No savage and civilised peoples; only different cultures? page 1
charlou
23rd January 2012, 03:28 PM
I'm reposting this OP from a thread I started at rationalia a while back ... turned out to be an interesting discussion.
Taken from this thread: Where are you on the Political Compass? (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?t=213) ...
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?
Taken from this thread: Where are you on the Political Compass? (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?t=213) ...
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?
nostrum
23rd January 2012, 04:17 PM
I think savage and civilised is a false dichotomy, so I agreed with the statement. But I did wonder if that question was just a test of political correctness.
Grumps
23rd January 2012, 11:17 PM
There most certainly are savage and civilised cultures.
A culture which demands surrendering of the individual will is savage. A culture which segregates and oppresses contrary opinions is savage. A culture which demands that any one part of society is more deserving of any other is savage. A culture which advocates domination over any other culture is savage.
A civilised culture is one that sees itself not as a community, or entirely as individuals, but as a community of individuals. Operating towards some collective good without ever sacrificing that right to think differently, to act contrary, to believe otherwise and to speak out.
A culture which demands surrendering of the individual will is savage. A culture which segregates and oppresses contrary opinions is savage. A culture which demands that any one part of society is more deserving of any other is savage. A culture which advocates domination over any other culture is savage.
A civilised culture is one that sees itself not as a community, or entirely as individuals, but as a community of individuals. Operating towards some collective good without ever sacrificing that right to think differently, to act contrary, to believe otherwise and to speak out.
charlou
24th January 2012, 02:26 AM
I think savage and civilised is a false dichotomy, so I agreed with the statement.
I think the false dichotomy lies with the two options (savage and civilised v different cultures) .. I don't think they're mutually exclusive, so I disagreed with the statement ... but I see your point, too.
The statement is provocative on several levels.
I think the false dichotomy lies with the two options (savage and civilised v different cultures) .. I don't think they're mutually exclusive, so I disagreed with the statement ... but I see your point, too.
The statement is provocative on several levels.
Hermit
24th January 2012, 02:49 AM
That was one of the questions that stopped me for a while. If I agreed, I'd have to support some kind of nihilism, which I don't. Disagreeing with it, on the other hand, implies some arrogance and perhaps a tendency towards authoritarianism of the "We know what's good for you" variety. Then I thought of the caste system in India, the tribal warlords in Central Asia, the status of women in Islamic cultures and William Golding's Lord of the Flies. In light of those I could not possibly agree to the proposition that "there are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures."
charlou
24th January 2012, 02:54 AM
I think disagreement with that statement (or any of the statements in the political compass survey) does not automatically imply that one thinks the opposite is true. I would like to know if that is how the results are scored.
Floppit
24th January 2012, 07:03 AM
No savage and civilised peoples; only different cultures?
I don't know. To judge 'peoples' whole cultures would require more knowledge than I have. I would need to know the culture in depth, I would need to be secure that I had no confirmation bias in operation, I would need to compare more than one so would have to double, treble etc the above knowledge. I would then need to be able to hold all that knowledge and be able to assess savagery and civility across swathes of time, because it's not just a question of whether cultures 'do wrong' (of that I'm certain!), it's the amount of wrong over the complete time of their existence, or the amount of right.
Even if I could manage all of the above, which I don't even come close, what would be the point? I can already accept without question that cultures do savage and civilised things, I can make an attempt to distinguish between the two, and all the power of one individual can be equally used to oppose something I then count as savage without being hampered by needing to assess a complete population.
I don't know. To judge 'peoples' whole cultures would require more knowledge than I have. I would need to know the culture in depth, I would need to be secure that I had no confirmation bias in operation, I would need to compare more than one so would have to double, treble etc the above knowledge. I would then need to be able to hold all that knowledge and be able to assess savagery and civility across swathes of time, because it's not just a question of whether cultures 'do wrong' (of that I'm certain!), it's the amount of wrong over the complete time of their existence, or the amount of right.
Even if I could manage all of the above, which I don't even come close, what would be the point? I can already accept without question that cultures do savage and civilised things, I can make an attempt to distinguish between the two, and all the power of one individual can be equally used to oppose something I then count as savage without being hampered by needing to assess a complete population.
Hermit
24th January 2012, 07:19 AM
No savage and civilised peoples; only different cultures?
I don't know. To judge 'peoples' whole cultures would require more knowledge than I have. I would need to know the culture in depth, I would need to be secure that I had no confirmation bias in operation, I would need to compare more than one so would have to double, treble etc the above knowledge. I would then need to be able to hold all that knowledge and be able to assess savagery and civility across swathes of time, because it's not just a question of whether cultures 'do wrong' (of that I'm certain!), it's the amount of wrong over the complete time of their existence, or the amount of right.
Even if I could manage all of the above, which I don't even come close, what would be the point? I can already accept without question that cultures do savage and civilised things, I can make an attempt to distinguish between the two, and all the power of one individual can be equally used to oppose something I then count as savage without being hampered by needing to assess a complete population.
I think you'd have no difficulty coming to a fairly firm decision without exhaustively studying the issue first if you were faced with the options of either living in the USA or in Saudi Arabia, to pick just one example.
I don't know. To judge 'peoples' whole cultures would require more knowledge than I have. I would need to know the culture in depth, I would need to be secure that I had no confirmation bias in operation, I would need to compare more than one so would have to double, treble etc the above knowledge. I would then need to be able to hold all that knowledge and be able to assess savagery and civility across swathes of time, because it's not just a question of whether cultures 'do wrong' (of that I'm certain!), it's the amount of wrong over the complete time of their existence, or the amount of right.
Even if I could manage all of the above, which I don't even come close, what would be the point? I can already accept without question that cultures do savage and civilised things, I can make an attempt to distinguish between the two, and all the power of one individual can be equally used to oppose something I then count as savage without being hampered by needing to assess a complete population.
I think you'd have no difficulty coming to a fairly firm decision without exhaustively studying the issue first if you were faced with the options of either living in the USA or in Saudi Arabia, to pick just one example.
Exi5tentialist
24th January 2012, 07:21 AM
The term savages in my view is innately racist. You know the drill. Some black or asian people do something horrific and Richard Dawkins or some other atheist spokesperson calls them savages. A white person does something horrific, but with no similar outburst. It's not too difficult to see what's going on in the minds of such people.
Floppit
24th January 2012, 08:18 AM
No savage and civilised peoples; only different cultures?
I don't know. To judge 'peoples' whole cultures would require more knowledge than I have. I would need to know the culture in depth, I would need to be secure that I had no confirmation bias in operation, I would need to compare more than one so would have to double, treble etc the above knowledge. I would then need to be able to hold all that knowledge and be able to assess savagery and civility across swathes of time, because it's not just a question of whether cultures 'do wrong' (of that I'm certain!), it's the amount of wrong over the complete time of their existence, or the amount of right.
Even if I could manage all of the above, which I don't even come close, what would be the point? I can already accept without question that cultures do savage and civilised things, I can make an attempt to distinguish between the two, and all the power of one individual can be equally used to oppose something I then count as savage without being hampered by needing to assess a complete population.
I think you'd have no difficulty coming to a fairly firm decision without exhaustively studying the issue first if you were faced with the options of either living in the USA or in Saudi Arabia, to pick just one example.
It all depends, what if I had to live in the USA a couple of hundred years ago as a native? Or black and poor? Gay in the bible belt - maybe knock off 50 years for good measure? What about a black gay in the deep south? Perspective changes have an unnerving effect on simplistic thinking.
