that is very present in New Age, mostly white-privileged culture.Zerzanuses the concept primitive a big bulk to put wholly different ethnicitiesand cultures inside in opposition to Civilization. This is a discourse that dominated until the1970s, that has become replaced both in Anthropology and Archaeology by particularregional, ethnic, and cultural studies. Zerzan thus brings to the 21st century a discourse nowoverdue, with its roots in late 19th century colonialism. Primitivismcannot accomplish its vision of a total turn to a life in Nature because itdoes not come to terms and could not, really, in order to remain dogmatic -with the pleasure involved for many people, especially the socially andeconomically privileged, in living in so-called Civilization. It must come to terms with its owncontradiction towards life today, when play, freedom, affluence[25]are far from surreal aspects of a Paradise Lost, they are real in many ways formany people, however small this group might be compared to the majority of thepeople of the world. The lack of thisrealization, or we should say, its denial, is fundamental for primitivism tocontinue to believe in itself as true in every way. Hunter-Gatherers or Gatherer-Hunters?Sure,we want more play, joy, nature, many of us at least do. And sure, the images of a very different formof life refresh our imagination, have done so maybe since the first encountersbetween different cultures. Sure, we can learn a lot form other cultures: howto think, to live, to relate to nature, and that is why, after graduating with anEcology degree I went on to study Anthropology, which Zerzan likes very much,despite his guilt for it having to be written in civilized language. Anthropology, maybe more than any otheracademic discipline, has taught us to understand difference in complexways. It has taught us that any name wemay give to a certain group, any attempt to label or describe human groups andcommunities always fails to accomplish its task satisfactorily. Human cultures are internally divergent, andmany cultures or societies that look, sound, have customs alike may divergeradically on specific points. This iswhy the task of the anthropologist nowadays has become extremely difficult andproblematic, and has been revalued in many ways.[26]Withinthe current discussions of Anthropology, it is not wholly acceptable to saythat forager band and agriculturalist village are opposed societies withopposed values.[27] This is to disregard cultural variety, sincemany other cultural forms exist, and resource use is not the only possiblecharacterization of societies. Manysocieties were and are real hunter-gatherers, with the importance put onhunting, such as the Shavante, with whom I lived between 1999 and 2000. This culture, however marginalized byBrazilian society and made sedentary by force at least from the 1960s,maintains a tradition of hunting since time unknown. In the 1950s, when the Shavante were still anomadic people, anthropologist David Maybury-Lewis[28]noted: I have never met a Shavante who would not drop everything to go afterwildpig and Pahiriwa was no exception. The Shavante are also a very war-geared people, they have managed tosurvive until this day with a considerable population (more than ten thousandpeople) in great part because of their fierceness. Lifewith the Shavante is hard. Today,everything is changing, with all