Civilization, War, and so on.

[Bijo]

Coming from the Britain and War on Terror thread, we were at the end discussing some stuff. Well, let's continue, pell-mell(!), shall we?

Civilisation is a CAUSE of wars war is not a cause of civilisation

Civilizations cause war, because civilizations clash with each other. We could call it a society as well.

so any culture that wages war isnt civilised? well thats us Europeans out we have waged more wars than any other culture on the planet

Therefore Europeans in the time when they slaughtered, went on rampage, pillaged lands, raped women, etc., were not "civilized", because they waged war. And I didn't speak of culture. I spoke of the people and the governments -- of whatever kind -- as civilization(s).

you make more sense here - yes the western culture places high significance on a countries that maintain the peace and dont start wars but that doesnt make us anymore civilised than anyone else - the strength of a Civilisation is its ability to change other cultures - Rome spread its way of life (through war) to the rest of Europe affecting and changing their cultures, the Roman Civilisation had a Romanising effect on any culture that came into contact with it changeing them to make them more like Rome and that is why they were a strong civilisation for a while - the same is True for the US its culture is so strong it changes the Culture of the othern western nations it infleunces so the US could be considered the strongest civilisation of current times - this is all off topic tho and we are doing what the pissing contest did - derailing the thread - if you want to discuss civilisation further make a new thread this was once a long time ago about the British changing our definition of the "war on terror" (bleugh) lets get back to that

The ability to change cultures OF civilizations, through war, caused by the clashing of civilizations (politically, etc.).


The basic point I made was that Europe is now civilized, as they maintain peace, not war. And now -- in the modern time -- the US is not maintaining peace, but war, basically doing what Europe was doing BACK THEN: IMPERIALISM. Therefore they are less civilized, and hence the speculation that their nation will be more civilized -- like Europe -- when they have fought enough wars, especially on their own soil if it comes to that and will finally start maintaining peace.

I must say, you mix up those words in your responses quite carefully and almost even selectively to prove your point. It's very confusing to read.

[Don Corleone]

It's difficult to assess 'who is more civilized than whom'. Each society has values, and it values certain ideals to a greater or lesser degree: Fairness; well-being of its own citizens; Security; charity; peacefulness, etcetera.

For you to make the statement that the Netherlands is more civilized than the United States is a rather values-charged statement, and it's very relative. Because you come from a culture that values not starting wars above all else, then countries that are aggressive appear uncivilized.

But what if your country values standing up for what's right and putting bullies in their place. Wouldn't it appear uncivilized to continue to allow situations like Rwanda and Darfur continue every 10 years or so? Wouldn't it be more civilized to citizens of such a country to make the sacrafice of money and manpower to put an end to these atrocities when they occur?

I applaud Europe on its newly found pacficistic bent. I'm just trying to say that it's value is not absolute.

[Bijo]

I hear ya, Don. Let me see what response I have.

For you to make the statement that the Netherlands is more civilized than the United States is a rather values-charged statement, and it's very relative. Because you come from a culture that values not starting wars above all else, then countries that are aggressive appear uncivilized.

I didn't make the statement, though, that the Netherlands is more civilized: it was about Europe as a whole, now.

I get the relativity thing you're speaking of, and that is a very delicate -- and might I say even sneaky(?) -- argument, lol. Basically you mean that the US -- who is being aggressive -- just has an aggressive civilization? Somehow that word civilization doesn't fit with aggressive, but of course.... it's relative.

From what has been going on through history -- all the bloodshed, wars, and so on -- we must learn. It is difficult to exactly state the meaning of the word civilization, but I say because we know history let us then assume that we have good and bad civilizations. Good as in "peaceful" (not aggressive, not at war), and "not peaceful" (aggressive, at war).
If we keep to this relativity thing we go no further, and dare I say almost tolerate and accept aggressive behaviour under the reason that it's just their civilization which is like that which we look onto relatively. Aggressive imperialistic behaviour which was so common in Europe, but now something that has been left behind, while the US appears as if they are just experiencing it, as a fairly young nation, as if trying to rule the world.

