2024 4B Civilizations Chalk Talk by Scott Wissocki

Shlok Ganguly

10023606 — 2024-09-10 17:38:18 UTC

I don't think class division is necessary in society if class is defined as one's income level or wealth. However, division between occupations can help create order and productivity in a society.

Shahrian Masud

2024-09-10 17:39:14 UTC

People who live outside of a civilization would have history but it would be less known or more likely to be lost in time as besides for them, theres no one else who shares their culture. (if they do have a seperate culture)

2024-09-10 17:39:23 UTC

I do believe class division is necessary, however, I believe it should be nothing near what we have today. While a level of it may be necessary, discrimination and other extreme differences should not be applicable. Class divisions allows for order in a society.

30001201 — 2024-09-10 17:39:37 UTC

I disagree with this as people have not always lived in civilizations, and those people do have history associated with them. Their History is important as it could be the building blocks of how civilizations came to be, and it's important to study that

Abhiram Kuuram

10024429 — 2024-09-10 17:39:48 UTC

Job variety is crucial for a society to function, and class divisions help regulate this job variety by making sure that there are people that fit every single function that society requires. That does not mean, however, that class divisions are the only way to go about enforcing job variety.

30004282_ — 2024-09-10 17:39:48 UTC

I think that class divisions are more harmful than beneficial for civilizations. Although class divisions can provide certain roles and tasks for members of a civilization, these separate classes have proven to create much internal conflict, abuse of power, and revolts throughout history.

Shlok Ganguly

10023606 — 2024-09-10 17:39:51 UTC

I disagree because I think there can still be a history of a group of people even if they are not a civilization. For example, groups could have a oral history of their past without having a settled state or specialization and jobs (things that we would characterize as "civilization").

Sreeram Vuppala

2024-09-10 17:39:52 UTC

I disagree, because we know a lot about many groups of people who lived outside of civilization, and that history is "real." Some of their history might be less known but it still happened and is important.

Petralyn

2024-09-10 17:39:55 UTC

No, class divisions are not necessary and healthy for a civilization. Class divisions ruin society by placing certain groups of people above each other, resulting in harmful hierarchical classes. Civilization should be driven by equality.

Mariam Antoun

2024-09-10 17:39:57 UTC

Yes. For a civilization to last, it needs to have a strong state. A strong society is well connected with its people and all have a common factor. Either the same/similar religion, language, gov't, structure, and more to work.

DeVoe

2024-09-10 17:40:15 UTC

People who live outside of civilization do have history, since they’re still doing things even if it’s not in an organized group. Their history might be limited though, since not being in a civilization could restrict how much they interact with other groups and people, as well as limit their own internal interactions.

Abhiram Kuuram

10024429 — 2024-09-10 17:40:37 UTC

Not necessarily; history can still be passed down through generational stories. History does not have to be grounded in a particular place for it to be "rea" history.

Shlok Ganguly

10023606 — 2024-09-10 17:40:46 UTC

Yes. Civilizations need to have a strong state to protect its people from dangers. This can include other rival groups of people, or natural dangers. Since most people in a civilization have specialized jobs and may not be able to fend for themselves, it is important for the state to protect them.

Noora Darwish

100244151 — 2024-09-10 17:40:47 UTC

I strongly disagree with this statement. Class division only exist to uphold inequality and serve the elite.

2024-09-10 17:40:50 UTC

People who live outside of civilizations absolutely have history. Their history is just as rich, beautiful, and impact full as the history of those who live in a civilization. The only difference is how well people know that history.

Ananya Karthik

2024-09-10 17:41:07 UTC

I disagree that class divisions are necessary and healthy for a civilization. At the end of the day making these categories can actually cause a downfall of a society as some will begin to gain a superiority complex.

Shahrian Masud

2024-09-10 17:41:12 UTC

Living in a civilization is natural for humans because we interact and trade with each other. Also, if it was unnatural then why after so many years are humans still living in civilizations?

Niles Pavley

100175411 — 2024-09-10 17:41:22 UTC

Yes, the idea of common culture and alikeness that comes with civilization requires a strong central means of defending itself. The continuity of culture that comes with civilization can only happen if the civilization stands and can defend itself.

30004282_ — 2024-09-10 17:41:30 UTC

I disagree with this statement because there are numerous people who have lived in nomadic groups and passed on their culture and traditions across generations. Just because a certain group does not follow the ideal outline for a civilization, does not mean that their customs are null and void. Their actions and history still influence numerous people in the world.

Jahnabee C.

10018858 — 2024-09-10 17:41:34 UTC

In my opinion, I think class divisions are not necessary and healthy for a civilization. Class divisions are not equal, and they diminish people depending on wealth and power. Class divisions cause more problems than create good for society, since they rank people, and everyone is equal.

