nation-wide standards are in England, France and Germany.
I'm asking you for the last time: WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU LIVE?!
![tumblr_inline_nea65eahKC1s9t29c[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/8JKFFKi.jpg "tumblr_inline_nea65eahKC1s9t29c[1].jpg")
>>44452319
>Civilization refers to urban societies, and has been hijacked for centuries by people who just want a word for 'the opposite of inferior barbarian foreigners'.
Are you implying that urbanized societies aren't objectively superior to tribal societies? You know, the kind of society where food is guaranteed even for those who don't hunt or forage so a class with free time develops which can focus on important questions like "How do I get this pile of shit out of my house?" or "Is there a better way to wipe my ass than with leaves?" or even "How do I more effectively stab the people that try to steal my shit?"
Only a cultural relativist could argue that hunter-gatherers and nomads are on the same level as urban societies. And that's their beauty: in the name of being all-inclusive, they effectively abolish the concept of progress. Because progress makes us unequal.
>>44460429
Actually, you are a fucking retard if you still insist on some kind of objective "leveling" scale. Trying to impose a MORAL evoluation (this is better, this is worse) and pretending like it's an objective one is the fucking stupid. It's EXACTLY as stupid as trying to improve certain animal evolution paths as "better" than other, discussing that cat's are on a higher level than bird. That is not how social evolution works. And by the way, living conditions in urbanized and settled societies can and historically frequently were worse than among many hunter and gatherer societies - but again, tryint to evaluate a culture on something as flimsy as living conditions is also pretty fucking stupid.
We are an urbanized and highly institutionalized settled society: so naturally we percieve that as best, and we would not chose to abandon such lifestyle. That is fine and dandy. But trying to make broad, sweeping "this is higher level and better societal form than something else" is dumb, and incredibly unscientific.
>>44460425
Social studies is not sociology, at least not in the US. It's 90% history and if you're lucky you get some sort of civics class.
>>44460429
Food is never guaranteed. Sure, when you're not practicing agriculture it's much more "feast or famine" but when you do eat it's much healthier.
>>44460459
Wait, history is NOT a separate subject in the US?
>>44460487
US schooling has no consistency whatsoever, there's pretty much no question about school and the US where you can give a single universal answer.
>>44460425
I don't feel inclined to tell you where I'm from, because you're an aloof douche who has already called my country a shithole without even knowing what it is. And what, you think going all-caps makes me more inclined to answer that question?
Also, I highly doubt your numbers.
>>44444413
>Lol you haven't even taken an introductory sociology course
I find this comment hilarious considering it's replying to someone dismissing progressives. Sociology is the most hijacked pseudo-scientific field you can study.
>>44460547
It's because it should just be a part of another major, instead of being its own seperate thing. We've got all kinds of weird majors like "free time studies" that are basically just an anemic part of psychology, with an anemic part of management.
>>44460498
I'm sorry if I hurt your precious little feelings of nationalism.
As for doubting my numbers:
http://www.csvs.cz/projekty/2014_veda_pro_zivot/data/30_KA6_Libor%20Prudky_Aspiracee_%20a_%20motivace_%20k_%20dalsim_%20aktivitam_studentu_vybranych_%20strednich_skol.pdf
If you can translate yourself that. There is a tab of "further aspiraton of high school students IMMEDIATELY after graduating" on page 13. The first colum (53%) is VS - or vysoká škola: in other words, university.
And that research has been done in a fairly non-urbanized region of the country.
http://www.nuov.cz/uploads/Vzdelavani_a_TP/Prechod_do_tercieru_2010_pro_www.pdf
Here you can find tabs showing that nation-wide, it's actually up to 78% of highschool students applying for university, with around 58% being accepted within the first year.
And we are still a "backwards" country by most western measurements.
So I'm sorry, but your country has obviously a problem with education.
>>44460496
I've been to two american high schools in my life, and both had specialized history classes, though admitedly I was somewhat shocked that more than 80% of the curriculum was devoted to American history only.
It's usually less than 30% in my country, thought that might simply be because our country is historically quite insignificant.
>>44460547
>Sociology is the most hijacked pseudo-scientific field you can study.
Actually, "cultural studies", "gender studies", any form of "critical theory" and to a large degree the entire social anthropology are worse off than sociology.
I speak from experience. If nothing else, sociology STILL has it's statistical core, and while the it's not worth much when your research is poorly concieved from start, it's at least some kind of falsifiability concept.
There is actually quite a lot of really good sociological research being done through out the world. It's not not done in the west anymore.
>>44443955
Stubbornness.
