How Do Cultures Evolve? - featuring Edward Burnett Tylor - Anthropology Theory #1

[@chariouibouchaib4416]

Hello Sir , Please I want you to help me to get a short summary of the Difference between civilization and Culture from the point of view of Edward Burnett Tylor , I really need it , Please Help me and Thank you so much :)

[@apartialperspective]

Hi! Tylor defined "Culture" as "capabilities and habits" that people acquire (or learn) as members of a society. This includes specific determinations and notions of law, art, morals, beliefs (like religion), and any other customs. Civilization is one of three stages that cultures can pass through. This is very hierarchical. "Civilization" is a specific stage of cultural evolution. I would say that is the main difference: Culture is what we all have, civilization is a stage that cultures can pass through. For Tylor, cultures evolve, kind of like how humans and other organisms evolve. The most basic stage of culture is savagery, then barbarism, then civilization. Where "savage" cultures believe in animism, that spirits inhabit all things in the world, civilization is characterized by complex religious structure. For Tylor, this meant religions like Christianity. It's also important to note that Tylor felt that Western culture was the perfect example of civilization. In his time, the west was characterized as industrialized and with a sophisticated religion. Less evolved cultures has "primitive" beliefs and rudimentary political structures. But Tylor focused mainly on religion. Lewis Henry Morgan focused on politics. That is the last video we put out a few weeks ago if you'd like to check that out. I hope this helps!

[@chariouibouchaib4416]

Thank you so much it really help me , Now I start to understand the difference , thank you so much :))

[@apartialperspective]

Happy to help! :)

[@hnaidolwaaban3363]

A Partial Perspective I want to copy this but I can't

[@apartialperspective]

Hnaido Lwaaban Hi. What would you like to copy? My reply? You may have to do so on a computer. I noticed the KZbin app doesn’t let you copy a comment for some reason.

[@littleearthquakes3183]

Thank you for making this interesting. I have a condensed Anthropology course (4 weeks) I am having a difficult time learning this info from my textbook. Your videos are helpful.

[@julesjgreig]

Super-helpful. Thanks so much for sharing.

[@phoenix3992]

Big fan of Dual Inheritance theory. The idea that culture influences genes which influence culture again grounds ethnogenesis in a biological paradigm, anchoring it to the larger body of science that cohesively depicts everything in the universe from subatomic particles to pan-galactic filaments.

[@johnfbremerjr]

It is clear reading Julius Ceasar that he viewed Galic and German cultures as uncivilized. They didn't write, they practiced human sacrifice, and they were superstitious and quick to be riled up and persuaded to go to war. There are quantifiable differences between ancient peoples and modern people. I suppose how much total knowledge a people have is one measure of how civilized they are. Their material wealth also would be a good indicator of their mastery over their environment which would seem to be another aspect of evolving.

[@hazelalicevinluan2596]

This video really helped me to understand about the Complexity of Culture.

[@apartialperspective]

We’re glad to hear this helped you better understand the nature of culture! We’ll have more videos on culture in the near future so stay tuned!

[@r0botwolf]

This video and the one on Morgan were super helpful!! Thank you!

[@apartialperspective]

You are super welcome! Thank you for watching!

[@ameeragados3304]

hello sir can i ask what are philosophical insight about culture of edward burnette tylor?

[@user-ly2rj1mu1q]

Sir, can you videos on all the theories of anthropology please?

[@apartialperspective]

I appreciate you watching! I’d love to make additional videos on anthropological theory. I’m planning a few projects for channel, so stay tuned! :)

[@bloomingfya5050]

Thank you for the comprehensive video! I do really appreciate it. Subscribed!

[@apartialperspective]

All that matters is that we provide value to our viewers. Thank you so much for watching and reaching out to us. We greatly appreciate the support. 🖤🙏

[@eroorefulufoo6625]

i take issue with what was said from 3:44, that colonization hindered their "development" development is a really charged term, as today as back in the 1800's, and basically means "becoming like a proper european" so sure, colonisation may have stopped them from some day developing into a western society, but that's not interesting to an anthropologist. what's interesting to an anthropologist is what material conditions underlie the ways a group organise. doesn't matter whether they obstensibly look to a european to be close to european culture so my question is whether that's just how you interpret him, or whether it's your point of view that developing into basically a western society is what would have happened without western influence/colonisation

[@apartialperspective]

