Talk:Civilization/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Civilizations in human history

Did a major re-write of the table, replacing it with a list that offers a bit more explanation, interpretation, and qualification. Some of the civilizations listed before (Communist, Mongol) were a bit odd. Others, like Sumerian, Babylonian, and Levantine, could easily be considered to be periods or cultural regions of a single civilization. The new text needs considerable wikification and tweaking, (or complete reversion ;-) ) but hopefully it explains more than the previous table, which had much useful information, but presented it as though these civilizations had rather crisply defined edges...Tom Radulovich 22:46, 25 Jul 2004

Nice Work. you've really added to the article by revamping that section. Unfortunately there's much more to the article, and it seems that it may need some fixing as well...:) Fishal 19:18, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A couple of nitpicks on an article that's well done. (I shudder to think what it must have been like when most of the comments on this page were written.)

Is it accurate to say that the monks were trying to get away from civilization? Lao Tzu (whom we are to spell Lao Zi this year) did that, according to legend; but the Christian monasteries stayed in contact with the local civilization and used its technologies. The hermits were a better example of rejecting civilization, and the organized monasteries were in some degree a reaction against that tradition. Or is my information all out of date?

As to Gandhi: is there any reason to believe that the wisecrack about Western civilization is authentic? I've never seen anything that looks like an attribution to a specific source, and I've never seen a reference to it that dates before the 1970s, by which time he'd been dead for decades. If it can't be authenticated, I'll volunteer to qualify the citation in this article. Dandrake 02:07, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

I wrote the part about monastics, Taoists, and Transcendentalists "attempting to create societies apart from civilization." In my mind the key word was "attempting," because in all of those cases, getting away from civilization was the Ideal, but it was never achieved. My point was that in the ideas of these groups, Civilization was seen as a negative force. It was something to be, if not shunned, than at least resisted. Is there a way to make that more clear, or do you think the paragraph should be scrapped?

As for Gandhi: that's been part of the article since time immemorial, and I wouldn't be sad to see it go, especially if its authenticity is in doubt. Fishal 02:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What is the oldest civilization known to man?

everyone has a different definition of civilized, but I consider Çatalhöyük and/or Jericho worthy of consideration. WBardwin 04:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Spanish colonization

Can we find a nice alternative to "destroyed" without completely evading the issue as the article does at the moment? Before the Spanish colonization, these New World civilizations existed, and a couple of them were thriving. After the colonization began, these civilizations were no longer there. Perhaps someone (someone else, with a surname that's not a fighting word) could figure out a polite way of letting the article indicate clearly that the civilizations actually ceased at a particular time and for a particular reason. Dandrake 18:23, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

"Conquered?"

Peaceful, or civil interaction

"Perhaps, then, a more accurate and limited definition is needed. We must not mistake the results of civilization from the core concept. Civilization is peaceful, or civil, interaction of peoples, made possible by rule of law and property rights."

This is a completely new definition from the main one in the article ("a complex society"). It should be noted in the opening paragraph, moved to a different section, or be given its own secion. In my opinion it's a highly connotative definition, akin to the popular definitions in the "Problems with the term" section. Once you use "peaceful interaction of peoples" as the definition of Civilization, you have to start making judgement calls. Was the West a civilization when certain Westerners made money in the slave trade? Were the Japanese a civilization when the Japanese leaders mercilessly conquered other nations? Is the Muslim world a civilization when some Muslims belong to militant groups? In truth there never has been a society with completely peaceful interaction of peoples. "Complex society" is much easier to define and study and is, I believe, the more common meaning for the word when used academically. Fishal 19:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's been a long time with no comments, and the statement in question was put there by an anonymous user. I'm removing it. Fishal 03:39, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Racist/ethnocentric

I'm no anthropologist or philosopher, but this article presupposes that "civilization" means a certain level of technology. That's just wrongheaded. It would be more informative to tell whether anyone has determined that all human societies - whether hunter/gatherer, stone-age, or urban - share certain elements, and what they are, or at least to contrast the differing points of view on what constitutes "civilization." I just don't buy the point of view that it's not "civilization" unless you are urban and agricultural. The so-called "Bushmen" have a civilization, just one based on different means of obtaining sustenance. I hope someone with a stronger background on this topic offers a rewrite. I also corrected a number of grammar and spelling errors.