>>44460596
Nigger, if that many of your people go to university, your "university" is complete shit. And, of course, more condescending idiocy. Hur dur muh nationalism. No, I've already told you that I don't feel inclined to engage in this conversation because you can't type a single sentence without being a gigantic prick. I'm from Western Europe, and I'm pretty sure our educational system is pretty decent. Less decent, of course, than it could be because we're expected to pay the way of the entire world, included your disfunctional ass, but there you go.
>>44460646
Kraut detected.
>>44444899
>Civilization=Morally Righteous
All civilizations are built on a foundation of corpses. Europe brought "civilization" to the Americas through genocide and slavery, the worth of a Roman emperor was measured by his conquests, China was unified through bloody war.
It would be neigh impossible to build a civilization without the use of violence and oppression, whilst everyone else is doing it.
>>44460686
Europe brought disease, unwittingly. Aside from that, they treated the people in America exactly like everyone else in the world treated each other, including the natives themselves. In fact, Cortez allied himself with subjugated nations, because they wanted out from under the yoke.
Not that they were nice guys, of course. But smallpox killed the injuns, not muh ebil whitey.
More to the point, the Mongols were uncivilized because they had very little culture of their own. They never moved away from being aggressive nomads, and they never influenced the world in any other way than rape and murder. A Chinese advisor had to point out to these retards that subjugated people pay taxes and make them rich, so please don't murder my entire city to create more pasture for your fucking horses, you idiots.
They were good at fighting. That's about it.
>>44460646
Dude, our percentage of population with uni education is still considerably behind the western standards. I've said this before: people who don't intend to go to Uni simply don't go for high school - they go for specialized technical middle schools. This does not mean that 70% of the entire population goes for university.
And yes, since you were quite obviously incredibly butthurt about me saying that your country is a shithole (because quite frankly, your high school system does not do what high schools are intended to do), I assume your nationalism got hurt. It's pretty difficult to interpret these lines:
>I don't feel inclined to tell you where I'm from, because you're an aloof douche who has already called my country a shithole without even knowing what it is.
In any other way. And no, being from western Europe does not mean your education is good. English high school education, for an example, is some of the worst in the world - actually worse than American, and producing the highest number of illiterate people among all developed nations. So that means fuck all.
And I'm sorry - but if your high school education fails to give you basic introduction to sociology, then what the hell makes it good? It clearly fails to educate you on what is like 40% of the worlds academic subjects and a pretty important part of your life.
By the way, are you new here or something? I haven't seen anyone quite as insecure and completely unable to handle people not being super nice to him as you are in years.
>>44443955
Because you city nerds have tiny dicks and ugly women who can't even wrestle bears.
>>44460686
Europe didn't bring slavery at all. It was an accidental court ruling that set the precedence, and even then, slaves were treated much better than they were back in Africa. Go ask a nigger if he'd like a free one way ticket to Liberia, the country founded for the sole purpose of giving liberated slaves someone to go back to, an offer which most rejected.
Despite what your liberal studies professor has told you, slavery was a good thing for all involved parties.
>>44460686
>neigh
It's spelt NIGH, you hopefully-accidental horse.
>>44453193
>not taking your god given land
>>44460723
Ugh, you reminded me of some guy explaining history on yutub and wanking nonstop about how mongols did everything differently and were awesome.
>>44460724
>but if your high school education fails to give you basic introduction to sociology, then what the hell makes it good?
Not him, but that's a pretty stupid question altogether.
>>44460757
>Ugh
>>44460757
I'm 90% sure if you're talking about what I think you're talking about it was generally one or two mentions per video and never without cause.
>>44459103
His whole premise is what if they were tribal instead, so pointing out the amish aren't tribal is pointless.
>>44460729
Slavery had fucking 80% mortality rates a lot of the time and most of those people wouldn't have been enslaved in the first place if the European demand didn't exist
>>44460766
Judging educational institution on how much they educate you is stupid now? Are you fucking kidding me, folks?
Why the fuck did you think you are going to schools for again?
>>44460789
>Slavery had fucking 80% mortality rates a lot of the time
Smallpox. And either way, the slave trade did the surviving slaves a favour.
>>44460797
And who determines what is and isn't education? If someone tells you that 2+2=5, does that qualify as education to you? Is anyone allowed to pour any shit they want into your ears?
>>44460789
Europe sure invented business of shipping slaves across half the world; and took to it with mad gusto, but it did not invent the concept; and it did not "bring" it to Americas as if the natives were some hippie land.
Natives were enslaving each other left and right.
>>44459861
>What could motivate the tribal society to remain tribal instead of civilizing as well?