I don't know. To judge 'peoples' whole cultures would require more knowledge than I have. I would need to know the culture in depth, I would need to be secure that I had no confirmation bias in operation, I would need to compare more than one so would have to double, treble etc the above knowledge. I would then need to be able to hold all that knowledge and be able to assess savagery and civility across swathes of time, because it's not just a question of whether cultures 'do wrong' (of that I'm certain!), it's the amount of wrong over the complete time of their existence, or the amount of right.
Even if I could manage all of the above, which I don't even come close, what would be the point? I can already accept without question that cultures do savage and civilised things, I can make an attempt to distinguish between the two, and all the power of one individual can be equally used to oppose something I then count as savage without being hampered by needing to assess a complete population.
I think you'd have no difficulty coming to a fairly firm decision without exhaustively studying the issue first if you were faced with the options of either living in the USA or in Saudi Arabia, to pick just one example.
It all depends, what if I had to live in the USA a couple of hundred years ago as a native? Or black and poor? Gay in the bible belt - maybe knock off 50 years for good measure? What about a black gay in the deep south? Perspective changes have an unnerving effect on simplistic thinking.
Hermit
24th January 2012, 08:33 AM
No savage and civilised peoples; only different cultures?
I don't know. To judge 'peoples' whole cultures would require more knowledge than I have. I would need to know the culture in depth, I would need to be secure that I had no confirmation bias in operation, I would need to compare more than one so would have to double, treble etc the above knowledge. I would then need to be able to hold all that knowledge and be able to assess savagery and civility across swathes of time, because it's not just a question of whether cultures 'do wrong' (of that I'm certain!), it's the amount of wrong over the complete time of their existence, or the amount of right.
Even if I could manage all of the above, which I don't even come close, what would be the point? I can already accept without question that cultures do savage and civilised things, I can make an attempt to distinguish between the two, and all the power of one individual can be equally used to oppose something I then count as savage without being hampered by needing to assess a complete population.
I think you'd have no difficulty coming to a fairly firm decision without exhaustively studying the issue first if you were faced with the options of either living in the USA or in Saudi Arabia, to pick just one example.
It all depends, what if I had to live in the USA a couple of hundred years ago as a native? Or black and poor? Gay in the bible belt - maybe knock off 50 years for good measure? What about a black gay in the deep south? Perspective changes have an unnerving effect on simplistic thinking.My point is that given a choice, you'd not prevaricate over which culture you'd rather live in. Same applies to the examples you provided. Like, would you rather be a black gay in Alabama or San Francisco? What? You're having trouble working out which scenario you prefer?
Didn't think so. :D
I don't know. To judge 'peoples' whole cultures would require more knowledge than I have. I would need to know the culture in depth, I would need to be secure that I had no confirmation bias in operation, I would need to compare more than one so would have to double, treble etc the above knowledge. I would then need to be able to hold all that knowledge and be able to assess savagery and civility across swathes of time, because it's not just a question of whether cultures 'do wrong' (of that I'm certain!), it's the amount of wrong over the complete time of their existence, or the amount of right.
Even if I could manage all of the above, which I don't even come close, what would be the point? I can already accept without question that cultures do savage and civilised things, I can make an attempt to distinguish between the two, and all the power of one individual can be equally used to oppose something I then count as savage without being hampered by needing to assess a complete population.
I think you'd have no difficulty coming to a fairly firm decision without exhaustively studying the issue first if you were faced with the options of either living in the USA or in Saudi Arabia, to pick just one example.
It all depends, what if I had to live in the USA a couple of hundred years ago as a native? Or black and poor? Gay in the bible belt - maybe knock off 50 years for good measure? What about a black gay in the deep south? Perspective changes have an unnerving effect on simplistic thinking.My point is that given a choice, you'd not prevaricate over which culture you'd rather live in. Same applies to the examples you provided. Like, would you rather be a black gay in Alabama or San Francisco? What? You're having trouble working out which scenario you prefer?
Didn't think so. :D
Floppit
24th January 2012, 08:43 AM
I don't think you get where I'm coming from. I have no objection to agreeing that cultures do atrocious things and have periods of behaving in a violent way. I don't see any excuse in saying 'It's their culture', in fact, introducing culture as a cause opens the door to such excuses.
The fact that I would choose San Francisco (and I would!) is only the product of disseminating the previous over generalisation, there lies the problem. Plenty of US citizens have spent time living in Saudi through choice.
My water isn't muddied by having to condemn a culture as uncivilised in order to say 'That culture is doing savage things', a statement I'd readily make about both the USA and Saudi at times.
The fact that I would choose San Francisco (and I would!) is only the product of disseminating the previous over generalisation, there lies the problem. Plenty of US citizens have spent time living in Saudi through choice.
My water isn't muddied by having to condemn a culture as uncivilised in order to say 'That culture is doing savage things', a statement I'd readily make about both the USA and Saudi at times.
Robert_S
24th January 2012, 09:29 AM
I thought it was all down to whether or not your culture builds cities and has wealth or not.
Hermit
24th January 2012, 10:16 AM
I don't think you get where I'm coming from.
Obviously not.
A society where, say, women are permitted to drive, for example, or where you can opine that our leader is a Fink without being summarily executed, is to me pretty obviously preferable to cultures where such freedoms are absent. One can of course argue that such freedoms don't necessarily contribute to some happiness quotient at all, (akin to a scenario Aldous Huxley set out in Brave New World,) but that line doesn't work unless one can also demonstrate that their lack somehow do create more happiness and/or that it may be preferable to be a happily drugged automaton.
If you subscribe to the theory that protection of rights and freedoms of individuals within any given culture are, to some degree at least, a measure of which one is preferable, I don't get why you need to agonise over your lack of in-depth knowledge concerning them. To me the general criterion for this is very simple: A culture that affords greater freedoms and rights for all of its members (provided, of course, that the rights and freedoms of one member do not impinge on those of another) is preferable - nay, superior - to all others that do so to a lesser extent.
Obviously not.
A society where, say, women are permitted to drive, for example, or where you can opine that our leader is a Fink without being summarily executed, is to me pretty obviously preferable to cultures where such freedoms are absent. One can of course argue that such freedoms don't necessarily contribute to some happiness quotient at all, (akin to a scenario Aldous Huxley set out in Brave New World,) but that line doesn't work unless one can also demonstrate that their lack somehow do create more happiness and/or that it may be preferable to be a happily drugged automaton.
If you subscribe to the theory that protection of rights and freedoms of individuals within any given culture are, to some degree at least, a measure of which one is preferable, I don't get why you need to agonise over your lack of in-depth knowledge concerning them. To me the general criterion for this is very simple: A culture that affords greater freedoms and rights for all of its members (provided, of course, that the rights and freedoms of one member do not impinge on those of another) is preferable - nay, superior - to all others that do so to a lesser extent.
Floppit
24th January 2012, 10:34 AM
I don't get why you need to agonise over your lack of in-depth knowledge concerning them.
I don't agonise over it. I simply find it more rational to seek to extinguish ACTS such as forbidding women to drive than to attempt to extinguish the entire cultures where that may be the case.
Take slavery as an example. I might be wrong but I suspect all here would put the practice of slavery in the savage box. Now, if I imagine I am the head of a state rather than merely a voter within one, and let's say that state has reasonable economic and military strength - enough clout to do something about slavery. Your position (I presume?) would be to annihilate those cultures where slavery exists, where as mine would be to annihilate slavery as an act, your focus the culture, mine the act. My way would allow for a focus where there is at least a possibility of engaging and rewarding change, yours, as those practising slavery would be aware you wish to destroy their entire culture, would almost certainly only be achievable through direct force. By focussing on the whole culture as the enemy you justify higher levels of collateral damage for 'the greater good', effectively reduce compassion and slow the process up because unless the force you have at your disposal is bloody enormous you have to tackle all cultures practising slavery one at a time - no to mention, repeatedly having to go back to mop up as these things notoriously start popping up again! My state can provide incentives across the board and still use the threat of force but I would agree has less remit to cause high levels of harm to meet it's ends.
