Civilization
Definition: A society is a Civilization if it has, culture (arts, language written and spoken), a written law code, must be non-nomadic (settled in towns and cities), must have agriculture, the distribution of technology (tools), centralized political power, religion and some sort of priesthood.
The term “civilization” implies one society being superior to another that is considered primitive and/or less socially developed. The concept of civilization appears to have been made to fit specifically the western nations. The Europeans were able to justify the destruction of many societies between (470 B.C. until late 1900's) that managed to coexist with their environment, that were peaceful and sometimes nomadic. All Indian tribes that were encountered in North America were automatically labeled as savages and thus considered 'inferior'. This further implied that any society that is inferior can be destroyed because 'inferiority' makes them less important than the 'superior' society. An 'inferior' society is at risk of being attacked attacked by a superior military force. The brutal and disrespecting manner which the 'superior' societies employ gives the less militarily advanced one no, or only a very slim chance of surviving intact. It is curious that the definition of Civilization does not imply respect other cultures, acceptance of other religions and humanitarianism. Is a civilization not supposed to be a highly developed society? It seems as if the concept of civilization includes only societies that are imperialistic and, for the greater part, European in origin. The Mongol empire for example was not accepted into the fraternity of “civilizations”. This may be because they showed the world that there is only one thing required of a society to become a civilization within a few decades which is a strong will and a strong army. The Europeans conquered by the means of brute force which is surprisingly similar to the way the Mongols those 'Barbarians' did it.
If we follow the model of a civilization which Oswald Spengler presented in his book “Der Untergang des Abendlandes” than the Mongol Empire lived through the spring, summer, and fall in less than a century. After which the empire broke apart in many smaller nations. Spengler as well distinguishes between culture and civilization, the former growing inward inside a society while a civilization is outward growing. This outward growing presents itself inform of conquests, while the inward growing took form in cultural growth. The argument presented by Arnold Toynbee was that civilizations needed challenges, that if the challenge was insufficient than this civilization would stagnate while if it was too great than it would be crushed. But both authors arguments would imply that the Mongol Empire was a civilization. Even the controversial Samuel Huntington with his book “The Clash of Civilizations” considered the Mongol Empire a civilization. He argued that every region with different religious interests would automatically become it own independent civilization. Now the question is why is it that the term civilization is only applied if it seems fit for the Europeans?
All three authors have their own concept of what civilization is, all their definitions have only one common point which is that civilizations reach something of a critical point when changes have to come but the power elite is holding on to the power it managed to gain. This is where the Mongol empire differs from the European, the Mongol Empire went silently while European Empires never did, they went with civil wars, which always caused many problems.
Not one of these authors as acclaimed and controversial as they might be have written what might happen at this point. Huntington seemed to think that if every region was 'westernized' that than the world would be come peaceful.
_______________________________________________________
