No savage and civilised peoples; only different cultures?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

...in that light, if I reconsider the statement in the opening post:

There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.

I would have to agree that there are no savage and civilised peoples, but only 'different' cultures ... with 'different' refering to the level of civility of behaviour in each of those cultures.

If that is what the author of the statement had in mind when they phrased the statement, then I would agree with it.

It depends what is meant by 'peoples' and 'different' ... Also, the use of word 'only' unnecessarily adds implied and biased value to the whole thing

I think the whole key to the quiz was the fact that a lot of the statements were ambiguous and that there were no neutral answers allowed. It tested as much what assumptions you made about the statements as what you thought about them.

[Warren Dew]

I'm just curious ... There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures. I disagreed with this statement. What do others think?

For me, it depends on how the statement is being interpreted. For example, if it's synonymous with:

There are no robust and effete peoples; there are only different cultures.

Then I disagree. There are most certainly peoples for whom violence is a greater part of everyday life, and there are those who live in complex systems that insulate the great majority from the rawer forms of reality. Neither is better than the other, but they are certainly different. However, if it's synonymous with:

There are no evil and virtuous peoples; there are only different cultures.

Then I agree. "Peoples" and "cultures" imply systems of behavior that have stood the test of time over many generations amongst large groups. I don't think any of these systems can be judged ahead of any other on a good/evil basis.

I think those who disagree are often simply blind to the aspects of their own culture that those of other cultures would find repugnant. For example, I've seen some people here characterize "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" as barbaric; yet, we have no problem with imprisoning people for months - depriving them of labor value in the thousands of dollars even at minimum wage - for theft or fraud of hundreds of dollars, something that a person from the "eye for an eye" culture would doubtless consider egregiously unjust.

[floppit]

My POV:

'Peoples' all contain the capacity for uncivilised savagery as history has shown repeatedly. I believe it is more productive to attempt understanding of our own people's savagery and our own capacity for it than to use it to assess other groups. The reason I believe this is that when a person looks across time at what reduces savagery it is that introspection, and where the introspection has not taken place the savage acts have marked history with big red spots.

What, in particular, that worries me re assessing other cultures by levels of uncivilised savagery is the means by which it's done. I honestly don't know how, or even if, it's done academically but watching people first hand assess Gypsies, Polish, Pakistanis, Romanians, or even the mildly religious in some atheist contexts, what I perceive is a propensity to isolate and 'quote' the most extreme acts, to attend greatly to the abhorrent whilst giving little attention to any positive, or even denying it can exist and not perceiving things over time. For example to look at one's own nation 'now' (in my case the UK), and forget past acts which would match or even trump the despotic acts seen elsewhere, for example abuse of children as the nation industrialised, abuse of women, and, to our shame, much of what happened as we colonised half the world. We remain far from perfect (UK), still dump hundreds and thousands of children 'in care', still imprison children for no crime, still fail to achieve equality but I KNOW things were far worse in the past and without introspection and vigilance are highly likely to be again as the millenniums pass by.

So I think we are all capable of savagery - to think it is 'their problem' is the most dangerous position of all.

[Atheist-Lite]

The Muslim world is a modern day example of advanced savagery. From terrorist atrocities to brutal sharia laws which involving the stoning of women and children along with breaking arms and decapitation for minor offences. This is nothing but a savage civilization. China likewise is full of savage tortures and punitive physical punishments for minor transgressions. The Chinese are nothing but savages in reality. Slave labor...cheap products but waht is the moral cost?

[pErvinalia]

To me that question smacked of cultural relativism, something which I abhor, as it puts the wife-beating, child raping, gay murdering, freedom hating islamist loonies on the same line as compassionate, understanding humanists. I believe some cultures simply are better.

I hear what you are saying, but if one doesn't believe in objective morality (like myself), then the only conclusion is that there is no bad, better, good (from an objective sense). I see no problem with us in the west with our western morals stating that islamic culture is worse than ours, from our point of view, but to state it in an objective sense is wrong IMO.

[JOZeldenrust]

This is one of 2 questions which made me think that neutral should of been an option. Actually, I'm not sure this should've been a question at all because it's so ambiguous.

The other one was (paraphrasing) absract art doesn't represent anything and shouldn't be considered art at all.
I had to err on the side of disagree even though in some cases like Dali and Picasso I would have to say strongly disagree and in the case of artists who I have quite forgotten because either a) their works were so dull they were forgettable or b) their art so enraged me that I forgot them for their own sake lest I meet them on the street (I'm speaking of the type of 'artists' who dress mannequins in nurses outfits and put hand saws through their head and have the shaven balls to call it 'art' :pissed: ) I would have to say strongly agree.

Nothing of what you describe is abstract art. It's all (relatively) modern art, but it's also all figurative. Artists like Mondriaan and Jackson Pollock produced actual abstract work. I dislike the work of Pollock, but Victory Boogie Woogie is one of the most beautiful paintings I know, so obviouly I disagreed strongly.

[hiyymer]

Taken from this thread: Where are you on the Political Compass? ...

I'm just curious ... There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures. I disagreed with this statement. What do others think?

So, what do you think?