I'm assuming by "tribal" you mean hunter-gatherer/slash-and-burn agriculturalist and "civilized" you mean urban, because a tribal society can also be a civilization (Roman Kingdom) or a part of one (Cossack), and it is not until it becomes a state that it ceases to be a tribe.
Primarily, it would be the lack of population pressure within their territory that stops them from being motivated into full blown static agriculture.
Food security is also a major concern, though that depends on where you live, if you're in a temperate area with a river and forests nearby you're fucking golden compared to some dude in a crappy desert stuck eating dried kiwano (that shit looks like alien eggs) and snakes because the rains are a month late.
If they're feeding everyone without needing to intensify their native food sources to the point of agricultural intensification and permanent structure or seasonal permanent structure living they simply won't because being an early agriculturalist who is not a member of the ruling class FUCKING SUCKS.
It isn't horrible, peasants during the Middle Ages for example didn't have it nearly as bad as Hollywood wants you to think, but it does suck donkey dicks by comparison to working 2-4 hours a day and spending the rest painting on cave walls and beating your dick. It doesn't get as good as being a hunter-gatherer in a relatively fertile place again until you invent mechanized agriculture and chemical fertilizer.
VERY IMPORTANT: The difference between a hunter-gatherer society and an agricultural society can be less than you think. Your hunter-gatherers may have intensified food sources to the point that they're doing slash-and-burn agriculture, replanting seeds, and making buddies with wolves, but still don't live in huts or make beer.
>>44460797
Dunno, but out of High School I was abte to do make the integral and derivative of functions, knew basic geology and biology, wave theory, basic electricity and electronics behaviour, had a decent grasp on history, geography and philosophy and knew 2 foreign languages.
>>44460724
What pisses me off is how insanely condescending you are, if you must know. You make sweeping generalisations and dumb assumptions at the drop of a hat, and act like you're God's gift to the world because of it. Your arguments are shit, you don't define your terms, and when you do, you redefine them in your next post.
And all it comes down to is that you say a high school education is completely worthless if you don't get a "basic introduction to sociology". Which you STILL haven't defined in solid terms as to what means that to you. But hey, math, not important. Biology? Screw that. No, without sociology, high school ain't worth shit.
And your eternal comeback of muh nationalism doesn't make any fucking sense, because you can't insult anyone's nationalism unless you know where they are from, which you don't, because I haven't fucking told you. It's just a trite phrase you no doubt trot out against ANYONE who disagrees with you, because you're one of those people who makes literally every goddamn thing about politics.
No, Anon, it's same as I said five posts ago: you're being a condescending prick. The problem is you. This could have been a civil discussion, but since your very first post you've been an asshole, and I've been an asshole back at you, and somehow that surprises you. Somehow you feel insulted by that, and you must grab at half-assed reasoning about how it magically isn't because of you, but because of the political boogeyman you probably blame all your troubles on.
At least you're not blaming it on the Jews. I can at least give you that. But it's been a long time since I saw an obtuse asshole like you in this place who wasn't blatantly trolling. You're an autist, and I'm an autist for replying to you. Go eat some cabbage or burn some refugees, or whatever it is you do for fun where you're from.
>>44460813
What kind of fucking argument is that? The fuck are you on about? Are you really so fucking desperate that you want to go the stoner logic of "well education is only a matter of opinion, bruh..." or what?
Or do you want to go into epistemology and start analyzing what is or isn't "true knowledge" and how to determine this?
>>44460833
Yeah. That is what one would expect from any high school educated kid. Also, basic art history and theory, basic overview of economy, philosophy, and social sciences. That is bare minimum standard, really. That is literally ALL that the institution is for.
>>44460805
That a scant few were done a favor does not at all counteract the fact that they were vastly more likely to die
>>44460789
>European demand
Because in the magical land of politically correct history, the Islamic world didn't exist. Well, at least as far as slavery is concerned.
>>44460832
>because being an early agriculturalist who is not a member of the ruling class FUCKING SUCKS.
Fairly off topic, but is there any logical basis for a setting that doesn't have steam engine or higher tech levels to have an agricultural class that is relatively well off, other than just magic?
>>44460848
>Also, basic art history and theory
The ones who specialized in Arts and Letters have those
>basic overview of economy, philosophy, and social sciences.
And the ones who specialized in social science had those.
>>44460867
>to have an agricultural class that is relatively well off
if I can use my own family's history, living in an area where the king hasn't too much power makes for a better living of the agricultural class.
>>44460848
>"well education is only a matter of opinion, bruh..."
