Primitive in comparison to Civilized

Reflect on the value of the terms civilized and primitive in the study of history. Is it an objective classification or is it biased by culture, by belief in evolutionary theory?

As I've read through the following articles, I've concluded that the terms "civilized" and "primitive" in the study of historyis not an objective classification but a bias by culture and the belief in evolutionary theory.

How in the world do we classify some group of people primitive or civilized? The classification of these two words is made simple by the usage of the word "sophisticated."In simpler words, primitive societies are less sophisticated than those of the civilized societies.

The reason that I've concluded that the whole idea of primitive and civilized society is bias because of the usage of evolutionary theory. Evolution is a theory that was proposed by Charles Darwin and it is oneof the scientific way to define the origination of life.

Evolution theory suggests that from living and fossil organisms evolving, life was originated.The evolution theory also claims that the famous Java man (fossils found in Indonesia), evolved to become homo sapiens which is human.

This process of evolution was somehow compared to the primitive and civilized societies.Primitive society is as I've mentioned, less sophisticated and shares savage like traits in comparison to civilized society.The outstanding figures who've proposed this idea was Morgan, Tylor, and Lubbock.

These thinkers said,

"'primitive' were not seen as complete human beings, and, consequently, it was justified to dominate them, to treat them as objects, to destroy them, to exploitthem and even to study them.”

How in the world is that possible? Well the question that arises is that if these thinkers are civilized thinkers,then treating human beings as an object that could be destroyed and to even be an object of study doesn't really make sense to me.

Few days ago as a history major student, I was talking about the year of exploration and the western colonization which took place during the 16th century. The leading countries of the time was Spain and Portugal. They claim themselves to be civilized but what have they done to the colonies that they have colonized?

So how can we say that these Europeans are civilized than the other people when these violent and savage like things happened through the hands of the "civilized?"Who is primitive now? and who is civilized? what is the distinguishing point of these two?

I would like to conclude by saying that if the distinguishing point is "sophisticated" thenthe words that were said through the articles sounds fairly reasonable but if the distinguishing point of the civilized and primitive is "savage like behavior" then I would strongly disagreewith the articles that I've read.

As Giambattista Vico has said, it seems like there is some kind of a cyclical event that is going on in this world today.The primitive becomes civilized but the civilized ones becomes savages and back to the baseline.So it would be wise to say that the term civilized and primitive all depends on the distinguishing point of the person,which includes the bias of the one who holds the ability to choose the distinguishing point.