This video is about social evolutionists, who undoubtedly argued that there was a trajectory that all cultures necessarily abided by. This video is meant to be educational re: the history of anthropological theory. That said, we spend the end of it discussing how problematic it is, and no, colonization did not stop them from being like Europeans, but cultures are not unilineally organized. Here’s an important question: Did colonization create conditions of deprivation that stagnated a population’s agency? We put development in quotes because these are the terms used by evolutionists, but we then say that this assumption is specious. We have to evaluate cultures by their own history, not that of European history-as if that was a unitary thing, mind you. On the other hand, development doesn’t only have to apply to “being like Europeans” like Tylor and Morgan might argue, but it can also just speak to the level of capacity a population has to change, to practice things, or the ability to do certain things. In short, exercise some agency. But what is clear is that colonialism extracted and created conditions of deprivation globally. Hence Walter Rodney’s “underdevelopment.” An intentional practice with dire consequences. So you have this term being used differently in European contexts, and in the decolonial literature. Underdevelopment is a valuable critique that is worth taking seriously.

[@treyz4274]

Looking forward to watching your next video!

[@apartialperspective]

Thank you for watching! We have a few videos in the works, including another theoretical one. Stay tuned! :)

[@Pablo9svn8]

I have written some articles about cultural evolution that I need reviewed. I never went to college so it’s hard finding collaborators for peer review but I am confident in the value of my work and have a genuine passion for unraveling the mysteries of prehistory. Especially when it comes to early cultural evolution and the path toward the birth of civilization. If anyone in the field could help me out then i definitely could use a mentor to advise me along the way and offer feedback

[@Pablo9svn8]

Btw i think its worth noting that the approach of these articles is not coming from a purely anthropological point of view but rather encompassing many fields related to history with a focus on how these fields can better use what we know about predictable human behavior to make better inferences about the past and broaden our scope of knowledge helping to pave the way for new discoveries about our ancient world. I do not have any official background in the fields I cover but I have a strong passion for these subjects and am extremely open to critique and informed adaptations to my views in these articles. While I may not have a college degree I do have a long background in and strong knack for applied behavioral analysis as well. I believe the deeper understanding I have of human behavior and why we do the things we do offers a fresh perspective to these fields that could integrate well into the way they are practiced and shed light on many of the mysteries of our complex and treacherous past.

[@milesjeoffsatchel7894]

Hi Sir. I really want to know the interpretation of the statement "Society and culture as a complex whole." It would really help a lot in my studies if you'd be able to answer this question. Thank you.

[@apartialperspective]

Society is all of the social structures, policies, and institutions that we have. Culture is the more habitual, learned, and felt aspects of daily life. Society is what we are tied up in and culture is how we make meaning and interpret the world around us. They’re tied together in such a deep way, but these are often said to be how cultural anthropology and social anthropology (and sociology) distinguish themselves from one another. Together they create a “whole,” regardless of your object of study. Hope this helps!

[@jeremietiongco5462]

me too

[@milesjeoffsatchel7894]

Hello again. Thanks for this info, Sir. It really helped a lot.

[@luddned7351]

thanks so much for making these

[@apartialperspective]

Thank you for watching!

[@taren1d]

this helped me so much thank u guys

[@apartialperspective]

Thanks a million! We’re just thrilled it’s helping others out, in any way possible 👍

[@MrPagandog]

Cultures change. They (mal)adapt to changing environmental, social and biotic inputs. So, I do think they evolve.

[@apartialperspective]

As much as theories "fall out of favor," they all have some truth in them. Evolutionary theories are fascinating, cause like you said, cultures adapt, we adapt-humans are sensitive to change and can roll with the punches.

[@darcymergens1935]

someone PLEASE tell me the name of the first song

[@declanmccole6879]

Bind I Love You by Jincheng Zhang

[@titusmicah7407]

Sir, can you make a video of diffusionism and how evolutionism and diffusion differ in their explanation of culture change.

[@apartialperspective]

Thanks for watching! That sounds great. Boas was a huge critic of both. I can nest this comparison in a video about him. :)

[@tasnuvahimi6060]

Thank you so so so much for this video ❤

[@apartialperspective]

You’re super welcome. And thank you for watching! :)

[@tasnuvahimi6060]

Hey can you guys upload the theories of religion or animism by Tylor?

[@apartialperspective]

It’s definitely on our agenda to explain more theory! From Tylor and others. We’re also ramping up to start posting short theory vids on other platforms like Instagram. Feel free to follow us at @apartialperspective and @theanthroperspective :)

[@aqsagulzar513]

Can you give me logical example on culture in which we compare present culture with past?