Sahana

2024-09-10 17:41:34 UTC

Yes, I believe that certain Class divisions have a significant impact on civilizations, and help them function better. Divisions such as occupation, help maintain order, efficiancy and structure within civilizations. While class divisions can be beneficial, they should not be used to put groups against each other, and create conflict.

Atharv

2024-09-10 17:41:35 UTC

Divisions between classes are not crucial for a civilization. Classes can cause disparities between individuals. Normally, the upper classes end up controlling the entire population which leads to a corruption of power.

Srijan Poonati

30005416 — 2024-09-10 17:41:38 UTC

The word "Civilization" can be interpreted in various ways. Developing a universal definition for the word "Civilization" might be difficult, as we might not be able to define anything in the first place.

30001201 — 2024-09-10 17:41:38 UTC

I think class division is harmful and, in most cases, causes more problems than solutions. Class division could be beneficial in some cases when it comes to splitting up jobs and roles certain people have to do, but in the long run, it will make certain groups have more power and control than others.

Sreeram Vuppala

2024-09-10 17:41:42 UTC

I disagree that they are necessary and healthy because they create anger and division between people which causes conflict. However, they have always ended up existing and are almost impossible to avoid.

Petralyn

2024-09-10 17:41:47 UTC

People who live outside of civilization gave history. Living outside of civilization does not mean that they do not interact with other groups/histories that may have great significance. Also, human beings can create history without being in a civilization.

Not necessarily.

2024-09-10 17:41:57 UTC

I don't think living in a civilization is necessarily unnatural. Living in a civilization allows people to be more connected and interactive with each other.

Saesha Dham

2024-09-10 17:41:59 UTC

Necessary is a strong word. I feel that civilizations can function without the need for class divisions. For example, middle class people in both India and America find themselves neglected where as the poor are often receiving the most benefits.

2024-09-10 17:42:09 UTC

Yes, civilizations do require a strong state. It is the only way the civilization will last and keep the culture and people standing.

Rishab Kangyampeta

2024-09-10 17:42:18 UTC

I think that class divisions are unnecessary because they discriminate and divide people living in societies. Class divisions place people in different categories because of the level of their income or the role they play in society and in turn they get more benefits which is harmful for a healthy society.

Shlok Ganguly

10023606 — 2024-09-10 17:42:19 UTC

I disagree. I do not think it is possible to have a universal systematic civilization because there are a lot of variance between different groups of people. This can include differences in customs, language, religions, values and traditions. I think the only way to have a global civilization would be through one group of people conquering other civilizations.

Shiven Dhruv

2024-09-10 17:42:50 UTC

I think that economic class divisions can be healthy for civilizations because they ensure that there is always someone to do any job that is important to society. However, class divisions based on caste can be harmful because this is a wrong way to distinguish people.

Samaira Tewatia

2024-09-10 17:43:02 UTC

Class divisions are not necessary in a civilization. The point of class division is to categorize wealth statuses which can ruin society as a whole. Class divisions can cause discrimination and other conflicts which do more harm than good.

DeVoe

2024-09-10 17:43:05 UTC

Civilizations don’t necessarily need a strong state to be a civilization, but to stay relevant and powerful a strong state would help. It’s difficult to keep order within a group when the body imposing order is not strong itself.

Sreeram Vuppala

2024-09-10 17:43:07 UTC

I agree, because without a strong state a civilization is very prone to collapsing from any threats. The lack of a strong state creates uncertainty and instability since groups can take over or break away from the civilization.

Shahrian Masud

2024-09-10 17:43:12 UTC

I think class divisions are harmful for civilizations because they split people into groups usually based on how much money they have.

Anindya Kasukurthi

2024-09-10 17:43:13 UTC

Yes civilizations require a strong state. For a civilization to last everyone in that civilization needs to have a strong connection or have something in common like language or religion to keep it going.

Abhiram Kuuram

10024429 — 2024-09-10 17:43:16 UTC

Civilizations require strength in both, say, policy and defense, both internally and externally. People will inevitably want different things from the government, but sometimes defense will need a quick, fast approach without debate, and policy obviously cannot include policies from both sides if both sides are not willing to cooperate with each other. One strong state is necessary to enforce a unified charter.

Ananya Karthik

2024-09-10 17:43:17 UTC

I disagree with the notion that people who live outside of civilization have no real history because at the end of the day history can be defined as anything that has already occurred. Even if these people have not lived in civilization they still have a past relevant to them and that is their history.

Arunmoy Das

30001326 — 2024-09-10 17:43:39 UTC

Too many factors and influences go into the development of a civilization, making it impossible to develop a universal definition for civilizations. Every civilization develops in its unique context, so it is possible that it may not have all the attributes that other civilizations may have. Does that mean society is not a civilization because it lacks a single piece? On what basis do we even make criteria?

