Civilisation

[Highgate]

10 minutes ago, Strange yearnings said:

All true but we shouldn't impose modern day standards of civilisation when looking on cultures from centuries ago. What passed as acceptable then is certainly not nowadays. Civilisations such as the Harappan in the Indus Valley or the Sumerian had a complex society characterised by urban development, social stratification, citizens' rights, taxation, sewerage and drainage systems, writing and so on. However, they had slaves and practised capital punishment and torture. But then so did every major culture at that time and since. Does that mean they were not civilised?

Thought processes change. Society evolves and changes, Just look at the position of women and how their treatment has changed. In my own lifetime (just) the Marriage Bar was lifted (that was where women in the civil service or teaching had to leave when they married). Working practices have also changed. When my Dad was an apprentice in Carriage and Wagon he had to leave when he reached 21 because he would have had to go on adult wages. That was the norm then. When I was  a kid in the 1950s I and virtually everyone else had certain views which no one queried but now would not be acceptable. So practices and thoughts that were once widespread become redundant or outlawed as cultural changes take place. These ancient cultures were civilised by the standards of their day but they hadn't the benefit of all the social developments that we are privy to nowadays. 

Yes, that's what it means to me. I admit I'm only using my current understanding of the word, but I fail to see what other definition I'm supposed to use.  Were they advanced for their time? Yes of course they were, and were truly remarkable in many ways. But I just don't know how we are expected to consider them civilized if they kept slaves etc.  Civilized 'by the standards of the day' is quite irrelevant in my view.

Your point about the evolution or morality is perfectly valid of course, and indeed future generations may see our society as uncivilized for whatever reasons, perhaps our systematic destruction of our environment, or our industrialized production and consumption of animals as food. They may well be correct to take a dim view of our own dubious morality.

Your highlighting of how poorly women were treated so recently in our own history just emphasizes how unlikely it is that our own society is in fact civilized at all.  Thankfully, some countries have been making progress in some areas in recent times.

[EssendonRam]

On 23/02/2018 at 08:07, Grimbeard said:

 

But this is my point, you say that a country isn't civilised because they do this or don't do that, but we are projecting our notions of what is or isn't civilised on to other cultures.

Are we to say that the Romans the ancient Greeks or Egyptians didn't create a civilisation? With regard to their treatment of women, foreigners and slaves they can hardly be said to be enlightened by our standards.

Technically, of course, @Grimbeard is right but it’s precisely the sort cultural relativism of much of western civilisation that frustrates me.

Many cultures exhibit enviable features but the overall ‘average’ for many cultures can be quite damning. If you value order over individualism, then places like Singapore might appeal to you. Personally, I find such places incredibly suffocating to live in (only briefly for work) but they have appeal as a stopover point.

To those who yearn for a benevolent dictatorship as a form of government, all I can say is that, for your sake, I hope you don’t get to experience it for you’ll soon learn that dictatorships, whether left or right wing, have a single purpose: to advantage one group of people over another and such privilege is rarely maintained without some actions which are contrary to any reasonable definition of ‘benevolent’.

And, of course, by “rarely”, I mean “never” over even a relatively short period of time.

As Churchill observed (to use his full quote): “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…” (House of Commons, Remembrance Day 1947.)

For all of its faults, democracy has been the great civilising influence of history. As such, I have no hesitation in nominating the great western democracies: the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, post-war Germany, Sweden, Denmark, et al. Perfect? Of course not. The sheer range of political outlooks - none of which are ‘perfection incarnate’ in my view, nor even close to it - proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

But the criticisms of those national civilisations, while valid, should always be held in context. As an Australian, I regard the Scandinavian countries as too stultifying and conformist but also regard many features of American culture as too ‘dog eat dog’.

While it’s fashionable to bag the US - and the Trump ascendancy has probably made me a net critic of the US for the first time in my 51 years - no one should deny either the breadth of opportunity the US system offers and both the resilience and near-uniquely restorative nature of its institutions. 

