Civilizations Chalk Talk by Samantha Saldanha-Kuncharam

30001027 — 2025-09-09 17:42:23 UTC

It is definitely helpful in the workplace as it adds beneficial structure but outside of work it can be negative for society as it creates unnecessary division.

2025-09-09 17:42:48 UTC

I don't think class divisions are necessary for healthy civilizations because class divisions cause problems between people. If people in a civilization are not treating each other equally, then there are problems, and it creates an unhealthy environment.

2025-09-09 17:42:51 UTC

Class divisions are not necessary or healthy for a civilization. They lead to class distinction where certain individuals are valued above others, leading to, in many cases, a skewed distribution of labor and responsibility, with those in the bottom half looked upon as beneath others, and those at the top will do whatever is necessary to stay at in power.

2025-09-09 17:42:52 UTC

They are not necessary because divisions create tension/frustration between classes and this can cause rebellions and create a less peaceful civilization overall.

2025-09-09 17:42:57 UTC

Class divisions foster an environment in which people can compete and strive for a better life.

2025-09-09 17:42:59 UTC

I disagree with this- it is not possible to develop a universal definition of civilization because the world and societies will continue to change over time. Furthermore, since societies were formed throughout the world, they were subject to different conditions, meaning many have different structures.

2025-09-09 17:43:13 UTC

I think that class divisions are not necessary at all in order for a civilization to function. This is because I believe that the fundamental principal all civilizations are built upon is mutual cooperation, which is an inherent trait we as humans have developed naturally.

2025-09-09 17:43:14 UTC

I disagree with this as class divisions may cause more conflict rather than establishing a healthy civilization; however, some form of leadership should be established, as it will allow differing opinions to be settled and for the civilization to work together.

2025-09-09 17:43:14 UTC

I think it's necessary to have different people doing different jobs in a society so that the society can be functional. However, I don't think it's necessary to discriminate based on the specific job, since every person's contribution is equally as important.

2025-09-09 17:43:15 UTC

I think that class divisions play a strong role in the society of civilizations, and they may differ from one another based on their social hierarchy. I'm not sure if they are necessary, but they are definitley prominent in most civilizations.

2025-09-09 17:43:28 UTC

This might have been true years ago when historians argued that history began with documentation, and nomadic people or people who were not a part of civilizations lacked that documentation or evidence of their existence, but I think with modern technology it is easy to study the history of those people and how integral they were to society even outside of civilizations.

2025-09-09 17:43:38 UTC

Class divisions are not necessary for a civilization and are often unhealthy. While many civilizations have had class divisions throughout history these are often negative because they ephasize the difference between people which leads to conflict. While in some case, like work, they can be useful and healthy, class divisions are mostly unhealthy

2025-09-09 17:43:45 UTC

I don't think this is necessarily true; dividing groups of people in the same community by certain factors may not be overall healthy.

2025-09-09 17:43:48 UTC

I personally think that class divisions aren't inherently bad to begin with. I believe so because some civilizations created social classes based on their jobs, religion, and role in the community. Sometimes, it wasn't necessarily to oppress one group, but it could also be to give position and meaning to a person's role in that civilization. When there's no inequality, class divisions won't be harmful. Additionally, there should be opportunities for individuals to move freely through these classes through their work and community engagement.

2025-09-09 17:43:48 UTC

I think this is true since greed is natural in human behavior. Though there may be enough for everybody (money, food, etc), someone will always want more. This leads to an imbalance in wealth and causes conflict among the people.

2025-09-09 17:43:54 UTC

In order for there to be a sense of structure within a civilization class division is necessary to occur. When everyone is on the same footing it becomes harder for any rules or regulations to be passed causing issues within a civilization. However, the amount of division between classes has to also be balanced, without one class gaining too much power over the other.

2025-09-09 17:43:55 UTC

This does not make sense since the history of people begins before the first civilizations. How can a person's history be false just because they live outside of civilization?

