# data[].attributes.body
I don't understand how it would be possible to be of this opinion. All forms of societies have histories, but the histories of civilizations are much better documented due to how advanced they were.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations will develop into hierarchical systems due to disparities in power. This is natural but injustice happens only when hierarchical systems go unchecked.

# data[].attributes.body
Although most people develop into civilizations throughout history, it is still important to learn about the history of those that fall beyond the confines of civilization.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't believe that world history should only focus on the history of civilizations. If this were to happen, other historical events would be lost in time and would be forgotten about. So it is important for everything in world history to be taught so the stories of those who were influential in the past aren't forgotten about and neither are their efforts.

# data[].attributes.body
Even though civilizations haven't always had social classes, such as civilizations that function through a command economic system, and I feel like social classes within civilizations do lead to wealth disparities and injustice since people with more power are more likely to get away with wrong things whereas people with less power may be more oppressed if people in higher classes abuse their power.

# data[].attributes.body
While civilizations are arguably the most important development in history, and are the foundations for modern day society, it would also be beneficial to study other groups. There is so much more depth and vibrance to history more than just the development of civilizations.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel like this claim is slightly true due to the fact that when people or groups see others receiving something that they want, they tend to get jealous. So in this case, if civilizations view others getting treated fairly or more fairly than them, they will cause chaos.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with the claim that World History should focus on the history of civilizations. World History is a very broad subject that has multiple topics in it, so just focusing on the history of civilizations won't help us students learn anything. There's way more than history of civilizations that we need to learn, and topics from World History go way back then just civilizations, so we should focus on everything equally, not just on one topic (history of civilizations).

# data[].attributes.body
People who live outside a civilization do have a history. Their history may just not be as well known as the people in the civilizations. This is because civilizations pass their culture and traditions to the future generations which makes their history more prominent than people living outside of a civilization.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations naturally develop hierarchical, power structures, either through the consensus of the people or the force of some powerful figure. If those at the helm of such hierarchies remain unchecked, social stratification will follow.

# data[].attributes.body
I do believe that civilizations require a sense of private property and ownership. If civilizations have this then they are under more control and and are able to grow together. But on the other hand, not every civilization needs this if they are already controlled and connected.

# data[].attributes.body
No, world history should include everything that has happened before us, and up to the modern day. This focus on only civilization is a disservice to the ideas and history that happened before the cultivation of civilization.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I think it would be possible to develop a universal, systematic definition of civilization. Every civilization is different, but they are all broadly the same.

For example, different civilizations have their own unique languages and governments, but all civilizations have some sort of language and government. The details are different, but the big picture is the same (I forgot the saying).

# data[].attributes.body
Humanity needs structure and organization, civilizations provide these. Civilizations allow for the allocation of tasks, so everything is accounted for and creativity is nurtured. Civilizations also increase relations between individuals which is needed to satisfy emotional and social needs.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it isn't possible to develop a universal definition of civilization. Every civilization is unique in its own way, whether its location, culture, traditions, or religion, making it difficult to generalize the word.

# data[].attributes.body
Class divisions might not be a necessity for a civilization to thrive, but these separations do help the people in that certain civilization to have a social structure, even though it may be unfair, it will help a civilization do better.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that it is important for a World History class to focus mainly on the formation, destruction, and relationships of civilizations. I think it is important to learn about what specific things certain civilizations have contributed and how that has either lead to positive and negative outcomes for other civilizations and history as a whole.

# data[].attributes.body
Even though world history should mainly focus on civilizations as some of the most historical events and contributions occur within civilizations, it is also important to touch upon areas without civilization in order to recognize their contributions to world history as well.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, social stratification has been an inevitable result of civilization. Class divisions, occupation, and the need to advance arise when people live together in groups. Emphasis on these divisions do in turn lead to the abuse of power and greed.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this because some people gain more power in a civilization, causing them to become wealthier and have more advanced attributes in a civilization. This also results in social stratification, meaning that civilization always results in social stratification, invariably leading to wealth disparities and injustice.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, until humans can part with greed and enjoyment from being considered higher than others of the same species, then this naturalization of class, order, and wealth will follow us into our civilization.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that living in a civilization can be viewed as a natural state of humanity. This is because humans naturally feel the need to the create bonds and communities with others.

