An actual argument I recently saw:
Person B: “Any site which contains slurs against trans people in its sign up process is unreliable” (was referring to k!wifarms)
Person A: “Slurs aren’t considered bad in most countries”
Person B: “That doesn’t justify their usage. For example, conversion therapy isn’t considered bad or banned in most countries, that doesn’t mean conversion therapy is justified or good.”
Person A: “What are you talking about? Conversion therapy is banned in most countries”
Person B: “Shows a diagram showing that conversion therapy is only banned in a handful of countries”
Person A: “I mean in most civilized countries”
I’ve seen lots of other people refer to countries as civilized or uncivilized in similar contexts. Is this generally considered to be racist?
Civilized in this context would mean “at an advanced state of social and cultural development” I guess? Looking at this definition, I can allready tell you I live in th most civilized part of the world, since this would be higly subjective.
Not racist. Class-ist/ clan-ist, if it’s a thing, probably. What is considered covilised in one societal context may not be in another.
Context matters. Always. One person can use a word and it will be not racist, another can use the same term and it will be racist. You should ask the person what they define as “civilized”. Their reasoning is your answer.
Exactly! I’m sick of people being labelled as racist because they’ve said some keyword that someone has decided makes them racist, even when their intents and opinions are clearly not racist.
Saying it’s “uncivilised” to publicly beat someone to death because they <insert whatever>, cannot be racist, because you’re not concerned with “race” in any way. Going further and saying that a country that allows such practices is uncivilised is, again, inherently not racist, because the reason for calling them uncivilised has nothing to do with the “race” of the people involved.
I don’t know about strictly racist, but it’s definitely got colonial overtones. Europe has used “they are uncivilized” as an excuse for the way they brutalized their colonies, erased cultures and enslaved people for centuries
I don’t think we’re doing that anymore. For the most part, at least.
It’s been one of the UN’s primary missions since its inception to unwind the horrific legacy of European colonialism, and help every former colony complete the transition to statehood. When I visited the UN and took the tour some 20 years ago, they were almost ready to call this mission done, but still had about 5 spots they were working on. It’s worth learning more about. Regardless, the course of history has been changed forever by colonialism and Europe continues to enjoy benefits built on its spoils while developing countries still struggle to heal their wounds. The world will in all practical terms never be free from the stain of colonialism.
Words are words.
But there’re differences between the social structures, economic level and common cultures of some countries when compared to others.
And some of these aspects in some of these countries are worse than in others and they are expected to become better in the future, which implies there is a progression going on and different countries are in different points in this progression path.
For me, “civilized countries” explicitely excludes the US. Does this make me a racist, or just a fact checker?
No
My wife still has a book from when she studied Archaeology at uni called “From Savagery to Civilization” by Grahame Clark.
Civilization is what we make it to be, and is usually measured by the norms and standards of the country doing the judging.
The book is from the 40s. By the standards of the day, a lot of what we do now would probably be considered uncivilised. We work from home, eat meals on our own, and rely on a court of opinion more than a court of law. Homelessness is endemic and many people are working around the clock for subsistence wages. Classical definitions of civilisations - community, care for the vulnerable, improved quality of life - are all being stripped away.
I don’t think the term “uncivilised” can really be taken as a slur, at least no more than the word “bad” can be, because it’s just a reflection of what the speaker values.
I would say ‘chauvinistic’ rather than racist.
The word “civilized” essentially just means “people who act in a way I deem morally good.” What ‘morally good’ means is 100% subjective to the individual saying it. Since personal morals are so heavily influenced by the culture and society one was raised in, the term ‘civilized’ is almost necessarily going to be used to justify why one’s own culture is necessarily better than another.
This isn’t necessarily racist, but since modern western society is so heavily based on white supremacy, it’s inherently going to be racist when used by someone supporting western society. But it can also be used in other contexts in a non-racist way. But it’s always going to be chauvinistic.
No
I refer to the country I live in as uncivilized
Less racist in the modern sense, more profoundly stupid and racist in the archaic sense.
Civilized coutry is a redundant phrase if taken literally. A country is a territory and the associated state. You can’t have a state (political structure) without being ‘civilized.’ (participating in some kind of civic process) They are using civilized in a manner akin to how people used ‘white’ many years ago, referring to acceptability rather than color. e.g. The oft noted ‘Irish and jews weren’t white.’ In that context it seems more of a sign of lack of critical thinking than colorism or essentialism.
It’s not racist. People accuse others of that term too flippantly. It is ignorant though.
Language changes a great deal over time, and slurs are no exception. What is a completely inoffensive label at some point can be a slur later on. What is a mild insult in one area can be much more severe somewhere else. Sometimes what was a slur can be reclaimed and become acceptable, even positive. But that can also depend on who is saying it and other contextual details. I don’t know anything about “k!wifarms” but I wouldn’t assume malicious intent without more information.
That example looks much like the No True Scotsman fallacy, since a word is redefined later to exclude what would be exceptions to their claim based on an added qualification. Person A also made Person B get the evidence to refute their claim rather than fulfilling the burden of proof themselves. I know it’s not a formal debate or anything, but even so, bad faith arguments are just rude. Just own the mistake and say “you’re right, I was only thinking of first world countries/liberal democracies/developed nations/whatever”.
Debatable what “civilized” is, but I imagine most westerns consider themselves “civilized” and developing countries to be “uncivilized”. It has colonialist vibes and is not necessarily racist, but can be quite ignorant and prejudiced.
Christians invaded many countries and pretend to make them “civilized” but instead enslaved their people and treated them like animals. Pretty far from civil if you ask me. The US considers itself civilized yet it has a death penalty, just like Myanmar, Saudi Arabia and a bunch of other countries. Greece introduced a 6-day work-week which hasn’t been a thing in Europe since the industrial revolution, a time we would now consider quite uncivilized. Israel is currently committing genocide under the guise of self-protection and will not listen to reason, yet they probably consider themselves quite civilized.
It seems to me like “civilized” is a form elitism that can be quite close to racism, depending on who you talk to.
deleted by creator
The difference between “civilized” and “uncivilized” countries is that “civilized” countries call their terrorists “counter-terrorists” and “civilized” countries are allowed to bomb “uncivilized” countries in the name of civility.