2025-09-09 17:43:57 UTC

People who live outside of society have a history that is as long as people who do live inside civilization, but their history may not be as well documented.

2025-09-09 17:44:10 UTC

I'm not sure about whether class divisions are necessarily healthy, but they are necessary since all civilizations will, at one point, divide into classes based on different factors. Class divisions may not be healthy, as they can lead to unfairness.

10021078 — 2025-09-09 17:44:14 UTC

I think it is necessary for people in society to have different roles, but I don't think that class division is a necessity for society.

2025-09-09 17:44:16 UTC

Although it is harder to leave your mark outside of a very popular civilization, people outside of them to still have a history that may have been maintained either through verbal communication or even documents and artifacts.

2025-09-09 17:44:17 UTC

Class divisions are not necessary for a civilization, but they are healthy and useful. Though there have been unhealthy structures, they have ultimately failed and fallen. Healthy class divisions allow for more structure and basic rules.

2025-09-09 17:44:27 UTC

I think that it isn't possible to develop a universal systematic definition of civilization. I find civilization to be a very subjective term, and historically groups of people have deemed others 'uncivilized' due to having differing structures of society and governance, even though that group could very be 'civilized'. Due to humanity all having different perspectives and wants out of societal structures and governance, it would be impossible to create a satisfactory universal definition of civilization.

2025-09-09 17:44:27 UTC

I disagree with this statement because people who lived outside established civilizations also have an impact on decisions in history, therefore, they also have a history.

2025-09-09 17:44:33 UTC

People who live outside of civilization may not have as much history, but they still have history. Although it may be much more difficult to trace and may not be recorded in the same way as the history of civilizations, since the descendants of the non-civilized carry forward the stories and history of their ancestors, there is history for those who lived outside of civilization.

2025-09-09 17:44:43 UTC

I believe in some form of class division. In order to have a civilization, one must have laws. The person who creates the laws will automatically be in a higher position because they have to take charge of the civilization. People work to get put in a higher position, which is their main motivation in life. I am not saying that class divisions or the current economic system is right, but there has been no better alternatives found for class divisions. Usually the kinds of governments that try to create equal class divisions fall into the wrong hands.

100229611 — 2025-09-09 17:44:43 UTC

Class divisions are necessary and healthy for a civilization, as seen by the fact that every single great and powerful civilization in history with documentation to prove its existence has had class divisions. The USA, USSR, Rome, China's dynasties, the Mughals, The British and French, etc, all had these distinctions between people known as "class." Class and hierarchy is something needed because not everyone is as qualified to do certain things. Not everyone can be a leader, artist, poet, or scientist, and people need to stick to their roles to keep a society going.

2025-09-09 17:44:52 UTC

I think that just because a person was not part of a civilization, it should not be a reason to not acknowledge what kind of impact they had on history.

2025-09-09 17:44:54 UTC

I disagree. I think that people are naturally inclined to follow others and form groups for survival. In theory, civilizations allow for those groups to exist with law and order to keep peace.

2025-09-09 17:44:58 UTC

I don't think class divisions are necessary for a civilization because it would foster a community of competition and tension.

2025-09-09 17:44:58 UTC

People who live outside of civilization must also have a history as they didn't just start existing out of nowhere, there was also a process for them of development of some sort and how they begun living their lives, civilized or not. Just because we don't have records of their history, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

2025-09-09 17:44:58 UTC

I disagree with this entirely. All humans that have existed in large groups have some sort of cultural identity that can be studied and learned from, Regardless of whether or not they fit the elitist view of being inside civilization.

2025-09-09 17:45:12 UTC

I disagree because I think that everyone has a history, and the history that we understand today may not cover everything that happened in the past. There may be a lot that humans haven't discovered yet, so it is possible that people outside of civilizations have history.

2025-09-09 17:45:23 UTC

This is not true- though people may live outside civilization, they have still lived and made an impact. Even if they do not have proper documentation, their traditions and culture still lives on in many ways, even impacting those in civilizations.