[@parthibganguly899]

Thank you I am an anthropology student ❤ from india

[@yog2025]

Thanks

[@apartialperspective]

Thank you for watching!

[@MTahir-ql8rf]

Culture is change due to intercultural communication among people

[@PYRAMIDHEAD1051]

If "Bless your soul" originated from the belief that the soul departs from body when we sneeze , where did "F@ck you" originate from ?

[@apartialperspective]

Seems like it is rooted in a hyper modified real word from another language put into a vaguely related context. A video on the history of common expressions and swear words seems to be in order :)

[@PYRAMIDHEAD1051]

@@apartialperspective I like that , but you did n't answer my question.

[@apartialperspective]

To answer your question: I have no idea. All I can offer is my own best guess until I do some research on it.

[@ReturntoReason]

Would you be willing to expand on the idea that hierarchies of cultures are created by bias? Are all hierarchies created by bias, and are all biases a bad thing? Lastly, is the inference that there are no possible qualitative differences between cultures, which could result in the formation of hierarchies, regardless of a person's bias (or lack thereof)? Thanks, and I appreciate you making this video. It was super informative, and I'd never heard Tylor's definition of culture before. Very useful. Thanks again! 🤙

[@apartialperspective]

Sure, thank you so much for watching! To answer your questions, when we often think of cultural differences, it’s important to note that anthropologists differentiate culture from society-culture is more involved with certain learned habits, patterns, and overall feelings (also called ethos), while society is the social structure, institutions, etc. culturally speaking, there’s no real data showing that any cultural trait brings about more success by any metric (though Max Weber would argue they do). But cultures seem to inhabit specific ecologies, and cultures are attuned to their ecologies (as Julian Steward would argue). Neither theorist is right or wrong by the way, but it’s also right to say that specific cultural traits can be attuned to success in one thing or another, but our values around those things stem from our own cultural embodiment. While culture and society do overlap, they’re not quite the same and in discussing a hierarchy, we’d first have to decide how to measure them-what are we creating this hierarchical relationship concerning? Are all biases bad? I’d wager no, it depends on the bias. And again, how are we qualifying “bad”? If it brings about racist sentiments, then probably. But no, not all hierarchies are created by bias, though it depends on how you define bias. Our institutions and our logical frameworks are all geared towards a certain metric or outcome. So if we were to assess the hierarchy of per capita GDP between countries, this would be inappropriate because (1) GDP rises commensurately with population size, (2) countries are inhabited by multiple cultures, (3) this can be argued to measure market flows and political will rather than some economic success, and (4) the focus on this may be important for some and not others. Lastly, we all have bias. To be human is to have bias and some stake in the world. That’s not necessarily a bad things. But are we attending to it? Are we considering all of our options? At least in anthropology, the first anthropologists were more logicians than actual social scientists as we understand them today. So the discipline has constantly (even to this day) engaged in these more philosophical issues about data collection, researcher bias, the researcher’s role, the strength of data collection tools, etc. Science was born from these kinds of questions though. But to answer your question on whether there are no possible hierarchies regardless of bias, I’d have to direct you to my first answers. I think it’s highly contextual, and ultimately the metrics we use to judge them are also contextual, and occasionally agenda driven. I’d be interested in knowing what you think about all of this.

[@ReturntoReason]

@@apartialperspective I appreciate your thoughtful reply, which certainly helps illuminate where you were coming from in the video. Would it be correct to synthesize the two statements you gave in the first answer, into the following: "There is no real data showing that a group of people's habits, patterns, and overall feelings (i.e.ethos, or beliefs) contribute to their group success (or lack thereof), as measured using any meaningful metrics." If so, please elaborate on this. If not, please help me understand which part I got wrong. As for bias, this term often carries an implied moral connotation that isn't necessarily accurate. We all hold biases that do not have an explicit moral component. When searching for a product, I am biased towards the one that best meets my needs. On long road trips, I am biased towards a particular gas station, because they serve high quality food, and have a larger selection than any of their competitors. When choosing a house to buy, I am biased towards homes that do not have cracks in their foundation. These are biases of measurable utility, and the way I attend to them (as you suggested) is through regular analysis of whether or not that utility remains the same, or if a competing product or service offers something qualitatively better. Natural and productive hierarchies seem to operate in a similar way. Football tryouts begin with each player simply playing the game, and demonstrating their capabilities. By the end, a natural and productive hierarchy emerges as some players demonstrate more skill than others. Lastly, this hierarchy becomes official when those players are given their respective roles on the team (starters, 2nd string, practice squad, or no spot at all). In order for the hierarchy to remain natural and productive, it must maintain feedback into whether or not it is still operating with the most productive components as it previously understood them, and adjusting accordingly ("Is our backup quarterback now playing better than the starter?"). A hierarchy becomes unnatural and non-productive when it no longer remains sensitive to feedback, and becomes more focused on attending to goals that are different than the previously understood goals (The coach puts his son as starting wide receiver, despite the 2nd string WR being measurably more skilled, thus deviating from the previously understood goal of playing the best players so the team can win the most games). The first part of this reply is my follow-up question, the rest is simply my two cent contribution, for your consideration. Regardless, I do appreciate your thoughtful answers. They're quite helpful, and I appreciate the time you took to grant such help.

