Rebuttal to the noble savage concept ?

Does anyone know a good argument against this because I hear it all the time in discussions and movies and history and it's annoying, i believe the civilized man is superior and want to be able to shut this argument down fast

>I believe the civilized man is superior
Why?

The written word allowing knowledge to confidently transcend the generations, rather than reliance on fragile, spoken wisdom.

They were just savages. Nothing noble about them at all. Go look at a res. They're the same people.

The Greeks, Persians and probably other ancient people looked down on written transmission of knowledge for various reasons.

He attempts to accomplish something and is always moving forward in technology and accomplishments thus giving meaning to life, the savage that lives day to day by basic instinct lifestyle is no better than that of a dog

So why don't you just tell them that?

They weren't noble or savage. At most they were primitive. They have all the same attributes and faults as anybody and it's racist as fuck to view them otherwise. Stop acting like they're children.

>thinking I care if it's racist

But surely the very fact you know that is testament to the power of literacy?

You can make a strong case that the purpose of live for many within a tribal society is the defence and preservation of their identity, culture, and ancestral heritage.

And this is bad how...?

Dogs do not form societies, create languages, develop culture, settlements, practice agriculture, and so on, and so on.

Also in which way does the development of technology give meaning to life? What is the teleological end in that? Is there a teleological end to begin with?
Accomplishments are also fine and good, but a wonderfully vague gesture at something which may or may not be real.

So far, it seems to myself at least, is that you have only made assertions about oughts instead of positing something actual.
The greatest perversity of logic is to justify things you already believe.

Failure to alienate natural rights and form a cohesive society does render such men the savage. The motivations of existence is considerably different when compared to civilised men.

Think for yourself, """civilized""" man.

This is a value judgement. If you think 'material abundance' or 'scientific progress' is the end-all be-all to life then yeah, they were 'primitive savages' who deserve to have been wiped into the dustbin of history.

If you think a sustainable & intimate relationship with nature & the continuation small-knit cultural in-groups is a better value then you'd have to admit that most of the amerindians were decidedly closer to this ideal than the 'civilized' man.

>Please give me good arguments to support my prior beliefs that were based on shaky arguments or gut feelings
Have you considered discarding the beliefs based on shaky arguments and choosing what to believe based on sound arguments instead?

Very similar parallel arguments have been made to argue the power of oral tradition.
If you can't even conceive of them I strongly recommend you get educated about Classical oral traditions in general, the Greek and Indian ones are particularly well-studied.

The thing that annoys me most is the "they didn't understand the concept of owning land!" myth. Indian tribes absolutely did fight over territory. Even if they didn't quite understand the concept of 1 person owning a specific parcel of land, they definitely understood the concept that a specific group could declare ownership of a specific territory and exclude others.

>hunter-gatherers practicing agriculture and creating settlements

Many amerindians did both of those.