What does it mean to be civilized? primative?

[Wild Bill Kelso]

What is the notion of "primitive"? Why do people in the "civilized" world tend to look down upon tribal peoples as backward and savage? How do we measure civilised? Many here probably think a cultures degree of civilization is dependant upon its technological sophistication. But how civilised are we really when the technology that we say elevates us above tribal cultures is also the source of the most backward and savage behaviour to ever be witnessed by humanity?

How free are we? We have the freedom in our times to define ourselves as individuals in any way we choose. But what is the quality of this freedom? Where as we are living in a limitless open world, free to choose our own individuality. However, by its very nature, these endless choices are overwhelming for many, causing a great deal of doubt, loneliness and fear. Tribal peoples live in a defined world, and are free to express themselves within those definitions. Their concept of who they are is based upon thier integral role and interactions within a tight-knit unit. To them no one within that unit is worthless, and all members have value.

I am not saying that one way of living is superior to the other. Though I do envy tribal societies for thier confidence in life, I do not wish to give up the modern comforts I enjoy. Just as I am sure many tribal peoples envy our comforts, but would not want to give up thier life.

So do you agree with me? (Yes I just read a book by David Maybury-Lewis Though I have felt this way about tribal socieites for some time)

Doh.. how primitive am I?? can`t even spell the thread title correctly

[Kanaric]

Technology and power, if your people have neither your primative to most nations opinions.

Though arrogance can rule in as well, like the Chinese and the west in the 1800s and earler, and visa versa when the Chinese were powerful.

[Spiff]

I'd imagine the ability to impose your own society on someone elses must mean that yours is more succesful and therefore better, i.e more civilised

[Wild Bill Kelso]

I'd imagine the ability to impose your own society on someone elses must mean that yours is more succesful and therefore better, i.e more civilised

Why does that make it civilised? The only thing it means is you live in a more aggresive society. So the fall of Rome to barbarians means that the barbarians were more civilised in you view?

[Darth Wong]

I thought the original definition of "civilized" vs "barbarian" was that civilized people had developed written language. So it's a measure of relative technological sophistication: the more educated, sophisticated societies are "civilized", while the less educated and sophisticated societies are "primitive" or "barbarian".

[PatWest]

Tribal society's have all the same human flaws more advanced peoples have. They just don't have the power to cause the level of damage more technologically sophisticated can.

Their is no 'Nobility of the Savage', the only reason they still exist in most cases is they've been pushed into or still live in areas no one else wants. Otherwise they all would have been wiped out long ago. Their is no value other than academic to be gained from studing or worse emulating primitive stone age cultures.

Thats the big downside to being primitive whether by circumstance or choice , they live at the grace of the more powerful around them. Historians can't even begin to count all the weaker society's who've been destoyed throughout time for being weak.

[Kanaric]

Pat west said "advanced peoples", that is literally what a civilized nation is. Anyone who isn't "advanced" like they are, are in fact considered primative.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Tribal society's have all the same human flaws more advanced peoples have. They just don't have the power to cause the level of damage more technologically sophisticated can.

Their is no 'Nobility of the Savage', the only reason they still exist in most cases is they've been pushed into or still live in areas no one else wants. Otherwise they all would have been wiped out long ago. Their is no value other than academic to be gained from studing or worse emulating primitive stone age cultures.

Thats the big downside to being primitive whether by circumstance or choice , they live at the grace of the more powerful around them. Historians can't even begin to count all the weaker society's who've been destoyed throughout time for being weak.

You are right when you say that tribal societies have the same flaws as everyone else. However, I believe they have inherent procedures to deal with them that we have lost. For example, the passage from childhood to adulthood. How is this achieved here? In our world you simply turn 18 or whatever arbritary age the state has deemed. Have you earned your place in soceity as an adult? I know many people well into thier 30s who still act like children, and many people in their teens who act like adults. I imagine by undergoing some rigorous initiation ritual (some last months), tribal peoples are forced to grow up and must ponder what it means to be an adult vs what it means to be a child. Some would say that moving out can be considered a trial for adulthood, and this could be the case. But does simply moving out force someone to pondier his/her role within society? Remember, even though we are all indivisuals, we all still have a role in society. I feel we in the modern world simply stumble upon our own definition, which may end up being better, equal or worse than the tribal definition.

I am not saying there is a noble savage. That concept is a fabrication of europeans. Why would you say there is no non-academic value to be gained from studying them? I am sure many of you know that you can learn more about yourself by looking in from and external point. From my experiance I have noticed the same applies for society as well. Who is to say that we in the modern world are doing things the "right" way? How can we even be sure that we are doing something the right way unless we have looked at it from an entirely different position? We are simply doing things a different way.

It is circular logic to judge another culture from your own cultural bias (i.e. say technological sophistication is a measure of civilization). Of course to us anyone with a lower level of technology would be considered primative. We are simply using what we have been taught is the right answer before the question is even presented.

You are right when you say that tribal peoples are at the mercy of the modern world. Sure we can simply push them deeper into the jungle until they have no where to go and perish. Though shouldn't we, as a supposedly higher evolved society, accept and protect those who are technologically weaker than us? Rather than simply pushing them into oblivion? Do you think that modern society is capable of letting them be and co-exist with mutual benefits for both? Isn't that the entire point of soceity, to allow people to exist?