10021078 — 2025-09-09 17:45:23 UTC

While poeple who live outside civiliztion may not have a documented history, their history is no less real than people in civilizations.

2025-09-09 17:45:33 UTC

This statement is true because the history of civilizations is what is best documented. It would be very difficult to study world history outside of civilizations.

2025-09-09 17:45:39 UTC

Civilizations do require a strong state as without it, any structure will crumble and the civilization won't remain civilized.

2025-09-09 17:45:43 UTC

People who live outside of civilization do have realy history. While their history might not be as influential or long, it still exists and is relevant.

2025-09-09 17:45:52 UTC

I think this is true because in history, there are so many societies that began with having social hierarchies that created conflicts based on the above issues, but no matter how much time passes, these types of divisions and conflicts (that come along with perceived injustice) keep popping up.

2025-09-09 17:45:53 UTC

Each group, regardless of being classified as a civilization, would definitely have features unique to their group, whether it be religion, culture, ritualistic practices, or even literature and art. Just because it might not have been on a large scale or not recorded by historians doesn't mean those people don't have a real history; it might have just not been documented by historians.

2025-09-09 17:45:58 UTC

No matter if someone lives inside of a civilization or outside of one, they have history because history always exists for everyone as they experience different situations. Their history might not be documented or known to others, however.

2025-09-09 17:46:01 UTC

Class divisions may be helpful for a functional civilization to an extent, as people of different specializations can come together to build a functional society, but this can also cause division, which can cause problems.

30001027 — 2025-09-09 17:46:01 UTC

This is definitely true, because when your talking about the history of a people group, its required that they have some distinguished factors that define them as a people and without civilization its hard to do that and the history can't truly be attributed with them in a way done with people in civilization.

2025-09-09 17:46:03 UTC

Yes, I believe that civilizations do require a strong state, since as they grow, there is the likelihood of threats developing against their power. Similar to historical situations where empires have gained land and power and have been toppled as a result. With strong leadership and ability to defend itself, a civilization will prosper.

100229611 — 2025-09-09 17:46:14 UTC

History as a concept does not stop existing outside of civilization, the dinosaurs were part of history, and to say they had a "civilization" is absurd. Therefore, people outside of civilization do have history in the literal sense.

2025-09-09 17:46:16 UTC

It is not possible because everyone has different opinions on what makes up a civilization. It is hard to come up with a list of attributes that define all civilizations because they are all so different which is why it is hard to create a dictionary definition of civilization.

2025-09-09 17:46:16 UTC

I disagree with this because every human that ahs existed has left behind history and something that we could learn from. They may not have documentation of their history because they may be living nomadic lifestyles, but they still have history.

2025-09-09 17:46:25 UTC

Class divisions aren't necessary to have a successful civilization. A group that works together for the benefit of all requires no hierarchy. While a leader is helpful, specific class divisions aren't. Every role in a society needs to be filled and has a purpose.

2025-09-09 17:46:25 UTC

I do not believe this is true. Everyone has history. Language and culture can develop from one generation to the next. The people that were nomadic and lived outside of civilizations still laughed, cried, grieved, had families, and eperienced the same emotions we did. Their stories are still important, even if they were outside of a known group. At the end of the day, every human contributes to human history and should be accounted for.

2025-09-09 17:46:26 UTC

Some forms of class divisions are needed for civilizations in the sense that it helps the society to function. Other cases, too much class divisions can result in conflict, thus harming said civilizations.

2025-09-09 17:46:28 UTC

I think that stronger civilizations need a strong state in order to sustain themselves throughout the course of history. I believe that it is still possible to have a civilization with a weaker state, but it would not be able to endure for long.

2025-09-09 17:46:34 UTC

I agree with this statement because for a civilization to truly succeed over a long period, it needs to be able to withstand external problems. If it has a strong state, it won't crumble.

2025-09-09 17:46:34 UTC

I agree with this statement. A lot of history relies on written records, which were written mostly in societies with established hiearchies. Scribes would also need to be trained by other people, which would most likely happen only in a civilization. However, I also think it's important to note that over the years we have gotten more advanced, and have found new ways to discover history, such as discovering artifcats.

