| 
Posted Oct 11, 2002 by NightShade
The truly amazing thing about "civilization" and being "civilized" is how many people seem to believe that being civilized allows them to be "above" others. Think: British (sorry!) rule in India, where the "civilized" British Aristocracy came and took over, giving the Indian little or no respect, simply because their culture was Different.
That, I think, is the inherent key to success as an entire nation: how well does your country recognize it's own culture, as well as the culture of other countries?
One of the greatest things that made the Roman Empire so successful, is they didn't attempt to take over other countries culture. They simply attacked, taxed, and allowed the cultures to Blend on their own. If this isn't "civilized," I don't know what is.
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted Oct 11, 2002 by Doc
How about not attacking, not taxing and allowing the cultures to blend on their own?
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 13, 2002 by topher@cholesbury
I guess by Nightshade's definition of civilisation no nation on earth today will be able to call themselves civilised. By its very definition civilisation requires a component of social development and order and an ability to assess values and morals in a pluralistic way. Still does not imply superiority but allows for judgement and expression of opinion.
topher
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 14, 2002 by NightShade
Hmm... I hadn't realized I said that, but it does make a certain amount of sense. I don't any "Nations" as a whole are truly civilised. We are working on it, but most countries have a long way to go. The only things that CAN be civilised are Individuals.
Individual persons can make a difference, and can bring the countries closer to that state.
To be civilised, as an individual, one would have to be about racism, bigotry, etc. They would have to be above the petty rivalries between the rich and the poor. They would have to believe in equality for all, and yet believe in Specialization. They would have to be good citizens, and follow the laws (even the "uncivilised" ones.)
In order for a government to be civilised, all taxation would have to be done away with. The "professional politicians" would have to go. All politicians would have to hold other jobs, or use independant wealth. The government would also have to be unbigoted, giving equal rights/freedoms/responsibilities to all. (All bigots, be they black, white, yellow, red, orange, or green, men or women, young or old, are uncivilised. They should get equality, but not more.)
Good Luck, governments!
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 14, 2002 by il viaggiatore
It's interesting how the word civilization has gone from it's literal meaning "city making" to acquire all these additional connotations.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 14, 2002 by topher@cholesbury
Yes in a way it has moved on , always changing moving forward finding new meanings. But I guess that civilisation for you!
Civilisation now has six meanings in the OED. The original meaning in the Roman context was City building (cives!) but I see this is described as the development from a state of savagery or barbarism to one of enlightenment through education etc. There is no requirement to be perfect to be civilised just an aspiration to seek to develop and improve. Taxes, legal frameworks, police, politicians etc etc are all components of both civilised states and dictatorships. I don't fancy striving for a Utopian society as described above much though!
Enjoy a good rant now and then. What was the article about anyway? Culture I recall having reread it. Must be worth including given the healthy discussion that has ensued. Gets my vote!
topher
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 15, 2002 by il viaggiatore
In that sense "civilisation" is rather biased toward those societies that have made cities, and it implies that those societies that have not are inferior. But take the !Kung of South Africa. Having read a good deal about their culture, with its perfect, sensible organisation, I would never call them inferior or "uncivilised" though they don't build cities.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 15, 2002 by NightShade
I don't think we can base everything on one word origin... the word, civilised, itself, does come from the Roman Empire... how perfect. However, the ideas, concepts, and such come from other countries as well, and we ought to include their concepts in as well. I mean, really, we are influenced by far more countries than Rome.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 15, 2005 by ransdell
Civilization is the banding together of individuals out of common interest. Often their civilization is founded on the principle of furthering the interests of one group over another. There is nothing civil about civilization it's a means to an end. I way to protect and advance your interests. Culture plays around in socializing the inhabitants into adopting norms as to how they should act in this civilization. So what is culture it's a game plan, or strategy to accomplishing goals. The goal is to get all your players acting the same way and thinking the same way so they can accomplish the goals of the leader. Greed is the foundation of civilization. Not evil greed just greed as in looking out for yourself and doing what is necesary to attain what you want. Socail Contact theory states people give up certain rights and competing interests and assimilate the goals of the collective.
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Home
Reply