30004282_ — 2024-09-10 17:43:39 UTC

I do think that civilizations require a strong state. Civilizations differed from early groups because they had numerous types of occupations, and each person contributed to the civilization in a different way. In order to organize and lead all these people and the products they are producing or innovations they are creating, strong leaders and strong governments are necessary to maintain organization and clear goals for the civilization.

Saesha Dham

2024-09-10 17:43:40 UTC

I don't agree with this statement. I feel that there is a lot of opportunity for people who are not affiliated with a civilization to voice their own customs. Since it would be extremely difficult to learn about all these people, we tend to focus on civilizations.

Petralyn

2024-09-10 17:43:47 UTC

No. History itself is too nuanced to try and give any one definition for any term, especially the term civilization. Civilization looks different in every corner of the world.

Niles Pavley

100175411 — 2024-09-10 17:43:50 UTC

This statement is blindsided by the fact that everything we do is history, just some more memorable than others. This context of lack of history due to not being part of a civilization is wrong and stems from a flawed language.

2024-09-10 17:43:53 UTC

While it should not be the only topic world history should focus on, it is one of the most important. Civilizations are one of the only reasons we are here today, living in the society we do. Civilizations mark the start of the world as we know it and it is important to least about it.

30001201 — 2024-09-10 17:43:55 UTC

I agree that civilizations need a strong state; otherwise, it will be easy for an outside force to take over or for the state to collapse. A strong state will help better enforce a community within the people and they will be able to prosper.

I disagree

2024-09-10 17:44:11 UTC

I disagree with this statement. People could still live outside of civilization and have real history. Their ancestors could be from a certain society/ civilization. History is anything that has happened in the past, therefore any person has history.

Shahrian Masud

2024-09-10 17:44:28 UTC

I think Civilizations would need a strong state if they do not want to lose their power as the state. If they were weak then they might get over thrown even if they werent doing anything wrong or harmful to the people.

Abhiram Kuuram

10024429 — 2024-09-10 17:44:33 UTC

The word "civilization" intends to describe groups which are so widely varied that I do not think it is possible to encapsulate all varieties into one singular definition without losing sight of at least some societies.

Rishab Kangyampeta

2024-09-10 17:44:33 UTC

People who lived outside of civilizations have history because they provided us with insights on how nomadic groups lived and how they viewed civilizations through their perspectives. Although they did not live in a ordered society, their contributions were equally valuable.

Atharv

2024-09-10 17:44:33 UTC

I disagree with this statement. Indivisuals who live outside of a civilization have the ability to prosper and produce history. You don't necessarily need to be in a civilization to produce history.

Sreeram Vuppala

2024-09-10 17:44:36 UTC

I disagree, because there are many measures which are very subjective. There are too many different civilizations in history to be able to clearly and fairly include all of them under one definition.

Sahana

2024-09-10 17:44:41 UTC

People who live outside of civilization definitely have an equally vibrant history; however, this does not equate to an equally as well recorded of a history. They would not have a common culture, language, religion or interpersonal interactions, but this does not erase the history they do have.

Ananya Karthik

2024-09-10 17:44:50 UTC

I agree that civilizations require a strong state. Civilizations are often reliant on group work and policy setting. In order for a civilization to strive a strong set of people within that civilization need to exist.

Shiven Dhruv

2024-09-10 17:44:53 UTC

I do not agree because even the existence of a civilization is not necessarily linked to the existence of history. Any event that has occurred in a person or group's past should be considered as history, regardless of whether they are part of a civilization or not.

Saesha Dham

2024-09-10 17:45:10 UTC

A strong state can ensure that a civilization is able to revolutionize or change how people act in a positive way. Without a strong state, there could be instability or question about the structure of the civilization.

Jahnabee C.

10018858 — 2024-09-10 17:45:14 UTC

I disagree with this statement. People who live outside of civilization do have real history. Just because they lived outside of civilization doesn't mean that they didn't have their own cultural norms or traditions. Some of the traditions may be vague in today's history, but people who lived outside of civilization sure did have real history.

Shahrian Masud

2024-09-10 17:45:29 UTC

I dont think its possible to develop a universal systematic definition of civilization because theres so many things that go into being a civilization and so many civilizations in history that are so different from one another.

Srijan Poonati

30005416 — 2024-09-10 17:45:33 UTC

By being in a civilization or being part of one, private property ownership is crucial. As a civilization would require people to work together as a team, by giving each one of them a role, in this context, they could be given the role of a framer or maybe a philosopher. This system is what allows civilizations to grow into bigger parts of society as a whole.

Shlok Ganguly

10023606 — 2024-09-10 17:45:34 UTC

I do not agree. I think we are evolved to be around different groups of people, and are social creatures meant to interact with others. While much of our bodies have evolved the way they have because of the way our ancestors hunted or got food, I don't think there is any reason to think civilization is unnatural.