How the fuck is that not true, though? Or is any sort of education that doesn't hold up to your lofty standards suddenly not education anymore?
>>44460851
In retrospect a given slave was more likely to die than not. Or do you suggest that Europeans knew that they were carrying smallpox?
>>44460867
Religion and tradition restricting who gets reproductive rights and when have traditionally been used to control population pressure within agricultural societies. So basically they're super religious and big into the whole chastity thing.
>>44460900
It stopped bring retrospect when they started shipping over replacements.
>>44460805
>>44460789
It is still pretty shitty to go "damn these guys keep dying, OH WELL GET MOAR OF EM"
>>44460922
>>44460923
[Citation required]
>>44460861
Wasn't particularly significant in west africa where Europeans were getting their slaves from because carting slaves across the Sahara is a bad investment
>>44460923
>>44460922
Yeah, welcome to the entire fucking world before modern Western values put a stop to it. You can't pin this exclusively on Europe. The Muslims did the same shit, as did the Chinese. Every hugely powerful society did it up until slavery was globally outlawed, because of the ONE hugely powerful society that decided slavery is unacceptable. Which is the same society you're cherrypicking right now.
>>44460937
>because carting slaves across the Sahara is a bad investment
But shipping them halfway across the world is? It's literally the same logistical problem, and it was solved in the same way: Get more slaves, and write off the loss.
Of course, the Muslims also got their slaves from Europe.
>>44460923
>>44460922
Good thing european outlawed the slave trade then.
Religion and pride.
>>44460949
Slaves were very, very expensive. You may not know this, being unemployed and all, but when you spend a lot of money on something you do not treat it like shit.
>>44460949
Exactly, they had easier access to east African and European slaves, and second plantations in the new world were way more profitable than anything the sandniggers were doing with slaves so as a matter of fact yes shipping slaves across the Atlantic was a mjch better investment than carting them across the Sahara. So as I said, Muslim demand was basically irrelevant to west africa, most people sold to Europeans wouldn't have been enslaved in the first place without European demand.
>>44443955
Well, since we're on /tg/ and your post includes, and mentions, elves, it's safe to assume you're talking about either a D&D setting or a D&D tangential setting.
In such settings, the spirits have power, and if the spirits want you to keep living a certain way in order to keep their blessings, then it's not necessarily a bad choice to listen.
If you had a choice between living in spirit-driven tribal society or fantasy medieval noteurope, which would you chose for the best quality of life?
>>44460951
Britian only started pushing for it when they started being able to import cheap labor from India and none of their European rivals could. A cut to their own profits vs a much larger cut to everyone else's profits meant they came out ahead. It was pure realpolitik.
![African_slave_trade[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/bubPEz9.png "African_slave_trade[1].png")
>>44460937
>because carting slaves across the Sahara is a bad investment
Are you fucking kidding me? That was one of the main trade routes for slavery to the Arabic world. How else do you think Islam spread to those regions, if not for (slave) trade? There were often frequented and highly established routes with cities and oases along them.
>>44460942
>The Muslims did the same shit
Except much, much longer. From about the 10th century until the 20th century, whereas Atlantic slave trade only lasted from the 1500s until the 1800s.
Do you know why Saudi Arabia isn't full of niggers? Because all Muslim African slaves were castrated. I guess that's a smart move, because if there is no evidence of slave trade left nobody can call you raycis, even if your slave trade was much, much more brutal and lasted much longer than that of whitey.
>>44460942
Again, I'm not placing some unique blame on Europe, just not putting up with the "it was a good thing for the slaves" nonsense some moron was spouting.
>>44460970
Get off your computer and throw your clothes off, since they hawe probably been made by chinese kid slaves.
It's kinda stupid to blame the demand.
>>44460982
>if there is no evidence of slave trade left
so what evidence WAS left, given that itis known now?
Archeological? Dug up a ton of skeletons of west african features?
>>44460995
I'm not blaming anyone, just saying that if a bunch of people died that wouldn't have died if it weren't for Europeans buying slaves to ship across the Atlantic, maybe that wasn't a good thing for said people. Holy shit what is wrong with you people.
>>44461008
>HEY MAN I'M NOT BLAMING ANYONE, I'M JUST SAYING THAT IF EVIL RACIST WHITE MEN HADN'T BOUGHT SLAVES, THOSE SLAVES WOULDN'T HAVE DIED
>>44460955
No.
>>44461006
>so what evidence WAS left, given that itis known now?
