Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All literature is subject to the bias you seem to think invalidates these peoples' right to determination. You're clearly very passionate on this subject, though you appear to be arguing against claims that aren't being made. First, your claim that oral tradition seems inefficient compared to writing is extremely hard to defend. The accuracy, scope, density, longevity, and reproducibility of written information has…
> The accuracy, scope, density, longevity, and reproducibility of written information has clear advantages over speech-based transmission. 37,000 years of oral tradition versus .. 5,000 years (?) of written? The jury is still out.
Recency of invention is not synonymous with inefficiency.
Consider that you're trying to assert oral tradition is more efficient than writing systems ... in a written format on a construct accessed by hundreds of thousands of people around the world over many years rather than demonstrating the validity of your claim to a half dozen people around a fire.