I'm totally for the abolition of slavery - no agony. However, I would absolutely require more information to be totally for the abolition of other states/cultures.
I don't agonise over it. I simply find it more rational to seek to extinguish ACTS such as forbidding women to drive than to attempt to extinguish the entire cultures where that may be the case.
Take slavery as an example. I might be wrong but I suspect all here would put the practice of slavery in the savage box. Now, if I imagine I am the head of a state rather than merely a voter within one, and let's say that state has reasonable economic and military strength - enough clout to do something about slavery. Your position (I presume?) would be to annihilate those cultures where slavery exists, where as mine would be to annihilate slavery as an act, your focus the culture, mine the act. My way would allow for a focus where there is at least a possibility of engaging and rewarding change, yours, as those practising slavery would be aware you wish to destroy their entire culture, would almost certainly only be achievable through direct force. By focussing on the whole culture as the enemy you justify higher levels of collateral damage for 'the greater good', effectively reduce compassion and slow the process up because unless the force you have at your disposal is bloody enormous you have to tackle all cultures practising slavery one at a time - no to mention, repeatedly having to go back to mop up as these things notoriously start popping up again! My state can provide incentives across the board and still use the threat of force but I would agree has less remit to cause high levels of harm to meet it's ends.
I'm totally for the abolition of slavery - no agony. However, I would absolutely require more information to be totally for the abolition of other states/cultures.
Hermit
24th January 2012, 11:18 AM
I don't get why you need to agonise over your lack of in-depth knowledge concerning them.
I don't agonise over it. I simply find it more rational to seek to extinguish ACTS such as forbidding women to drive than to attempt to extinguish the entire cultures where that may be the case.
Take slavery as an example. I might be wrong but I suspect all here would put the practice of slavery in the savage box. Now, if I imagine I am the head of a state rather than merely a voter within one, and let's say that state has reasonable economic and military strength - enough clout to do something about slavery. Your position (I presume?) would be to annihilate those cultures where slavery exists, where as mine would be to annihilate slavery as an act, your focus the culture, mine the act. My way would allow for a focus where there is at least a possibility of engaging and rewarding change, yours, as those practising slavery would be aware you wish to destroy their entire culture, would almost certainly only be achievable through direct force. By focussing on the whole culture as the enemy you justify higher levels of collateral damage for 'the greater good', effectively reduce compassion and slow the process up because unless the force you have at your disposal is bloody enormous you have to tackle all cultures practising slavery one at a time - no to mention, repeatedly having to go back to mop up as these things notoriously start popping up again! My state can provide incentives across the board and still use the threat of force but I would agree has less remit to cause high levels of harm to meet it's ends.
I'm totally for the abolition of slavery - no agony. However, I would absolutely require more information to be totally for the abolition of other states/cultures.
That is a good point, but the proposition to be discussed was "There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures." Moving on to consider if we ought to "attempt to extinguish the entire cultures", if we should "be totally for the abolition of other states/cultures" is a moving of the goal-posts of your making.
I don't agonise over it. I simply find it more rational to seek to extinguish ACTS such as forbidding women to drive than to attempt to extinguish the entire cultures where that may be the case.
Take slavery as an example. I might be wrong but I suspect all here would put the practice of slavery in the savage box. Now, if I imagine I am the head of a state rather than merely a voter within one, and let's say that state has reasonable economic and military strength - enough clout to do something about slavery. Your position (I presume?) would be to annihilate those cultures where slavery exists, where as mine would be to annihilate slavery as an act, your focus the culture, mine the act. My way would allow for a focus where there is at least a possibility of engaging and rewarding change, yours, as those practising slavery would be aware you wish to destroy their entire culture, would almost certainly only be achievable through direct force. By focussing on the whole culture as the enemy you justify higher levels of collateral damage for 'the greater good', effectively reduce compassion and slow the process up because unless the force you have at your disposal is bloody enormous you have to tackle all cultures practising slavery one at a time - no to mention, repeatedly having to go back to mop up as these things notoriously start popping up again! My state can provide incentives across the board and still use the threat of force but I would agree has less remit to cause high levels of harm to meet it's ends.
I'm totally for the abolition of slavery - no agony. However, I would absolutely require more information to be totally for the abolition of other states/cultures.
That is a good point, but the proposition to be discussed was "There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures." Moving on to consider if we ought to "attempt to extinguish the entire cultures", if we should "be totally for the abolition of other states/cultures" is a moving of the goal-posts of your making.
Floppit
24th January 2012, 11:37 AM
I don't get why you need to agonise over your lack of in-depth knowledge concerning them.
I don't agonise over it. I simply find it more rational to seek to extinguish ACTS such as forbidding women to drive than to attempt to extinguish the entire cultures where that may be the case.
Take slavery as an example. I might be wrong but I suspect all here would put the practice of slavery in the savage box. Now, if I imagine I am the head of a state rather than merely a voter within one, and let's say that state has reasonable economic and military strength - enough clout to do something about slavery. Your position (I presume?) would be to annihilate those cultures where slavery exists, where as mine would be to annihilate slavery as an act, your focus the culture, mine the act. My way would allow for a focus where there is at least a possibility of engaging and rewarding change, yours, as those practising slavery would be aware you wish to destroy their entire culture, would almost certainly only be achievable through direct force. By focussing on the whole culture as the enemy you justify higher levels of collateral damage for 'the greater good', effectively reduce compassion and slow the process up because unless the force you have at your disposal is bloody enormous you have to tackle all cultures practising slavery one at a time - no to mention, repeatedly having to go back to mop up as these things notoriously start popping up again! My state can provide incentives across the board and still use the threat of force but I would agree has less remit to cause high levels of harm to meet it's ends.
I'm totally for the abolition of slavery - no agony. However, I would absolutely require more information to be totally for the abolition of other states/cultures.
That is a good point, but the proposition to be discussed was "There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures." Moving on to consider if we ought to "attempt to extinguish the entire cultures", if we should "be totally for the abolition of other states/cultures" is a moving of the goal-posts of your making.
But my whole point is that I wish to give no quarter to savage acts, I do wish their abolition without reserve and that informs my hesitation/agonising IF the cultures/peoples are the focus rather than the acts. Remember I didn't and wouldn't argue against the notion that cultures can be defined as savage, rather I suggested that doing so required swathes more information than to determine if an act is savage.
My premise is one of suggesting that judging a whole culture as opposed to the acts within a culture becomes a minefield of complications and has no upside. Even as a voter within a state, I wouldn't want to further the ends of those wishing to abolish cultures for all the reasons given above, but as a voter within a state I would want to side with abolishing acts of savagery, both inside and outside my own culture.
The only purpose I perceive in condemning entire cultures is groupthink, to externalise savagery as 'another's' problem. As most cultures have their own dark pasts (and probably futures!) I hold that such a position enhances confirmation bias, reduces compassion, distracts from improving 'our' culture and grinds the process of change into the framework of past violence done in the name of abolishing other cultures. My premise is that by asking condemnation of acts to be tied to condemnation of whole cultures many of those who would readily work to reduce the savage acts are made hesitant if not completely alienated by the history of what tends to happen once cultures/peoples are seen as savage.
