Could the american south of 50 years back included as a "sick society". Just swap "evil witch" with "uppity negro" and exactly the same atrocities were being committed.
Labeling whole groups of people as savages or noble is just a lie, and its been used to enslave and dehumanize others through history. We are all capable of being savage or noble, whether you live in a tropical jungle or highrise apartment somewhere.
Even if you do, it doesn't change the myth of the noble savage. Like the poster was saying, these folks are pining for the good days, before the "white man" came and messed it up. All I'm pointing out is that these societies were messed up well before colonization. (I'd guess that post colonization was nearly always an improvement, but that's unrelated.)
> I'm pointing out is that these societies were messed up well before colonization
Using your metric of "messed up society" ie the public, condoned torture and murder of "outsiders", the point am making is that all societies are pretty messed up.
And when you start labelling whole groups of people that way, thats actually step 1 in the plan to exploit, colonize or commit genocide.
That's fine, all societies may be messed up. That's still opposite the claim that they were good before colonization (noble savage, to repeat myself).
And I don't think colonization belongs on the same level as genocide. Having lived in a shitty country, they'd be far better off if they were colonized by a decent country (even today). They might be better off after a genocide, too, but that has a negative effect on everyone that's killed so it's unfair. Colonization doesn't have that issue. The people of said country seem to agree, given their persistence of trying to immigrate to other countries, while expressing a fondness for their home country. If their home country was colonized, they could enjoy the benefits of both. (To be absolutely clear, I'm saying that e.g. Elbonia would benefit greatly by having e.g. Canada peacefully take over their government and run it as a second tier province.)
This article, though, is documenting the manner in which these tribal groups would, rather than merely condone, but instead actively participate communally in the torture and murder of insiders, their own kinfolk.
As a thought experiment, what does one do, when entering a room only to discover an entire family, all members old enough to know better, is engaged in depraved incestuous rituals?
Moral relativism is always a painful psychological quagmire.
Sorry, but what exactly is your point (in plain english)?
And I used the term "outsider" to refer to any perceived differences, whether its race, gender, religion, beliefs etc. And yes, some people condone; while others actively participate.
I'll repeat, as you seem to have missed mine: every culture, modern or historic, has its fair mix nobles and savages. Tagging a whole group of people as savages is just good old fashioned racism.
My point is that it's difficult to separate the horrible, malevolent, criminal aggressors from the benign spectators or unwilling particpants, when witnessing barbaric events of human cruelty.
Its easy to be a keyboard warrior, and judge others from the safety of your home. Maybe one day you'll be given an opportunity to prove to the world just how brave and courageous you are facing up to "horrible, manovelent criminals" in defense of the helpless. Most of those so called "benign spectators" caught up in such situations are women, children and powerless men trying to stay alive (by not standing up to the savages among them ).
Drawing conclusions for whichever labels I present, when I did not specify how I might choose to apply the labels. Do you see where you're jumping to conclusions about my disposition yet?
My last words to you are this:
A burning death after mutilation is cruelty. The aggressors are torturing and burning the victims. The murdered suffering before the mob are victims. Everyone else witnessing the events is a spectator, although some of the spectators may be accomplices to the aggressors. Evidence for many of these events will surely be incomplete, and likely skewed. Without evidence in any direction how would anyone know.
But you, you're lashng out at people on the internet. At some point you marked me as an enemy. Maybe you'll realize you misread my remarks. Oh well, done with this conversation. I won't be replying to you again.
You obviously have a good grasp of vocabulary, but use it to obfuscate rather than communicate. You could of-course speak plainly about what you really mean, but that would unmask your true prejudices, wouldn't it?
And yes, from the negro burnt to death in the american south; the salem witch-hunts of the early settlers and the same in PNG, it is all barbaric.
