History

Post Reply New Topic

I really find it very interesting. The term "Civilization" has such good connotations in the English language, but the term "Savagery" has such evil connotations in the English language. Could it be that this is a reflection of centuries long historical bias? Perhaps, just perhaps, it is due to the fact that those who could write lived in cities, rather than in small Hunter Gatherer bands. So, of course, the P.O.V. of those who lived in Cities would survive.

After all, what precisely does the term "Civilization" denote, for all its good connotations? The term, of course is related to the Latin terms "Civita", meaning town, esp of the Roman variety, and Civa, meaning townsman, who lives there. Obviously, History, is more the most part, written by those who live in Cities, and since History is written by those who live in cities, their entire Worldview prevails.

Of course, I never imagined any would perceive it all the other way about, until I read a strange book, that I purchased one time, by John Zerzan, entitled Running on Empty. Really got me to think and rethink things. I wonder if any of the others here have read that book?

Also, note: the terms "Noble" and "Chivalrous" also have such good connotations, in the English language, but the terms "Poor" and "Common" have such evil connotations in the same language. Could this have been due to the popularity of Medieval Romances, during the 19th and Early 20th Centuries? After all, one of the most well known archetypal imagines, in the West at least, is the Medieval Knight in Shining Armor. This, of course, could indicate a certain Classist prejudice, of sorts.

And speaking of the term "Chivalrous". Mind you, there probably actually was such a thing as The Code of Chivalry. Now, mind you, others might object that it was never really quite as noble or as chivalrous, as many would like to believe, but I suspect it actually existed. After all, whenever there are three or more individuals, together, they tend to form rules of conduct, whether written or unwritten. This, of course, is something that I have also found rather interesting.

Well, it is food for thought.

I'm actually glad this thread was created. It's interesting. It's different.

On October 11, 2011 in Chenagai, Pakistan, America attacked a school with an MQ-1 Predator drone, killing 82 people, including 69 children, simply because we didn't like the teacher.
On October 3, 2015, the Médecins Sans Frontières trauma center in Kunduz, Afghanisan was bombed by an American AC-130 gunship, killing at least 30 people, many patients burning to death in their beds, and machine-gunned medical staff as they tried to flee.
From Haditha to My Lai to No Gun Ri, and thousands of other unknown and willfully forgotten villages, we've conclusively demonstrated that civilization is just a mutually agreed-upon lie we tell ourselves in order to hold our savagery in abeyance just long enough to swindle each other on market day.

Absolutely. They are all loaded terms.

Was a student of anthrolopology, and anthropologist have to constantly avoid the mental pitfalls of using those sorts of terms.

The term "barbarian" originated with the ancient Greeks. The Greeks were politically fragmented into little city states but were united by a common culture and a common language. So their word for non Greeks meant "those who talk funny" (ie not in Greek). And since the speech of foreigners sounded to the Greeks like "bar-bar-bar" non Greeks were called "Barbarians". They applied the term to all of their non-Greek neighbors including peoples like the Egyptians whom we today would class as highly civilized (and with an even older civilization than that of the Greeks).

The Romans borrowed that term for foreigner. But the Romans conquered a huge empire that stretched from Syria to the Atlantic, and from the edge of the Sahara to Scotland. The foreigners became those outside the Roman Empire. So the Germanic and Celtic tribes of central and northern Europe beyond the control of Rome became the "Barbarians". The tribes south of the Roman Empire in the Sahara were also Barbarians, which is why their descendents are still called "Berbers".

Since these foreigners also did not have cities (in contrast to the romans and their subject peoples in Greece, Egypt, and the Middle east) they were (literally) not "civilized". So the word "barbarian" came to also mean "wild" and "uncivilized" (in the modern sense of "civilized").

So the term that originally meant "folks over the hill who talk funny" now has all kinds of bad connotations.

I can just imagine, the Romans-- in order to justify the existence of their vast armies--- would go on and on, about the horrid things that not only the Germanic Tribes, but also the Celts, Slavs, Balts and other barbarians did. You see, they would do so, in order to pose as the Protectors of the Roman Civilian population at the time.

This, of course, was likely much like how the Soviets and Americans exploited each other's atrocities, in order to justify their very own, during what is now termed The Cold War. Very interesting.