Wouldn't it appear uncivilized to continue to allow situations like Rwanda and Darfur continue every 10 years or so? Wouldn't it be more civilized to citizens of such a country to make the sacrafice of money and manpower to put an end to these atrocities when they occur?

No. No peace through war, because with war we only further war. If we keep in mind what I said about going further and moving on, then war is an uncivilized act, whether there's a noble thought to act like a saviour of some sort.
But that wasn't really the point, was it? I addressed the overall imperialistic aggressive behaviour of the US, not their intent -- if there's any -- to nobly help others in trouble.



We could even throw in plausible conspiracies and suspicions regarding the country regarding expansion, but I bet there are people who wouldn't like that, so I'll refrain from it....... for now

[Sir Moody]

The Romans were the most civlised nation of their timein europe correct? Their cilvilisation was born from conflict and continued to wage wars right up to their fall from grace - the waging of war did not make them any less civilised

A culture is not Civilised because it maintains the peace - this is a modern fallacy that actually rules most of us out of being civilised, there are very few modern nations that havent engadged in some warfare in the last decade

you seem to be operating under the opinion that Civilisation operates in some kind of progressive form where those who are going through "stages" that we have allready been through are less civilised - this isnt true
The Romans were Imperialistic nation as were the victorian british and both can be considered highly Civilised cultures but would you say the Victorians were no more civilised than the Romans? no they were clearly far more civilised despite sharing the same imperilistic mind set.

[Stig]

Civilisation has nothing to do with war imo (well a little bit, but that's too little)

Civilisation has to do with welfare, income, richness, all sorts of things
And when you look at that countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg (countries that are pretty all alike) are high ranked. And most of the time above USA.

Look at the GDP and you'll see the European Union is above the USA

Not to speak of the Dutch Health Care system, if one thing is civilised that is.

[Pindar]

Bijo,

Are you equating being civilized with pacifism?

[Stig]

Bijo,

Are you equating being civilized with pacifism?

waging war is not really a civilised thing is it?

[Sir Moody]

waging war is not really a civilised thing is it?

isnt it? the Romans and the Greeks coined the phrase "civilised" and they engaged in centuries of warfare - Europe of the 17th to 19th century loved the "civilised" catch phrase (we are civilised those we are conquering arnt so its a good thing) and yet we all built massive empires and fought each other

war is an acceptable and "civlilsed" past time...

to judge a truely civilsed country you need to look at how they treat their citizens and how they influence other countries (enemies and allies alike)

[Bijo]

Bijo,

Are you equating being civilized with pacifism?

Hmmm. No. In my second post here I spoke of good and bad civilizations. A good one has not only progressed -- in what some of you have said like Stig, like treatment of their citizens, and so forth -- but also in the pursuit of peaceful international coexistences.

A "bad civilization" is one not pursuing peace and has low care activity for its citizens, etc., and even worse, is waging war.

So I guess what I'm saying is that a civilization can be high on the level of technological, financial, etc., progress, but civilization is also about a society it depicts, and aggression / war is the evil part, while peace is not. People don't use the words of 'clashing civilizations' for nothing. It is a language thing.
I must agree that the level of internal national activity is very important, as is international activity. So even if a civilization is advanced in the typical way (or not), they almost throw away their label of "being civil" by being aggressive and / or imperialistic, etc.

to judge a truely civilsed country you need to look at how they treat their citizens and how they influence other countries (enemies and allies alike)

If that's what we must consider, then let's have a look at the US. I give that country a big thumbs-down

And about the Romans and Greeks:
Even if they were highly "civilized", I refer to "good" and "bad" civilizations, and they are to be categorized in the bad one, for they simply waged war. And any other nation -- "civilization" -- in this case the US, being aggressive and imperialistic, is also to be categorized therein.




Bah, I'm tired. No posting for me anymore today :P

[Don Corleone]

Well, Bijo, all I have to say is that your views certainly make things like Srebenica easier to understand.