I always refer to the faces of the audience in Grant Park in 2008 to illustrate the latter. If I need to explain why, you’re probably not going to agree with my point.....regardless of your view of Obama.

(I’m not especially a fan of Obama; in fact, I think history will judge him poorly.)

A key - and underrated - aspect of the American system is its actively participatory population. It is also why American politics is susceptible to wild swings, many negative at the time.

Like much of the West, the US is currently undergoing a crisis of confidence. I’d argue, for its many and varied flaws, the US is most capable of resolving that crisis. 

As an Australian, I’m proud of our generous nature and the fact that we do bat above our weight in world affairs but our apathy and insularity frustrate me. Australia is very “liveable”, secure, and stable. It’s also absurdly over-governed and slow to change. In terms of liveability, I’d compare Australia to the rural Spain, Italy and France. NZ is similar and has the benefit of being able to pass its more intractable issues to Australia. Canada is a weird one for me; too conformist for me but I have not spent enough time there.

As for Great Britain, the rural areas are among my favourite places and people on Earth. I love the larger cities too although I have not been there since 2012 (and that was only a short visit).

After all of that, back to Churchill: I don’t know how extensively many of you have traveled but, seriously, I’d strongly suggest you consider the essence of Churchill’s musing about democracy and extend it beyond just the political system: as green as the grass may appear, you might find it takes only a short experience of alternatives to realise that western civilisation is superior because it tolerates difference and overwhelmingly settles differences between groups without violence.

 

[Highgate]

Very good post @EssendonRam. I certainly agree with Churchill's assessment of democracy in the quote you provided. Interestingly though, Churchill is often held up as an icon of democracy (I think it would be more correct to simply regard him as an enemy of fascism), and it's obvious that the world owes him a debt of gratitude for his WWII heroics.  But in countries struggling for their independence from Britain, he is seen very much as a stoic and intransigent enemy of democracy. In India, Iraq, Ireland and Kenya, to name but 4, he had very little interest in the democratic wishes of the people. So for me the popular image of Churchill as a warrior for democracy is a just another comforting myth.

[EssendonRam]

2 hours ago, Highgate said:

Very good post @EssendonRam. I certainly agree with Churchill's assessment of democracy in the quote you provided. Interestingly though, Churchill is often held up as an icon of democracy (I think it would be more correct to simply regard him as an enemy of fascism), and it's obvious that the world owes him a debt of gratitude for his WWII heroics.  But in countries struggling for their independence from Britain, he is seen very much as a stoic and intransigent enemy of democracy. In India, Iraq, Ireland and Kenya, to name but 4, he had very little interest in the democratic wishes of the people. So for me the popular image of Churchill as a warrior for democracy is a just another comforting myth.

So he should be.

Quite frankly, as an Australian, one must make a conscious effort not to demonise Churchill’s WW1 record. I was going to add the Irish and the Indians to my list but I see you’ve already mentioned them for me. You’ll have to inform me on the particulars of Iraq and Kenya in due course.

Americans in particular do not “get” Churchill in my view which is odd given their relative historical bond with Ireland and anti-colonialism (Monroe Doctrine excepted).

And you’re right: Churchill was as much of a democrat as you’d expect the scion of an autocratic family to be. It seems to me that people assume Churchill’s remarks about democracy to be in jest; it’s easy to make that logical assumption when the commonly understood quote is the bolded section.

To my mind - and, I gather, yours - it’s far harder to make the argument that the full quote is in jest. I think Churchill’s conclusions are serious, albeit dressed up so as to be ambiguous as to their intent. Churchill was undoubtedly an anti-totalitarian first and foremost in my view.

In some ways, you could argue that Churchill himself was the product of a similar process of elimination of alternatives until the least-worst remained standing in terms of Great Britain’s WW2 leadership.

Fortunately, he did rise to the occasion and played a terribly weak hand rather well.

It behoves of me to emphasise that, while I respect Churchill and his somewhat sceptical view of democracy, I don’t share them entirely.

