Civilisation

[Rev]

16 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Precisely, or any country which treats women as second class citizens.  They are not too impressed with the notion of free speech either, or any member of the public having any say at all in how the country is run. 

 

I've always thought the world would be much kinder and peaceful to live in if women were in charge, then look at the UK and wonder if that's true.

[TigerTedd]

21 minutes ago, Highgate said:

DIdn't they practice child sacrifice? And weren't they empire builders themselves? Any group of people that thinks other tribes/nations/races are fair game for conquering isn't civilized in my book.  Apologies to your wife.

We’re the Romana not the height of civilisation at their time?

The Incas weren’t perfect. But I very much liked the way they respected nature while they were building huge cities, and were very innovative farmers. Most places they ‘conquered’ opted in. 

My wife won’t take offence. We found out recently that she probably doesn’t have a drop of Incan blood in her, and actually has more Italian heritage. So more chance she’s a Roman than an Inca. 

[McRainy]

11 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

 

I've always thought the world would be much kinder and peaceful to live in if women were in charge, then look at the UK and wonder if that's true.

Women aping masculinity in a patriarchal system is hardly a radical departure. 

[TigerTedd]

This is a study based on quality of life:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings

Canada number 1. 

[TigerTedd]

12 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

 

I've always thought the world would be much kinder and peaceful to live in if women were in charge, then look at the UK and wonder if that's true.

I’ve always thought the same, to be honest. It’s only a quirk if nature that out men in charge in the prehistoric days. Women were busy having and raising babies, men got bored and started fighting each other. If women didn’t have to take a career break every couple of years to have a baby, we probably would have naturally evolved into a matriarchal society, and would probably be better off for it. 

[Highgate]

6 minutes ago, Strange yearnings said:

Haven't all nations/tribes/races/neighbours tried to conquer others at some time in the past? Name me one that hasn't. 

And until that stops nobody can be considered civilized I'd say. Being willing to kill and subdue people in order to increase your wealth and power is surely uncivilized. Not sure, quite what the definition is, but it is bound to have a lot to do with being able to live peacefully with those around you.

Plenty of modern nation states haven't tried to conquer anybody, but if you delve into their history it surely wasn't always like that.  But merely pointing out that all nations have been uncivilized at some stage in the past doesn't really support anyone's claim to being civilized, Inca or otherwise.

[Rev]

1 minute ago, Lambchop said:

Women aping masculinity in a patriarchal system is hardly a radical departure. 

They need to learn to lean in.

Who did Thatcher ape?

[Highgate]

17 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

 

I've always thought the world would be much kinder and peaceful to live in if women were in charge, then look at the UK and wonder if that's true.

True, well they could hardly do any worse, that's for sure.  But the early signs from the few women that have broken through is less than encouraging.  A larger sample size needed.

[Grimbeard]

1 hour ago, sage said:

Their treatment of migrant workers is appalling for a starter, though I understand they have started to look at improving this.

Any country which treats other races or nationalities as second class citizens isn't civilised. 

 

59 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Precisely, or any country which treats women as second class citizens.  They are not too impressed with the notion of free speech either, or any member of the public having any say at all in how the country is run. 

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.

[Highgate]

I don't know what you @Grimbeard expect me to do apart from state my own notions of what is civilized and what isn't.  I'm not under the illusions that my opinion is held by everyone. But what are you saying exactly?  That we should consider every group of people to be civilized as long as they consider themselves so,  regardless of their actions? It's a pretty useless concept then.

Fundamental to my own view on it is the notion that aggressive violence towards others is not civilized behaviour.

So that certainly rules out the Romans, and countless others. Does that mean they were not highly organized, remarkable and the most technologically advanced (in many ways at least) nation/empire/republic of their day?  No of course it doesn't.  But civilized?, on the whole, no they weren't.

We have to be able to hold firmly to some views of what is right and wrong, otherwise we fall into the 'everything is relative' argument. And at that stage every notion, rule, and law becomes utterly pointless and unfounded.

 

[McRainy]

Universal human rights, innit. 

[TigerTedd]

8 hours ago, Highgate said:

I don't know what you @Grimbeard expect me to do apart from state my own notions of what is civilized and what isn't.  I'm not under the illusions that my opinion is held by everyone. But what are you saying exactly?  That we should consider every group of people to be civilized as long as they consider themselves so,  regardless of their actions? It's a pretty useless concept then.

Fundamental to my own view on it is the notion that aggressive violence towards others is not civilized behaviour.

So that certainly rules out the Romans, and countless others. Does that mean they were not highly organized, remarkable and the most technologically advanced (in many ways at least) nation/empire/republic of their day?  No of course it doesn't.  But civilized?, on the whole, no they weren't.

We have to be able to hold firmly to some views of what is right and wrong, otherwise we fall into the 'everything is relative' argument. And at that stage every notion, rule, and law becomes utterly pointless and unfounded.

 

Fair one, but I think what Grim is getting at (certainly I am) that maybe there are elements of these cultures that can be added to a melting pot that makes up a perfect civilisation. 

Resoect for elders, for example, and respect for family. Or work ethic. Education in some middle eastern countries is brilliant. 

So as an overall example of ‘civilisation’ it certainly doesn’t conform to our ideals, and I would 100% agree that I don’t think any country can call itself civilised until all citizens at given the same rights and freedoms (so that dies rule America out), but perhaps they get some things right, and there are things that can be learnt there. 

