Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

3

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

As always, it depends on how you define civilization. If you define it as "a group of people with shared beliefs about the world/standard of living," then nearly every group of people, including indigenous tribes, qualifies.

But that definition has long been unfavorable to many, due to long-standing racist, classist, sexist, institutionalized prejudices. Hence why when so many talk about civilization, people invariably envision what we have now, defined in this link: http://qr.ae/TUTZoR

So many are like, "But art and music!" whenever the concept of civilization is criticized, but humans were creating both art and music before civilization, and we'll keep doing it afterwards. We are wired to be creative and will do so with whatever is available to us.

2

Cheeks wrote (edited )

As far as art and music is concerned, we are entirely on the same page.

As far as defining civilization, in academia and science, there are general characteristics required of a society in order to be considered as such. Urban development(Perato's urban theory usually), imposed social stratification, supremacy(not just of the white variety), expansion, farming for the primary supply of food, the domestication of not only humans but animals and other organisms. And that is just a few.

Whenever I read articles that immediately want and try to redefine 'civilization' I find that they are only doing so because it helps them better display their idea which is usually ill~informed and short sighted.

[edited for clarity]