# data[].attributes.body
World history should focus on the history of civilizations, however, learning about other groups that exist then and still persist today deserves to be learned about and learned from. Civilizations make up the majority of what we know as world history and had the most impact.

# data[].attributes.body
This is kind of true, since a strong foundation is important for growth and sustainability. However, "a strong state" is very vague and leaves many questions as to what constitutes a state as strong enough.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree. Humans naturally want to form groups for survival. Animals such as chimpanzees and gorillas form hierarchies and groups which could be considered civilizations in their own way. This suggests that forming civilizations is a natural behavior.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this statement because without a sense of private property and ownership within a society, there would be disputes regarding land and what one should do there. When that happens, it causes chaos within a civilization straining the peace.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this because when inhabiting a large space for humans, it is inevitable for injustice and disparities to occur. This is the nature of humans, who while are one of the primary species of progress, also project feelings such as greed, ignorance, and ambition, which allow for many humans to disregard other humans in hindsight for their own self service.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think that it's possible to have a universal definition for civilization. Throughout human history, the definition of a civilization has changed. Also, the term civilization means different things in other contexts.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations will always end up bring people that are more capable in certain things and will in turn produce more value to society and typically ending with more in return and because of this civilization will always result in social stratification which will consistently lead to wealth disparities although it may still be just.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't agree with this statement because there are civilizations around the world without private ownership that still thrive. They may not be perfect to live in, but civilizations with lots of ownership are not perfect either.

# data[].attributes.body
This is true because not one single system will fit the needs and wants of everyone. There is no one solution, so their will be this constant cycle of trying to fix and mend these disparities, and it failing because it benefits one group and does not for another group. This is seen throughout history with the fall of civilizations and empires.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with this because living in a civilization gives people a sense of stability and order, something people desire. With that being said it also allows society to progress.

# data[].attributes.body
World history should absolutely focus on civilizations. Civilizations are the foundation to the world we have today, and without studying them, we are unable to know where humans have succeeded and faltered in governing themselves. It's important to learn from the past.

# data[].attributes.body
World history should focus on the history of civilizations as it is necessary to see the documented progress of humanity and the change of human relationships. It allows for us to better understand why civilizations are like how they are currently, and is more applicable to the modern world.

# data[].attributes.body
I partially disagree because even though you have more to gain from living in society and being connected with people, if you've retired and/or just want to relax it's 100% okay to take a step away from civilization and society to relax and have appreciation for the world that you live in.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations are not an unnatural state of humanity, but rather natural. Animals in general tend to survive better in packs, as it makes them stronger- the same here applies for humans. Humans rely on one another to make up for the deficiencies that one individual may have. Let us say that you cannot hunt and have terrible aim, but another person can kill an animal on first shot through their eye. You can rely on them for a source of food and they will rely on you for your strengths. Civilizations are built on this foundation of human bond with other humans.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe it is important for civilizations to require a strong state, because people are naturally violent under no order. With a set of rules, civilization would thrive more.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this statement. Civilizations need laws, and in order to have a government, one must have a social structure. It is nearly impossibler to have a benevolent class system because it is impossible to ensure that the best of people get the best of positions in society. Over time, people almost always get corrupted by the money and privilege they were born into. As the population grows, so do the disparites, as more people are born rich and more are born poor. It has grown harder and harder for one to move themself in society.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilization will always lead to hierarchies, and in turn will lead to wealth disparities. This isn't a bad thing, and some wealth disparity is extremely important for a healthy society. Simply put, some people are more deserving of a better life than others, especially if they work harder. Injustice is an entirely different question, because it has a far more nuanced definition. What is unjust? Different societies have different answers. The only constant is that the existence of civilization, and the state itself, is a threat to the natural liberty of man. The question is how much natural liberty can man handle before he becomes savage?

# data[].attributes.body
This is definitely one aspect of world history that should be focused on because it helps build a strong foundation for more understanding of concepts later on. Without understanding the history and structures of different civilizations, important events may not make as much sense.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think that civilizations require a sense of private property and ownership, solely given that these two words are very broad and could apply to many things. In that sense, many people would own private items or have ownership of self, which could still be valid under those terms. Hence, I think that civilizations function more on a systematic structure where people are assigned roles, duties, and jobs and they operate accordingly. Having ownership within that structure and owning private property would just be a bonus to being part of a civilization.

# data[].attributes.body
I think this statement is true because civilizations are the bigger groups of people in the world, and if we learned about the history of every society and group, it would take too long to learn.

