> Charles replies to my point that life in primitive societies was cruel
> unrewarding and stupid:
>
> CB: Don't have much data by which we can exclude the European
> imperialists, colonialists and slavers as the main cause of the cruelty,
> an lack of reward. The "stupidity" part is racist.
>
> Which I think is a bit of a weird response. Did I say that those who lived
> in those societies were to blame? No. The conditions of there existence
> did not let them rise further. And Charles is right that if you are
> talking about societies that were made primitive in the modern era, then
> yes indeed, those who held them back, like colonists, imperialists and
> slavers were responsible. The fact remains that their lives were cruel and
> unrewarding. What should we do? Pretend that their lives are rewarding,
> because we might offend their feeling? No. If you cannot recognise the
> need for change, you will not make it.
>
> Charles goes on to say it is racist to say that life in primitive
> societies is stupid. But that is not to say that those who live in such
> societies are innately stupid. Only that limiting conditions limit
> intellectual development, too. Should we tell people that illiteracy is
> OK? No. that is why education always played such a major part in
> anti-imperialist struggles. The opponents of oppression always understood
> that subjugation was degrading and stupifying.
>
> Chris says Plato was clever, even though his society was primitive. So he
> was. But five sixths of the people around him were slaves. Women were
> subordinate. Plato himself was exceptional in being able to read. Socrates
> could not. Among the democratic elite in Athens writing things down had
> been thought to be degrading work.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>