[Pindar]

delete

[Pindar]

waging war is not really a civilised thing is it?

Why?

[Pindar]

Are you equating being civilized with pacifism?

Hmmm. No. In my second post here I spoke of good and bad civilizations. A good one has not only progressed -- in what some of you have said like Stig, like treatment of their citizens, and so forth -- but also in the pursuit of peaceful international coexistences.

A "bad civilization" is one not pursuing peace and has low care activity for its citizens, etc., and even worse, is waging war.

So I guess what I'm saying is that a civilization can be high on the level of technological, financial, etc., progress, but civilization is also about a society it depicts, and aggression / war is the evil part, while peace is not.

It sounds like you conflate 'civilized' with 'civilization' and 'civilization' with 'nation'. This is not a normal approach.

So any nation engaged in war is a bad?

[Stig]

Why?

well war doesn't bring you anything good
Science brings you good things, health care brings you good things
War brings dead and violence, not really civilised

[Redleg]

Civilizations cause war, because civilizations clash with each other. We could call it a society as well.

I don't necessarily agree with this statement. War is a continution of foreign policy to gain something from a competing nation state. War is not necessarily based upon civilizations clashing with each other. When I review parts of Chinese and European history - many wars were fought not because of civilizations conflicts but conflicts from within the society itself.

The basic point I made was that Europe is now civilized, as they maintain peace, not war. And now -- in the modern time -- the US is not maintaining peace, but war, basically doing what Europe was doing BACK THEN: IMPERIALISM. Therefore they are less civilized, and hence the speculation that their nation will be more civilized -- like Europe -- when they have fought enough wars, especially on their own soil if it comes to that and will finally start maintaining peace.

So Bosnia and Kosovo was Imperialism?
Desert Storm - or the first gulf war was Imperialism?
Somalia was Imperialism?

Are you attempting to state using force is Imperialism?

If your attempting to state that then you are in conflict with your own premise. Now the United States has been engaged in Imperialism in the past, and might even be doing so now, but claiming Imperialism because a nation is in a state of war, does not equate to Imperialism.

[Papewaio]

The basic point I made was that Europe is now civilized, as they maintain peace, not war.

The basic point is woefully incorrect. A peace bought to Europe by the US's nukes not a cultural change.

Immediately post WWII Europe was shell shocked and war weary. By the time it would have been able to play WWIII the weapons of war had changed and they were living under the cold shadow of nuclear war. Peace caused by fear of annihilation not from some complete cultural change across Europe. To emphasize how little had change check out what Europeans were gleefully doing in the nations that were fighting the cold war by proxy. It has been involved in conflicts around the world... Vietnam, Falklands, Malaysia, Middle East. Development of nuclear bombs... of course in fragile coral in the south pacific rather then Europe. Terrorism, anti-state and state sponsored also do nothing to add to this idea that Europe is a peaceful state.

The carrot to the stick is economic prosperity and the realization that why take over a country when you can just use corporations to make sweat shops.

Peace out of fear of death not because of some sort of mass epiphany as the people went into the age of Aquarius.

[Bijo]

@Redleg

For instance are you attempting to classify Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somilia into aggressive foreign policy actions of an Imperialist nation.

No, I did not: you attempt to make it look as if I stated this, it seems.

Imperialism:
It does so through commerce and unfounded military action.


@Pindar
Are you selectively taking out pieces of my words and then attempting to besmirch and confuse me with your questions (especially with the anti-American question)?


@Papewaio
Correct, I'm not anti-American. I just criticize the country :) (though if people are I could understand it.)

But now is not the same as immediately post-WWII.

America is just the new empire of today.

[Stig]

Bijo, it's just that some people don't like it if people think their country isn't as good as they think it is.
I'd leave it, they will always find something to argue with you, simply because they don't like your views.

[Warmaster Horus]

Just a comment: the fact is that all countries have a bad side, something other people can criticise upon. If you don't agree, find one nation that doesn't have that characteristic.