2025-09-09 17:46:40 UTC

They do require a strong state in order to remain stable and functional, otherwise they will just be vulnerable to collapse.

2025-09-09 17:46:52 UTC

Just because one lives outside of a civilization doesn't mean that they have no real history. Because every person, whether they be structured or not, comes from somewhere they have a history behind them. The term real history doesn't make much sense due to the idea that person has a different view history based on what they are told.

2025-09-09 17:47:03 UTC

I believe that the definition of a civilization may evolve over time. As humans acquire more knowledge and the state of society changes, civilization may not retain a static definition.

2025-09-09 17:47:07 UTC

A civilization with a weak state could have little structure and order. What separates a civilization from a social group is the ability to organize under a strong power.

2025-09-09 17:47:13 UTC

I don't think they are necessary or healthy, because while it can be beneficial in work environments, when it starts to dictate social dynamics, it leads to conflict more often than not.

2025-09-09 17:47:16 UTC

I agree with this quote by saying that it is unnatural for humans to group into civilizations. After humans stopped being hunter-gatherers, they settled and thrived through agriculture. This is not natural, as it isn't the primitive instinct of humans to settle into civilizations to grow crops and live under a structured society. When comparing to the natural life of other animals, who mostly follow a hunter and gather lifestyle, civilization is far from natural.

2025-09-09 17:47:18 UTC

I disagree because established civilizations are a product of progress within humans. Human's possess the capabilities more so than other organisms to learn, progress, and create, which is why history and evolution is so potent for us. It is not an unnatural state for humanity because it is inevitable that humans would utilize their mind to accommodate to their environment in an order of survival.

2025-09-09 17:47:28 UTC

I believe that civilizations do require a strong state because humans tend to naturally have states of power form, and for the state to be effective at advancing the civilization and maintaining it, it has to be strong.

2025-09-09 17:47:32 UTC

Civilizations do not require a strong state. While some form of cooperative structure is present in all civilizations, it does not have to be strong like the statement suggests.

2025-09-09 17:47:33 UTC

I don't agree with this because many different factors and situations influence our understanding of what a civilization is. I think that the definition is subjective to a specific environment.

2025-09-09 17:47:35 UTC

I do believe that civilizations require a strong state because if power in the sense of control were given to everyone, decisions would be made on biased opinions, which could have negative impacts on the civilization as a whole. Power should be distributed, but there still should be a center force leading the structure as its foundation.

2025-09-09 17:47:36 UTC

Civilizations do not require a strong state. While many civilizations have had strong states throughout history, some civilizations have existed and thrived without the existence of a strong state.

2025-09-09 17:47:38 UTC

I agree. World history should focus on civilizations and how they grow and interact, as that is what is documented and how we came to be who we are in modern times.

2025-09-09 17:47:44 UTC

I think that it is not because while some may think that it is necessary for a group of individuals to be settled to be civilized, others may think it is more important that they interact with those around them to be considered a civilization. Different people will ultimately come up with different definitions as they consider different factors when creating their definition.

2025-09-09 17:47:50 UTC

It is not possible to determine a universal definition of civilization as different cultures have different ways of living, and different things they deem important. If a universal definition of civilization were to be created by a group of people, it would be a greatly disagreed upon topic and therefore never truly become universal.

2025-09-09 17:47:51 UTC

I disagree with this statement. I feel that many communities may have lived outside of the interpretation of civilization, but I believe that they have often played instrumental roles in history. Even if they didn't, they still left a mark on the earth, proving their existence and worth.

2025-09-09 17:47:54 UTC

Civilizations need to be strong in order to ensure that they won't collapse when conflict occurs, or any other kind of problem. To do this, there need to be strong leaders in charge, and a strong societal structure in place.

2025-09-09 17:47:57 UTC

Civilizations do require a strong state because without it, there would be chaos and it would be harder for said civilization to attain peace.