I don't agonise over it. I simply find it more rational to seek to extinguish ACTS such as forbidding women to drive than to attempt to extinguish the entire cultures where that may be the case.
Take slavery as an example. I might be wrong but I suspect all here would put the practice of slavery in the savage box. Now, if I imagine I am the head of a state rather than merely a voter within one, and let's say that state has reasonable economic and military strength - enough clout to do something about slavery. Your position (I presume?) would be to annihilate those cultures where slavery exists, where as mine would be to annihilate slavery as an act, your focus the culture, mine the act. My way would allow for a focus where there is at least a possibility of engaging and rewarding change, yours, as those practising slavery would be aware you wish to destroy their entire culture, would almost certainly only be achievable through direct force. By focussing on the whole culture as the enemy you justify higher levels of collateral damage for 'the greater good', effectively reduce compassion and slow the process up because unless the force you have at your disposal is bloody enormous you have to tackle all cultures practising slavery one at a time - no to mention, repeatedly having to go back to mop up as these things notoriously start popping up again! My state can provide incentives across the board and still use the threat of force but I would agree has less remit to cause high levels of harm to meet it's ends.
I'm totally for the abolition of slavery - no agony. However, I would absolutely require more information to be totally for the abolition of other states/cultures.
That is a good point, but the proposition to be discussed was "There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures." Moving on to consider if we ought to "attempt to extinguish the entire cultures", if we should "be totally for the abolition of other states/cultures" is a moving of the goal-posts of your making.
But my whole point is that I wish to give no quarter to savage acts, I do wish their abolition without reserve and that informs my hesitation/agonising IF the cultures/peoples are the focus rather than the acts. Remember I didn't and wouldn't argue against the notion that cultures can be defined as savage, rather I suggested that doing so required swathes more information than to determine if an act is savage.
My premise is one of suggesting that judging a whole culture as opposed to the acts within a culture becomes a minefield of complications and has no upside. Even as a voter within a state, I wouldn't want to further the ends of those wishing to abolish cultures for all the reasons given above, but as a voter within a state I would want to side with abolishing acts of savagery, both inside and outside my own culture.
The only purpose I perceive in condemning entire cultures is groupthink, to externalise savagery as 'another's' problem. As most cultures have their own dark pasts (and probably futures!) I hold that such a position enhances confirmation bias, reduces compassion, distracts from improving 'our' culture and grinds the process of change into the framework of past violence done in the name of abolishing other cultures. My premise is that by asking condemnation of acts to be tied to condemnation of whole cultures many of those who would readily work to reduce the savage acts are made hesitant if not completely alienated by the history of what tends to happen once cultures/peoples are seen as savage.
Hermit
24th January 2012, 11:54 AM
I don't get why you need to agonise over your lack of in-depth knowledge concerning them.
I don't agonise over it. I simply find it more rational to seek to extinguish ACTS such as forbidding women to drive than to attempt to extinguish the entire cultures where that may be the case.
Take slavery as an example. I might be wrong but I suspect all here would put the practice of slavery in the savage box. Now, if I imagine I am the head of a state rather than merely a voter within one, and let's say that state has reasonable economic and military strength - enough clout to do something about slavery. Your position (I presume?) would be to annihilate those cultures where slavery exists, where as mine would be to annihilate slavery as an act, your focus the culture, mine the act. My way would allow for a focus where there is at least a possibility of engaging and rewarding change, yours, as those practising slavery would be aware you wish to destroy their entire culture, would almost certainly only be achievable through direct force. By focussing on the whole culture as the enemy you justify higher levels of collateral damage for 'the greater good', effectively reduce compassion and slow the process up because unless the force you have at your disposal is bloody enormous you have to tackle all cultures practising slavery one at a time - no to mention, repeatedly having to go back to mop up as these things notoriously start popping up again! My state can provide incentives across the board and still use the threat of force but I would agree has less remit to cause high levels of harm to meet it's ends.
I'm totally for the abolition of slavery - no agony. However, I would absolutely require more information to be totally for the abolition of other states/cultures.
That is a good point, but the proposition to be discussed was "There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures." Moving on to consider if we ought to "attempt to extinguish the entire cultures", if we should "be totally for the abolition of other states/cultures" is a moving of the goal-posts of your making.
But my whole point is that I wish to give no quarter to savage acts, I do wish their abolition without reserve and that informs my hesitation/agonising IF the cultures/peoples are the focus rather than the acts. Remember I didn't and wouldn't argue against the notion that cultures can be defined as savage, rather I suggested that doing so required swathes more information than to determine if an act is savage.
My premise is one of suggesting that judging a whole culture as opposed to the acts within a culture becomes a minefield of complications and has no upside. Even as a voter within a state, I wouldn't want to further the ends of those wishing to abolish cultures for all the reasons given above, but as a voter within a state I would want to side with abolishing acts of savagery, both inside and outside my own culture.
The only purpose I perceive in condemning entire cultures is groupthink, to externalise savagery as 'another's' problem. As most cultures have their own dark pasts (and probably futures!) I hold that such a position enhances confirmation bias, reduces compassion, distracts from improving 'our' culture and grinds the process of change into the framework of past violence done in the name of abolishing other cultures. My premise is that by asking condemnation of acts to be tied to condemnation of whole cultures many of those who would readily work to reduce the savage acts are made hesitant if not completely alienated by the history of what tends to happen once cultures/peoples are seen as savage.
Yes, that is your point, and it is a good one. I prefer to stick to discussing the issue raised in the opening post as to whether "There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures". Looking at various cultures as a whole, such as those that are thoroughly infused with tenets of Islam, Hindu or other dogmas, I decided in the end to disagree. Looking at cultures as a whole, would you agree or disagree with that proposition?
I don't agonise over it. I simply find it more rational to seek to extinguish ACTS such as forbidding women to drive than to attempt to extinguish the entire cultures where that may be the case.
Take slavery as an example. I might be wrong but I suspect all here would put the practice of slavery in the savage box. Now, if I imagine I am the head of a state rather than merely a voter within one, and let's say that state has reasonable economic and military strength - enough clout to do something about slavery. Your position (I presume?) would be to annihilate those cultures where slavery exists, where as mine would be to annihilate slavery as an act, your focus the culture, mine the act. My way would allow for a focus where there is at least a possibility of engaging and rewarding change, yours, as those practising slavery would be aware you wish to destroy their entire culture, would almost certainly only be achievable through direct force. By focussing on the whole culture as the enemy you justify higher levels of collateral damage for 'the greater good', effectively reduce compassion and slow the process up because unless the force you have at your disposal is bloody enormous you have to tackle all cultures practising slavery one at a time - no to mention, repeatedly having to go back to mop up as these things notoriously start popping up again! My state can provide incentives across the board and still use the threat of force but I would agree has less remit to cause high levels of harm to meet it's ends.
I'm totally for the abolition of slavery - no agony. However, I would absolutely require more information to be totally for the abolition of other states/cultures.
That is a good point, but the proposition to be discussed was "There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures." Moving on to consider if we ought to "attempt to extinguish the entire cultures", if we should "be totally for the abolition of other states/cultures" is a moving of the goal-posts of your making.
But my whole point is that I wish to give no quarter to savage acts, I do wish their abolition without reserve and that informs my hesitation/agonising IF the cultures/peoples are the focus rather than the acts. Remember I didn't and wouldn't argue against the notion that cultures can be defined as savage, rather I suggested that doing so required swathes more information than to determine if an act is savage.
My premise is one of suggesting that judging a whole culture as opposed to the acts within a culture becomes a minefield of complications and has no upside. Even as a voter within a state, I wouldn't want to further the ends of those wishing to abolish cultures for all the reasons given above, but as a voter within a state I would want to side with abolishing acts of savagery, both inside and outside my own culture.