Historical records? By no evidence left, I simply meant that the Middle East isn't as full of black people as Brazil or America, two countries where black people weren't routinely castrated. You can't just walk around the streets of Mecca and see evidence of slavery the same way you can see it in Detroit.
>>44461046
Alright yeah.
>>44461008
>A society that has practiced slavery for centuries before even coming into contact with Europeans wouldn't have found a cliëntele for their slaves
Yeah, sure thing. And if we all stop buying jeans, China will stop producing them instead of selling them to Russia or Africans.
>>44461026
I didn't call anyone racist. Strictly speaking I didn't call anyone evil either but I'll be fair I sure did heavily imply it. Sure, it wasn't ubique, but I shouldn't have to include "also, other people that aren't really the subject of this conversation were doing bad things too" every time I post to avoid hurting your precious fee-fees though
>>44461006
Bureaucracy. The Muslims could write, you know?
>>44460991
It's probably more a "it's good for the descendents of slaves" argument, because those descendents don't have to live in Africa.
>>44461059
You explicitly blamed a group for something after saying you weren't blaming anyone. It also begs the question of why you're "just saying" anything at all.
>>44461052
They're already selling them to Russia, but they won't be able to sell them to Africans because American clothing donations destroyed Africa's textile industry and necessity to import clothing that poor people can afford in a lot of places, which is why they all wear the previous year's Super Bowl T-Shirts.
>>44461062
Iduno, Africa may have been not so bad if we didn't colonialise the ever loving shit out of it.
>>44460965
How fucking retarded are you? They were bought with glass beads, and carted off in ships where a load of them would die. Even if they ARE expensive, there's no way around taking the hit when it comes to loss of merchandise. And we know people took that hit, and thus it was economically viable, because people actually fucking did it. It's a matter of historical record.
Kill yourself.
>>44461062
Yeah, that could be argued, but >>44461062
Well the post I originally took issue with was
>>44460729
>slavery was a good thing for all involved parties.
Which is certainly far beyond that
>>44461008
Those slaves were all war conquests - the ones that weren't kept for slavery were slaughtered.
So, in fact by buying the slaves the "evil Europeans" were saving them from slaughter.
>>44461088
To be fair the colonization of africa began because the africans were raiding europe.
>>44461088
I'd say it was more the end of colonialism made abrupt by Soviet and US interference during the Cold War that turned huge chunks of Africa into war torn shit piles.
You know, the parts of Africa where 1/3 of the population isn't middle class, wears a suit to work and has a smart phone. Some countries in Africa are doing alright now, and not just because of outside investment (which is a factor), they're legitimately pulling themselves back together.
Place still sucks, but the end of the 21st Century will have a lot of well off black dudes to trade with.
>>44461106
What?
>>44460614
Shit like "gender studies" was founded by ultraliberals. You can't really call it hijacked.
>>44461101
Yes, but with the increased demand there was a corresponding increase of war for the sole purpose of capturing slaves to sell, instead of for lack of a better word "byproducts" of "regular" warfare.
>>44461129
Colonization of Africa (namely, north africa) started because the Barbary Corsairs had to be put down by sword.
>>44461129
North African Arabs and subsaharan Africans are the same thing, apparently
>>44461088
>muh colonialism
Sorry Anon, but I'm tired of this argument, and it's exclusively made by people with zero experience with Africa. I'm guessing you've never lived there, been there, know anyone from Africa, or are in any way familiar with African culture?
We colonised the entire known world, from America to Asia, with Africa in the middle. And of all those places, we were in Africa for the absolute shortest amount of time, and for good reason. Up until the invention of kinine (which is pretty recent) Africa was known as "the white man's grave", because a lot of people travelling there (and some other places, admittedly) had about two years before they'd drop dead from disease. This is what a lot of people forget about muh ebil colonialism: The death rate for white oppressors was staggering. It wasn't a simple walk in the park where whitey walked in and took what they wanted. There's a reason these people were venerated in their time for what they did, and that's because it was really fucking dangerous.
OK, so Africa was the most dangerous, the most unexplored, and the shortest colonised continent we ever set foot on. In contrast, Asia and India got the fuck colonised out of them for centuries, and not even just by whitey. The goatfuckers got there first, after all. But those ex-colonies, as well as South American ex-colonies (even the ones populated largely by people of African origin) are doing positively great by comparison.
The answer is in African culture. I'm not an expert, but I can tell you -from experience- that no-one fucks Africans as hard as other Africans. Most societies are still tribal in nature, too, and this runs people's lives. The conflict in South Sudan, just after they got their independence after fighting a religious war for years? It's a tribal conflict. The unrest in Kenya a few years ago, that didn't even make the news? Tribal.
