Primal People Primitive Analysis

Over time, this powerful theoretical proposition has become a legitimating cornerstone for the robust defense of market capitalism, a particular ensemble of political institutions, and a specific line of justification for liberal ideas and values. Though manifestly plausible as an accurate reading of Smith when Wealth of Nations is read on its own, even on these terms, this interpretation, is limited and partial. Astonishingly, and disappointingly, most readers of Wealth of Nations fail to attend the very next sentence that follows Smith's seemingly transhistorical, objectivist theory of human dispositions, mindful of Mandeville's classical representation of human egoism. Smith immediately probed more deeply by asking "Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature of which no further account can be given; or whether, as

The differences between Smith and Bradford are clearly evident in their writing styles. Smith’s style, as previously stated, is highly exaggerated. Despite the work being a narrative account of his experiences in the settlement, Smith chose to speak in 3rd person, as seen with the line “...committed the managing of all things abroad to Captain John Smith,...himself always bearing the greatest tasks for his own share,...” (Smith, p. 74). This decision coincides with Smith’s tone; by choosing to use third person rather than first person, Smith is attempting to distance himself from his writing and make it appear more believable by adopting an objective tone. However, Smith’s tone is rather subjective, and this is apparent with his diction. When describing Native Americans, for example, Smith

The story of Kindred and the brutal realities of slave life in Maryland during the antebellum stage in America symbolizes another reference to the men, and mentality they became so accustomed too. Between Tom and Rufus Weylin, an interesting and awkward dynamic that continues to fascinate and frighten the reader shows that Rufus tries his best to distance himself from his father’s image, but only becomes closer to it as he grows older. Tom is a promiscuous slaveholder, which although not unheard of in the antebellum south it certainly was interesting considering his wife and her Christian beliefs. Rufus, on the other hand, would become obsessed with a particular woman, or two women, but one personality and complexion. Dana helped to educate,

Smith also pens his deed as heroic but one is left to wonder about his compassion for humanity. William Bradford on the other hand reports many interactions with Indians, though the ones that talk with him are friendly and speak English. Bradford, most likely due to their kindness, always respectively calls them “Indians” and views a few of them as his allies.

In the film “The Gods Must Be Crazy” by Jamie Uys, there is a contrast between the primitive and the civilized society. The civilized society has come a long way since its primitive days. Its hard to imagine that there are still people in this world that live without the advantages and developments of a civilized society. Those living in a civilized society would must likely believe that their society is better than that of a primitive society, but like wise a primitive society would think their society is better. In this essay, a comparison will be made between the different traits that make up these two different societies.

John the Savage’s view of civilization was greatly enhanced after he left the sheltered community of his tribe. When he first arrives in “utopia” London, he is amazed by the aesthetic of the city and the people who live there; here he recognizes how different the paradisal city is from the barbarous environment of his tribe. John exclaims,“how many godly creatures are there here! How beautiful mankind is!” (129). John is exemplifying the value of learning a new culture and religion from the perspective of one who has been sequestered

Humans are the most intricate organisms in the world, but when broken down, their primal nature is displayed. Primal instincts that include the need to label and place people in groups or the need to follow a leader. Now, these tendencies are not detrimental to humans as a whole, as they are the traits that have kept us alive for millions of years, but these same instincts can be just as damaging as they are helpful. Humans are our worst enemy because of corruption in the government, war, and the need to group people.

In “Primitive,” Mark Antliff and Patricia Leighten argue that in various topics, “primitive” can either have positive or negative connotations. They also specify that the term is not a classification but rather a comparison to its inverse: “civilized.” Antliff and Leighten explicitly discuss its use in the fields of time and space, gender, race and class to support their argument.

Although John Smith gained power and command over many people, it could be argued that he was not an admired leader by his acquaintances. After reading the excerpt from his letter, it is obvious that he is extremely

Throughout the documentary “Decoding Neanderthals” there was a push of research to push the human view of Neanderthals. Over the year’s research showed that we coexisted with Neanderthals and out beat their species. Many believed that Neanderthals where like the stereotypical unintelligent and wild caveman. With new technology, enhanced research, and the exposing documentary “Decoding Neanderthals” pushed the boundaries of these past ideologies. Through this we have learned how intelligent, symbolic, and closely related this species is to homo-sapiens species. This research proved that the Neanderthal may have not became extent due to in ability to create weapons but, due to inter breading with humans

Thinking of it gives me shivers as it implies that we are beings far greater than we imagined. And as good as it may sound, I think it appeals to man’s egotistic nature; we as humans who have done things, good and evil, try to look for a sound explanation to ease our consciences. I cannot say that the idea does not appeal to me yet I cannot also say that I do agree with it; on the other hand, of the three doctrines, I agree the most with the doctrine of The Noble Savage. I do believe that in our true nature, we are savages but that does not mean that we did not know how to control ourselves; indeed it would seem that the Native Americans, the specific race of people that the Europeans based the doctrine of The Noble Savage on, had a better society than we did: they were less barbaric, no employment problems and substance abuse, even crime was nearly nonexistent. And even if there were hard times, life was definitely stable and predictable. And yet that in itself was the reason why man chose to come out of his “savage” nature; he wanted adventure, twist and turns in his life; he wanted to feel the thrill of living. There is nothing wrong with that but for every choice there is a price to pay and the price we paid was high even if it remains to be seen

Smith’s purpose is clear about why he chose to write this topic as he mentions that dehumanization is a universal problem and does not impact a particular group. The author constantly mentions how it is not only used as a life tactic by our enemies but everyone in the world. His main goal is to show that no matter how you see it, people have dehumanized others in the past and even continue to do so today. “Less than Human” is a compelling piece of writing that allows us to question humans and the nature of our people. As Smith mentions in the beginning of his essay, “humans tend to represent who’s unlike themselves as non-human or subhuman using animalistic metaphors,” (13). The essay successfully points out that if someone does not appear to be the same as us or does not believe in the same ideologies, they are to be considered less than human. Smith tries his best to show how people have always tried to hurt one another, being conscious of what they are doing and still go through with their plans.

The notion of human nature has always been historically debated. Explores, philosophers, and writers have always come to argue on what is considered to be barbarism, savagery, and civilized. These constructed categories have put a label on people who do not share the same ideas as one another. These different views of human nature have come to propel change and have come to revolutionized human history. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Michel de Montaigne, and Thomas Hobbes all differ on their ideas of human nature, but they also share common ground. For some of these men the practices of different cultures are categorized as savagery, and for others it has been viewed as noble savagery. Their ideas however have allowed society to view different perspectives of human nature. These perspectives have classified human nature as a way of life, or as an obstacle to what is consider to be the good life. Their ethnographic resources provide a glimpse to all the different cultures and their value to society and history.

declaring that such a civilization is no better than primitive tribalism. We are opposed to this

somehow rooted in the previous generation. Smith's style in developing this central idea is much