# data[].attributes.body
Humans are social creatures. It is in our nature to interact with our fellow people. Through our overlapping connections, we develop societies, that develop into civilizations.

# data[].attributes.body
People living outside of civilization do have history, but it may not be prominent enough. A civilization records its history, develops a tradition and language with pass onto many future generations preserving their history, but this will be hard to replicate for non civilizations.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations do not require a sense of private property and ownership because that will lead to wealth disparities between individuals and will give rise to class divisions. Private ownership will also turn some individuals greedy and will lead to the exploitation of the poor.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with the stance that world history should focus on civilizations solely. I think our world has evolved a lot aside from just basic civilization evolution. Hence, I think a broader focus should be taken rather than focusing in on this one thing because although crucial it isn't the only factor.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not agree. Living in a civilization is a natural state of humanity because civilizations connect people and allow society to function efficiently due to law and order. Civilizations have developed and become a natural part of an individual's life as it allows people to thrive and pursue their passions, all while helping the economy and living in an ordered fashion.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this statement to the extent that civilizations do provide us with more interactions between indivisuals than other groups do. However, learning about other groups can enhance our understanding of history outside civilizations.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not agree with this statement because civilizations are very common within society today and they offer a sense of structure and culture which is a part of being humanity. Humans are a social species who require being in a group setting so civilizations are a completely natural state of humanity.

# data[].attributes.body
Living in a civilization is not an unnatural state of humanity. Humans have naturally come together to form groups throughout history. Living in these groups is what helped people grow and lead to major technological advancements.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that World history should focus on the history of civilizations because the growth and advancements in these populations is what made a major impact in how the world looks today. Without focusing on major civilizations, the whole progression of why the current world looks like it does would be lost, since civilizations were the ones that had the most influence.

# data[].attributes.body
While I believe that world history should definitely teach students about the history of civilizations, I feel like that shouldn't be the main focus. There are many other key aspects of history that shouldn't be looked over since they are still a part of our society's past.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations do need a strong state to thrive, having a proper state with boundaries and restrictions would allow for more people to feel safe, and be able to defend themselves. Not only that but a strong state can also mean a higher agricultural yield, which would increase the food surplus for the civilization.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with this. Living in a civilization is actually very good for humanity due to the fact that civilizations introduced new cultures, traditions, etc. Each different civilization came up with new findings, and these findings are still used today, and are very important in our current life. So, living in a civilization isn't an unnatural state of humanity, but it's actually very helpful and it introduced many new important tools, beliefs, etc, used in our current life.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this statement because naturally in civilization a hierarchy is created because it is necessary for ruling. Due to this naturally gaps will happen in society and certain communities may unintentionally get oppressed as well.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this, as civilizations are the foundations of how the modern world is structured, and it is important to learn about them. I also think it should not be the only focus people learn about as history is more than only civilizations; it is still vital to learn about.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think that a strong state is necessary for a civilization to prosper, the people of that civilization can organize themselves. However, a strong state can help organize the people of civilizations.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that people that live outside of civilizations have history. History isn't defined specially for those who are or were part of civilizations. It's a term that is used for past events and there are many that have occurred (that we have learned about as well) that weren't connected to civilizations.

# data[].attributes.body
While many people may think that it is unnatural to live in civilizations, it is actually apart of human nature to gravitate towards others and form connections with them.

# data[].attributes.body
No, as humans we have been banned together from our evolution due to us being social creatures. So the point of calling civilization unnatural is unfitting as it goes against the historical president that has followed humanity.

# data[].attributes.body
Humans have constantly been recorded to have lived in groups, making civilizations a natural state of humanity. Having common cultures, beliefs, and interactions with other groups are the main reasons we have evolved and grown as a society.

# data[].attributes.body
I do think civilizations require a strong state. A strong state ensures that there is order, laws, and that the civilization doesn't become weak and fall.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations do result in social stratification, wealth disparities, and even injustice. This is because of the immense populations that civilizations carry, to account for so many people will be difficult, especially making sure that they are treated well by the justice system. Not only that but social hierarchies and system like caste that have been implemented also lead to disparities in wealth and a biased justice system.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations in no way need private property and ownership to persist. For millennia, under systems such as Fedualism, a small portion of a society owned a majority of the society's property. Despite the lack of ownership for most people, I would still consider these societies civilizations.