I'm sure colonialism didn't help, but it's far from the only cause.
>>44461141
We all take "African" to mean "sub-saharan African", but I've seen plenty of conversations where people tried to weasle their way out of an argument by saying "hur dur not all of Africa is sub-saharan" whenever someone made the point that Africa is shit.
But he isn't wrong. European interest in North Africa was always tightly interwoven with the slave-raiding barbary pirates. Who often had European captains, actually, because as others have pointed out: Slavery was considered acceptable during that time, so cherrypicking on the West for having done it is retarded.
>>44461138
Cisneros wasn't setting up colonies though, he was JUST after the pirates. Oran later became a lucrative trading post, but it was never considered a sovereign extraterritorial entity by Castile or later Spain, otherwise they would have counted Oran among their oldest colony rather than Hispaniola or Puerto Rico.
>>44461192
>We all take "African" to mean "sub-saharan African"
No. If you want to say black africans, you say black africans.
>>44461247
Then you're basically being wilfully retarded, and arguing semantics rather than the point because you know how weak your actual argument is.
>>44461192
>so cherrypicking on the West for having done it is retarded
It's simple: black liberals want a scapegoat for their perceived "underprivileged" state, and white liberals are cucked enough to parrot them.
>>44447728
>>44452319
>anthropology
>science
lol
>>44443955
>what could motivate the tribal society to remain tribal instead of civilizing as well?
Tribes get all the pussy they want by just raping whatever looks good. If they civilize they have to do shit like buy her flowers and dinner and shit. And talk to her. That sucks.
>>44461157
All colonialism changed is that they're now killing each other with guns instead of spears.
>>44461290
It's my experience that people who make claims like this don't know the first thing about science.
>>44444413
Genuine question, what kind of carrier do you have after sociology studies ?
>>44460456
>social evolution
There's your problem. You're applying evolutionary language to cultural concepts.
>Trying to impose a MORAL evoluation (this is better, this is worse) and pretending like it's an objective one is the fucking stupid.
Let's transfer this statement to the modern age and see how it holds up. Would you say that it's stupid to make a moral evaluation of America, North Korea, China, etc. because there is no 'objective' way of looking at their actions? Unless you're a radical moral relativists you have to acknowledge that, while we can't make any kind of statement with -certainty- it's still reasonable to make moral evaluations and act on them if they follow logically from the base assumptions we make about the world.
>>44461328
>Tribes get all the pussy they want by just raping whatever looks good
But what if they're a matriarchal tribe of deliciously tall 18 STR brown elves (even muh -4 STR would put them at a severely above average 14 STR)? What would motivate them to remain tribal and therefore remain STRONK enough to be fetish bait for the city men who have grown weak on their prosperity and instead do unmanly things like mathematics, science, art, philosophy and politics?
All I want is a society of bookish men being tenderly loved by stronk amazon waifus without making the amazons dumb or savage, is that too much to ask for?
>>44460429
>Are you implying that urbanized societies aren't objectively superior to tribal societies?
That's indeed what we're doing. You probably see the kind of society you're in as the pinnacle of civilization, and that's exactly what ethnocentrism is.Your particular culture (whatever it is, US or not) probably has a big red label with "completely innefective and prone to moral decay" in the eyes of some other cultures, because they don't use the same measures. You put availability of food as the top element in your post, but that's far from universal as values goes.
>Only a cultural relativist could argue that hunter-gatherers and nomads are on the same level as urban societies.
I think most cultural relativists would reject the idea of level entirely.
>>44461607
>I think most cultural relativists would reject the idea of level entirely.
Only if they practice what they preach. But most cultural relativists who care enough to talk about it at length seem to be selectively outrages assholes who see cultural relativism as a one-way street. In fact, they're often more projecting their misgivings with Western society onto the rest of the world rather than truly seeing culture as relative.
>>44460805
Yeah well, and if the Holocaust didn't happen Jews probably wouldn't have gotten their own country, because no Western power gave a shit about them before WWII. That still doesn't make the Holocaust a positive thing for them.
>>44461328
You damn fool
Tribes more often than not have ridiculously elaborate rules surrounding marriage
>>44461529
>But what if they're a matriarchal tribe of deliciously tall 18 STR brown elves (even muh -4 STR would put them at a severely above average 14 STR)?
Then you have 10/10 tastes
>What would motivate them to remain tribal and therefore remain STRONK enough to be fetish bait for the city men who have grown weak on their prosperity and instead do unmanly things like mathematics, science, art, philosophy and politics?