[MaximiIian]

The ability to read and write. That's how I define civilized-uncivilized.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

The ability to read and write. That's how I define civilized-uncivilized.

So if a society condones canabalism and murder yet has the ability to read and right you would still consider it as civilized?

[Tom Paine]

write, paterfamilias, write... and it depends. Not murder, but cannibalism is sensible recycling of materials. However I would also add an acceptance of science and other cultures to literacy, and also numeracy.

[PatWest]

Why would you say there is no non-academic value to be gained from studying them? I am sure many of you know that you can learn more about yourself by looking in from and external point. From my experiance I have noticed the same applies for society as well. Who is to say that we in the modern world are doing things the "right" way? How can we even be sure that we are doing something the right way unless we have looked at it from an entirely different position? We are simply doing things a different way.

Their is little practical use for the knowledge. True anthropological studies do give us insight into our own behavior. One must understand basic math in order to understand physics. It's just our world is moving so fast now little of it applies to the now. Their is no "right" way just what works.

It is circular logic to judge another culture from your own cultural bias (i.e. say technological sophistication is a measure of civilization). Of course to us anyone with a lower level of technology would be considered primative. We are simply using what we have been taught is the right answer before the question is even presented.

I'm not sure it's circular logic, I'm passing no moral judgement. It's not a matter of fault it's a purely pragmatic judgement. They are, for all practical purposes, dead end cultures. On the other hand I agree that our psychology is mostly designed to function properly in a 'Hunter Gatherer' culture and that is the main source of our dissaffection with the modern world and our longing for past era's. Things seem too complex for us now. My main point is this is dangerous thinking. We cannot go back, and to try, put's us at the mercy of not just our own kind but all of the natural universe too. The word race has 2 meanings and both of them are applicable to all cultures and genotypes.

You are right when you say that tribal peoples are at the mercy of the modern world. Sure we can simply push them deeper into the jungle until they have no where to go and perish. Though shouldn't we, as a supposedly higher evolved society, accept and protect those who are technologically weaker than us? Rather than simply pushing them into oblivion? Do you think that modern society is capable of letting them be and co-exist with mutual benefits for both? Isn't that the entire point of soceity, to allow people to exist?

Society and culture are a tool for survival primarily, not necessarily everybody's though. In primitive society's people are accepted because they can contibute to the survival and the well being of the tribe. They in general do not tolerate the kind of bizarre and couterproductive behavior that is allowed to persist in modern civilized society's. In other words you pull your own weight or you're cast out or exterminated. Using their way of thinking, no we cannot co-exist. Are way of thinking might let them survive a little while longer. I have seen the effects of trying to maintain a stone age cuture in the modern world. It it usually devastating to the current populations.

In the right setting, like the past, they are perfectly functioning cultures. In the now it's a tragedy for all those societys who have significant contact with the modern world. It is paramount for their continued survival to cast off the trappings of the past and move forward or their will be no hope for them.

We better do the same, or those of us who turn back condemn their future generations to oblivion.

[Spiff]

Why does that make it civilised? The only thing it means is you live in a more aggresive society. So the fall of Rome to barbarians means that the barbarians were more civilised in you view?

I was being slightly sarcastic, using the your Roman example myself as my intended example - they saw themselves as the most civilised, the size of their empire was their proof.

Besides, the fall of Rome was due to the decline of roman society before the defeat of their military, and then only in the West after all.

In any case, doesnt every society see itself as more civilised than 'the other guy'? I think its all relative

[Darth Wong]

Besides, the fall of Rome was due to the decline of roman society before the defeat of their military, and then only in the West after all.

That's a rather oversimplified view of the Fall of the Roman Empire, isn't it?

[Spiff]

yes, yes it is. I didnt have time for a thesis..

actualy researching it i found these points

Decay
Financial Problems
The Dole and Barbarians
Economic, Military, Gradual
Christianity
Vandals and Religious Controversy
Division of the Empire
Lead
Hoarding and Deficit

Besides as far as im aware, the 'barbarians' did not impose their culture on Rome as such, which gets back to my original slightly un-serious point. But is it safe to assume people would know a superior culture when they saw it and try and adopt its character to a degree? I'd say the more civilised a culture, the more it will be imitated..

[Darth Wong]

Don't forget plague. But anyway, I don't know if a more "civilized" society will necessarily be widely imitated, but I would tend to say that relative to the rest of the world at the time, it will generally be more technologically advanced. Keep in mind that the written word is actually a technology too, albeit a very basic one.

[Spiff]

Don't forget plague. But anyway, I don't know if a more "civilized" society will necessarily be widely imitated, but I would tend to say that relative to the rest of the world at the time, it will generally be more technologically advanced. Keep in mind that the written word is actually a technology too, albeit a very basic one.

I'd agree with technologicaly more advanced. But to consider the Romans and the Greeks, the Romans were based largely on Greek culture from what i know, so surely the Greeks were more civilised having 'created' many of these innovations in the first place (i know.. simplified version). But when you consider the Romans ability for conquest, far more subsequent cultures inherited aspects of Roman life than Greek, based purely on their ability to impose it effectively. Whether seeking imitation through recognising a succesful civilisation when they see it or not or just because Roman culture was there whether they liked it or not is a different issue..

Personaly i cant think of a decent test for the quality of a civilisation other than A) its ability to stand the test of time and B) To spread further than where it originated