Is the USA uncivilised?

[Blind groper]

To rEv

I pretty much agree with all of that. I said in my very first post that the concept of 'civilised' is a relative one, and has meaning only in relation to other entities. I was comparing the USA to other western nations like western Europe, Scandinavia, Iceland, Britain, Canada, NZ and Australia, though I suspect I could add a couple of Asian nations like Singapore and Japan to the list of 'most civilised'.

Clearly, the USA is more civilised than Somalia, and Saudi Arabia, and a bunch of others. But is it more civilised than the nations listed above?

I accept that different states vary from each other also. But less so than, for example, different nations in Europe. So trying to carve the issue up into a state by state one is a tactic designed to obfuscate the issue.

[Ian]

[pErvinalia]

I accept that different states vary from each other also. But less so than, for example, different nations in Europe. So trying to carve the issue up into a state by state one is a tactic designed to obfuscate the issue.

It's not really. It's just a reality of their political union over there.

The one thing I'd be interested in seeing is the breakdown between states in terms of imprisonment rates. The "average" view that I (and probably a lot of others out there) get, is that the US is a highly punitive nation, something which appears to be reflected in it's foreign policy as well. That's the main measure I'd be interested in looking at regarding "level of civilisation". As a nation, are they more interested in the backward concepts of "good" and "evil" and punishing people, rather than trying to rehabilitate? The UK, Canada and Australia all suffer from this to a degree as well, but it appears to be a strong ethos in the US.

[JimC]

I think you'll find there's life in this old nag yet...

[Seabass]

I see civilisation as a progress. It is not an absolute measure, but rather a relative measure of how far individuals or natons have moved towards the goal of humane behaviour.

We can see this best by looking at the past. Even 100 years ago, there were many things within western society that are almost unthinkable today. WWI began 99 years ago, as the result of five great empires all wanting to grow through military conquest. With the possible exception of Israel, that attitude is not acceptable today. Monarchies were strong back then. Today, they are no more than tourist attractions. Religiosity has been falling throughout most of the western world, as those nations move towards a more humane and civilised way of life. Blasphemy can no longer, in most places, be labelled a crime, with designated punishment.

If we look further back, we see torture in use to elicit confessions, we see the death penalty widely used, slavery in many of its dreadful forms, body mutilation as punishments, and so on.

Many nations today are still uncivilised by those standards. Sharia law which permits body mutilations, like cutting off a thief's hand, is a form of lack of civilisation. In the western world, imprisonment is the standard punishment (and it is difficult to think of practical alternatives). Such imprisonment becomes uncivilised in the relative sense when it is cruel. Such as using small and confining cells, or crowding the prisons. The death penalty remains a mark of relative lack of civilised behaviour.

Laws and practices by authorities that lead to human misery and death are also uncivilised. This is why the American second amendment is uncivilised. But a lack of availability of good medical care to all would be equally another mark of lack of civilisation, by today's standards.

We can see high levels of civilised behaviour and civilised laws in Scandinavian nations, where the laws protect the people rather than put them at risk, and where medical care is readily available.

So again, I ask. Is the USA uncivilised?

There are probably thousands of criteria one could use to measure the level of a nation's civilization. You, however, choose to focus only on a select few that help you reach your desired conclusion. You see, people like you who tend toward ethnocentric and prejudiced views prefer to focus on differences, rather than similarities, because differences, to your mind, are evidence of superiority or inferiority.

In any case, the answer to your question is a matter of opinion, and we all know opinions are like assholes.

Congrats on your perceived superiority, anyway. I hope you get a nice ego boost out of it.

[Blind groper]

To rEvo

On the business of imprisonment.

The USA overall has 1% of its population (plus or minus a titch, since it varies over time) in prison. This is substantially higher than the other western nations I mentioned.

Some people object to the use of the word 'civilised' in relation to all this. Words are, of course, always clumsy tools. I see no problem with that word since the quality it refers to is one that changes over time, normally for the better. Progress towards a more humane nation appears to me to be a good representation of becoming more 'civilised'.

Seabass objects to the criteria I used. I note that he has not suggested any alternative criteria. My offerings wrt this are many, and I have mentioned a wide range of criteria. If Seabass can do better, fair enough. I wait expectant.

[JimC]

To rEvo

On the business of imprisonment.

The USA overall has 1% of its population (plus or minus a titch, since it varies over time) in prison. This is substantially higher than the other western nations I mentioned.

Some people object to the use of the word 'civilised' in relation to all this. Words are, of course, always clumsy tools. I see no problem with that word since the quality it refers to is one that changes over time, normally for the better. Progress towards a more humane nation appears to me to be a good representation of becoming more 'civilised'.