The only purpose I perceive in condemning entire cultures is groupthink, to externalise savagery as 'another's' problem. As most cultures have their own dark pasts (and probably futures!) I hold that such a position enhances confirmation bias, reduces compassion, distracts from improving 'our' culture and grinds the process of change into the framework of past violence done in the name of abolishing other cultures. My premise is that by asking condemnation of acts to be tied to condemnation of whole cultures many of those who would readily work to reduce the savage acts are made hesitant if not completely alienated by the history of what tends to happen once cultures/peoples are seen as savage.
Yes, that is your point, and it is a good one. I prefer to stick to discussing the issue raised in the opening post as to whether "There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures". Looking at various cultures as a whole, such as those that are thoroughly infused with tenets of Islam, Hindu or other dogmas, I decided in the end to disagree. Looking at cultures as a whole, would you agree or disagree with that proposition?
Floppit
24th January 2012, 12:01 PM
"There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures". Looking at various cultures as a whole, such as those that are thoroughly infused with tenets of Islam, Hindu or other dogmas, I decided in the end to disagree. Looking at cultures as a whole, would you agree or disagree with that proposition?
My answer would be exactly the same, that the depth of knowledge required to argue that there are savage and civilised 'peoples' would be the exact same level of knowledge needed to identify a culture as one or the other. I may feel that theoretically this could be done well enough for me to see groups as 'savages' but in practice, to speak about peoples as savages I would require more knowledge than I'm ever likely to have.
I guess I view the quote as SO profoundly flawed that neither agreement or disagreement does much to clarify a rational/functional view.
My answer would be exactly the same, that the depth of knowledge required to argue that there are savage and civilised 'peoples' would be the exact same level of knowledge needed to identify a culture as one or the other. I may feel that theoretically this could be done well enough for me to see groups as 'savages' but in practice, to speak about peoples as savages I would require more knowledge than I'm ever likely to have.
I guess I view the quote as SO profoundly flawed that neither agreement or disagreement does much to clarify a rational/functional view.
Exi5tentialist
24th January 2012, 10:41 PM
Savages is a racist term whether applied to peoples or groups. Why get all complicated about it?
Exi5tentialist
24th January 2012, 10:43 PM
I thought it was all down to whether or not your culture builds cities and has wealth or not.
I think it's down to whether you're white or not.
I think it's down to whether you're white or not.
Robert_S
24th January 2012, 10:58 PM
I thought it was all down to whether or not your culture builds cities and has wealth or not.
I think it's down to whether you're white or not.
Racial bias may come into it, and it certainly raises a red flag with me sometimes. But the epithet itself is not inherently racist.
The two words are more about having a stratified society with accumulated wealth and organised power structures. I won't argue that race plays a part in who gets wealth and power though.
I think it's down to whether you're white or not.
Racial bias may come into it, and it certainly raises a red flag with me sometimes. But the epithet itself is not inherently racist.
The two words are more about having a stratified society with accumulated wealth and organised power structures. I won't argue that race plays a part in who gets wealth and power though.
Exi5tentialist
24th January 2012, 11:06 PM
But the epithet itself is not inherently racist.
Yes it is
Yes it is
Robert_S
24th January 2012, 11:16 PM
But the epithet itself is not inherently racist.
Yes it is
Race as in skin colour or race as in shared culture?
Yes it is
Race as in skin colour or race as in shared culture?
Exi5tentialist
24th January 2012, 11:23 PM
But the epithet itself is not inherently racist.
Yes it is
Race as in skin colour or race as in shared culture?
Both, and more
Yes it is
Race as in skin colour or race as in shared culture?
Both, and more
Robert_S
24th January 2012, 11:30 PM
But the epithet itself is not inherently racist.
Yes it is
Race as in skin colour or race as in shared culture?
Both, and more
Would you elaborate?
Yes it is
Race as in skin colour or race as in shared culture?
Both, and more
Would you elaborate?
Exi5tentialist
24th January 2012, 11:43 PM
Racism manifests itself in different ways at different times. Sometimes it is based on skin colour. Sometimes it is based on conflicting cultures or economic competition. Sometimes it uses characteristics that make a racial group distinctive without actually being a race, eg food traditions or religion.
The english-speaking west has used the term savages to describe its colonial subjects and enemies so much that it is impossible to isolate other meanings of the word honestly. It is not possible to use the noun in a non-racist way; attempts to do so are most likely racist.
The english-speaking west has used the term savages to describe its colonial subjects and enemies so much that it is impossible to isolate other meanings of the word honestly. It is not possible to use the noun in a non-racist way; attempts to do so are most likely racist.
Cunt
25th January 2012, 01:00 AM
No savage and civilised peoples; only different cultures?
I think you'd have no difficulty coming to a fairly firm decision without exhaustively studying the issue first if you were faced with the options of either living in the USA or in Saudi Arabia, to pick just one example.
Or, to be a bit less 'PC', how about Wrigley or Vancouver?
I think you'd have no difficulty coming to a fairly firm decision without exhaustively studying the issue first if you were faced with the options of either living in the USA or in Saudi Arabia, to pick just one example.
Or, to be a bit less 'PC', how about Wrigley or Vancouver?
charlou
25th January 2012, 01:08 AM
Racism manifests itself in different ways at different times. Sometimes it is based on skin colour. Sometimes it is based on conflicting cultures or economic competition. Sometimes it uses characteristics that make a racial group distinctive without actually being a race, eg food traditions or religion.
You don't think you're using the term too broadly? There are more general words for what you're describing .. prejudice, bigotry, stereotyping, chauvenism, discrimination ... Words that adequately describe thinking and behaviour without the need for labelling (although they're often used in conjunction with a label ... eg racial prejudice, sexual discrimination).
The english-speaking west has used the term savages to describe its colonial subjects and enemies so much that it is impossible to isolate other meanings of the word honestly. It is not possible to use the noun in a non-racist way; attempts to do so are most likely racist.
It depends on context, and how well the assessment is described, but in the context of the topic of this thread, I think you're right .. at least about what comes to mind for most people when the word "savages" is used.
I agree with floppit that there are elements of what most enlightened people might think of as unethical and undesirable behaviour in most cultures. I think the difference lies in whether that behaviour is fundamental to how a society operates and treats the individuals within.
Using the term "savage" to describe behaviour or ethos, whether individual or cultural, is valid, I think. I can think of no more appropriate way to describe the way women are treated in the extreme cases of violent discrimination we've all read about. That doesn't mean I think every individual within that environment or culture is a savage.
It's easy to cross the line into general bigotry towards a group of people based on the actions of some of their number. I think this problem arises from thinking in terms of groups and societies, rather than in terms of human behaviour as understood on a broader, anthropological scale.
You don't think you're using the term too broadly? There are more general words for what you're describing .. prejudice, bigotry, stereotyping, chauvenism, discrimination ... Words that adequately describe thinking and behaviour without the need for labelling (although they're often used in conjunction with a label ... eg racial prejudice, sexual discrimination).
The english-speaking west has used the term savages to describe its colonial subjects and enemies so much that it is impossible to isolate other meanings of the word honestly. It is not possible to use the noun in a non-racist way; attempts to do so are most likely racist.
It depends on context, and how well the assessment is described, but in the context of the topic of this thread, I think you're right .. at least about what comes to mind for most people when the word "savages" is used.
I agree with floppit that there are elements of what most enlightened people might think of as unethical and undesirable behaviour in most cultures. I think the difference lies in whether that behaviour is fundamental to how a society operates and treats the individuals within.
