There is a word the Greeks used that would suffice to define man’s assumptions of superiority, and that word is hubris—an overbearing arrogance that often resulted in punishment from the gods, as Arachne found when she boasted at being better at the loom than the goddess Athena and soon found herself to be a spider.

When humans assert themselves over other humans and claim superiority based on skin, class, race, gender, or other differences, injustice is the result—either in the form of unjust thoughts and assumptions made that trickle into the daily actions of humans like dirty tap water, or in outright violation of human and civil rights, such as owning property, voting, marrying, or even having the simple right to be alive or not be a slave.

Who, after all, determines what is primitive? Europeans? White men? What is primitive to a man may not be to a woman, and what is primitive to a White woman may not be to a Latina woman. For example, take a man who may know a thousand vocabulary terms to use in a business meeting; can he express love to his children wordlessly? If not, why not? Isn’t that kind of primitive if he can’t? As close as a paternal bound is (or should be) should such an act not be a natural one?

Western minds may be able to surf the net and punch keys on a Blackberry like their fingers have minds of their own; but could they identify, in the wild, the difference between a blackberry and a poisonous berry if their lives depended on it? If not, why not—again, isn’t it kind of primitive if you’re living in a country, in the technological age, and you don’t know a nightshade berry from a cherry?

Or take the aboriginal tribes of Australia—is it primitive for them to allow gnats to attack their ears and noses to clean them out, standing so still, or for us to spray spiders that would rid us of unwanted pests, or cover surfaces with cleaners to kill germs in our homes that also expose us to harmful chemicals? While one definitely sounds more convential—doesn’t it make more sense? And surely, it must be unwise to label so many indigenous peoples lifestyles and medicinal uses as primitive—less advanced—when we not only base many of ours today on such principles but also find ourselves looking more deeply into such practices, searching for a better way to live and aid our failing bodies?

Language is no different in these cases. How, after all, do the following lyrics differ? 

"You that hide behind walls/ You that hide behind desks/ I just want you to know/ I can see through your masks"

and

"Keep your lamps trimmed and burning/ Keep your lamps trimmed and burning/ Keep your lamps trimmed and burning/ The time is drawing nigh!"

The first set, modern lyrics by Bob Dylan, obviously uses some figurative language that doubles as concrete images—symbols—such as walls, desks, and masks. The second set, an old slave song, seems like it may be simpler—but it too uses symbols. They may prove to even be a bit more complex than Dylan’s because of the context; in fact, they must be, because there is a secret inside—the secret to be ready, because the singers would be departing for the Underground Railroad soon. Now there’s a message!

But white men, of couse, at the time would have considered such lyrics primitive. Is a revolutionary song that helps one to escape slavery really primitive? Both songs hold deep meanings; neither holds verbose, “advanced” terminology.

Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is one of my favorite books—I think it’s one of those you either love it or hate it situations! The International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs, anyone?—and in it, the whole human mind, the dark, sweeping unconcious, is examined—and the further and further into the Congo man goes, the more “primitive” he expects it to be, the more primitive the mind gets. When they expect to find primitive natives ready for study, exploitation, saving, or whatever purpose so-called civilized people may think, going into that darkness of their own minds exposes them to the most primitive part of civilization instead.

By labeling things that are simply different as primitive we are being dismissive and arrogant. Cultural wars are based on such stuffs; it’s why slavery and genocide and war exist in the first place, on one culture’s assumption that another is less than them and needs to be “wiped out” or “helped” or whatever when really if everyone could simply get past their own prejudices and usually-mistaken assumptions, we could indeed have a more peaceful, tolerant, productive world.