My grandfather was born in 1926 and I remember him telling me in the 1990’s that what he got for Christmas as a child was “an apple and an orange and a penny in a stocking.” This is primitive innocence! Unfortunately we born in the 1980’s were relatively very spoiled as children at Christmas. We received anything we wanted, for example an Atari, a Commodore 64, an Amiga or a Super Nintendo etc, plus all the candy and chocolate we could ever eat. Compared to the 1920’s we born in the 1980’s were relatively much less innocent.
What is the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and innocence or primitivism?
‘In the beginning’ the ancient Egyptians and Romans ascribed divinity to super-rich god kings and god-like emperors, such as Nebhepetra Mentuhotep II of the 11th-Dynasty and Julius Caesar. The statement that the poorer you are the more primitive and innocent you are, points in the inverse or opposite direction of capitalism or instincts, that is to the poor, primitive, prehistoric, unfashionable and past, instead of the rich, advanced, modern, fashionable and future, thereby creating the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity). It means that the poor deserve divinity and not the rich, for example Jesus Christ deserved divinity where as Nebhepetra Mentuhotep II or Julius Caesar did not. Also for example, as the above paragraph on the innocence of the 1920’s demonstrates that the older and poorer you are the more primitive and innocent you are. For example my grandfather humbly received “an apple and an orange and a penny in a stocking” for Christmas as a child in the 1930’s. This is primitive innocence! Therefore, the further you go back in ‘time’ the more primitive and innocent life was. For example we could imagine that even meat might have been a treat for ancient or medieval children. This is primitive innocence! However, how does primitive innocence work for ancient or medieval Kings and Queens, such Elizabeth I? Everyone in the medieval period (especially the poor and peasants) can claim a lot of primitive innocence! That is except for the Kings and Queens of the period, this is because like today, even in the ancient and medieval periods Kings and Queens were spoiled, desired for nothing materially and basically received their heart’s desire. Therefore, Kings and Queens do not have much in the way of humbleness. Therefore, despite being ancient Kings and Queens have very little primitive innocence. This proves that it is the poor who deserve divinity and not the rich.
Marchpane is an old name for marzipan; a dessert item which is made from sugar and almonds. Queen Elizabeth I was known for having a sweet tooth and therefore a beautifully crafted and decorated marchpane piece would have been an ideal gift for the queen.
The first Europeans to indulge in marzipan were kings and rich people. It has been reported that Queen Elizabeth I of England, who lived from 1533 to 1603, was addicted to all things sweet. The saying ‘regal enjoyment’ was created.
The above quotes demonstrate how even medieval Kings and Queens were relatively spoiled, in that they received everything their hearts desired. For example, how many of the poor and peasants of the medieval period received and ate marzipan?
How is it that the poorer you are the more primitive and innocent you are?
We could say that for example all people are equally primitive and innocent, that is that the Queen is just as primitive and innocent as a working class Briton on minimum wage. However, as mentioned above, the statement that the poorer you are the more primitive and innocent you are creates the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity), in that it demonstrates that a working class person on minimum wage deserves divinity a lot more than the Queen. It makes us more altruistic and noble meaning that we look back to, point in the direction of and care about our own poor people, more than rich and famous people. For example, Kings and Queens of more or less any period cannot claim much primitive innocence compared to the peasants of their period, because they were spoiled, desired for nothing and were never hungry or thirsty.