# data[].attributes.body
It is not possible to develop a universal definition of civilization because every civilization was different. They valued different things and were structured differently. A vague definition can be developed but that would turn many societies into civilizations.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations are literally the backbone on which civilization relations -> treaty -> trade -> war -> countries -> globalization occur. If not civilizations, then what else relevant would world history focus on?

# data[].attributes.body
I think world history should have a main focus on civilizations, and outside civilizations as well. Maybe some background information of how these civilizations evolved could also be a focus. However, I believe that world history should have an emphasis on civilizations, as they were the earliest socities and communities.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this statement. Civilization needs to maintain harmony and this results in a hierarchical structure. This structure allows for harmony and the advancement of the economy of the civilization. As a result of this structure, the indivisuals at the top end up controlling most of the decisions for the rest of the populous. As a result of this system, it can be deduced that there were disparities in justice.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this because it is important for individuals within a civilization to possess capital and grow their own wealth, as this leads to economic prosperity in the long run. Private ownership can be linked with businesses, which are beneficial for the economy. More markets can lead to competition, resulting in supply and demand. Private ownership of capital also encourages individuals in a civilization to pursue their passions, which in turn allows the civilization to thrive.

# data[].attributes.body
Although it is important to study the development of civilizations and how they helped us advance, it is also important to cover other aspects of history as it helps us look at the bigger picture of the development of humanity.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this statement. This is because civilizations require a hierarchy which has leaders leading the rest of the civilization. In this leader or aristocratic group, the elite are the ones making the rules and deciding the processes. Therefore, just by the nature of civilization, it promotes disparities between people who are leaders and those being led. In many cases the leaders end up enjoying much of the wealth in the civilization while the same privileges are not given to the common people, which creates disparities.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't believe that class divisions are completely needed if they don't lead to issues. One of the main issues being that if there are divisions it can lead to disagreements and discrimination amongst individuals.

# data[].attributes.body
Some civilizations do require a sense of private property and ownership while others may not. Private property and ownership gives you a sense of control and structure. It also allows a balance between everyone in the civilization.

# data[].attributes.body
I do agree that civilizations require a sense of private property and ownership. If civilizations have these attributes, then the civilization flourish more. If people are given responsibilities in the civilizations, that'll not only help them, but help the entire civilization to grow.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree. I feel like after time, civilizations result in social stratification. If class structure is emphasized too much, it could lead to injustice. Some people may not be given the same chance as other people. When there is a civilization, it is natural for some people to gain more power and wealth than others. I think this wealth disparity becomes more common when a society gets greedy.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think Civilizations require a sense of private property and ownership, as you do not need to constantly want to advance yourself in order to contribute to the society that you live in. Owning private property is not the only way in which one can undertake responsibility. You can still work, and interact with others who share a common culture, even if you do not own a home or land.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that civilizations or any group in this matter leads to social stratification because there will always be a leader and those who follow a leader. This on a larger scale can lead to disparities because as people start working and money comes into play, some will earn more than others.

# data[].attributes.body
Although it is still possible for a civilization to persist with a weak strong, it may be difficult to sustain one without strong institutions and governance. Weak states may crumble into disorder and collapse. However, the people within that civilization, their practices, and customs may persist, keeping that civilization alive.

# data[].attributes.body
I think this is true as in civilizations, people have an order they follow, and certain people have more power than others. With a difference in power, it is inevitable that wealth will be split up differently, and the people with more power will end up wealthier, which leads to social stratification

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this statement. Focusing on the foundations of how our world began and how the civilizations grew into the society that we are today is a critical part in understanding what events happened within different civilizations that created either love or divide between two separate groups.

# data[].attributes.body
People who gain power, do not tend to want to lose said power. If there is x amount of resources split amongst y people, people would individually want to have more than x/y resources. Those resources have to be taken from a person or a group of people, and it is easy to just say that those people are inferior to you in order to gain that wealth.