# data[].attributes.body
World history should focus on civilizations, but should also still pay a lot of attention to non-civilizations, as the history of the world includes all types of groups and ways of life.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe it is possible for people outside of civilization to have history. This can be seen with hunter-gatherers, who have artifacts and other things that show the history they have had.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with a focus on civilization in world history since it is a common and well-documented past. Learning about past civilizations relates to the societies we live in today, and should be a main focus.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this statement. Understanding civilization is essential in order to learn about the other things that come after, as many of our morals and ways of living life come from it. However, I don't think it should be the primary focus because there are other significant events that should be covered as well.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this, but World History should also encompass communities that didn't necessarily live in civilizations. They still left their mark, and they deserve to be known for their efforts.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations do require a strong state, because then there is no order in society as a consequence, and things will spiral from that point. In order to be sustainable, a strong state behind the civilization is necessary to keep it functional in the long term.

# data[].attributes.body
World history should focus on civilizations, as that is what is documented throughout the world, and understanding civilizations can help us learn a lot about trade and exchange, how we developed intellectually and societally as humans, and how we can grow further.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree because it is hard to learn about uncivilized people because there are less records about them

# data[].attributes.body
This is true of all societies. It is human nature to always look out for yourself and be greedy, which is a big flaw. This is why there are people with billions of dollars that do nothing with it- they keep the money while others sit on the street and die of starvation

# data[].attributes.body
I do not believe class divisions are necessary, but I do think they are inevitable in civilizations. Civilizations could thrive without separations, but we chose not to because it is easier to structure our world into "us" and "them"

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think this is true because the word "always" implies that you must classify all civilizations as having social stratification. I believe that while most civilizations tend to exhibit social stratification, not all of them do. Some cultures and religions oppose feelings like greed, so not every civilization will experience this tendency, although most will.

# data[].attributes.body
While it is important to follow the whole of human history, when it comes to covering key and significant events in human history, most things that have shaped the world as we know it occured within the bounds of civilization, and therefore greater focus should be applied.

# data[].attributes.body
While in most civilizations this is true, some civilizations have existed with less or no injustics or wealth disparities.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think they are important for a healthy civilization because this could cause conflict. Although things like government are crucial to a civilization, they shouldn't be seen as superior to the common people.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilization always results in social stratification because not everyone can perform the same tasks, so this may lead to some being viewed as better than others. As a result of social stratification, wealth disparities and injustice tend to occur if the state is not strong enough or fair enough.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree. The most important events in world history typically arise from different civilizations interacting with each another.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't see a universal definition for the term civilization, because history continues to develop our understanding. Even if we start a definition for it now, it may not be sustainable 40 years from now.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think civilizations need private property and ownership. Many early civilizations had everyone contribute equally to contributions of food. People do need shelter, but the only reason people seek out to own a home is because they have to. Many people do not need to own land. Would someone who worked in a building and lived in a hotel not be considered a part of a civilization, just because they didn't own any property? While socialism and communism has failed in many aspects, that does not mean they are impossible systems. They have just fallen into the wrong hands.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations do not require a sense of private property and ownership- this just depends on which type of economic system they have. If it is a command economy, they may have no sense of ownership, but if it is a market economy, it needs the sense of private property.

# data[].attributes.body
While it might be preferred for some, civilizations do not require a sense of private property and ownership as historically there have been many sustainable civilizations who have done without a sense of private property and ownership and it allows for a minimalized opportunity for societal conflict when individuals are granted the privilege and burden of owning private property.

# data[].attributes.body
Living in a civilization is not an unnatural state of humanity because as humans we are intelligent primates who have brains, and a natural tendency of these features will be to develop and learn further, which will lead to civilization inevitably.

# data[].attributes.body
I do think that historians should focus on civilizations, given that each of these civilizations has so much culture, tradition, and systematic practices to explore and learn about, no one civilization is identical to another yet they would have connections via trade, exchange of language culture and even religion, these methods of branching out could also be something interesting to explore for historians.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree because civilization were formed naturally so why would that not be the natural way of living.

# data[].attributes.body
I wouldn't say that civilizations require a strong state but it tends to help especially in civilizations with more differences in the people's whether in ethics, morals, or religion.

# data[].attributes.body
Again, incorrect. Humans are an inherently cooperative species, and the civilization the statement refers to seems to be a capitalist one, which is not the ideology most of human history has been dominated by.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it should focus on civilizations but not be limited to them, because exploring history outside of civilizations is important as well. Civilizations do make up a large part of modern history, which is important to focus on for this specific course, but in the broader sense, the focus should be on civilizations and the change or continuity in human history, while occasionally switching the lens to other aspects.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that world history does not only include the history of civilizations, as many other groups/individuals/factors have had a great impact on the course of history.

# data[].attributes.body
A "strong" state can mean many things, but there's no need for serious amounts of centralization among states when de-centralized societies, like Switzerland, do exist. It is true however, that the state does need at least the bare minimum power to maintain order and quell significant dissent, otherwise the state itself can fall and more authoritarian civilizations could emerge.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe strength is a vital component for civilizations, especially if they prioritize sustainability for the years to follow.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that civilizations do require a sense of private property and ownership because for people to feel secure, they need to have a sense of what is theirs, since if every resource belongs to everyone, there would be disorder.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations require a strong state if they want to last. They may work out in the beginning, but if they are not strong, they will crumble.

