3 ms·

"Culture" and "civilization" are different things. Chimpanzee tribes have culture, as do orcas and dolphins, but I don't see how you can call their societies "

"Culture" and "civilization" are different things. Chimpanzee tribes have culture, as do orcas and dolphins, but I don't see how you can call their societies "civilizations". The group of people here on HN have a "culture", but this is not a "civilization", it's just a website (though it's part of a civilization). Humans lived in hunter-gatherer tribes for hundreds of thousands of years or more before they invented agriculture and created what we now call "civilization". I really don't see how you could properly apply the term "civilization" to any group of people that live in tribes.

defrost 4y ago
It's nice that we can agree that this come down to a Euro-centric judgement as to what constitutes "civilisation". If it's a matter of long establish trade routes, borders, territory, stone housing, multi generational aqua culture infrastructure, agriculture, oral transmission of history, etc. then yes, civilised. If it's a case of a bunch of euro colonisers going "Yeah, Nuh" then no, not civilised.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  So you think that you, personally, should be able to decide the proper definitions of words?
  - defrost 4y ago
    Clearly not.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      Well that's exactly what you seem to be advocating.
      - defrost 4y ago
        Not at all, you might like to reread and perhaps identify the point at which I assert that I "personally, should be able to decide the proper definition" of "civilised". I merely pointed out that if one adopts a Euro-centric definition them, indeed, Australian Aboriginals are not civilised. This is historically what happened when the English declared Terra Nullus - a concept that was later overturned. If you're unsure of how to reason forward and contrast varying axioms and definitions then this HN thread might of some interest and shed some insight: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34127524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34127524 Enjoy!

defrost 4y ago

It's nice that we can agree that this come down to a Euro-centric judgement as to what constitutes "civilisation". If it's a matter of long establish trade routes, borders, territory, stone housing, multi generational aqua culture infrastructure, agriculture, oral transmission of history, etc. then yes, civilised. If it's a case of a bunch of euro colonisers going "Yeah, Nuh" then no, not civilised.

midoridensha 4y ago
So you think that you, personally, should be able to decide the proper definitions of words?
- defrost 4y ago
  Clearly not.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    Well that's exactly what you seem to be advocating.
    - defrost 4y ago
      Not at all, you might like to reread and perhaps identify the point at which I assert that I "personally, should be able to decide the proper definition" of "civilised". I merely pointed out that if one adopts a Euro-centric definition them, indeed, Australian Aboriginals are not civilised. This is historically what happened when the English declared Terra Nullus - a concept that was later overturned. If you're unsure of how to reason forward and contrast varying axioms and definitions then this HN thread might of some interest and shed some insight: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34127524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34127524 Enjoy!