Quote:
|
I assume that to start them on the road to civilization WILL make their life better. Why do you want to keep them working, sick, and ignorant? Because history tells me that is what they are.
|
First off, as I have already said in earlier posts: given their isolation and lack of material wealth the chances of them being able to partake in much that civilisation has to offer are actually quite slim. Secondly, because they are hunter gatherers and therefore have to work a great deal, does not mean they will automatically be happier. They will almost certainly concieve of work differently to the way you or I do as they are operating from a different (in fact profoundly alien) mentalite. Consequently the perceived burden of work will be different. It is unlikely that they will spend eight to ten hours a day doing the same thing every day, that is something they may consider burdensome in the same way I would consider having to find water burdensome.
You are pulling out historical agreement where none exists. It is the nature of historians to argue and find flaws with each others' theses. How detailed are your case studies? Are they from archaeological studies, in which case they are blurred by the lack of detailed records and the vast swathes of blank and unlit terrirtory. Are they from recently observed cultures, in which case the observation is through modern eyes.
We. Do. Not. Know. How. Happy. They. Are.
In what way am I making 'HUGE assumptions' by stating that we do not know enough about these uncontacted people to make assumptions about them?