The core of the classes that were favorites of the primitives must have had a lot of emphasis on moaning and complaining and saying really stupid things, because that seems to be what they learned . Of course, a lot of that just comes naturally to them.
I've never been sure what "culture" is, in the sense of taste, other than that people in red states sure seem to have a lot of it.
Excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities, also known as high culture
It seems to me the primitives have confused "culture" with "exotic;" the most
boring history classes I ever took involved the history of South America. I had to take those because although I took extensive courses in the history of Africa and Asia, those pertained to the eras of benevolent British domination, and the adviser wanted me a little more "rounded" than that.
The history of South America was
boring.
The history of eastern Asia (i.e., China, Japan, Korea, whatnot) was almost as bad a yawner.
Just because something is "different" or "exotic," doesn't make it "culture."
High culture is a term, now used in a number of different ways in academic discourse, whose most common meaning is the set of cultural products, mainly in the arts, held in the highest esteem by a culture.
In more popular terms, it is the culture of an elite such as the aristocracy or intelligentsia. It is contrasted with the low culture or popular culture of, variously, the less well-educated, barbarians, Philistines, or the masses.
The problem with this is that Chaucer and Shakespeare, I suppose now considered "high culture," were at the time of their creation, for the masses, the "low-brows," and not popular with the elites.
I dunno where the primitives get this silly notion they're part of any aristocracy or intelligentsia, excepting in their own heads.