This stratification is almost guaranteed to cause disparities and injustice within society. After all, that is the cause: if I want more things, I need to take them away from other people unjustly. One could say that the ability to go through this struggle and end up with more than you have is justice in of itself, having that social mobility, but social mobility is gone when the search for that social mobility creates barriers that limit social mobility for others. That isn't fair.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations are highly advanced societies, and they are able to be this way due to their structures, organizations, and hierarchies. A strong state is required for these to be maintained and enforced.

# data[].attributes.body
No, civilization does not require the idea of ownership. While it is an incentive that helps modern-day society flourish it is not a requirement as long as the members of the group have their basic needs met.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that world history could be a successful course focusing also outside of civilization. I agree it's important to discuss civilizations, but history also lies outside of it.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with this statement as civilizations allowed for technological development and allowed for a completely new skill set. Civilization enabled humanity to progress technologically.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations should be a huge focus of World History, as they were the earliest societies, which inspired and directly have even led to our societies being in this certain way. Even though civilizations should be a big focus, I think that it shouldn't be the only, maybe some history about how these civilizations came to be, and predated them should also be a focus of world history.

# data[].attributes.body
This idea can be seen played in the caste system or social hierarchies. Wealth is something that everyone wants but can not have creating the automatic divide within people who just happen to be in the same civilization.

# data[].attributes.body
I do agree that civilizations mostly result in social stratification, which leads to wealth disparities and injustice. After all, one important thing that defines a civilization is a social structure. They always seem to be created.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilization as we know it often ends in social stratification and wealth disparities as well as injustice because class structure is emphasized too much. I believe that this comes from governments that may start with good intentions but become corrupt/greedy resulting in them steering away from their original function; to protect it's citizens. If the government starts working for the higher class, inevitably there will be social stratification.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that living in a civilization is not an unnatural state of humanity. Throughout history we have always lived in groups and relied on one another to prosper and grow. Civilizations help in this advancement because every person has an allocated task that they perform to help society develop and grow.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that a strong state is important to a civilization. A strong state provides structure to a community, providing a uniting factor and thus creating order and organizing the community to make an efficient and functioning civilization.

# data[].attributes.body
A strong state is not required for a civilization because people can organize themselves without leaders, but it would help a civilization develop faster. Leaders could take care of the state of the civilization so citizens can farm, invent, or discover. A strong state also provides structure and stability.

# data[].attributes.body
Living in a civilization is not unnatural because it is the way that the human race has evolved over generations. All animals exhibit evolution when natural selection allows those with certain characteristics in a species to survive, while others die off. As these specific characteristics are maintained, the entire species eventually adopts them. In this same way, humans, found a way to live, civilizations, that supported their survival and also promoted their advancement. Therefore, it is not unnatural because they just followed a type of evolution similar to all other species.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think that a singular definition of civilization can be used. Many people have different viewpoints as to what a civilization can be and what they contain. If there were to be a universal definition for civilization, it would make people feel like they have to alter their beliefs and values to achieve what is expected of them. Each civilization is unique based on how they function so it's necessary to categorize it.

# data[].attributes.body
I strongly disagree with the notion that it is possible to create a universal definition of civilization, because what comprises a civilization or how a civilization is run is different for every group, depending on their location, specialties and values on how to run social classes.

# data[].attributes.body
I do think civilizations are required to have a sense of private property and ownership. Private ownership establishes an economy. It also gives indivisuals motivation to work for something that they can possess some day.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that world history should focus on all world history since it is about the history with the world. However, since most major and recorded events in history are between different civilizations, the fact that it really only goes over the history of civilisations also makes sense.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not agree because every civilization is unique in its own way, and the distinctive attributes of each society cannot be contained within a single definition. Every civilization has its own culture, tradition, language, and more, which is why it would not be possible to develop a universal definition.

# data[].attributes.body
I somewhat agree but not entirely. While world history past a certain point (like this class) should focus on civilizations since they are where most people live, world history in general includes earlier time periods where more people are living outside of civilizations, and should include their history too.