[Warmaster Horus]

EDIT: sorry double post.

[Pindar]

Not sure if pointing out perceived flaws in a relationship (tab A) makes one anti-the flawed object (slot B).

My comment does not note a relationship, but an identity statement: A is B. To whit: "The whole point...of the thread was that to criticize America as an imperialist nation, as an aggressive nation, or an aggressive people... Basically, I think America has a bad civilization...". The thrust of the judgment is a condemnation. To condemn is to be opposed to the thing condemned. The thing condemned is the nation, its people and 'civilization'. To criticize the identity of a thing is to be anti that thing.

[Redleg]

Bijo, it's just that some people don't like it if people think their country isn't as good as they think it is.
I'd leave it, they will always find something to argue with you, simply because they don't like your views.

Actually its not even that, some what a more detailed explanation for negative views versus simple statements of belief based upon sterotype comments.

If you want to be critical of the United States by all means do so, but when one uses sterotypes don't be surprised when one is called on it.

[Redleg]

@Redleg


No, I did not: you attempt to make it look as if I stated this, it seems.

You should notice that it was asked as a question not a statement. If your unable to understand the nature of the query then state so, However I notice that you still have not answered the question with any detail.

Imperialism:
It does so through commerce and unfounded military action.

Again this does not account for the trade imbalance between China and the United States. Commerce imperialism would normally entail that the United States gains the greater benefit from the relationship. In actuality China currently has the greater benefit from the current commerece relationship between the two nations. Unfounded Military action is ill-defined as it relates to imperialism. Imperialism often has a mix of justified military action and yes even unfounded military action. One could claim that Iraq is an unfounded military action - but that can not be said of Afganstan, or several other military actions in the last 15 odd years. Hince the earlier reference to the nations above.

Now in economic terms the United States did attempt to create an Imperialistic policy dealing with Central and South America, a stance that still causes many problems for the United States. So if your just focusing on that aspect then all it takes is a statement that indicates that versus the neublus statements so far.

I am still waiting on an answer that is of greater detail then just belief.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The basic point I made was that Europe is now civilized, as they maintain peace, not war. And now -- in the modern time -- the US is not maintaining peace, but war, basically doing what Europe was doing BACK THEN: IMPERIALISM. Therefore they are less civilized, and hence the speculation that their nation will be more civilized -- like Europe -- when they have fought enough wars, especially on their own soil if it comes to that and will finally start maintaining peace.

Of all the variants of anti-Americanism that plague the civilised European continent, this must be the richest.
How many wars were fought in the whole of the America's in the last one hundred years? And how many in Europe?
How many 'imperialistic' wars were fought by America in the last century? And how many by Europeans?

If I am a pacifist, it's for no other reason than that I know Europe all too well: one never needs to scratch below the surface very deep to find the same old disdain and hatred for the other, the barbarian, the less-civilised: the one on the other side of whatever particular linguistic, religious, etnic, regional divide is the flavour of the day.

Forget about it, America isn't going to finally start maintaining peace once they've fought some wars on their own soil: they're much too civilised for that to happen.

[Kralizec]

War is something that's going to be always with us, there will be periods of relative tranquility across most of the globe but those won't last forever. It's why I could never become a pacifist- being pacifist is only worthwile if everyone is a pacifist.

The fact that western European countries haven't started a lot of wars since WWII has frankly more to do with the fact that none of them are capable of doing much without US' support then with a different mindset.

The US did some pretty ugly things in the Cold War, some that were in retrospect unnecessary but perfectly understandable given the need to battle the "red tide".
After the Cold War there's the 1st Gulf War (a reaction to an attack on an ally), Somalia ( up, but the intent was humanitarian), the intervention in Yugoslavia (same as Somalia), Clinton lobbing a few cruise missiles into Iraq to destroy weapon cashes, Afghanistan and the 2nd Gulf War. The only one in this list that I'd consider uncalled for and possibly imperialist is the last one. Wich was supported by quite a few European countries.