30001027 — 2025-09-09 17:48:00 UTC

It's possible but the more specific the definition for civilization becomes, the more people tend to disagree with that definition making a general definitions more universal than specific ones as it is a pretty opinion/moral oriented topic.

2025-09-09 17:48:00 UTC

While a state may be necessary now, it is possible that in a future, more moral society, a strong central state may not be necessary.

2025-09-09 17:48:02 UTC

I disagree. I think that ideally the only things that are necessary for civilization is a form of government to make laws and create order and a social contract that compels people to live under the government.

2025-09-09 17:48:02 UTC

Every person will always have their own feelings and definitions for not just civilizations, but all words. To say that we all should have one definition of a civilization would erase the differences that make cultures unique.

2025-09-09 17:48:13 UTC

I disagree with this since history is someone's past and their experiences. Just because they do not belong to a civilization, it doesn't mean they are erased. Regardless of the situation, history is history.

2025-09-09 17:48:17 UTC

People are naturally born with slight differences. When a person lives in a civilization, they take their natural advantages and use them to help other people, which I believe is natural.

2025-09-09 17:48:27 UTC

I disagree because I feel civilizations would not have formed if people did not feel it was a more natural living state/enjoyed it and since people decided for themselves that they wanted to live in civilizations instead of being nomadic hunter gatherers it shows that with time people changed their idea of what a natural living state was for them.

2025-09-09 17:48:29 UTC

History does not come from something tangible or from order. Everyone has history because everyone has a past, and ancestors that came before them. How they got here and their life before this very moment is their real history. You do not need something tangible as proof that you have a history.

2025-09-09 17:48:40 UTC

I agree. Civilizations require a strong sense of state because humans need leadership and structure in order to advance and thrive.

2025-09-09 17:48:51 UTC

I think that civilization is a difficult term to define, because its meaning varies from person to person. People from all around the world learn different versions of history, and some may not classify certain groups of people as civilizations, while others do. Coming up with one definition may be possible, but I think there is no point in doing so because of how subjective the term is.

2025-09-09 17:49:01 UTC

I think that this statement is unrealistic. Even by looking at what most people think of as definitive civilizations, there are still major differences between all of them. I think that civilization is a flowing, changing definition, and should not be some sort of rank to achieve.

2025-09-09 17:49:02 UTC

No, civilizations do not require a sense of private property and ownership. Throughout history, many civilizations have used collective ownership of land for agriculture and community. When everyone relies on each other for food and resources, it leads to a greater unity among the people and leads to people working together rather than prioritizing self-interests

2025-09-09 17:49:03 UTC

I don't believe that it's possible to develop a universal definition of civilization because, as time progresses, the structure of civilizations can change drastically. So something that was considered a civilization in the past may not be considered one in the future. Civilizations also look different depending on where you are.

2025-09-09 17:49:17 UTC

I think that people flourish best with the help of others, and that civilizations are the best way for this to take effect.

2025-09-09 17:49:25 UTC

It is not possible to develop such a definition that would apply universally, given that there were many different types of civilizations to begin with. These various civilizations had their own elements and unique functionalities in various fields that made them diverse and individual compared to other civilizations, hence no one broad definition would fit all civilizations. Also, definitions could be very subjective and even biased.

100229611 — 2025-09-09 17:49:30 UTC

Private property has two definitions, the common definition and the Marxist definition. The common definition stipulates that if you "own" something, it is your private property (toothbrush, toothpaste, etc). Marxist theory stipulates that private property are specifically factors of production like machines, tools, or factories. In the first definition, it is fully true that civilizations need private property and ownership to exist, otherwise a free for all could commence. However, marxist civilizations have existed, even if they were inefficient and terrible to live in, and therefore, civilizations do not require private property under a marxist definition.

2025-09-09 17:49:33 UTC

I disagree with this statement because established rules do not set each civilization throughout history; each of them is different and in its own way, and to classify them as one singular civilization definition of civilization ruins the uniqueness and the culture associated with how it runs.

