Civilization, War, and so on.

[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