Nicky Woolf’s post below persuaded me to take a look at Steve Taylor, discoverer of the “Ego Explosion” that sent mankind on its downward spiral 6,000 years ago. On closer inspection, it turns out that only some races were affected by this disaster. Other peoples have remained unaffected, it seems:
[The problem of ego] is still the main difference between us and indigenous “unfallen” peoples such as the Native Americans, Australian Aborigines and the peoples of Oceania, and the reason why they have much more respectful attitude to nature than us, and a more spiritual vision of the universe. Our strong sense of ego “walls us off” from other people and nature, makes us unable to sense the alive-ness of the world around us, and may ultimately be responsible for our extinction as a species.
Right. So, Steve, let me get this straight: you’re saying that some peoples are inherently superior to others, by virtue of their biological and cultural inheritance? And the difference between that and racism is…?
If you enjoyed this post, why not subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter? You might also consider making a donation to the Counterknowledge.com fighting fund.
Click here to sign up for free RSS updates.
Download the free 
Join 
13 responses
And systematic genocide and slavery of these races was not racist?
… and I like red balloons.
No, wait, that’s off topic, just like your comment was Steve (are you the mentioned author - Steve Taylor?).
We can all acknowledge that terrible, terrible things have been done to groups of peoples all through time, and that it isn’t something to be proud of. But all DT is doing here is pointing out rubbish anthropology.
One particular point made by Taylor has always really annoyed me for its complete inaccuracy - that there was no war in pre-European tribal cultures and “the last 6000 years of war, oppression, misery and hardship” have just been a blip on the time radar. Incorrect. Your “unfallen” Oceanic cultures had been engaged in warfare since they arrived in the area. Were there no losers in those fights? No children left parentless? No spoils of war to the victors? No oppression and misery of the vanquished?
Are you really confused, Thompson? Can you really not answer your own question?
A rash comment, it was off topic, first thing that came to mind on the subject of racism and indigenous cultures.
No I’m not Steve Taylor.
I do have admiration for the few indigenous hunter gatherers remaining in the world, and I have understanding for the indigenous peoples in various parts of the world that do not seem to be able to adapt to the modern industrial/agricultural culture and way of thinking.
There does definitly seem to be biological as well as cultures factors involved,
The words ‘inherently superior’, I believe, are Damians interpretation of Steve’s work, and not strictly accurate. Inherently different would be more fitting.
I am also in no doubt that tribal conflict has always been a big part of human existence, it is after all ‘the nature of the beast’. However you cant doubt that agriculturalism meant claiming land and must surely have increased the intensity of conflicts.
The ‘Noble Savage’ myth rides again…
I doubt that the term racist is appropriate for this kind of garbage - it’s just a rehashing of the Romantic image of the noble savage, and nobody has yet bettered Hobbes’ acerbic retort that the life of the savage, far from being noble, is “nasty, brutsh and short”.
The fantasies of idyllic hunter-gatherer societies omit such unpleasant details as infant mortality, and deaths from what today are easily preventable diseases
As for the “respectful attitude to nature” of the peoples of Oceania - I’m afraid extinctions occurred wherever Polynesians sailed, and long before any Europeans arrived.
The saddest example is New Zealand where all species of moa were hunted to extinction within a few centuries.
Likewise with Australia - the megafauna of that continent were destroyed by the aboriginals, not by the later European immigrants. In the Americas the evidence is not quite so conclusive - but it is certainly suggestive that several species of elephant roamed the North American plains before homo sapiens crossed the Bering Straits, and within a relatively short period there were none left.
Very nice little observation by the author actually.
I can understand what Steve Taylor is implying, namely - that the racism present in society toward ‘lesser’ peoples is perhaps unwarranted. Of course it is. The Europeans - a vast, sparsely populated continent of land with little agricultural production.
It is interesting that some posters have pointed out that the traditional indeginuous groups actually destroyed ecosystems rather than live within them.
There is a debate to be had, but Steve Taylor has not addressed it; the world, today, has rewarded imperialism. I believe the main benefits of indeginuous cultures stem from their culture, not their lifestyle. The failure of tribes to put their cultural experiences in writing, or perhaps the failure of the ‘civilised’ empires of Europe and Asia to help them put their experiences in writing has meant any real hope of learning from their history has been forgone. Although, we cannot learn from their past, it would be dangerous to assume they were either; wholly regrettable or wholly perfect.
Paul Fauvet - have you got links, or better yet articles, explaining these findings.
I can’t believe I’ve been accused of racism! But it’s almost as bad to be accused of bad science or ‘rubbish anthropology.’ All I can say that you’re almost completely unaware of the recent evidence on hunter-gatherers and prehistoric peoples e.g. for the lack of warfare, egalitarian social principles etc. You’re stating archaic neo-colonial assumptions about the ‘brutality’ and primitive-ness of prehistoric life, and that of contemporary hunter-gatherer peoples. You obviously need to read my book to survey this evidence, but check out the work of anthropologists like Bryan Ferguson, Richard Gabriel, Jared Diamond, Marshall Sahlins or JMG Van der Vennen - all very respectable and conventional scholars who are certain that warfare is a late development in human history.
Is someone guilty of pseudoscience just because they express views which contradicts traditional assumptions?
best
Steve Taylor
@ Steve Taylor - a product (Thompson’s book/brand/career, presumably) is being sold here.
The author of this blog post clearly doesn’t feel the need to offer defences or explanations of his position. If he did, he might have had the decency to respond by now.
Like the many purveyors of ‘counterknowledge’ they seek to expose, they seem content to rely on the lazy journalism and stop short of actual scholarship and analysis by merely posing a question for further debate.
Perhaps Damian would rather portray the illusion that ST is not worthy of a reply, rather than enter into open debate and be found guilty of unreasonable embellishments and conclusions.
By these standards this blog site could just as easily be perceived as racist due to the anti islamic / pro semitic undercurrent that runs through the site
I think you’re right - I knew nothing of this site when I replied, but checked it out afterwards, and am amazed by its bigotry and small-mindedness. If you check out the reviews of Damian Thompson’s book, you’ll see a lot of people held a similar opinion of that. It’s very surprising since he’s apparently a staunch catholic - who does he defend his own supernatural and irrational beliefs?
@ Vinny
I don’t think it’s fair to accuse us of lazy journalism, in view of some of our independent investigative work:
http://counterknowledge.com/?p=238
But look out for a series of posts soon from a new contributor that I am confident will silence any such lingering suspicions.
@ Steve Taylor
I’m not sure how one can be classified as “racist” for appearing “anti-Islamic”, but, regardless, what you say is completely untrue.
We do go after holocaust deniers, certainly. But perhaps you have an issue with that?
Bear in mind also that this blog is the work of a number of authors, each with their own take on counterknowledge and their own (I suppose) axes to grind. I, for example, while writing on the rise of creationism (be it Islamic or Christian), could never be accused of pro-Semitic bias.