Riffing off a picture posted by another member, there are several excellent documentaries on uncontacted civilizations that have far more honest and accepting views of the body and sexuality and its place in a culture. There is always a risk of over-romanticizing others, however it's clear that by treating things in an open and direct way avoids the issues and troubles of denial
top of page
bottom of page
Oh how fun .... a real conversation.
I have another comment on native poverty. Conservative science writer Matt Ridley makes a case that denser populations allow trade and specialization. This one makes bows, that one fletches arrows, another knaps flint, and somebody else weaves loincloths. Because they can afford to specialize, they get good at their crafts, and the society thrives. His example is Tasmania, a big island a couple hundred miles south of Melbourne Australia. The island is small enough that population, trade, and specialization didn't develop very far, and the Tasmanians didn't have the technology that the mainland Australians did, lacking even the boomerang. The Australians, in their turn, were less technically advanced than their South and Southeast Asian cousins. All this was in spite of their all having the same cerebral equipment. When I wrote my earlier comment linking nudity and poverty, I was thinking that the sparse Amazonian populations were working so hard to stay alive that they couldn't progress to the point of dress. I'd like to live nude, but I still recognize the wealth my clothes represent.
tasmania
I wouldn't chalk up nudity to poverty. Only mad dogs and Englishmen wear clothes in a 90 degree 100% humidity tropical rainforest. I wonder if she is Zo'e, there is an excellent film on them on youtube and dailymotion
The young mother in the picture looks like Yanomamo to me, but they aren't the only Amazonians who live naked and look like that. I know about them because of my fascination with nudity. That led me to reading Napoleon Chagnon's book, The Fierce People. (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2000/10/09/the-fierce-anthropologist-2) They are a sparsely settled group. They farm, but quickly exhaust the rainforest soil, and move to another site. This butts them up against other groups, and 25% of them die by violence. Their small populations mean that their technology is primitive, but ingenious. (I think I mentioned that their nudity is a result of poverty.) Their bows are primitive, compared to those of North American plains Indians, but their arrows are reusable, with various disposable points adapted to different game. This girl is hardly Eve, but I think something of Eden still clings to us all.
Yes, absolutely. Even with in small geographical areas indigenous cultures varied widely. But it's very clear that the missionaries' primary goal wasn't one of necessarily "saving souls" but forcing the tribes to adopt JCI social mores or "mores" I should say
The other mistake we make is to lump "native Americans" into a single group. They were many very different cultures and the view of the body and sexuality varied greatly. What they did not have is the hostility to the body and sex that seems unique to the Abrahamic religious (Christianity, Islam & Judaism).