# data[].attributes.body
No because many civilizations have not had people private property and they have suceeded.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that this statement can be true, but there could be more taught in world history than just civilizations, although civilizations are a major part of learning about world history.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with this since humans are social creatures. This trait has naturally evolved for us to have society and structures. The development of civilization is natural; it's history.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree. Humans crave power and wealth, which will eventually lead to disparities in a population and injustice.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that in today's world, this gap is increasing at a higher rate due to factors like capitalism and government policies that benefit the wealthy and lack proper support for the non-wealthy. For example, in today's world, wealthy people keep getting wealthier, whereas previously, average-income individuals were struggling to find a place to stay due to the rising prices.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations do not require a sense of private property and ownership. People may think this due to the capitalist system in America or the expansion of empires with colonization, but civilizations initially formed around the idea of having a shared community in which you rely on one another, not just working for personal gain.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think it is possible to have a universal definition of civilization. Even if you strip every civilization down to the bare bones, the goal of a civilization changes over time. The earliest were simple farming communities. Then the goal was to uphold laws. Then the goal was to find your place in society. Then the goal was to conquer. Also, civilizations are often shaped by features like their environment. It is a difficult task to have a definition that equally applies to a civilization in a desert and one by a river.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this statement. In society, there is a lower amount of people who can perform more cognitively demanding tasks, than people who can perform laborious tasks (just about everyone). This leads to higher demand for people who can do harder tasks, leading to them accumulating more wealth, and the opposite for people who perform less complex tasks.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that there is truth to this statement, but I don't think I can fully agree with it. I do agree that social classes and hierarchies often form within civilizations, and that they lead to injustices and inequality. I think that it is still possible, perhaps in smaller civilizations, for society to all be a part of one class, and although it wouldn't get rid of all inequality, there could still be some unity.

# data[].attributes.body
If civilization is defined by having structural and cooperative characteristics, then no. If civilization means that there is a fully fledged state with laws and social hierarchy, then yes. Human beings inherently better than each other is a deeply unsettling and unnatural way of thinking, and civilization is the ultimate project of human reasoning and morals.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this because without knowing how a civilization got to where it is now, it will be difficult to learn and understand the decisions said civilization has made and is currently making.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree because humans are social and they create societies and civilizations to fufill their needs as a human to talk/bond with others.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that civilizations need a strong state as to efficiently harbor large groups of people to live as peacefully and prosperously as possible, there needs to be order, law, governance, and a common sentiment within society for the mutual benefit of their civilization.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, world history should focus on the history of civilizations. Understanding how civilizations came to be is important to understanding how civilizations have risen, operated, and fallen in the past.

# data[].attributes.body
Who is civilized and who is not is seemingly subjective, and the usage of a set definition has seemingly caused a lot of harm throughout world history. That being said, it is true that some cultures and civilizations are more brutish and backwards than others. However saying that kind of civilization isn't even a civilization would be absurd, as almost every civilization has committed some heinous act in their past.

# data[].attributes.body
This is true because civilizations by definition are more structured than non-civilization people and because it is what has led society to become more developed and primarily have better life quality along with a vast majority of people in history living within and contributing to civilizations, it only makes sense that history is highly focused on them.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it is completely natural because as the world and humans evolve, they require more structure and a place in society than what was once needed prior to the Neolithic era. Humans previously only operated on survival instincts, but modern times prove that we are used to much more "luxury" so to speak in day to day life.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the idea of ownership, though it doesn't have to be private. A civilization can claim land as its own collectively. Although private property is common, it is not a requirement.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree. Civilizations were made from humans seeking out help from one another. It cannot be unnatural if it happened naturally.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that world history should focus on the history of civilizations. When comparing civilizations to non-civilized people, the civilizations have created a stronger and more impactful history that affects society today. However, I think that it is still important to acknowledge the history of people outside of civilizations, as they have important history that lead to the foundation of different civilizations.

# data[].attributes.body
I do agree with this statement, given that once someone has the higher power to control groups lower than them, greed would consume them. Their power and capabilities only worsen the situation, given that they can use their authoritative powers to oppress the lower classes and keep the wealth for themselves, and be placed on a higher pedestal.

# data[].attributes.body
Every group is deserving of being learned about, regardless of whether it is a civilization or not. World history is about the entire world, not just civilization history. While there is less documented data for uncivilized groups, they should still be taught because a broad understanding is better than no understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
It is important to focus on the history of civilizations because many modern day languages, practices, and items stemmed from them and it is important to understand the way they lived so we can better understand history as a whole since they were such a big part of it.