2025-09-09 17:49:42 UTC

I feel that it is not necessary or healthy because class divisions tend to dictate social hierarchy's and allow for conflict to happen within societies. It also propells injustice towards lower class individuals and creates inequality within civilizations that could rather do better without them.

2025-09-09 17:49:52 UTC

I agree with this statement. It is a natural inclination for a human to strive for more, such as the desire for more money and power. It would be almost impossible for a civilization to limit that natural desire for an extended period of time.

2025-09-09 17:49:54 UTC

I agree because it is very hard to live in a civilization where everyone is equal socially and economically because there are always going to be people who want more or may do unjust/immoral things to get there which is why there will always be injustice to some extent.

2025-09-09 17:49:55 UTC

I don't think it is possible. Ideas of what civilized people look at has differed over the course of history, and therefore nobody can have one single definition.

2025-09-09 17:49:57 UTC

If it is unnatural, then why did it happen? Our groups naturally become civilizations the more they grow because, as humans, we strive for order and unity.

2025-09-09 17:50:00 UTC

I think that it is not possible to develop a universal systematic definition of civilization because each group of people have their own traditions and history making which could contradict other groups. Due to that, there are frequencies between civilizations making it harder to have a universal systematic definition.

2025-09-09 17:50:17 UTC

Yes, civilizations require a strong state. To be successful, stable practices and structures must be in place. This could mean good leaders, strong workers, and passionate citizens. A strong state can also mean a unified group that can agree and make decisions benefiting the whole.

2025-09-09 17:50:28 UTC

I disagree with this. If civilizations were unnatural, they never would've been formed. Clearly, the lifestyle of the paleolithic era was not enough. Humans are naturally social creatures. We want to band together, and we also want to collaberate to find a way to survive. At the end of the day, if you strip a civilization down to its roots, it really is just a fancy version of a tribe. The main purpose of a civilization is so people can survive. The laws, class systems, economics, careers, etc. were all just products of that goal.

2025-09-09 17:50:33 UTC

While this may have been the case for a large part of human history, as humanity's knowledge improves, a future society may be able tp prevent these injustices from occuring.

2025-09-09 17:50:37 UTC

I don't think this is possible simply because of the sheer amount of civilizations that have existed, and the ones currently existing that continue to grow and change. I think there are too many complexities, and to account for all of that in a single, concise definition is not possible.

100229611 — 2025-09-09 17:50:44 UTC

Living in civilization is entirely natural. Humans need structure in their lives, and civilization brings structure, as well as community and generally, is safer than being out on your own. Just because the paleolithic era existed for most of human history does not mean civilization is unnatural.

2025-09-09 17:50:44 UTC

I think that civilizations do not require a sense of private property/ownership because it is not needed for a civilization to remain functional. Rather, a civilization could be more productive if it functions in a more collaborative way than in a way that promotes ownership and independence.

2025-09-09 17:50:47 UTC

Civilizations do require a sense of private property and ownership as even today in many societies, large groups of people live together in joint families, or just with friends. Although they collectively own the property, it is still private, and not just anybody can step foot on to the location. Ownership of some sort creates trust among people in a community or civilization and allows people to rely on one another and help each other. However, if this sense of ownership was missing, if resources were to vanish or be gone, the entire community suffers and individuals wouldn't remain civilized.

2025-09-09 17:50:49 UTC

Civilizations do require a strong state and government because civilians cannot merely defend themselves, function, or be protected without an entity protecting them. Having a strong, but not too strong, state defines order within the civilization and protects them from other civilizations.

2025-09-09 17:50:50 UTC

I think that this is a true statement; however, a civilization also has the capacity to restrict wealth disparities. Maybe if there were more regulations from the civilization, there would be minimal injustice.

2025-09-09 17:50:53 UTC

I believe that living in a civilization is not an unnatural state of humanity because humans naturally join together to form groups, and for groups to be successful and efficient, there must be some structure or rules, so that people feel secure.