Democratic government is, in my view, capable of a majesty that no other system of government can match. It also can have - possibly must have- its ugly moments and uglier periods and it seems fairly obvious that we’re currently in one of those worldwide right now.

[TigerTedd]

5 hours ago, EssendonRam said:

So he should be.

Quite frankly, as an Australian, one must make a conscious effort not to demonise Churchill’s WW1 record. I was going to add the Irish and the Indians to my list but I see you’ve already mentioned them for me. You’ll have to inform me on the particulars of Iraq and Kenya in due course.

Americans in particular do not “get” Churchill in my view which is odd given their relative historical bond with Ireland and anti-colonialism (Monroe Doctrine excepted).

And you’re right: Churchill was as much of a democrat as you’d expect the scion of an autocratic family to be. It seems to me that people assume Churchill’s remarks about democracy to be in jest; it’s easy to make that logical assumption when the commonly understood quote is the bolded section.

To my mind - and, I gather, yours - it’s far harder to make the argument that the full quote is in jest. I think Churchill’s conclusions are serious, albeit dressed up so as to be ambiguous as to their intent. Churchill was undoubtedly an anti-totalitarian first and foremost in my view.

In some ways, you could argue that Churchill himself was the product of a similar process of elimination of alternatives until the least-worst remained standing in terms of Great Britain’s WW2 leadership.

Fortunately, he did rise to the occasion and played a terribly weak hand rather well.

It behoves of me to emphasise that, while I respect Churchill and his somewhat sceptical view of democracy, I don’t share them entirely.

Democratic government is, in my view, capable of a majesty that no other system of government can match. It also can have - possibly must have- its ugly moments and uglier periods and it seems fairly obvious that we’re currently in one of those worldwide right now.

So, to summarise. 

Churchill is usually seen as a champion for democracy, but given the choice he would have had a different form of government. But had to admit, after seeing many other forms of government try and fail, the democracy was the best of a bad bunch. So he was actually quite a reluctant democrat. 

[EssendonRam]

22 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

So, to summarise. 

Churchill is usually seen as a champion for democracy, but given the choice he would have had a different form of government. But had to admit, after seeing many other forms of government try and fail, the democracy was the best of a bad bunch. So he was actually quite a reluctant democrat. 

Not sure I’d quite say “reluctant democrat”; I think he saw democracy’s flaws (who wouldn’t after being thrown out of office just weeks after single-handedly winning the war for Britain?) and might even have had a healthy dose of autocratic self-regard but certainly seems to have come to the view that it was better placing your trust in the ‘wisdom of the common person’ rather than risking the randomness of authoritarianism.

 I neglected to mention earlier too that Churchill seemed to have a higher regard for American democracy than British democracy, although that may only be a regard for American power.

But “best of a bad bunch” is probably the best way of describing his view of democracy.

[Highgate]

Caroline Elkins book Imperial Reckoning is an excellent source @EssendonRam of the crushing of the Mau-Mau rebellion in the 1950s. Churchill, was prime minister for much of that period, so it's fair to say he was implicated in those horrors. It's not for no reason, that Obama (given his Kenyan heritage) felt it necessary to remove the bust of Churchill from the Oval Office when he became the president.

When there was a rebellion against British rule in Iraq in the 1920, Churchill as Colonial Secretary (or some title like that), promoted the idea of aerial bombing of civilian areas as it would 'cause a lively terror to spread among the civilian population'.  What do we tend to call those trying to spread terror among civilians these days?  When national armies have the same goal we see it as more legitimate for some reason, but it's just a matter of scale really.

The bottom line is that he was a die-hard imperialist and that's clearly at odds with the notion of him being a defender of democracy.

True, he considered democracy to be the least bad form of government. But to his mind only a few chosen nations were worthy of democracy in the first place, the rest could have their democratic wishes conveniently ignored. 

[RoyMac5]

Oh I thought this was about the new BBC series! Didn't rate the first episode, what a self-aggrandising **** Schama is.