When Derbyshire declares independence, I’m trying to collect data to make it into the perfect society. 

[McRainy]

1 hour ago, TigerTedd said:

When Derbyshire declares independence, I’m trying to collect data to make it into the perfect society. 

It already is in the sense that smaller communities tend to be inclusive and self regulating. Engaging with others on the local level is the way to build society from the bottom up, rather than imposing an ‘ideal system’ from the top down.

It comes down to power, and who wields it. I understand why some say benign dictatorship is the most effective form of government, but, for me, a system can never be called civilised while some wield arbitrary authority over others. 

[sheeponacid]

14 hours ago, sage said:

Any country which treats other races or nationalities as second class citizens isn't civilised. 

Neither is any country who prioritises humanities needs over the needs of Mother Earth. Which rules out pretty much all countries I think... all seem to run with a mindset of....humanities self styled superiority.

Humanity needs more homes so builds them...needs more transport links so creates them...needs more energy so uses more...needs more, more,more & so on it pushes...when in actual fact if could make do or even cut back & think about the other inhabitants of this world, along with the planet itself.

Civilisation in the world of human beings..does it exist? 

Take the UK do we really need more roads, train lines etc...cause we do it'll take ten minutes of a persons journey.

Do we really need more housing? Cause we do, after all its far more difficult to change the law to one home per family, or get the half million empty houses back into circulation...no that's far less of a vote winner, than building umpteen new houses isn't it?

Lets reward farmers mainly by acreage as opposed to how environmental sustainable their land is farmed...lets leech the soils to get more production, lets encourage the demise of less productive livestock breeds so we can save a bit on our shopping.

Left wing & right wing scum show their true colours when it comes to the environment..the environment is our biggest issue, but it's well down the order in the manifestos as they pay it only lip service..it's not a vote winner against human issues such as education (indoctrination).

Umpteen posts on guns being used in mass killings..So few on the plight of polar bears, bees, hedgehogs or the declines in insect, bird populations..losses of habitats etc...humanity for humanity in a patriarchal world...uncivilised savages down from the trees.

 

[McRainy]

3 hours ago, sheeponacid said:

Neither is any country who prioritises humanities needs over the needs of Mother Earth.

Are you familiar with Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution

[Highgate]

6 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

Fair one, but I think what Grim is getting at (certainly I am) that maybe there are elements of these cultures that can be added to a melting pot that makes up a perfect civilisation. 

Resoect for elders, for example, and respect for family. Or work ethic. Education in some middle eastern countries is brilliant. 

So as an overall example of ‘civilisation’ it certainly doesn’t conform to our ideals, and I would 100% agree that I don’t think any country can call itself civilised until all citizens at given the same rights and freedoms (so that dies rule America out), but perhaps they get some things right, and there are things that can be learnt there. 

When Derbyshire declares independence, I’m trying to collect data to make it into the perfect society. 

Absolutely there is, but just as we should admire some aspects of other cultures or past 'civilizations', we should also be able to criticize them and point out where they went wrong in our view.  Such as offering up children as a sacrifice to bloodthirsty capricious gods or invading and colonizing vulnerable neighbours.  I'm quite comfortable in calling any nation that practiced either of those things uncivilized.

[TigerTedd]

23 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Absolutely there is, but just as we should admire some aspects of other cultures or past 'civilizations', we should also be able to criticize them and point out where they went wrong in our view.  Such as offering up children as a sacrifice to bloodthirsty capricious gods or invading and colonizing vulnerable neighbours.  I'm quite comfortable in calling any nation that practiced either of those things uncivilized.

Absolutely we should be able to cricisize and learn from their mistakes, I’m saying that the Incas, Romans, Greeks or Egyptians were in anyway civilised. They all had slaves for starters.

But if, at the time, the best explanation for ‘how does grass grow?’ and a million other questions was, ‘Cos God did it?’ Then it’s going to make an otherwise civilised society go in weird directions when times get tight, and it’s God’s fault. 

And in context, at the time, things that are now wrong, seemed socially acceptable, like slavery. Or touching a girls bum in the 70s.

So were they uncivilised, or, given the context were they at least a step in the right direction towards civility.

Which brings up the question, does religion have a place in a civilised society?

[TigerTedd]

How about Costa Rica? They don’t even have an armed forces. That seems pretty civilised. 

[McRainy]

20 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

Which brings up the question, does religion have a place in a civilised society?

Every culture in history has given some form of expression to human spirituality. That isn’t ignorance or a lack of civilisation, it’s a reflection of a human need to connect to something beyond ourselves and construct meaning in doing so. It’s only a problem when it’s wedded to authoritarian political power, but the same applies to secular forms of control, of which there are many. 

I would argue that the further our own culture drifts towards materialism and consumerism, the less civilised it becomes. We are fast losing any coherent value system beyond the satisfaction of greed, and that is reflected in our politics, our art, even our football. We are decadent in the extreme and heading for a fall imo. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

Absolutely there is, but just as we should admire some aspects of other cultures or past 'civilizations', we should also be able to criticize them and point out where they went wrong in our view.  Such as offering up children as a sacrifice to bloodthirsty capricious gods or invading and colonizing vulnerable neighbours.  I'm quite comfortable in calling any nation that practiced either of those things uncivilized.

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.