Peoples have always been civilized: some people chose to behave barbarically
Published
https://rationalstandard.com/peoples-always-civilized-people-chose-behave-barbarically/
This piece is a commentary on University of Johannesburg Assoc. Prof. Rafael Winkler’s: The long walk from ‘civilised’ and ‘barbaric’ to a new world view
The author
shows his bias from the get-go by defining “civilized” as merely:
“having good habits and fine taste, and governing
one’s life rationally”.
This casts an image of a fat, God-fearing, monarchical,
fancily-dressed Frenchman (Descartes?), sitting on a leather chair in his men’s-only
club, served by a ‘black’ woman, nibbling on one of France’s 1000 cheeses,
sipping fine cognac and justifying his existence by thinking rationally.
But, like it or not, civilized people and nations
are characterized by:
1.
1. having and adhering
to shared, organized and implemented rules about how
people should behave; and
2 2. responding
to violations of these rules (e.g. institutional neglect, corruption, intimidation,
censorship, physical violence, destruction of property) with actions designed
to prevent them from recurring – in short, effective justice.
Civilized people interact – by being polite,
reasonable, and respectful. They are
civil.
Then the author suggests that the
development of civilization was restricted geographically (Ancient Greece/Rome)
and to certain behaviour (abiding by laws and rationally debating competitive
ideas) exhibited by certain Europeans (wealthy white men) during certain time
periods (the Age of Enlightenment) who associate themselves politically with certain
politics (liberalism), economics (free-market) and intellectual disciplines
(Humanities).
Then he expresses his “uncertainty”
about what it means to be civilized.
Given his definition and restrictions, of course he should be ‘uncertain’
at best.
But, if you agree with and abide by my (and
most other peoples’) suggested definition, civilized people and nations have
existed everywhere since the beginning of humanity. Indeed, civility is a sine qua non for humanity.
That’s why most free and self-identified nations have civil “rights”. They are part of “human nature” and should be
inculcated into kids’ personas from day one by their parents and mentors.
Then he asks the loaded question.
“Does this connection between reason, freedom and
democracy represent a particular Western prejudice?”
Of course, the correct answer is NO!
Then, like
Monty Python, he targets the ancient Greeks (who “will inherit the Earth”),
since they promoted the primacy of reason and rationality and, for some strange
reason, shared a common language, in establishing a “natural fellowship”, which
he ‘links’ to a rambling passage by Aristotle.
Then, given
all this, he concludes:
“I am not
convinced that reason or speech is a characteristic free of prejudice”.
Of course,
locally derived civilizations are not guaranteed to be “free of prejudice”, and
not sharing a common language is an outstanding way of guaranteeing the
development of prejudice.
Then he
leaps to the ‘concept’ of barbarism being a Greek/Western invention.
Who is the
barbarian?
Well, to the
Khoi-speaking ‘civilized’ people of southern Africa, the San (the Khoi word for
“foreigner” who in fact are the First
People - http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/san
- who have no name for themselves collectively) are barbarians because they
hunt rather than herd animals and ‘talk funny’.
Before that, I’m sure that Homo naledi
thought the same about australopithecines who left their dead to rot in the
veld.
Of course, the
author is using barbarism when he should be referring to ‘race’ and racism.
But he goes
further when he defines a barbarian: “someone whose speech is unintelligible or
who makes incomprehensible sounds like an animal”.
In short,
these barbarians are not simply geographical variants of “us”. They are not human. They are “cruel, bestial savage animals”.
But, then he backs
down a bit and suggests that these animals might, in fact, only be “slaves … subject
to the rule of a monarch”.
This allows him to ‘address’ Islamophobia sensu lato and not just Isis: an
apocalyptic cult carving a place in the modern world by carving off their perceived
enemies’ heads, obliterating antiquity and enslaving women.
Sure, there are
ignorant bigots like US President Trump who equate Islam with all that’s
evil. In the vaguely recent past, we had
Hitler and his henchmen who relegated Jews to concentration camps and
considered ‘blacks’ and other ‘barbarians’ as untermensch. Locally, we have some people who refer to
those they don’t like or respect as ka**irs or white devils who require ‘re-education’,
wealth stripping or a ‘Final Solution’.
Being, or not
being, “civilized” has nothing to do with the “West’s continued military presence in the Middle East”. The ‘reason’
for this invasion and occupation has its roots in, amongst other things, the dissolution
of the Ottoman Empire after WWI and the creation of Israel.
Then, he
trots out the Nazi’s, religion, capitalist-classism, gender and slave-owing European
colonists, but strangely not Verwoerd and his buddies. Blacks, especially socio-economically oppressed,
‘godless’ women are the new barbarians.
Sadly, like
the extreme Fallists, and principle-free principals and corrupt politicians, ‘civil
servants’ and ‘teachers’ who blatantly neglect, disrespect, intimidate and even
assault those with whom they disagree and censor or even destroy their
literature and artwork, the author conflates civility with racism.