Differing cultural values, like seeing farming as weak or placing high importance on hunting, or half of the other things in this thread
>All I want is a society of bookish men being tenderly loved by stronk amazon waifus without making the amazons dumb or savage, is that too much to ask for?
No, also, possibly make them amazon/Gerudo like
![2ce95d570acb2a092140c4d681c0dd4b[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/qDDcgEf.png "2ce95d570acb2a092140c4d681c0dd4b[1].png")
>>44461914
Perhaps it could help if they somehow had access to certain resources the urbanized humans value but have no access to, making them viable trade partners. They could probably trade this in return for other resources the humans have access to but they don'tlike husbands
>>44461738
Can we really call them cultural relativists in that case ?
If they use the "wise savage" imaginary, they are using an objectivist scale ; but with "ethno-externalism" where their own culture is percieved as inferior to another one due to the measurement of a very restircted set of criteria.
IMO, that's an opposite of ethnocentrism like cultural relativism, but in a different spectrum.
Sorry if I'm unclear, having discussions about anthropology in a foreign language isn't the easiest thing.
>>44461389
Even a radical moral relativist like myself will acknowledge that some societies are objectively more successful than others.
>>44461738
Can confirm, used to be a cultural relativist, was even some portion of "OK" with FGM because "that's how they want it & who am I to stop it?"
Then I realized that was fucking retarded because their values are fucking retarded, barbaric, toxic, & backwards. Feels good to call out destructive cultural practices. Now I'm actually a real liberal, one not in favor of subjugating & mutilating half the population because it's fucking wrong.
>>44462183
No, not really. But they see themselves as proper cultural relativists, because they associate cultural relativism with being critical of Western culture, because in the typical situation where someone lacks cultural relativism, they will root for their own culture.
Of course, they are also rooting for their own culture, but it's a political subset, rather than a national subset.
>>44462054
Would have to ask what though?
What could it be that makes it unprofitable for the city dwellers to move in and harvest it themselves?
Or are the amazons that military powerful (due to magic, goddess's blessings, whatever) that invading their land is a bad idea? And if so, why don't the amazons take over the city and enslave the men for themselves?
Actually, have it something only they can "make" works, like they know a type of magic that's really useful or something something holy X their goddess blesses them with that they trade away sometimes
>>44461738
Sounds about right. I consider myself a moral relativist on the grounds that if it works for a society, then it's fine. However not all outcomes are equal. And I think societies have a right to defend themselves from encroachment, and when someone opts to join a culture they have to change themselves to suit their new setting, not demand that others do it for them.
>>44462247
>They see themselves as proper cultural relativists, because they associate cultural relativism with being critical of Western culture
This may also be because any other culture would retaliate against them. Western civilization isn't fighting back.
>>44461826
Yes I know, that's why I only mentioned the sex. Not the marriage. The sex and breeding is reason enough not to civilize.
>>44460596
Your country is 10% gipsies, ayy
Agriculture is the worst thing to ever happen to humanity and we should return to isolated tribal societies that are in a constant state of bushwar and fuck our sisters.
There is no irony in this statement, I am dead fucking serious.
>>44463512
>we should return to isolated tribal societies that are in a constant state of bushwar and fuck our sisters
>There is no irony in this statement, I am dead fucking serious.
GB2africa
>>44463563
Eat corn and get fucked by a nigger shitstain. God Bless the USA.
>>44463593
No seriously, you'll get all the tribalism and sister fucking you want in Africa. It will be a dream come true for you, nigger!
>>44462247
>>44462467
>>44462647
>/tg/ talking about cultural relativism in anthropology when they don't know the difference between descriptivism and prescriptivism
This is why this place turns to shit when /pol/ comes over and shouts down everyone as being "dum libruls"
>>44463335
Elaborate regulations around marriage also implies elaborate rules around who you're allowed to fuck and when
It's not "ooga booga where da women at"
>>44463512
>isolated tribal societies that are in a constant state of bushwar and fuck our sisters.
Read some actual books on pre-agriculture societies. Shit gets ridiculously elaborate.
>>44463694
Africa is a nexus of agriculture and industrial projects. Everyone from the US to China are starting projects there. It is the last place to go to escape liberal oppression and international jewry.
Also none of them are of any tribe even closely related to me.
Only through ultimate murder can America be free!
>>44464088
>It's not "ooga booga where da women at"
WELL WHY FUCKING NOT?!!! FUCK YOU THAT'S EXACTLY HOW IT WORKS IN MY MAGICAL REALM!!!
conan is the best fantasy ever
>>44464109
>Also none of them are of any tribe even closely related to me.