Using the term "savage" to describe behaviour or ethos, whether individual or cultural, is valid, I think. I can think of no more appropriate way to describe the way women are treated in the extreme cases of violent discrimination we've all read about. That doesn't mean I think every individual within that environment or culture is a savage.
It's easy to cross the line into general bigotry towards a group of people based on the actions of some of their number. I think this problem arises from thinking in terms of groups and societies, rather than in terms of human behaviour as understood on a broader, anthropological scale.
Hermit
25th January 2012, 01:32 AM
What Elouise said.
I think one clear depiction of savagery is William Golding's Lord of the Flies, and I cannot see a hint of racism (in terms of the meaning that word is conventionally used) in it. In fact, I think Golding was trying to make the point how easily the thin coating of civilised culture is stripped off us all, exposing our savage core. To him it's a universal condition.
I think one clear depiction of savagery is William Golding's Lord of the Flies, and I cannot see a hint of racism (in terms of the meaning that word is conventionally used) in it. In fact, I think Golding was trying to make the point how easily the thin coating of civilised culture is stripped off us all, exposing our savage core. To him it's a universal condition.
Cunt
25th January 2012, 02:21 AM
YES thanks, Seraph. We have people (all human types) living in vastly different conditions who all visit my town. It's quite the learning experience.
Exi5tentialist
25th January 2012, 09:01 AM
What Elouise said.
I think one clear depiction of savagery is William Golding's Lord of the Flies, and I cannot see a hint of racism (in terms of the meaning that word is conventionally used) in it. In fact, I think Golding was trying to make the point how easily the thin coating of civilised culture is stripped off us all, exposing our savage core. To him it's a universal condition.
Well I've not heard Lord of the Flies described as savagery. It seems a bit off the mark to use that word. Why that particular word, savagery? Why not brutal or vicious or any number of other words that could describe the story? Is it because the characters are in a setting that we normally associate with colonial explorers discovering distant lands and coming across inferior (foreign) peoples? I think it's really hard to use the word savage to describe people without invoking some element of racism. I don't think I'd ever feel the need the need to use the word in relation to human beings.
I suppose I might, in describing an attack by a dog, call it a savage attack in passing, but human beings - I can't see the justification given the baggage the word comes with.
I think one clear depiction of savagery is William Golding's Lord of the Flies, and I cannot see a hint of racism (in terms of the meaning that word is conventionally used) in it. In fact, I think Golding was trying to make the point how easily the thin coating of civilised culture is stripped off us all, exposing our savage core. To him it's a universal condition.
Well I've not heard Lord of the Flies described as savagery. It seems a bit off the mark to use that word. Why that particular word, savagery? Why not brutal or vicious or any number of other words that could describe the story? Is it because the characters are in a setting that we normally associate with colonial explorers discovering distant lands and coming across inferior (foreign) peoples? I think it's really hard to use the word savage to describe people without invoking some element of racism. I don't think I'd ever feel the need the need to use the word in relation to human beings.
I suppose I might, in describing an attack by a dog, call it a savage attack in passing, but human beings - I can't see the justification given the baggage the word comes with.
Hermit
25th January 2012, 09:40 AM
Well I've not heard Lord of the Flies described as savagery. It seems a bit off the mark to use that word.
From Cliffs Notes (http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/Lord-of-the-Flies-Lord-of-the-Flies-at-a-Glance.id-64.html). First paragraph.In Lord of the Flies, British schoolboys are stranded on a tropical island. In an attempt to recreate the culture they left behind, they elect Ralph to lead, with the intellectual Piggy as counselor. But Jack wants to lead, too, and one-by-one, he lures the boys from civility and reason to the savage survivalism of primeval hunters. In Lord of the Flies, William Golding gives us a glimpse of the savagery that underlies even the most civilized human beings.
From SparkNotes (http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/flies/themes.html). First two-and-a-bit paragraphs.Civilization vs. Savagery
The central concern of Lord of the Flies is the conflict between two competing impulses that exist within all human beings: the instinct to live by rules, act peacefully, follow moral commands, and value the good of the group against the instinct to gratify one’s immediate desires, act violently to obtain supremacy over others, and enforce one’s will. This conflict might be expressed in a number of ways: civilization vs. savagery, order vs. chaos, reason vs. impulse, law vs. anarchy, or the broader heading of good vs. evil. Throughout the novel, Golding associates the instinct of civilization with good and the instinct of savagery with evil.
The conflict between the two instincts is the driving force of the novel, explored through the dissolution of the young English boys’ civilized, moral, disciplined behavior as they accustom themselves to a wild, brutal, barbaric life in the jungle. Lord of the Flies is an allegorical novel, which means that Golding conveys many of his main ideas and themes through symbolic characters and objects. He represents the conflict between civilization and savagery in the conflict between the novel’s two main characters: Ralph, the protagonist, who represents order and leadership; and Jack, the antagonist, who represents savagery and the desire for power.
As the novel progresses, Golding shows how different people feel the influences of the instincts of civilization and savagery to different degrees. Piggy, for instance, has no savage feelings, while Roger seems barely capable of comprehending the rules of civilization. Generally, however, Golding implies that the instinct of savagery is far more primal and fundamental to the human psyche than the instinct of civilization. Golding sees moral behavior, in many cases, as something that civilization forces upon the individual rather than a natural expression of human individuality. When left to their own devices, Golding implies, people naturally revert to cruelty, savagery, and barbarism...
From the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies#Background).The book portrays their descent into savagery
Searching google with "lord of the flies" and "savag*" returns 11.3 million hits.
Most of all, though, I suggest you read the novel itself. The number of times words beginning with "savag" occur is a bit of a giveaway in regard to what the book is about.
Alternatively you could cry foul and cite the appeal to popularity fallacy. Good luck with that.
"Look at that regiment! Everyone is out of step, except my son!"
ETA: Forgot to mention that bolding and italicising was added by me.
From Cliffs Notes (http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/Lord-of-the-Flies-Lord-of-the-Flies-at-a-Glance.id-64.html). First paragraph.In Lord of the Flies, British schoolboys are stranded on a tropical island. In an attempt to recreate the culture they left behind, they elect Ralph to lead, with the intellectual Piggy as counselor. But Jack wants to lead, too, and one-by-one, he lures the boys from civility and reason to the savage survivalism of primeval hunters. In Lord of the Flies, William Golding gives us a glimpse of the savagery that underlies even the most civilized human beings.
From SparkNotes (http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/flies/themes.html). First two-and-a-bit paragraphs.Civilization vs. Savagery
The central concern of Lord of the Flies is the conflict between two competing impulses that exist within all human beings: the instinct to live by rules, act peacefully, follow moral commands, and value the good of the group against the instinct to gratify one’s immediate desires, act violently to obtain supremacy over others, and enforce one’s will. This conflict might be expressed in a number of ways: civilization vs. savagery, order vs. chaos, reason vs. impulse, law vs. anarchy, or the broader heading of good vs. evil. Throughout the novel, Golding associates the instinct of civilization with good and the instinct of savagery with evil.
The conflict between the two instincts is the driving force of the novel, explored through the dissolution of the young English boys’ civilized, moral, disciplined behavior as they accustom themselves to a wild, brutal, barbaric life in the jungle. Lord of the Flies is an allegorical novel, which means that Golding conveys many of his main ideas and themes through symbolic characters and objects. He represents the conflict between civilization and savagery in the conflict between the novel’s two main characters: Ralph, the protagonist, who represents order and leadership; and Jack, the antagonist, who represents savagery and the desire for power.