Seabass objects to the criteria I used. I note that he has not suggested any alternative criteria. My offerings wrt this are many, and I have mentioned a wide range of criteria. If Seabass can do better, fair enough. I wait expectant.

Exactly. I think there are other criteria, mind you, and there may be quite a few where the US (or parts thereof, at least) excel. But your criteria would at least have to be major players in any objective discussion of the degrees of civilisation currently running in any given nation.

How valid your judgement of the US in each of your chosen criteria is, however, arguable in some case, and I think you slant it a little against the US, particularly in terms of its military actions. However one may consider them unwise, and/or containing a mixture of motives, they are still definitely different from the naked aggression and unapologetic land-grabs of military actions of the past.

[Hermit]

To be fair, the NSA has really annoyed the French with its data-hoovering, so the Yanks aren't all bad.

Also, if the per capita consumption of resources is an indicator of civilisation, the USA is undeniably at the top of the pile.

Untrue. In terms of energy consumption, for example, the US is well behind some others, including Canada. As far as trend lines go, per capita consumption in the US is dropping.

Apart from "The Hat", the US does have the highest per capita energy consumption rate among the countries mentioned. Besides that, I was not talking about that. I mentioned the word "resources", of which energy is only one aspect.

[Clinton Huxley]

You can argue about it all you like, it's still cherry-pickng. You could pick parameters for any of the comparator countries to show they are uncivilized too.

UK? Off the top of my head:-
1) Lowest cancer survival rate in Europe
2) Out of control energy prices leading to people having to choose between heating and eating
3) A capital city increasingly owned by foreign despots and dodgy billionaires, to whom the Govt almost exclusively caters.
4) Religiously-segregated schools system
5) Jeremy Kyle.

[Blind groper]

Clinton

You must be operating tongue in cheek, since those criteria do not really relate to how humane the behaviours are.

I have operated pretty much on the basis that more civilised means behaviours that are more humane. Behaviours that are less humane are less civilised. For example : the US health system that forces a lot of people to do without vital health services is less humane than the British National Health, which provides for all. Thus, by that definition, the US system is less 'civilised'.

I am aware that US wars are not quite along the lines of the bad old days when nations were out for new territory, or to simply loot someone else's country. However, I also accept that the USA is more civilised than Europe of (say) 500 years ago. It is just, according to my reasoning, less civilised than other western nations today. The wars the USA starts today are not for territory or to loot, but are nevertheless in America's interests.

That behaviour which causes harm or is cruel can be called less civilised. That which reduces harm, or increases human welfare is more.

[Audley Strange]

Clinton

You must be operating tongue in cheek, since those criteria do not really relate to how humane the behaviours are.

I have operated pretty much on the basis that more civilised means behaviours that are more humane. Behaviours that are less humane are less civilised. For example : the US health system that forces a lot of people to do without vital health services is less humane than the British National Health, which provides for all. Thus, by that definition, the US system is less 'civilised'.

I am aware that US wars are not quite along the lines of the bad old days when nations were out for new territory, or to simply loot someone else's country. However, I also accept that the USA is more civilised than Europe of (say) 500 years ago. It is just, according to my reasoning, less civilised than other western nations today. The wars the USA starts today are not for territory or to loot, but are nevertheless in America's interests.

That behaviour which causes harm or is cruel can be called less civilised. That which reduces harm, or increases human welfare is more.

Well okay but I think again you are saying "civilisation means this" and I would say again that you are wrong. Was a illiterate hill dwelling tribe in 200 B.C. who never had territory battles and was kind to those they come across more civilised their contemporaries in Rome? No. They may have been more humane, Is the U.S.A. inhumane or less humane than other countries is not the same question as you pose. Though it might still get strong responses it is more accurate.

[klr]

You can argue about it all you like, it's still cherry-pickng. You could pick parameters for any of the comparator countries to show they are uncivilized too.

UK? Off the top of my head:-
1) Lowest cancer survival rate in Europe
2) Out of control energy prices leading to people having to choose between heating and eating
3) A capital city increasingly owned by foreign despots and dodgy billionaires, to whom the Govt almost exclusively caters.
4) Religiously-segregated schools system
5) Jeremy Kyle.

[Tyrannical]

When we call a country civilized or uncivilized and the varying degrees of it, we are really talking about the people that make up that country. The existence of certain laws is a poor gauge. Japan has a death penalty, but it is rarely used or needed. The US also has a death penalty, and it isn't used often enough in my opinion. I see removing uncivilized people either through execution or jail a very civilized thing to do. Freeing dangerous people back into society by refusing to execute is uncivilized.

[pErvinalia]

Wow. So killing people is civilised? Ok.

[laklak]

Civilization is vastly overrated.