I also hasten to add that the Inca were not illiterate. They didn't write using pens and paper or the equivalent, but kept records, including stories etc., by using knotted string called "quipú."

I think the article makes it clear that Civilizations, in the technical, encyclopedic sense, are NOT superior to the cultures you described. The Bushmen have a culture, but that is not the same as a civilization. A culture is all the "means of obtaining substance" that a people has, along with their artistic achievements, technology, etc. etc. etc. A civilization is a very specific kind of culture, one based on intensive agriculture, cities, formal institutions, and centralized authority. Everyone has a culture. Not everyone has a civilization. Anything you read will tell you the same thing.

This does not mean that civilizations are somehow superior to other cultures. Civilizations have a whole set of problems all their own. Many, some would say all, civilizations have been guilty of oppression, violence, war, forced enculturation of outside peoples, the list goes on. Civilization is not a term of superiority; the section that I wrote called "Problems with the term" deals with that very issue.

However, it is a fact that societies are different, and we have terms to describe these differences. These include "hunter-gatherer," "pastoralist," "farming village society," "civilization," and so forth. As the article clearly points out, these terms are not ironclad; there is always overlap and many shades of grey. But you still wouldn't say, "Canada is a hunter-gatherer society, just one based on different means of subsistence." To call societies that are not civilizations civilizations just because we are afraid others will think they are somehow inferior just muddles the term.

As to your question of "whether all human societies... share certian elements," that is precisely what culture is, not civilization. As I already stated here (but could make it more clear in the article), culture is a general term for human societies; civilization has a specific meaning. Look in the Culture article, along with Cultural anthropology and Category:Anthropology for what you are looking for. I guarantee you'll find it there.

To address your other complaints, we are not sure if the quipu were a way of recording numbers or a dull-fledged writing system. But I'm not seeing where Inca and literacy are mentioned in the article. I must just be missing it. And strange as it sounds, "Bushmen" is the accepted term; see the Bushmen article. Fishal 17:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I went back and tried to make these ideas more clear in the article. Fishal 17:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Acknowledge the limited, technical, Academic viewpoint expressed in this horrific piece

As has been so widely expressed above, this is a remarkably one-eyed view of civilization, one that belongs with the expression "The End of Civilization as we know it". OK, in Academia, use the word civilization as some form of jargon with a particular meaning. but this is Wikipedia, for all the world to use, not some Academic's treatise.

The very least you can do is acknowledge this right up front, not somehwere in the depths of the article or the attached discussion.

To help you, and future people referring to this page, I have added in a couple of informative bits right at the top of the article. Firstly, along with the pointer to the disambiguation page, I've pointed to the two sections on Negative Views of Civilization and Problems with the Term Civilization. And added a "title" of sorts - A Technical Academic Definition of Civilization. So at least those of us who have some sensitivities might spot that there are alterative views right up front.

Please respect that a large number of people do have these alternative views, and allow these pointers to the alternatives to stay right at the start of the article. Do not try to impose your technical academic treatise as the ONE AND ONLY TRUE understanding of what civilisation is. You have no monopoly on what is Right or Correct or True, and no right to relegate the alterative views to footnotes, in this public domain shared resource.

I also take issue with your statement "Anything you read will tell you the same thing. " Try for instance The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary - Third Edition. The third definition is "a people or nation (esp in the past) regarded as an element of social evolution" That to me would not only include bushmen and the many others mentioned, but any stage of social evolution from cavemen onwards.

And under "civilise" it has a definition "impose upon (esp an indiginenous people) a way of life alien to them".