Societies that are ascendant and privy to economic opportunity through some accident of economics or geography will tend to be more civilized (prone to equitable systems of sharing and open to new technologies), and societies that are under economic duress will tend to be more savage (dominance driven). The idea that these conditions are caused by "people", in the sense of the rational conscious un-caused agents that we experience in our mind, is an idea that has no objective meaning.

[devogue]

I had to study ethnomusicology when doing my BMus and I remember studying tribal music from places in Africa, the Pacific etc. It was all a complete load of primitive bollocks, but our lecturer was arguing that the music was as deep and meaningful as Mozart, Beethoven etc.

No it wasn't - that tribal music was the sort of stuff being thumped out by Mozart's and Beethoven's ancestors millenia earlier, but over the generations and by way of civilisation and the conditions it provided, harmony, melody and rhythm were taking to levels far, far beyond primitive tribal music.

It's not to say that the tribes and their ways of life are useless and worthless - it's just that civilisation has in some ways moved us so far beyond their existence that it is patronising and silly for us to hold up their ways of life as somehow the equal or even better than ours.

[hiyymer]

it is patronising and silly for us to hold up their ways of life as somehow the equal or even better than ours.

"better" is an entirely subjective thought. We are "better" than ants and sharks but it is still possible that they will still be around when we are gone.

[devogue]

it is patronising and silly for us to hold up their ways of life as somehow the equal or even better than ours.

"better" is an entirely subjective thought. We are "better" than ants and sharks but it is still possible that they will still be around when we are gone.

More developed, which I would say is better.

Again, I must stress that I don't see individuals being better, just societies. Our medicine, music, science, literature, practically every field of human endeavour is better in the West than in, for example, remotest Africa.

[hiyymer]

it is patronising and silly for us to hold up their ways of life as somehow the equal or even better than ours.

"better" is an entirely subjective thought. We are "better" than ants and sharks but it is still possible that they will still be around when we are gone.

More developed, which I would say is better.

Again, I must stress that I don't see individuals being better, just societies. Our medicine, music, science, literature, practically every field of human endeavour is better in the West than in, for example, remotest Africa.

The same could have been said of India in 200 BC, or Islam in 1000 AD. It's "better" to be on top. I don't argue that the west is on top at the moment, only with any implication that the west is on top because of any conscious agency or ideology of people in the west.

[devogue]

it is patronising and silly for us to hold up their ways of life as somehow the equal or even better than ours.

"better" is an entirely subjective thought. We are "better" than ants and sharks but it is still possible that they will still be around when we are gone.

More developed, which I would say is better.

Again, I must stress that I don't see individuals being better, just societies. Our medicine, music, science, literature, practically every field of human endeavour is better in the West than in, for example, remotest Africa.

The same could have been said of India in 200 BC, or Islam in 1000 AD. It's "better" to be on top. I don't argue that the west is on top at the moment, only with any implication that the west is on top because of any conscious agency or ideology of people in the west.

Agreed - it is on top, but not because the humanity in the West is better; we're just lucky enough to have benefited from circumstances and conditions in the past which have led to where we are today. Pluck a "primitive" baby from a tribe and bring him up in London and you will have a Londoner.

[charlou]

ahhh bumpity ...

Taken from this thread: Where are you on the Political Compass? ...

I'm just curious ... There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures. I disagreed with this statement. What do others think?

So, what do you think?

Now, I'm thinking the two statements ... aren't necessarily mutually exclusive or whatever.

[Coito ergo sum]

I agreed with the statement, but not strongly.

I do not view agreement with the statement as meaning that we approve of various behaviors. Obviously, we all approve or disapprove of various behaviors, whether it be cannibalism, circumcision, women not being allowed to drive, analingus or what have you. I answered it in that I don't think calling one culture or another as overall "savage" or "civilized" means anything. Our western culture is seen by us to be "civilized" but in the last 100 years we've done many savage things and continue to do so. Whether something is savage is purely a subjective value judgment, and there is no objective litmus test that we can use to judge whether it is "really" savage or civilized. Those are just words that we use to label right behavior and wrong behavior and I reject the notion that entire cultures are wrong.

[hiyymer]

I agreed with the statement, but not strongly.

I do not view agreement with the statement as meaning that we approve of various behaviors. Obviously, we all approve or disapprove of various behaviors, whether it be cannibalism, circumcision, women not being allowed to drive, analingus or what have you. I answered it in that I don't think calling one culture or another as overall "savage" or "civilized" means anything. Our western culture is seen by us to be "civilized" but in the last 100 years we've done many savage things and continue to do so. Whether something is savage is purely a subjective value judgment, and there is no objective litmus test that we can use to judge whether it is "really" savage or civilized. Those are just words that we use to label right behavior and wrong behavior and I reject the notion that entire cultures are wrong.

I remember Pinker giving a presentation where he argued that there is human moral progress. Someone had apparently done a study imputing crime rates in europe in the middle ages. He pointed out that crime rates are much lower in europe today. I was curious about the numbers he gave and looked up country crime rates in general. europe in the middle ages was sort of at the level of a modern day south american country. Which makes sense since europe in the middle ages was not the ascendant culture that it is today, but was kind of a backwater run by warlords in the shadow of the Islamic Empire. But couldn't you say that europe in the middle ages was more "savage" than it is today or that Sweden is more "civilized" than Columbia? I know I'd feel safer walking down some dimly lit neighborhood in Sweden than I would in Columbia.