As the novel progresses, Golding shows how different people feel the influences of the instincts of civilization and savagery to different degrees. Piggy, for instance, has no savage feelings, while Roger seems barely capable of comprehending the rules of civilization. Generally, however, Golding implies that the instinct of savagery is far more primal and fundamental to the human psyche than the instinct of civilization. Golding sees moral behavior, in many cases, as something that civilization forces upon the individual rather than a natural expression of human individuality. When left to their own devices, Golding implies, people naturally revert to cruelty, savagery, and barbarism...
From the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies#Background).The book portrays their descent into savagery
Searching google with "lord of the flies" and "savag*" returns 11.3 million hits.
Most of all, though, I suggest you read the novel itself. The number of times words beginning with "savag" occur is a bit of a giveaway in regard to what the book is about.
Alternatively you could cry foul and cite the appeal to popularity fallacy. Good luck with that.
"Look at that regiment! Everyone is out of step, except my son!"
ETA: Forgot to mention that bolding and italicising was added by me.
Floppit
25th January 2012, 09:57 AM
I think where savage is used to describe behaviour it is not racist for all the reasons well described above.
I think where savage is used to describe whole peoples it is foolish in the extreme to do so without awareness of it's past uses and where such descriptions have led in terms of ensuing behaviour towards those given the label.
I think where savage is used to describe whole peoples it is foolish in the extreme to do so without awareness of it's past uses and where such descriptions have led in terms of ensuing behaviour towards those given the label.
Cunt
25th January 2012, 02:33 PM
...and this 'test' described 'savage cultures.
Not savage individuals.
Not savage individuals.
Exi5tentialist
25th January 2012, 06:09 PM
Thanks Seraph, actually I do already know that if I type combinations of words in Google I can often get millions of results, many of which I'll disagree with and some of which I may not have heard of before, but that doesn't alter my position: the noun savage and its plural are impossible to use in a non-racist way.
Robert_S
25th January 2012, 10:15 PM
Am I being racist if I say: "The Romans enjoyed rather savage forms of entertainment in the Colosseum? "
How about "The US military savagely destroyed the infrastructure of that poor nation."
Or "Sarah Palin, apparently unable to appreciate civilised pastimes, reverted to savagery by stalking and killing a wild animal on national television."
What I find offensive about the word "savage" is that it assumes a great deal of cruelty and mindlessness on the parts of nomadic, hunter-gatherer and small-scale agrarian cultures.
How about "The US military savagely destroyed the infrastructure of that poor nation."
Or "Sarah Palin, apparently unable to appreciate civilised pastimes, reverted to savagery by stalking and killing a wild animal on national television."
What I find offensive about the word "savage" is that it assumes a great deal of cruelty and mindlessness on the parts of nomadic, hunter-gatherer and small-scale agrarian cultures.
Cunt
25th January 2012, 10:26 PM
What I find offensive about the word "savage" is that it assumes a great deal of cruelty and mindlessness on the parts of nomadic, hunter-gatherer and small-scale agrarian cultures.
I was going to suggest you fucking TRY hunting until I read this last lol
Quite an advanced skill-set.
I was going to suggest you fucking TRY hunting until I read this last lol
Quite an advanced skill-set.
Robert_S
25th January 2012, 10:51 PM
What I find offensive about the word "savage" is that it assumes a great deal of cruelty and mindlessness on the parts of nomadic, hunter-gatherer and small-scale agrarian cultures.
I was going to suggest you fucking TRY hunting until I read this last lol
Quite an advanced skill-set.
I didn't mean to offend hunters... Or rather: I didn't mean to offend hunters who are not Sarah Palin.
I was going to suggest you fucking TRY hunting until I read this last lol
Quite an advanced skill-set.
I didn't mean to offend hunters... Or rather: I didn't mean to offend hunters who are not Sarah Palin.
Exi5tentialist
25th January 2012, 11:03 PM
Am I being racist if I say: "The Romans enjoyed rather savage forms of entertainment in the Colosseum? "
How about "The US military savagely destroyed the infrastructure of that poor nation."
Or "Sarah Palin, apparently unable to appreciate civilised pastimes, reverted to savagery by stalking and killing a wild animal on national television."
What I find offensive about the word "savage" is that it assumes a great deal of cruelty and mindlessness on the parts of nomadic, hunter-gatherer and small-scale agrarian cultures.
I singled out the noun as the invariably racist word - "He's a savage" or "They're savages". That's the part of speech that I would say carries the most baggage and the most risks. The baggage comes from the colonial past and the justifications for various racist practices from slavery to apartheid. So if you called the US military savages I'd be suspicious - not that you were being racist against the US military, but that you were deploying a word carrying strong racist undertones, mainly for effect, possibly with a racist agenda.
Adjectives and other derivatives of the noun "savage" also carry some risk but it depends more on the context. It's the labelling, the naming, the branding that is so laden with racism, in my view - calling people "savages" is racist because of the history, and that racism may become doubly potent when it's used against black or asian people.
The racism remains even if the black or asian people in question have done something that we could reasonably describe as savage, the adjective. Because the noun carries such overwhelming racist baggage, the risk is of its being applied disproportionately to non-white people when they do something brutal, but using other words to describe the brutality of white people.
The overall effect is not some statistical bias, it's more the way that disproportionate usage creates or reinforces a racist mood against particular groups, such as africans, or muslims.
How about "The US military savagely destroyed the infrastructure of that poor nation."
Or "Sarah Palin, apparently unable to appreciate civilised pastimes, reverted to savagery by stalking and killing a wild animal on national television."
What I find offensive about the word "savage" is that it assumes a great deal of cruelty and mindlessness on the parts of nomadic, hunter-gatherer and small-scale agrarian cultures.
I singled out the noun as the invariably racist word - "He's a savage" or "They're savages". That's the part of speech that I would say carries the most baggage and the most risks. The baggage comes from the colonial past and the justifications for various racist practices from slavery to apartheid. So if you called the US military savages I'd be suspicious - not that you were being racist against the US military, but that you were deploying a word carrying strong racist undertones, mainly for effect, possibly with a racist agenda.
Adjectives and other derivatives of the noun "savage" also carry some risk but it depends more on the context. It's the labelling, the naming, the branding that is so laden with racism, in my view - calling people "savages" is racist because of the history, and that racism may become doubly potent when it's used against black or asian people.
The racism remains even if the black or asian people in question have done something that we could reasonably describe as savage, the adjective. Because the noun carries such overwhelming racist baggage, the risk is of its being applied disproportionately to non-white people when they do something brutal, but using other words to describe the brutality of white people.
The overall effect is not some statistical bias, it's more the way that disproportionate usage creates or reinforces a racist mood against particular groups, such as africans, or muslims.
Robert_S
25th January 2012, 11:16 PM
Am I being racist if I say: "The Romans enjoyed rather savage forms of entertainment in the Colosseum? "
How about "The US military savagely destroyed the infrastructure of that poor nation."
Or "Sarah Palin, apparently unable to appreciate civilised pastimes, reverted to savagery by stalking and killing a wild animal on national television."
What I find offensive about the word "savage" is that it assumes a great deal of cruelty and mindlessness on the parts of nomadic, hunter-gatherer and small-scale agrarian cultures.
I singled out the noun as the invariably racist word - "He's a savage" or "They're savages". That's the part of speech that I would say carries the most baggage and the most risks. The baggage comes from the colonial past and the justifications for various racist practices from slavery to apartheid. So if you called the US military savages I'd be suspicious - not that you were being racist against the US military, but that you were deploying a word carrying strong racist undertones, mainly for effect, possibly with a racist agenda.
