Do we use the word "civilised" incorrectly?
14 Feb 2018, 10:19 am
Hi all. I just want to share another thing that I have been thinking about. Do we, in the modern West, use the word "uncivilised" incorrectly? In my opinion, we often use the word "civilized" in a way that promotes an overly-simplistic view of civilisation and the wild.
Examples:
- We call racism "uncivilised" even though no Paleolithic society ever had anything remotely comparable to the Atlantic slave trade.
- We call racism "tribalism" even though primitive tribes were not always hostile towards one another and intermixing between them was common.
- We call patriarchy "uncivilised" even though the Celts had female warriors like Boudica whereas the Romans did not. The Romans were more technologically advanced at the time. Additionally, archaeological evidence suggests that mother goddess worship was common among prehistoric humans. Nearly all ancient polytheistic societies had a story about a mother goddess who was sliced in half and replaced by a male deity. What does this tell us about the transition between the Paleolithic world and the ancient world?
- We call authoritarianism "uncivilised" even though all of the most authoritarian societies in history have been civilised societies, such as North Korea. No Paleolithic society was ever remotely close to North Korea in terms of oppressiveness. Addionally, some modern-day hunter-gatherer societies (such as the Pirahã) are basically anarchistic.
- We call hyper-capitalism "uncivilised" even though capitalism obviously didn't exist before money was invented.
- We call homophobia "uncivilised" even though homosexual behavior has been observed in modern-day hunter-gatherer societies.
- We call Islamic extremism "uncivilised" even though Islamic extremists have a tendency to wipe out polytheistic societies that are technically less civilised than Islamic societies.
Overall, I've noticed that some people will call extreme conservatism "uncivilised" and compare it to Paleolithic society. This, of course, assumes that human society has always been changing in the same way. In reality, many principles that we now associate with the political right-wing were actually established during the Neolithic Revolution or even later.
Why? Well ... social changes are driven by technological changes. This has always been true throughout human history. Of course, technological growth is not entirely uniform, since it depends on the types of resources that are available to us at any given time, as well as the limits of physics. For example, the Neolithic Revolution gave humans the ability to control earth's natural resources, which made authoritarianism a possibility for the first time in history. Similarly, the invention of large sailing ships made trans-oceanic colonisation possible. New weapons often make warfare more brutal too.
In other words, we have an unrealistic view of history if we think that humanity is always advancing in a direction that we consider to be "progressive". Leftist progress isn't something that we can always expect ... though we can always expect human social evolution to match up with technological evolution, since technology is the engine which drives social change. This means that the world of the future - for better or for worse - will be a product of the internet.
In other words, we should probably stop using the words "reactionary" and "uncivilised" interchangeably. This creates an unrealistic view of history and prehistory. This, in turn, creates an unrealistic view of human nature and human evolution.
Let's be realistic. Most reactionaries want to re-create the world that their grandfathers lived in, not the world of their prehistoric ancestors.
_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre
READ THIS -> https://represent.us/
14 Feb 2018, 11:47 am
Nope. "Civilisation" has an objective definition.
The word "civilisation" comes from the Latin word "civis" meaning "townsman". A civilised person is a person who lives in a town or a city, as opposed to living in the wild.
The word "civilised" is often used to mean "nonviolent" ... but this use of the word is largely a product of hypocritical Roman imperial propaganda. The Romans deemed the Germanic people to be violent savages ... as the Romans were literally committing genocide in the name of Mars.
In other words, our non-literal use of the word "civilised" is propagandistic in origin.
_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre
READ THIS -> https://represent.us/
14 Feb 2018, 9:12 pm
Examples:
- We call racism "uncivilised" even though no Paleolithic society ever had anything remotely comparable to the Atlantic slave trade.
- We call racism "tribalism" even though primitive tribes were not always hostile towards one another and intermixing between them was common.
- We call patriarchy "uncivilised" even though the Celts had female warriors like Boudica whereas the Romans did not. The Romans were more technologically advanced at the time. Additionally, archaeological evidence suggests that mother goddess worship was common among prehistoric humans. Nearly all ancient polytheistic societies had a story about a mother goddess who was sliced in half and replaced by a male deity. What does this tell us about the transition between the Paleolithic world and the ancient world?
- We call authoritarianism "uncivilised" even though all of the most authoritarian societies in history have been civilised societies, such as North Korea. No Paleolithic society was ever remotely close to North Korea in terms of oppressiveness. Addionally, some modern-day hunter-gatherer societies (such as the Pirahã) are basically anarchistic.
- We call hyper-capitalism "uncivilised" even though capitalism obviously didn't exist before money was invented.
- We call homophobia "uncivilised" even though homosexual behavior has been observed in modern-day hunter-gatherer societies.
- We call Islamic extremism "uncivilised" even though Islamic extremists have a tendency to wipe out polytheistic societies that are technically less civilised than Islamic societies.
