Talk:go native

"To adopt the lifestyle or outlook of local inhabitants, especially when dwelling in a colonial region; to become less refined under the influence of a less cultured, more primitive, or simpler social environment." To go native is to become less refined, less cultured? I find this definition very subjective, almost offensive: if a foreigner "goes native" in my country, will he/she become less refined, more primitive? What does that mean? Isn't there a better way to phrase things? For example urban dictionary gives: "Used humorously, to go native means to take on some (or all) of the culture traits of the people around you, often said of people who go to foreign countries or far away cities. These traits may include dress, language, accent, etiquette, religion, etc." I would change it myself but would like to check if perhaps the term "go native" is meant to convey this derogatory connotation, in which case the current definition would be fine, but might benefit from being specified as a pejorative term.


 * Well, before changing it, I'd like to see some counterexamples. Can you find, say, a book about a tribesman "going native" in London by dressing up in a suit and getting an office job? Equinox ◑ 21:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Equinox, thanks for your reply. One example is a blog by an anthropologist in the Guardian, titled "going native in the world of finance". I don't know about literary sources, but a google search for "going native in London" yields lots of examples of this type of use of the term. Furthermore, I am not sure that a tribesman is "less cultured" or "less refined" than a Londoner in a suit: this sounds like establishing a hierarchy of cultures and this is what bothered me in the original definition. What do you think?


 * Re: original point: I agree that the "to become less refined simpler social environment" part is gratuitous.
 * Re: "native in the world of finance": I think that that's a sort of humorous, extended use, and should go on a separate sense-line.
 * —Ruakh TALK 17:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think establishing a hierarchy is necessarily bad. Clearly the suited Londoner (our example) represents somebody further advanced in technological "evolution": that's not to say that he is "better" (morally, ethically, etc.) than the tribesman. Equinox ◑ 00:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)