What does the word 'civilized' mean to you? Can it be used to compare and contrast societies and cultures?
Do you believe that some cultures/societies are more 'civilized' than others? What is your definition of 'civilized' / what does it mean to be 'civilized'?
~
If you've studied history and/or anthropology then surely you've heard many uses of the term "savages" to describe groups of people that were considered to be less 'civilized' than whomever was writing that piece.
I was also just reading a book that described in detail some of the really horrible war crimes committed by both sides in the Sri Lankan civil war including but not limited to: raging mobs burning people alive, murder and rape of civilians, use of child soldiers, suicide bombers, etc. Please note that in no way am I considering the people of Sri Lanka as 'uncivilized', just using an example of what seems to be 'uncivilized' behavior.
An initial thought that I had was "huh, I'm glad I don't currently live somewhere where I could be burned alive based on my ethnicity/religion/beliefs by a rage fueled mob of people", but then the history of the western world came to mind - some of those exact same thing happened less than 100 years ago to many non-white groups of people in America, including some things even worse (read: human slavery). From here came a flood of other thoughts poking holes in whatever my initial definition of 'civilized' was. Plenty of things in present-day United States could be considered uncivilized. Yet one could make an argument that a more 'civilized' civilization might be one that allows many personal freedoms.
So, I want to ask all of you what you think of the concept of being 'civilized'. Is it a colonialistic-type term used to promote a higher sense of placement in the world that should be abolished. Does it have any merit in its use? If so, what do you think makes a civilized group of people and does one exist?
I believe they who can study history without trying to make lists of whoever had the bestest best culture are the most """"""civilized"""""".
Aside
Your title and your post ask two completely different questions.
There's a reason these questions often end up being mocked on places like /r/badhistory. It takes a view of history as linear progress (a disputed view) defined by completely separated cultures/societies (a deeply disputed view which basically wipes it's ass with the concept of historical continuity) and then implies there's a way to measure their achievements objectively to determine which ones are better (a view not a lot of serious historians are even going to entertain).
Trying to classify societies along these lines has always been the purview of nationalistic/ethnocentric, and therefore often deeply racist, groups. There is no value to doing this other than to use it as some kind of demagogic rhetorical device. It is not a historical or even intellectual exercise because it doesn't gel with the actual way we study history today.
Or in short: this is a bad question, and hopefully we can all understand why.
You're right - my post and question were different. It had made sense my head while posting it but clearly didn't come across correctly. I think my questions at the end and the other commenter's answer are more of what I was looking for. I wanted To debate the existence of the word civilized, not to rank socities throughout history based on this or that, which is entirely my fault in not being better at delivering that. I'm not sure if I can edit the title but I would If so. My apologies to all for the faulty and misleading title, and thank you for responding and calling me out on my mistake. I agree with your answer and could not have said it better myself - I appreciate you for pointing the flaw in the idea of even debating a comparison of different cultures/societies over time.
In hindsight, do you have a better title for this post? I can edit it for you.
I might suggest something like "What does the word 'civilized' mean to you? What makes one society 'civilized' and another not?" But I'm happy to use something you think better represents your topic.
After re-thinking this topic, I think that a better title would be along the lines of "What does the word 'civilized' mean to you? Can it be used to compare and contrast socities and cultures?"
What do you think of that title?
I got you
I see and recognize your comment, i appreciate it. I want to think about it but it's late where I am, I'll think of a new title in another 9 hours or so
there is really no other way to put it other than that the concept of being "civilized" or "uncivilized" (as we understand it currently, anyways) is categorically racist, imperialist, colonialist bullshit that a bunch of white europeans made up to justify their subjugation and dehumanization of anybody they deemed racially inferior (and indeed this notion of racial inferiors being "uncivilized" was a major influence on how anthropology was conducted in its early history). moreover, there is literally no objective basis by which you can measure what "civilized" and "uncivilized" describe, so at the end of the day it's basically just a judgment call by the dominant culture of a society what constitutes those things. there is no merit to it, and nobody should ever use it in contexts of merit.
What do you mean by that and how is it a stronger argument than criticizing the lack of absolute objectivity in any other soft science?
Edit: I was just giving someone a warning, I wasn't trying to start a public debate or pile-on about it. I'm going to remove the comments to try to keep this topic on track - the message got to where it needed to.
Well said, I agree with you 100%.
I frankly have no idea what "civilized" would even refer to.
Is it technological progress? If so, in which areas? Is the fact that this progress is made available to its citizens? Is it having good relationships with the neighbors? Is it the treatment of one's citizens? How about the treatment of foreigners and minorities? If so, in which areas?
Because the way people use it is all over the board,
And it's more often than not used in a nebulous way on purpose, in a very colonialistic and/or nationalistic manner, commonly not in good faith - "Islam is bad, they stone them gays", coming from people who are otherwise opposed to LGBT+ rights, comes to mind. Bad faith is pretty much certain when "savages" is used.
If I had to define "civilized", I'd probably settle on "actually gives all people equal rights", and every single country currently existing would fall short of that.
Thanks for replying, you offer some really thought-provoking points.
what you're talking about is functionally an entirely different sense of the word from the sense the OP is presumably asking about and the sense it often get used in, though. it makes sense to use "civilized" in the sense of having or not having what we would term civilization (although even that i would argue is fairly fuzzy because what does or does not constitute civilization is a somewhat subjective matter and can also depend on whether you use it in the sense that academics use it or the sense laymen do) because it's much less of a judgment call and has some basis in established patterns that anthropology has observed of human society. it really does not with the sense OP is talking about.
Then what would you make of someone or a group of people who accept technology for what it is but reject the use of it? My first thought is of a growing group of people trying to live "off the grid" but also what about the Amish?
In a civilized society people have freedom of will, tolerance to those not alike themselves, good public health and hygiene, basic needs covered, business environment transparent and non-restrictive, violence low, and respect to strangers. Is this a good loose definition?
Thanks for responding this way - this was a less than common path of thought I think. I think I agree with all of what you've said
edit: words