Question: There was a phenomenon known as human zoos even in the 18th and 19th centuries where indigenous peoples inhabiting Africa and the interior of America were brought to Europe and America, and “civilized” European or American society came to observe what they termed “wild barbarians.”

In France, more than 20 million people visited such a “zoo” within a few months to observe such a curiosity.

In the places of their permanent residence, the indigenous peoples could wear loincloths and eat raw food, and in Europe and America, of course, there were other conditions, but they were forced to wear loincloths, eat raw dog meat, and more. This caused wild delight in the audience.

So who are the savages?

Answer: These are the French people who went to look at those who were brought from Africa.

Question: Why does such a bestial, savage desire arise in a civilized person?

Answer: It is natural for a person to learn and wonder about other forms of life.

Question: Do you think that this is acceptable?

Answer: No. I believe that we should bring, for example, Africans to Europe, pay them normally, feed them normally, give them everything they need, and they can work for half a day or for a day as primitive people who live their own  African way of life.

Question: What does a person learn from observing primitive forms of human life?

Answer: I think it all depends on how you present it to them. The indigenous forms of life are actually the healthiest, most natural ones. They make a person feel close to nature. They are built on very good principles of mutual respect, trust, communication, and consent, not at all like the ones that existed, for example, in France.

Of course, the way they present it: “Look at the barbarians that we brought you so pay your money,” this is of course the wrong approach, and there is not much to talk about. This is a barbaric approach.

However, to show a way of life and explaining how it is closer to nature, to what extent these people are closer to each other, how they understand each other, how they communicate, and how it is nice and good for them could deeply impress Europeans and show them the life they once left, what they have come, and what they ultimately benefited from with what they have with today’s lifestyle with all the modern chaos compared to the simple primitive community, which gives us inner freedom, comfort, and confidence.

Question: Can modern people apply the relations that exist among indigenous peoples to themselves?

Answer: How? They have absolutely no society!

When I was in Paris, there was absolutely nothing natural about their relationships. On the contrary, everything is very practical and primitive. I do not want to criticize, but compared to a simple African village, which also has several thousand people, the relationships between people is, especially now—I am talking about the way it was 20 or 30 years ago when I was there—of course, very different, not in favor of Paris.

Question: Where then can children who are brought to such artificial conditions get the natural ways of life, natural relationships, and learn something?

Answer: We know that modern people nevertheless gravitate to what was once in their families, among their ancestors. So it all can be done, but not in order to teach modern people what primitive societies were; rather on the contrary, to show modern people this so they would see how primitive they are.

Question: Can a modern person see the value of indigenous relationships if he does not have a point of perception of correct relationships?

Answer: A modern person sees nothing. He sees only what is currently on sale, where something is cheaper.

He sees only what is shoved before his eyes, nothing more. You have to put something in front of him, rub his nose in it, and that’s what he sees. This is all done by the media, advertising, and so on.

Question: At the beginning of the last century, a secular person, an anthropologist, brought an African pygmy to the United States and put in a cage with other animals, chimpanzees and orangutans, and presented him as “the missing link in man’s evolution,” thereby implying that these tribes were closer to apes than civilized white people.

Naturally, the public expressed their indignation and the man was released. But six years later, he committed suicide because he could not integrate into American conditions.

What distinguishes the person close to nature from the civilized people so that he cannot integrate into the iron conditions of the city, of civilization?

Answer: It’s hard to say. We cannot understand it. We can only see from the results that our life in the past centuries—after all, it was our life too—was so different from modern life that we cannot perceive this system of relationships, the system of values, and the implementation of plans compared to what it was before.

It is very strange to combine a gap of several hundred years in this way. Imagine that you invite, say, King Arthur here. We have completely different concepts and values. So, it is not possible.

This cannot be compared. But, on the other hand, our entire civilization, in principle, is moving away from the natural one. It turns out that we are moving away from our nature. We have created some kind of artificial shell for ourselves, that we exist in . And this is not natural; it does not lead us to a good life.

We see how much we are suffering, but we cannot do anything about it. We become included in this same nature, in this race, in this artificial machine, and we must run along with it.

Question: The other day, you were asked if a person has ascended or descended in spiritual development throughout our entire history. You said that in absolute value one has ascended, but in fact, a person seems to have descended as he reveals the truth within himself.

What is the difference between the initial development of a person when he lives in natural conditions, he is all open, and trust and mutual understanding reign in his tribe, and our point when a modern person descends, in fact, in his development? What are their differences and similarities?

Answer: In the vector of development. The fact is that, let’s say, a few thousand years ago, we could have gone by a completely different development—not egoistic, but by rising above our nature, contrary to it, where we would have preferred good connection between us, would have been together as one family, would have looked after this, and would have taken care not to separate. If we behaved in this way, we would have gone in a different direction of development compared to today.

We would have come to a completely different state! Today, humanity would be one big, kind family. And we would not have the state as we have now when we only think about how we can earn at the expense of the others, how we can rise above the others, how I compare my life to my neighbor’s, and so on.

We would have no competition, no murders, none of this would have happened. There would be good, normal shelter and there would be normal communication between us if we had followed this path of development.

However, we chose to develop egotistically, the way our wild nature pushes us. That is, in fact, we went on developing as animals, obeying our nature, and here is where it led us. Thus, we have nothing to be proud of, today we are the most wildly developed animals and are living in a big zoo.

Question: How can a person find that primordial, natural person in himself to begin the ascent to a new development?

Answer: To do this, we need to go back to those times and start again. This is impossible.
But we can recognize the evil of our current state and start a new path. Starting now.

Question: What will the modern human zoo turn into then?

Answer: We will take what we need from it. This will be sorted in a natural way. We only need to change our attitude toward each other. That is, to stop being wild animals relative to each other, who only want to destroy each other and try to build relationships with each other using force.

We must rise above this and build relationships based on combing, on the correct involvement with each other. And then we will see that the world becomes different.

This world will be like one family. But not like a modern family. There will be no competition; there will be mutual assistance, and everything will be just to make everyone feel good. Exactly this common care that everyone would feel good is essential for all of us. But we do not have it.

We must acquire it. It exists in nature. At the center of nature, this feeling exists. But how will we achieve it, feel it, discover it for ourselves, and live with this star in our hearts? This must be learned.
[265640]
From KabTV’s “News with Dr. Michael Laitman,” 1/14/20

Related Material:
A Mass Suicide Attempt Of Native Americans In Canada
Being Close To Nature
Fenced Off From This World

Filed under: Crisis, Economy, Globalization, News | Add Comment →