Civility and civilization…
This morning in ANA300 (anatomy) lecture, the instructor, Dr. Stewart, was lecturing on motor neurons. These, essentially, are the nerves that allow us to conduct movement (that is, manipulation of muscles). She was discussing how lesions (damage) to lower motor neurons, that causes disuse of muscles can lead to substantial muscular atrophy. An example of this is the polio disease.
Then, she said something to the effect of “Now, polio has been eradicated in civilized countries.” And she continued speaking about other parts of the world.
My friend looked over at me and, offended, said “‘Civilized’?” I too was offended and raised my shoulders and hands in a “what the hell,” kind of way.
Then I raised my hand and Dr. Stewart called on me. I said, “I’m sorry, I have to object to your use of the word ‘civilized.'”
“Okay… Well, what would you have me use instead?” she asked.
“I don’t know,” I responded. “Developed.”
“Okay, so polio still exists in underdeveloped countries — is that better?”
“Much better, thank you.”
What I wanted to say was something along the lines of, “Hold up, Africa and Asia had great civilizations while Europeans were still learning to crawl out of their caves — what do you mean by ‘civilized’?”
biomer said,
December 2, 2005 @ 10:23 pm
Actually, unless my memory is incorrect, I believe modern humans first developed in Europe and then in Asia and Africa. This isnt to say that all three didnt have civilizations well before now, but that is the order I am quite sure. Also the first ever “village” was in what is now modern day Syria.
nisha said,
December 2, 2005 @ 11:16 pm
biomer: the point isn’t about what your definition of civilization is and where you believe it originated
many people (especially us colonized people) take exception to this word because it is a remnant of colonial-thinking.
so i think the absurdity of using the word “civilized” stems from the fact that it is a violent, brutal word. it was a word that was used to dehumanize people while stealing from them under the name of “civilizing” them.
nomes said,
December 3, 2005 @ 1:56 am
The earliest civilizations arose in the Middle East/Persia (Mesopotamia), Egypt, India (Indus valley) and China.
Hardly European.
biomer said,
December 4, 2005 @ 10:08 am
Check your facts again…the very earliest civilization was in modern day Syria. Everyone just thinks it was in Mesopotamia. It was actually along the Euphrates. (Still Syria is kind of in the middle between Europa and near Asia.)
nomes said,
December 4, 2005 @ 1:28 pm
Mesopotamia includes modern-day Syria, Turkey and Iraq — it includes the Euphrates.
Having said that, it was, indeed, settled by Indo-Europeans. However, the civilization was hardly distinctly European (as opposed to being half-assedly European).
Rankin said,
December 6, 2005 @ 4:27 pm
Nomes you’re an idiot. She obviously didn’t imply that underdeveloped countries were inferior and she certainly wasn’t insulting them. Look at the context in which she is talking rather then the picking at all the other faintly related possibilities just so that you can get your ‘attention whore mentality’ attitude statisfied. Civilized in the context of better developed is the obvious connotation underlying what she was speaking to.
nisha said,
December 6, 2005 @ 11:29 pm
Rankin: looks like you need to wrap your head around some of the issues being raised here.
not only do you seem generally clueless, you are trying (in vain) to fashion an insult out of what looks like a personally-motivated response.
if you don’t see the significance of these issues, fine. you’re that privileged. be clueless, good for you.
Rankin said,
December 9, 2005 @ 4:29 pm
Nisha,
It is not the significance of the issues that is in question but it is whether or not such issues were even raised. My only point in stating the behavior of ‘nomes’ is because he has a long history of going out of his way to get noticed. Example this site. Is that a bad thing… not necessarily but it can be annoying. Example: In bio250 (last year) any time anything unusual happened in lecture or just for no reason at all ‘nomes’ would clap frantically. He would in fact clap so loud that everyone noticed him and believe me when I say it may have been funny the first time.. but after the fifth or sixth time it was extremely annoying.
My main point is the issues that are being discussed are obviously valid topics that are evident in society (even today) however in the situation they shouldn’t have been brought up. It is fairly obvious (as previously stated) what Dr.Stewart intentions were in her speech and that she wasn’t insulting any 3rd world countries or territories. The fact that ‘nomes’ brought it up goes to his record as I described above and was really not necessary. If I was professor I would have stated in the lecture ‘that I meant no disrespect in the term civilized/uncivilized’ and would continue lecturing rather then indulging ‘nomes’. But obviously this is just me.
nomes said,
December 9, 2005 @ 5:55 pm
Rankin:
I certainly don’t mind (and often quite enjoy) being the centre of attention a lot of the times. (And, in fact, many times these events do have a greater purpose behind them than just my seeking attention.) However, there are plenty of times when I do keep out of the spotlight.
I’m not the type of person who will go to unreasonable means to achieve attention. I certainly do not mix up serious issues with attention-seeking. Like this one.
After that incident, several students told me that they, too, were offended by the language used. Even white ones. It would be something like a teacher using the word “negro” to refer to black people. The intention may not, necessarily, be that of an evil white supremacist — but the language used can, and should, be modified.
That’s it.
At this rate, you could point to anything I do as being an attempt at seeking attention. You’d be wrong.