2025-09-09 17:50:56 UTC

I disagree because everyone has a different idea of a civilizations and many different people want different things in terms of leadership and the structure of a civilization

2025-09-09 17:50:57 UTC

I do not think that living in civilization is unnatural. I think that in an environment where people work together in a way that is mutually benificial, it is natural and fruitful for them, and helps them to survive and grow their wealth/better their lives as a result of the cooperation. Moreover, many aspects of life require civilization. Specifically, hunting, agriculture, and building are all things that can be done much quicker and efficiently if they are done in groups.

2025-09-09 17:51:12 UTC

I disagree. While personal property is required, private property must be distinguished separately. Personal property is your computer, private property is the office you work in. As for ownership, I think that it is a dangerous concept for humans as a whole. Once people begin to claim things as theirs, a whole new world of conflict opens up.

2025-09-09 17:51:32 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:51:33 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:51:35 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:51:47 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:51:52 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:51:57 UTC

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

2025-09-09 17:52:01 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:52:07 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:52:15 UTC

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.

30001027 — 2025-09-09 17:52:26 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:52:33 UTC

It is not possible because the word civilization means different ideas to different people so a universal definition would not be accepted by everyone.

2025-09-09 17:52:33 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:52:35 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:52:36 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:52:50 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:52:57 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:53:03 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:53:03 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:53:20 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:53:25 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:53:30 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:53:33 UTC

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.

100229611 — 2025-09-09 17:53:37 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:53:43 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:54:03 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:54:04 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:54:20 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:54:29 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:54:37 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:54:48 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:54:50 UTC

I disagree. Civilizations were made from humans seeking out help from one another. It cannot be unnatural if it happened naturally.

2025-09-09 17:55:02 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:55:03 UTC

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.

30001027 — 2025-09-09 17:55:14 UTC

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.

100229611 — 2025-09-09 17:55:18 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:55:23 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:55:28 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:55:29 UTC

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

2025-09-09 17:55:34 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:55:35 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:55:51 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:55:51 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:55:53 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:56:00 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:56:13 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:56:28 UTC

I agree. Humans crave power and wealth, which will eventually lead to disparities in a population and injustice.

2025-09-09 17:57:01 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:57:04 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:57:06 UTC

No because many civilizations have not had people private property and they have suceeded.

2025-09-09 17:57:18 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:57:19 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:57:30 UTC

I believe strength is a vital component for civilizations, especially if they prioritize sustainability for the years to follow.

100229611 — 2025-09-09 17:57:30 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:57:34 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:57:36 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:57:52 UTC

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.

30001027 — 2025-09-09 17:57:54 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:58:09 UTC

I disagree because civilization were formed naturally so why would that not be the natural way of living.

2025-09-09 17:58:15 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:58:26 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:58:29 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:58:30 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:58:39 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:58:41 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:58:43 UTC

I agree. The most important events in world history typically arise from different civilizations interacting with each another.

2025-09-09 17:58:49 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:58:52 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:58:56 UTC

While in most civilizations this is true, some civilizations have existed with less or no injustics or wealth disparities.

2025-09-09 17:59:05 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:59:15 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:59:24 UTC

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"

2025-09-09 17:59:30 UTC

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

2025-09-09 17:59:42 UTC

I agree because it is hard to learn about uncivilized people because there are less records about them

2025-09-09 17:59:46 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:59:59 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 17:59:59 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:00:04 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:00:14 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:00:20 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:00:22 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:00:23 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:00:45 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:00:48 UTC

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.

100229611 — 2025-09-09 18:00:49 UTC

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?

2025-09-09 18:01:09 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:01:14 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:01:16 UTC

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.

30001027 — 2025-09-09 18:01:24 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:01:38 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:02:10 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:02:35 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:03:29 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:03:43 UTC

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.

30001027 — 2025-09-09 18:03:47 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:03:51 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:04:24 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:04:30 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:04:46 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:06:00 UTC

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.

2025-09-09 18:08:43 UTC

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.