Overall, I've noticed that some people will call extreme conservatism "uncivilised" and compare it to Paleolithic society. This, of course, assumes that human society has always been changing in the same way. In reality, many principles that we now associate with the political right-wing were actually established during the Neolithic Revolution or even later.
Why? Well ... social changes are driven by technological changes. This has always been true throughout human history. Of course, technological growth is not entirely uniform, since it depends on the types of resources that are available to us at any given time, as well as the limits of physics. For example, the Neolithic Revolution gave humans the ability to control earth's natural resources, which made authoritarianism a possibility for the first time in history. Similarly, the invention of large sailing ships made trans-oceanic colonisation possible. New weapons often make warfare more brutal too.
In other words, we have an unrealistic view of history if we think that humanity is always advancing in a direction that we consider to be "progressive". Leftist progress isn't something that we can always expect ... though we can always expect human social evolution to match up with technological evolution, since technology is the engine which drives social change. This means that the world of the future - for better or for worse - will be a product of the internet.
In other words, we should probably stop using the words "reactionary" and "uncivilised" interchangeably. This creates an unrealistic view of history and prehistory. This, in turn, creates an unrealistic view of human nature and human evolution.
Let's be realistic. Most reactionaries want to re-create the world that their grandfathers lived in, not the world of their prehistoric ancestors.
If one inherits their ideas of what it means to be "civilized" from western thought, then one also inherits the bias that conveys.
If we examine what we actually mean by the term "civilized" then, as you have discovered, many questions arise.
Western minds have historically considered tribal societies as uncivilized, however tribal societies who have become acquainted with the more negative aspects of western societies often consider western societies as uncivilized.
Western societies, at least until the late 19th century, often viewed tribal societies as uncivilized because many of them did not adhere to western standards of modesty and manually killed their adversaries during war. There was also a tendency of western societies to see tribal societies as primitive in both technology and thought, and thus, uncivilized in that manner as well.
Tribal societies, on the other hands, often see western societies as uncivilized due to the damage western lifestyles impose on the environment, and the fact that in war, we kill in a manner that yields many casualties.
I think what one often has in mind when they use the word "civilized" is the idea of conforming to certain morals, ethics, and standards of living and conduct of one's own society.
21 Feb 2018, 12:33 pm
Examples:
- We call racism "uncivilised" even though no Paleolithic society ever had anything remotely comparable to the Atlantic slave trade.
- We call racism "tribalism" even though primitive tribes were not always hostile towards one another and intermixing between them was common.
- We call patriarchy "uncivilised" even though the Celts had female warriors like Boudica whereas the Romans did not. The Romans were more technologically advanced at the time. Additionally, archaeological evidence suggests that mother goddess worship was common among prehistoric humans. Nearly all ancient polytheistic societies had a story about a mother goddess who was sliced in half and replaced by a male deity. What does this tell us about the transition between the Paleolithic world and the ancient world?
- We call authoritarianism "uncivilised" even though all of the most authoritarian societies in history have been civilised societies, such as North Korea. No Paleolithic society was ever remotely close to North Korea in terms of oppressiveness. Addionally, some modern-day hunter-gatherer societies (such as the Pirahã) are basically anarchistic.
- We call hyper-capitalism "uncivilised" even though capitalism obviously didn't exist before money was invented.
- We call homophobia "uncivilised" even though homosexual behavior has been observed in modern-day hunter-gatherer societies.
- We call Islamic extremism "uncivilised" even though Islamic extremists have a tendency to wipe out polytheistic societies that are technically less civilised than Islamic societies.
Overall, I've noticed that some people will call extreme conservatism "uncivilised" and compare it to Paleolithic society. This, of course, assumes that human society has always been changing in the same way. In reality, many principles that we now associate with the political right-wing were actually established during the Neolithic Revolution or even later.
Why? Well ... social changes are driven by technological changes. This has always been true throughout human history. Of course, technological growth is not entirely uniform, since it depends on the types of resources that are available to us at any given time, as well as the limits of physics. For example, the Neolithic Revolution gave humans the ability to control earth's natural resources, which made authoritarianism a possibility for the first time in history. Similarly, the invention of large sailing ships made trans-oceanic colonisation possible. New weapons often make warfare more brutal too.
In other words, we have an unrealistic view of history if we think that humanity is always advancing in a direction that we consider to be "progressive". Leftist progress isn't something that we can always expect ... though we can always expect human social evolution to match up with technological evolution, since technology is the engine which drives social change. This means that the world of the future - for better or for worse - will be a product of the internet.
In other words, we should probably stop using the words "reactionary" and "uncivilised" interchangeably. This creates an unrealistic view of history and prehistory. This, in turn, creates an unrealistic view of human nature and human evolution.
Let's be realistic. Most reactionaries want to re-create the world that their grandfathers lived in, not the world of their prehistoric ancestors.
That is truly fascinating to read. Thank you for posting it!
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Need Help With a Word |
22 Feb 2024, 9:57 pm |
| Neurotypical word usage and semantics a.k.a. NO MORE ISMS |
06 Mar 2024, 8:42 am |
