Does ‘anti-civ’ equate to ‘hunter-gatherer’ as ‘hunter-gatherer’ equates to ‘indigenous’, given that:
- Hunt-gathering is not limited to indigenous
- Indigenous is not limited to hunt-gathering
What is the anti-civ & anprim use of the term ‘hunter-gatherer’ instead of ‘indigenous’ really all about?
resulting in a continuation of the comment battle:
Jon Jacob Jingleheimer Schmitt: Not all indigenous people have traditions which are compatible with primitivist ideology. Take the Yanomamo, for example, who rape women who are not married by the time of their first menstruation, and who do not fit the anthropological definition of hunter-gatherer because they practice horticulture. Horticultarists in general have some cultural practices which go against primitivism. Hunter-gatherers, on the other hand, are associated with egalitarianism—though in reality it varies.
Ria Del Montana: that’s interesting, but to me serves as an exemplar that generalizing, ‘culturizing’ through labeling a past entire group, or bioregion of groups, or continent of groups, or world of groups, as having traits from rapists to ‘hunter-gatherers’ is akin to labeling today’s human species as ‘meat eaters’. oppressors chose to blind themselves to what discomforts them, hiding snugly in the mainstream. to gaze upon that which they oppress causes them pain which they are prone to release through shunning or silencing their oppressed.