# data[].attributes.body
It is not possible to develop a universal definition of a civilization because all civilizations vary greatly, and use of the word varies based on the context and its definition is very nuanced. However, there are things that are consistent within civilizations.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that civilizations require a sense of private property and ownership. When everyone has property, it will not foster competition between members of the society.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that it is true that social stratification occurs within a civilization as one civilization grows older. Due to that, each class is going to have disparities in what is accessible to them. With that being said, some sense of injustice is going to be present, especially between upper and lower class members.

# data[].attributes.body
Focusing on anything other than civilizations would be a mistake, because they are the centerpiece of modern world history because of their dominance. We would not be here today if it were not for the fruits of civilization.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with this statement. I don't think that all civilizations have maintained a natural state of humanity, but I think it is natural for humans to collectively come together and form a society.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree. It may have been natural at first to stray away from civilization, but human intelligence has led us to where we are now. There is nothing "unnatural" about it, because it's simply a more efficient and safer way to live life, which is what was most likely thought at the time.

# data[].attributes.body
Not always, but many times civilizations end up with hierarcheis, wealth disparity, and those at the top of the food chain vying to keep their power to themselves. Ultimately, this is bad for civilizations as many times is leads to infighting rather than achieving the collective goal.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations do require a sense of private property and ownership. Humans naturally desire control over their lives. Instead of stifling that desire through shared property, it is better to provide people with some sense of ownership, and therefore some sense of individuality.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations do require a strong state. People will not follow laws under a government they don't take seriously, which will lead to anarchy and chaos. This is proved in the Articles of Confederation. The government wasn't strong enough, so America almost collapsed. When the Constitution strengthened the federal government, America functioned a lot better. I am a firm believer of the social contract. A state should protect the people and itself, but when it oppresses the people for its own good, that is when a strong state turns authoritarian.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think that private property is necessary for civilizations. It is definitely possible to have a more communal society than ones seen today.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations do require a sense of ownership because they have to be ready to defend themselves at any given point and without a stable piece of property it will always feel unsafe since they do not own the land that they live on.

# data[].attributes.body
I think civilizations require some sense of private property, so there is no disorder and it can remain functional, but the more narrowed down the definition of private property gets, the more internal conflicts there might be.

# data[].attributes.body
I wouldn't believe that living in a civilization would be considered an unnatural state, given that the majority of humans want to have a connection and unity with other members who share similar characteristics, etc., with them. I think the idea of wanting to be part of something bigger would be an idea that lives for generations. There would be certain people who favor being alone or having a leadership role, which is quite individual, but for the most part, humans generally follow each other.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilization is such a broad term that changes with time. Its definition cannot be universal because of human bias and opinions. What one thinks is primitive and basic, another could see as stable and safe.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think that living in a civilization is unnatural. I think that it is, in fact, the opposite, as civilizations give people the opportunity to live a productive lifestyle where they can rely on human support, shared resources, and laws for a sense of security.

# data[].attributes.body
It is not possible because the word civilization means different ideas to different people so a universal definition would not be accepted by everyone.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree because most people tend to work to achieve something and having private property and ownership embodies this idea. Also in history, civilizations that contain this idea tend to be better off not just economically but stability wise since it's easier for people who contribute more to be compensated their fair share making it a more accepted system.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this statement as a natural effect of humans living together, and psychology creates a given that conflict will exist, some will be better than others, and some will have negative opinions of others. This is natural in human behavior and will occur in any group of humans in the same proximity, interacting.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree as no matter how well documented it is, every individual, even if they haven't lived in a civilization, hold their own history just as real as the one's from civilization. There are undeniable events that establish consequences allowing for future events. These make even undocumented parts of history real and in their own way influential.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that once civilizations started, world history got a lot more interesting and important for the context of society today. I believe that the focus of World History classes should be on civilizations.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe this is true because civilizations always have a social hierarchy, which means that one person is at the top of another. That kind of system always ends with injustice in some way

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with this statement because I think that civilizations don't require private property and ownership rights in order to function and sustain themselves over the course of history. Some civilizations may have shared ownership of property ,and that could allow the civilization to function and still maintain its identity.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilization does not require private ownership, as many times many cultures see that they are borrowing from the earth and that nothing is truely actually theirs.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with this statement. Throughout history, there have been numerous instances where civilizations have been able to survive without allowing every member of society to own private property and have a sense of owernship, such as slaves and indentured servants.

# data[].attributes.body
Since a civilization is made up of thousands of people, it is very difficult to maintain order and peace in it without a strong central body/state. Without people would not have any governing force to guide them in the right direction and keep things peaceful.

# data[].attributes.body
It is impossible to develop a universal definition of civilization. Civilizations across the world exist in different environments with different groups of people. One definition of civilization could work for one group of people but fail for another.