In Dictionary.com we find 2. The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch

In HyperDictionary we find [n] a particular society at a particular time and place;

So let's not get high and mighty about "anything you read". Some of us probably read more widely than the average ivory tower dweller, who doesn't seem to understand that langauge is a living thing that moves on, and that the public understanding of the word civilization varies and has moved on. --Richardb43 16:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I sounded snooty. I really am sorry. The page was a mess at one time, and my thinking was that if we limit the term to a nice, neutral definition it would make discussion easier. But you are right, the term has many, many meanings to many, many groups, and they are not all neutral. I am sorry for trying to set up the definition I am most acquainted with as the "one and only true" definition. And in my quest to keep the page nice and simple, I not only offended you, but it seems that I've excluded certain viewpoints and haven't allowed the article to fully express itself. So... we can work on this. Fishal 21:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recognize multiple meanings up front

Okay, this just came to me. Now it seems to me that most of the problems here are basically vocabulary issues. "Civilization" has both a specific, technical meaning, and several broader meanings. Now Wikipedia is a place where controversy tends to thrive, so putting all kinds of absolute statements under such a loaded term like civilization is asking for trouble. What if we turned this page into a short discussion of the term/disambig, and moved most of the other information to urban society? That term is used for the same thing as "civilization" in the technical sense, but it does not have the multiple, nuanced meanings that civilization has. It's just a thought, but the last 5 billion posts on this talk page suggest that maybe Wikipedia can never have an ironclad definition for such an elusive term. Fishal 22:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe not moving the content from this page, but definitely recognise the multiple meanings as reflected in multiple dictionary definitions. The article in general is worthy of being included directly under civilisation - a far more recognised term than "urban society". How do other pages cope with multiple meanins ?--Richardb43 11:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, there is another meaning I am just about to try to add to the Wiktionary entry. Civilization as the opposite of the absence of normal facilities or normal niceties. As in "I'm glad to get back to civilisation after spending a weekend camping" or "I'm glad to get back to civilisation after spending a weekend with that mob of drunken idiots".--Richardb43 11:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then maybe the best thing to do is turn Civilization into a disambiguation page. That way we could explain right there that the word has a specific, technical meaning, a broad meaning that is synonymous with culture, a meaning that implies the superiority of one culture over another, a meaning that implies "high culture" (like your drunken idiots example), etc. The material in this page could be moved to Civilization (urban society) or Civilization (technical term) or Civilization (complex society) or something like that. Because even though I am right in saying that in the most formal, narrow sense "civilization" is a neutral term that refers to complexity, not superiority, when used in everyday speech civilization can mean many other things, not all of them good or pleasant. Looking at this enormous talk page is proof of the fact that unless we make it clear that "civilization" has multiple meanings, people will get angry.

Before I came and rewrote a big part of this page, it was basically a list of definitions, and it didn't provide any real information. You finished reading it and you said, "I still don't know what a civilization is." I edited it so that it did provide a concrete definition. I thought the "problems with the term" section would convey the various nuances with the word. But I think turning this into a disambig would be best, because we could cover all the bases that way. Fishal 16:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Richard, I moved your whole discussion on nuances of the word to the top where it belongs. I also added links to common synonyms of the various "other" meanings of the word. Now when people come to this page, the first thing they see are the many dictionary definitions of the word, and then they can read the discussion of the academic term. I think it's the best way to treat a term that offends some and confuses the rest. Fishal 16:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now looks great. Think it addresses most of the concerns, and now refinements can be made to each of the different meanings. It's a word with many complex words behind it, so needs a lot of complexitiy explaining it. But a disambiguation page is not the way to go, as all the words are very related, and need to be discussed together. It's not like Bow (A stringed weapon) and Bow (A tied ribbon)

Now it's restructured, how do we get the Talk Page cleaned up ?? What do the experienced Wikitionarions reckon on getting rid of now compltely outdated discussion ?--Richardb43 00:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oops - what happened to the other languages bit

The list of other languages has disappeared. However, if you look at the "code", the list is still there at the end. So anyone know how to make it show up again ? Please :-) --Richardb43 13:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They appear at the top of the page. Before, they were on the side. Fishal 16:51, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)