# data[].attributes.body
I think people who live outside of civilization have a history. Just because they live outside of civilization doesn't mean they don't have their own traditions and cultures that have been passed down from generation to generation.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think you can develop a universal systematic definition of civilization because the word itself is subjective. Civilizations differ from region to region in their culture or the way they do things so there is no way to generalize all of them into one common definition.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that civilizations may require a sense of private property. I don't believe that it's necessarily significant. i think that private property provides a balance between what you can control and can't control.

# data[].attributes.body
Living in a civilization is natural for humanity. We have always lived in groups of people and need that to survive and prosper. With people living by themselves, there will be very little advancement in humankind as everyone will only care about living to see the next day. With a civilization that changes as people can explore new things and be in a group of people, the roles are split, and there can be innovation.

# data[].attributes.body
I strongly disagree with he stance that living in a civilization is an unnatural state of humanity. I believe humans are wired to be social with one another and we naturally gravitate to each other. I think the creation of civilizations because of this has been such a natural process.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it would be possible, just the clarity and broadness of the definition would cloud the overall point it would make. Society is vast and diverse but follows major patterns so the connotation of a "label" for civilization and society would have to be general to the point it is belittling.

# data[].attributes.body
It may be difficult, but I think that it is possible to develop a universal definition of civilization. While each civilization is unique and has its own culture and different lifestyle, they are just a more complex form of human society with their own way of living.

# data[].attributes.body
Living in a civilization is not in any way an unnatural state of humanity. We are trained to gravitate towards people that comply with our nature and believe in the same morals as we do. These are the foundations of a civilizations. A civilization is just a name for a community that all humans gravitate towards.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that civilizations do require a sense of private property and ownership because it gives incentive for people in the civilization to work harder. If people can own things like property, they would feel a sense of pride and try to advance themselves in society.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think it is possible to develop a universal, systematic definition of civilization. Civilizations have their own traditions, lifestyles, and ways of doing things, so one definition can't be universal, and definitely can't sum up all the major points of civilization.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I do think that this would be possible. There has been countless, very different civilizations throughout history, yet all of them have some core aspects in common. While it is true that there are unique contexts in which a civilization functions in, they all grow to be interconnected.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations aren't defined by one dictionary definition. Different people interpret the word civilizations and the meaning behind it differently. To some people it may mean structure and prosperity, while others define it as the same cultural beliefs and ideologies.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel like in order for civilizations to thrive, everybody has to be given responsibility of some sort, and providing the people with their own property, even if it isn't land, helps to encourage everybody to move forward together. Sometimes, people work harder when they are not only helping each other, but they are also helping themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
I do believe that civilizations require a sense of private property and ownership. After all, a civilization only comes from taking a piece of land and settling there. People who had originally moved around all their lives were now free to settle down on land that was theirs.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree that civilization is an unnatural state of humanity, living in Civilizations is what helped the state of humanity, we provided definitive roles to people, allowing for the growth in the population of human beings. There is no unnatural state for humanity, we always have been in groups and tribes in the history of humankind, and civilizations were just another way that humans were able to organize themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that world history should focus on the history of civilizations because civilizations are very important in human history. They show how the world we know today was developed over thousands of years.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree, because when a lot of people are together in a civilization, some of them inevitably gain more power and wealth than others. They seek to keep this power and others seek to join them, which causes social stratification.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that civilization does not require a sense of private ownership, and it is possible for a community to own something collectively. I think that the natural tendency towards private ownership is so that individuals can trade amongst themselves, but I don't think it is a requirement.

# data[].attributes.body
Humans are social animals. It has been shown, through research, that people in isolation tend to lose their sanity, so it is natural that humans would want to find other humans to be with. This want would spawn an infinite spiderwebbing of interpersonal connections, commonly called "society". I don't think it's unnatural to live how we have been pressured (by ourselves) to live.

# data[].attributes.body
"History" is the study of the past. Just because some people might not be a part of a civilization doesn't mean that they haven't had stories of their past. Everyone has a story to tell.

# data[].attributes.body
I do believe that a sense of private property and ownership can make a civilization boom more. People in a civilization are often prone to abiding by the same laws or performing the same traditions, however owning private property is an opportunity for humans to feel a sense of control within their civilization.