[@apartialperspective]

Thanks for giving that statement. It’s really helpful in seeing what I said, synthesized. And seeing it that way, I don’t necessarily agree with it. Not that it’s incorrect, but some anthropologists have argued both sides of that, and for good reason. Can culture aid in cultivating some kind of success? I’d say a more accurate answer is, it is hard to say. For example, we could say that a culture can cultivate an ability to hunt better than another, but I wouldn’t attribute that to culture. I think I’d attribute that more to ecological pressures and social structure. We consider Christianity to be a pretty important part of our lives, and Max Weber identified a “Protestant work ethic” as having promoted values such as propriety, humility, and frugality as not only cultural, but also serving to promote capitalism. Making people with these values more ‘successful’ in the free market. It’s an interesting idea, and these kinds of theories are considered more “idealist” (because they denote cultural change as coming from ideals), which is opposite of materialist ones (which is more of the ecological rationale I stated above-it’s also relevant to say that Marxism is materialist, but not all materialism is necessarily Marxist). But I think the problem with a lot of this is that they all highlight really important facets of human life, but real life is so much more messy-which is why I am kind of refusing to take a side here. It’s all important stuff. And yes, maybe a culture can have more success with something, but the reality is, in social science research, it is incredibly hard to answer why, and it’s worth noting that every theorist proposes that their “thing” is the best. For example, some argue that it deals more with biological aspects-I recently read a book about the gut microbiome and they argued that different cultures have different kinds, and that this is important because what we eat ties into our emotional regulation (or dysregulation). Our mind gut connection is real through our enteric nervous system and this is a largely ignored part of medicine. Another book talks about sleep-sleep can influence our focus in the world and lack of it, over time, even by an hour here and there, can accumulate and harm us. Similar arguments are made about consuming sugar, meat, or other things like antidepressants. Linked with these are more psychosocial explanations, like some arguing that growing up, we develop different emotional coping strategies, and these can modulate our being in the world. I watched Rick and Morty recently and it was an episode with “Jaguar,” an efficient killer. And at the end of the episode he ends up saving Rick and Morty, and when Morty asked, “who was that?” Rick responded, “that’s why you don’t go to therapy.” Such a funny episode (Pickle Rick is an instant classic). But the episode dealt with the utility of therapy and that end scene made the point that this killer sought an unhealthy outlet that made him an efficient killer. That’s a more individually focused explanation for why we do what we do. But a more sociological or social anthropological one might look more at our social environment and cultural surroundings. Group level theories look more at how we are not islands unto ourselves. We are intersubjective beings-being created with every interaction, idea, and subject (subject being another person). And that our relationships and group values and beliefs are co-constructed. Cultures are not islands, and the fact is we have been living in a globalized world for at least 500 years now. Cultures are also interacting. The core issue I’m raising here is that we act as if only one thing should be our thing, but how seriously should we take these theories? Especially because the most likely and uncomfortable answer is that they are ALL true and accurate. Speaking to hierarchy, I think you’re correct, hierarchy exist and they serve a specific function. I don’t know that anyone can refute that. They’re serving a purpose. But how seriously are we treating that hierarchy? How much are we allowing it to explain? Kind of a separate point, but maybe you’ll find something in it: Football seems to also be a bit of a dying sport, with CTE being a big uncomfortable reality. And yet, football is also an opportunity for success. I don’t think it’s a surprise that African Americans found an opportunity to advance themselves socially through physical prowess, I.e., professional sports. So now in the hierarchy, social structures, and notions of opportunity are also getting us to think about who is even wanting to compete in this hierarchy. Because it’s also a system contingent on willingness to participate. Perhaps a more closed system than we think. Going to Harvard, there may be more prestige in being on a rowing team than football, so social class is also playing a role here.