Adjectives and other derivatives of the noun "savage" also carry some risk but it depends more on the context. It's the labelling, the naming, the branding that is so laden with racism, in my view - calling people "savages" is racist because of the history, and that racism may become doubly potent when it's used against black or asian people.
The racism remains even if the black or asian people in question have done something that we could reasonably describe as savage, the adjective. Because the noun carries such overwhelming racist baggage, the risk is of its being applied disproportionately to non-white people when they do something brutal, but using other words to describe the brutality of white people.
The overall effect is not some statistical bias, it's more the way that disproportionate usage creates or reinforces a racist mood against particular groups, such as africans, or muslims.
...or Vikings, Visigoths and Vandals.
Some people display X characteristics when they use word Y, therefore all people who use word Y are supporting X.
It's worrying about the trappings of racism rather than racism itself.
Look a little further down that road:
Man Attempts To Assassinate Obama, 'But Not Because He's Black Or Anything' - YouTube
How about "The US military savagely destroyed the infrastructure of that poor nation."
Or "Sarah Palin, apparently unable to appreciate civilised pastimes, reverted to savagery by stalking and killing a wild animal on national television."
What I find offensive about the word "savage" is that it assumes a great deal of cruelty and mindlessness on the parts of nomadic, hunter-gatherer and small-scale agrarian cultures.
I singled out the noun as the invariably racist word - "He's a savage" or "They're savages". That's the part of speech that I would say carries the most baggage and the most risks. The baggage comes from the colonial past and the justifications for various racist practices from slavery to apartheid. So if you called the US military savages I'd be suspicious - not that you were being racist against the US military, but that you were deploying a word carrying strong racist undertones, mainly for effect, possibly with a racist agenda.
Adjectives and other derivatives of the noun "savage" also carry some risk but it depends more on the context. It's the labelling, the naming, the branding that is so laden with racism, in my view - calling people "savages" is racist because of the history, and that racism may become doubly potent when it's used against black or asian people.
The racism remains even if the black or asian people in question have done something that we could reasonably describe as savage, the adjective. Because the noun carries such overwhelming racist baggage, the risk is of its being applied disproportionately to non-white people when they do something brutal, but using other words to describe the brutality of white people.
The overall effect is not some statistical bias, it's more the way that disproportionate usage creates or reinforces a racist mood against particular groups, such as africans, or muslims.
...or Vikings, Visigoths and Vandals.
Some people display X characteristics when they use word Y, therefore all people who use word Y are supporting X.
It's worrying about the trappings of racism rather than racism itself.
Look a little further down that road:
Man Attempts To Assassinate Obama, 'But Not Because He's Black Or Anything' - YouTube
Exi5tentialist
26th January 2012, 12:42 AM
Some people display X characteristics when they use word Y, therefore all people who use word Y are supporting X
You mean some people display racist characteristics when they use the word 'savage', therefore all people who use the word 'savage' are supporting racists?
Well, no, that's not my logic in relation to the use of the word 'savage'. It's not about the racist characteristics of the people who use the word. It's about the racist characteristics that the word has acquired in our culture.
Sorry no time to watch videos, what's the message?
You mean some people display racist characteristics when they use the word 'savage', therefore all people who use the word 'savage' are supporting racists?
Well, no, that's not my logic in relation to the use of the word 'savage'. It's not about the racist characteristics of the people who use the word. It's about the racist characteristics that the word has acquired in our culture.
Sorry no time to watch videos, what's the message?
charlou
26th January 2012, 01:33 AM
Last year I was angry and posted a thread at rationalia, using the words "fucking savages" to describe the people who murdered a woman and her daughter after accusing them of sexual misconduct. Would I have used those words ... particularly the word "savages" ... if the people hadn't been in Afghanistan but in Australia or America, or the UK, for example? I'm not sure but I think perhaps not .. but then it's the culture of repression and violence that such behaviour arises from I'm referring to, which doesn't exist in Australia or America or the UK.
Still, I will give more thought to how I describe people in future.
Still, I will give more thought to how I describe people in future.
Robert_S
26th January 2012, 02:44 AM
Some people display X characteristics when they use word Y, therefore all people who use word Y are supporting X
You mean some people display racist characteristics when they use the word 'savage', therefore all people who use the word 'savage' are supporting racists?
Well, no, that's not my logic in relation to the use of the word 'savage'. It's not about the racist characteristics of the people who use the word. It's about the racist characteristics that the word has acquired in our culture.
Sorry no time to watch videos, what's the message?
I'll meet you at "It has acquired racist overtones". The video is just a piece of humor from The Onion about a guy worried about how things might come across as racist.
You mean some people display racist characteristics when they use the word 'savage', therefore all people who use the word 'savage' are supporting racists?
Well, no, that's not my logic in relation to the use of the word 'savage'. It's not about the racist characteristics of the people who use the word. It's about the racist characteristics that the word has acquired in our culture.
Sorry no time to watch videos, what's the message?
I'll meet you at "It has acquired racist overtones". The video is just a piece of humor from The Onion about a guy worried about how things might come across as racist.
Magicziggy
26th January 2012, 06:06 AM
To me, savage is used as the opposite end of the spectrum from civilized. It's meaning is intended to convey "primitive" in a technological and / or societal sense.
The meaning in this context has no racial overtones for me. I don't think it was a great choice of word.
I agree with the proposition in the op. The culture that a society has includes the state of its technological advancement and the degree with which the society organizes itself to sustain and protect itself. I can live with the notion that differences in technological advancement are differences in culture and I agree with whoever mentioned the notion of the proposition being a measure of political correctness. In fact I don't think the response to this proposition really tells us much about our position on the political compass since we can all possibly reason to agree or disagree with it and may even change our mind overnight.
I think a lot of the nit picking in this discussion is around the clumsy use of the word savage.
Try "less civilized" vs "more civilized"..
Or "primitive" vs "advanced"
The meaning in this context has no racial overtones for me. I don't think it was a great choice of word.
I agree with the proposition in the op. The culture that a society has includes the state of its technological advancement and the degree with which the society organizes itself to sustain and protect itself. I can live with the notion that differences in technological advancement are differences in culture and I agree with whoever mentioned the notion of the proposition being a measure of political correctness. In fact I don't think the response to this proposition really tells us much about our position on the political compass since we can all possibly reason to agree or disagree with it and may even change our mind overnight.
I think a lot of the nit picking in this discussion is around the clumsy use of the word savage.
Try "less civilized" vs "more civilized"..
Or "primitive" vs "advanced"
andrewclunn
26th January 2012, 08:05 AM
I took the question to be one of nature vs nurture and whether some people are prone to violence or just end up that way because of culture. I answered that there are such a thing as savage people because I'm fairly certain that genetic variation does impact people's propensity for violence.
charlou
26th January 2012, 08:08 AM
How do you explain cultural assimilation through adoption, in that case, Andrew?
andrewclunn
26th January 2012, 08:20 AM
I wasn't suggesting that genetic predispositions towards violent behavior smoothly follow arbitrary cultural lines of race and ethnic identity.
Hermit
26th January 2012, 09:51 AM
I took the question to be one of nature vs nurture and whether some people are prone to violence or just end up that way because of culture. I answered that there are such a thing as savage people because I'm fairly certain that genetic variation does impact people's propensity for violence.Cheeses fucking crust. What next? The Bell Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bell_curve)?
charlou
26th January 2012, 10:03 AM
I wasn't suggesting that genetic predispositions towards violent behavior smoothly follow arbitrary cultural lines of race and ethnic identity.
Ah, that you were not. Thanks for clarifying.
Ah, that you were not. Thanks for clarifying.
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét