Kung Bushman Essay -- essays research papers

The Kung Bushman Most contemporary foraging chemical groups, such as the Kung and different Bushman tribes, ar viewed as a primitive mass. Some establish pull down gone as far to say that they are the last representatives of the match age. While it is true that these race go through the most similar acculturation to what we believe primitive persons to have had, the analogies they can provide us with the people of the retiring(a) are precise inaccurate. These comparisons are so unrivaled collectible to factors such as time and the wrong sense of view umteen people have on them. Another reason that we cannot compare the Kung of analogous a shot to the people of the past is becaexercising they are now advancing in order with the use of technology. I believe that the Kung tribe is not comparable to the advance(prenominal) people of their culture and that they are just the same as us minus our technology, which in no way makes them primitive people. First of all(preno minal), both culture varies in traditions over time. According to Shostak, it is true that the Kung people hitherto have traditions that have been passed down for hundreds of generations such as their poison arrows, their witch ritual, their wide knowledge of over five hundred species of plants and animalsknowing which are edible, harmful, cosmetic, and medical. Who are we to say that these traditions have not been altered in the past ten thousand years? Howell declares that the Kung were a very studied group including their language, culture, and economic organization. Although they have been extensively studied, Howell also proclaims, It is surely illegitimate to use them as though they are the prototypical hunter-gatherers, knowledge of whom tells us all we need to know in order to apply the ethnographic simile to models of prehistoric life. Wild, maniac, unsophisticated, uneducated, vulgarthese are all words that come to spirit when I think of prehistoric or primitive. Obvi ously the Kung tribe have grown with the rest of society. How are we to say what the differences of prehistoric life was to the ultramodern day Kung tribes? Human error would play a huge government agency in our assumptions of the Kung. For example, we might turn around to be just as wrong as the article of the Nacirema. Obviously, there is already a misconception or so the bushman. For example, in McNeils essay, he comments on how a woman was dissertation to a bushman and demanded to see one. When he explained ... ... The bushman are pretending to be people they are not, giving the tourists what they want. This also gives tourists the wrong impression and significantly back up in the ignorance of the Kung. This would be devastating to their culture. Culture, after all, is associated with the changes a society goes through with(predicate) over time. If these prisons were to be set up, the culture would be forced and indeed in no way a comparison to early persons. Obviously, the Kung have a very unique culture compared to how we live our lives. They in no way, however, represent what the culture of early persons to have. They have their own culture, unique to their society, and like oursever changing. What most people consider primitive is an ethnocentric abide by to the difference of their culture to ours. The Kung just have their very own technology, which is very efficient seeing that they survived this long. Due to time, ignorance, and the bushmans leaning towards our methods, they in no way can be compared to early people by doer of their culture. The Kung Bushmen are living their own lives now, in the present, therefore they can be in no way considered people of the past. Word Count 1024