[@ReturntoReason]

@@apartialperspective Thank you for your thoughts. It took me a while to digest them, but I do have a follow-up question. In your initial response, you stated "... but it’s also right to say that specific cultural traits can be attuned to success in one thing or another..." and your subsequent reply, you said "For example, we could say that a culture can cultivate an ability to hunt better than another, but I wouldn’t attribute that to culture. I think I’d attribute that more to ecological pressures and social structure." These appear to be contradictory claims. The second claim appears internally contradictory: if one culture "cultivates" a skill that is superior to others in their surroundings, they are by definition putting more effort and intention in to that thing. Intention and effort are driven by value. Using "ecological pressures" as an explanation for superior hunting skills seems like a non sequitur. In such an environment, the presence of an obstacle does not automatically create the means for which that obstacle is overcome, let alone how it might manifest in *better* outcomes than others in a similar situation. "Social structure" is similarly confusing as an explanation, for basically the same reason. The presence of a social structure that desires superiority in a thing does not automatically manifest in the presence of that superiority, nor does it explain the *why* behind it as a goal in the first place ("why" points to value). Back to football, ask any small town football team with too few players for a JV squad how often their desire to compete with significantly larger schools actually manifests in success. To my original follow-up question, I don't quite understand your answer. I asked it the habits and patterns of a group contribute to their success in ways that can be measured. On an individual level, this is self-evident. If I don't have a habit of eating food and drinking water every day, I will die. A person's life circumstances are not 100% due to their own actions, habits, patterns, etc. On the other hand, *no one's* life circumstances (outside of those who literally have no means of controlling any action they take) are 100% divorced from their decisions. You mention both Christian/ Western Idealism (which has manifested largely in material prosperity throughout the world), and the Marxist/ Materialist perspective (which accurately points out the flaws in certain societal arrangements, and the necessity of properly managing hierarchies, lest they become corrupt). The respective validity (or lack thereof) of either of these philosophies still operates within my question- do the habits, patterns, and feelings of a group contribute to the success of that group? I don't understand how it could be "hard to say" if this is the case or not. I obviously believe it is the case, but I want to understand the other side of this. In what ways are the actions of X a total non-factor in the outcomes of X?

[@apartialperspective]

I think there are less contradictions in my statements, but I’m including other considerations in my statements that I may not be making clear. To back up a bit: how are we defining culture? And what interacts with culture to confound this supposedly linear, causal relationship? And I think there are two fundamental questions that we are trying to get at: (1) why do people do what they do? And (2) why do some have more or less success than others? In 2020, I think any anthropologist would be really careful about what it means for a group to have certain habits or patterns. Cultural groups are so damn heterogeneous-sure, there are some that try to measure “cultural consonance” to see which traits are more or less shared amongst a group of people, but they’ve been somewhat inconsistent, or don’t have much generalizability. It’s just as problematic as trying to genetically substantiate the race concept. Fundamentally, I question the question that you’re posing because, although yes, I do consider myself a cultural anthropologist, for at least the last 70 years, as social scientists have reckoned with the question of how we interact with this thing we call “the social,” we’ve had to take some steps back to really deal with it. For example, I mentioned environmental challenges in my earlier response. I had an archaeology professor years ago describe how we are fascinated with how different civilizations around the world had different variations of pyramids (in China, Central America, Southeast Asia, and Africa). And even though some might attribute this to some ludicrous “Ancient Aliens” theory, when it comes to solving the issue of making any sort of large-scale structure, invariably, those structures will be large at the base and smaller at the top (by definition being pyramidal). Aren’t there some equations that humans will, without variation and regardless of culture, crack in the same exact ways? You also mentioned that it’s self evident that at an individual level, if a person doesn’t have the habit of eating food, that person will die. But there are plenty of other outcomes besides life or death-culture is the expression of other, extra-material considerations. I don’t at all think it’s self evident because all people are by definition cultural and individual-and we aren’t necessarily dealing with “life” and “death” factors that are as easily measured. We’re constantly filtering our realities through our cultural lenses, through our personal thoughts and feelings, even through our own bodies and back again. These aren’t linear relationships, they’re biocultural feedback loops. To approach this from another angle: what would constitute evidence for a culture being more successful at one thing or another? And how would we measure this? So I want to ask you, you believe that it is the case, that cultures can be more or less successful at some things than others. Do you have an example of this? And some way of substantiating this position? Or is this in some way reflective of your own cultural values? (Just like my inability to give you a straight answer might be reflective of my own-sorry about that, but I do think these points are worth getting into to answer this question appropriately.)