They will be if they rape you and your mother/sister/daughter often enough. :^)
>>44464136
A lot of people in this thread seem to be basing their entire opinion of 'tribal' cultures on Conan and magical realm RPGs.
>>44460982
Not castrated, emaciated. Dick and balls gone, and yeah, they kept it up until the early 20TH century.
>>44464155
Sadly, yes.
>Being a retarded history-revisionist Liberal
>Being a retarded oversimplified-history Conservative
It's like niggas don't know how to Moderate anymore.
Also, referring to >>44444206 and >>44444141 ,
I've always assumed civilization was a sufficiently-sophisticated society, whereas society is a a group of people that have either some kind of notable hierarchy, like a Chief for tribes or a King for England, or some other kind of apparent social structure, no matter how primitive.
And yes, many societies can be primitive. But they can also be complicated in some ways or many ways. It's rather silly of us to make vague categorizations to mark and file something as complex and multidimensional as an entire civilization.
Also, a small statement about racism. Life isn't a fucking tabletop game. Races don't have statlines. Niggers don't have -3 to INT & WIS. Whites don't have Sworn Enemy: Sunburn.
There is no inherent inferiority in any of us, we merely are the way our environment and our reactions to said environment make us.
Jesus, I think people look at life like a fantasy novel sometimes. It's insane. Like read this shit.
>Once, long ago, in the glorious land of Europe.
>Recently freed from the oppression of the mighty ROMAN EMPIRE, the White Man rises to form their own glorious ever-lasting nations.
>But from the south, in the dark and evil lands of AFRICA, the MUSLIM SCOURGE rises.
>Many fall to the evil of the horrific, dark skinned, baby eating, dog fucking(list of expletives too long).
>And so, setting aside their differences, brethren of the White Men join forces to destroy the terrible SALADIN and his horde of monsters.
Does this not sound like a paper back novel you'd find on Amazon for two bucks? It sounds ridiculous. How can people think so one-dimensional?
Also, elves are sexy. SEXY!
>>44465567
>I've always assumed civilization was a sufficiently-sophisticated society,
There is no widely agreed on definition of civilization. Some include written language, but then that would mean the Inca and Mississipians and others aren't 'real civilizations'. The only two that most anthropologists agree on more often than not is agriculture and urban centers.
all these words
where the fuck are the dark elves.
>>44465757
>There is no widely agreed on definition of civilization
Which is what my problem is with this whole fucking thread and this attempt by extreme right wingers to discredit races because "not muh civilization".
>The only two that most anthropologists agree on more often than not is agriculture and urban centers
Yeah, I do think that agriculture and urban centers are telltale, if not definite signs of a civilization.
>>44465779
I think this is an elf...
>>44464155
welcome to the anglosphere. Playbook hasn't changed since well before Kipling wrote a bunch of shitty poems about how holy shit, the darkies seem to understand love, courage, and politics even without whitey setting out to teach them
>>44465997
Africa sucks
Every other continent and culture managed to create great civilizations
Deal w/it nerd
>>44466017
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.
>>44447728
Civilization implies cities and some degree of urbanization.
OP's post is worded stupidly, but he's clearly getting at the idea of an urban society and a hunter-gatherer society. So the people in this thread are incorrectly using tribal as a stand-in for hunter-gatherer, but you know that's what they mean. Just roll with it.
Sincerely, arch conservative who studies history and just wants this thread to be slightly useful.
![latest[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Vz1wt0j.jpg "latest[1].jpg")
>>44443955
Short answer: If they're the same species, it won't happen; those people who live without the advantages of a more developed civilization will get wise and rebel against whatever leadership is forcing them to stay in the bushes worshiping bonfires.
On the other hand, if they're different species and therefore they need/value different things, it's possible.
For example, humans in one city. They're humans, they do human things; industry, dense population, highly social, etc.
Then you have a tribe of lizard guys in the woods. Now unlike humans, these lizards can't digest meat and their bodies are heterothermic so they don't produce their own heat; raising animals is useless to them since they can't eat them and clothes will do them as much harm as it will do them good for the purposes of staying warm. Their houses are big stilted platforms that they climb up onto and bask in the middle of the day to absorb the sunlight, and the lizards prefer to make their houses far enough apart that they cannot see each other when they are basking, so living in human buildings would not suit them at all, especially in a densely packed city.
However, the humans and their highly developed industry mine huge amounts of onyx, which the lizards highly value for reasons X, Y, and Z.
Also, the lizards produce valuable charms through some sort of ancestral magic that a human simply cannot learn.
Hence you have trade, but not integration.