[@jhonreyablaza5344]

Hi can I ask if what is primitive time and recent time in human and anthropology? Some one help me ☺️

[@apartialperspective]

The difference between primitive time and modern time are more conceptual. But when we distinguish between them, modern time is highly disciplinary, linear. Pre-modern time is considered mostly non existent and not bracketed. I recommend reading Bruno Latour to get a perspective on this.

[@olympus8940]

I think Taylor was on to something

[@Hannah-tg8hw]

I detected slight arrogance from the darker speaker when describing Tylor’s views. I also do not think one should refer to others views as “wrong”. Observe the ways laws change-everything is subject to change-years from now a lot of what we think is “right” will also be disproved. Let us also remember that these men, while some had beliefs contrary to ours, lived in a time that promoted a certain way of thinking. Let us be careful not to transgress the same way we condemn them for. We too need to pay attention to the situations around us that compel us to form our opinions and “facts”. Remember to judge a time by its time. Everything is subject to context-even the definition of culture. Which is why Stuart Hall declared it so difficult to define. Btw, loved the music.

[@apartialperspective]

Thank you for watching and offering your feedback. The point of our videos is to present these theories as honestly and faithfully as possible. This is why a majority of the video is filled with information, detail, and context. I think this applies to both videos on Tylor and Morgan. We want viewers to have informed opinions. However, we do conclude our videos with commentary on these theories. This is also important because we need to also interpret these ideas for an audience who may not understand that these ideas are also forms of cultural racism. They are also ideas that people still believe, so while they haven’t aged well within anthropology, they are still held by much of the general public; whether implicitly or explicitly. This is a big reason why we made this channel. We anthropologists spend so much time disconnected from regular folks-the general public. I think it’s a mistake to offer these theories without unpacking them from the perspective of an anthropologist. But I do respect why you might disagree.

[@capitalistsocietybots9976]

You know, people really do live in their era. And this includes these men. They define and perceive things through the cultural lenses given to them by their society.

[@apartialperspective]

Well said.

[@salvadordali-m8h]

Therefore, according to this theory, the Jews are well ahead of all other cultures. They started 3300 years ago and have never stopped to evolve. That explains all their achievements and their many noble prizes. During that time, cultures rose and died: the Greeks, the Romans, and the Egyptians…Christianity started only to evolve during the Renaissance or the French Revolution as the Church was again any form of learning that didn’t involve faith; the Arabs began to evolve in 600 and are still religious fundamentalists.

[@suwitbunnit9020]

what is primitive culture? Give a simple explanation.

[@apartialperspective]

According to the cultural evolutionist anthropologists, “primitive culture” is an early form of culture with basic technologies and early tool development. For example, Marx and Engels referred to this stage as primitive communism, because of how egalitarian these groups were. I should note, though, that anthropologists have questioned the logic of this for over a century, since we don’t exactly have proof or records of how these societies functioned. We simply assume how they must have functioned based on what we believe a “simple” culture must look like.

[@annonymeandfish]

Well, I think the words “savage” and “primitive” doesn’t have the negative connotation you seem to say there is in the context .

[@capitalistsocietybots9976]

These words still have a negative connotation. Read the history books especially classical literature, you'll find out how non-western people are called savages and primitives. It still retained its meaning. You can also check out the etymology of these words; maybe from there you can fully realize then.

[@apartialperspective]

You bring up a good point: how are these words being used? What did they mean in the 19th and early 20th centuries when they were widely used? They often referred to people who didn’t have “civilization,” which drew a chasm between “us” and “them” that was always a fantasy. It also assumed that “primitive,” “premodern” peoples belonged to a different time, thereby justifying their maltreatment. Perhaps “negative connotation” isn’t the right phrase. But instead, it encouraged a paradigm that led to mistreatment, colonialism, and systemic inequality.

[@capitalistsocietybots9976]

@@apartialperspective @LebunoDelavie meant "negative connotations" in a different sense rather than creating this paradigm for such and such. He was just uneducated in that part of how it was negative in that specified era. Hahaha and thanks for replying to all of these! This is very well-appreciated by the learning community- I stand in behalf of it.

[@illeatyou3541]

Western culture is the best culture Change my mind