Samaira Tewatia

2024-09-10 17:45:38 UTC

I disagree with this statement because a civilization is defined as a society or group of people who all have the same beliefs and ideologies. People who live outside of a civilization still have history. Just because they decided not to be a part of a civilization, does not mean their ancestors or other relatives weren't.

30004282_ — 2024-09-10 17:45:42 UTC

I disagree with this statement because civilizations is a very broad term for a general way of living. Every civilization is influenced by its own factors such as its past history, environment, and resources available. This makes it so that no one civilization can exactly be the same as another. Therefore, creating a systematic definition of civilization that covers all of these nuances is impossible.

30001201 — 2024-09-10 17:45:46 UTC

I don't think it's possible to develop one definition of a civilization, as civilizations mean different things in different parts of the world. Also, each civilization has a different way of operating and different rules for how it is run, which makes it hard to have one set definition.

Arbab Khan

2024-09-10 17:45:49 UTC

I think class divisions aren't necessary and healthy for a civilization. Even though class divisions can have benefits, they cause inequality as people of a lower class don't have the same opportunities as others.

Sreeram Vuppala

2024-09-10 17:45:50 UTC

I disagree because humans sought civilizations when it was an option and naturally tended towards it when food ceased to become a problem. There is nothing unnatural about civilizations and their development.

2024-09-10 17:45:50 UTC

Living in a civilization has to be a natural state of humanity. Otherwise, would we have done it for so long. Living in a civilization allowed people to feel connected to others. They did not have to worry about scavenging for food every day. They had jobs and professions to keep them busy rather than struggling to stay alive. Civilizations made things better for people, and therefore, more alive.

Hemanya Kolla

30002983 — 2024-09-10 17:45:56 UTC

I think divisions were instated for a good purpose and they worked well until people started to let social class define their daily interactions. Class divisions provided a definitive role for everyone and ensured that the civilization would function well in the beginning. After a while, class divisions are unnecessary because people would have evolved away from the nomadic life and would start to choose their role. Once people start making choices, class divisions create a disharmonious society. Overall, divisions are necessary in the beginning of a civilization but should be eradicated later.

Tara Salman

2024-09-10 17:46:04 UTC

I believe that civilizations require a strong state or else they would fall apart. This is because if people aren't on the same page then chaos will be caused. For a civilization to work, they have to understand one another and what they need to do in order to form a bond (community) that is strong enough for them to survive anything that gets in the way (rivals, etc).

Petralyn

2024-09-10 17:46:12 UTC

No, civilizations do not require a strong sense of property and ownership. There is no real value to a society in emphasizing the importance of private property since civilization is not an individual based effort, but a community one. Conversely, there should be an strong sense of public property supported by the government for people to use.

Rishab Kangyampeta

2024-09-10 17:46:19 UTC

I think that civilizations require a strong state to properly function because without rules and regulations, a civilization would peril because of ongoing conflicts. A strong state brings order and unity to a civilization.

Noora Darwish

100244151 — 2024-09-10 17:46:20 UTC

I agree that world history classes should focus on civilizations, but I think that over forms of societies should be taught as well. Every civilization was once a lesser society, and in order to understand particular civilizations and how they came to be, their full histories need to be taught.

Ananya Karthik

2024-09-10 17:46:22 UTC

I do not necessarily agree that it is possible to develop a universal systematic definition of civilization because it is subjective. There is no one way to categorize a civilization hence it would be hard to come to one common consensus on a definition.

Arunmoy Das

30001326 — 2024-09-10 17:46:27 UTC

Although class divisions may develop organically within certain civilizations, they are not inherently necessary for a society to function. Class conflict may be detrimental to a civilization's stability.

Atharv

2024-09-10 17:46:36 UTC

Civilizations are a large group of people, and to achieve harmony with a large amount of people, you need some sort of strong authority. Civilizations that had a strong authority tended to do better than those that didn't because they had the ability to control indivisuals.

Anindya Kasukurthi

2024-09-10 17:46:41 UTC

Class divisions are not necessary or healthy for a civilization. Social classes cause discrimination between the people which makes it unfair and causes conflicts.

DeVoe

2024-09-10 17:46:51 UTC

Though I don’t think it is a requirement, I think it is a common trait among civilisations. Many groups in the Americas did not have the same concept of private property as we do today, but those groups still had government structures and technological innovation which we typically attribute to being key aspects of civilizations.

Saesha Dham

2024-09-10 17:47:06 UTC

Due to the different environments, cultures, traditions, language, food, resources of every civilization, I feel that there is no way to develop one definition that can fit in the scope of what every civilization brings to the table.

Mariam

2024-09-10 17:47:09 UTC

I think that class divisions aren't always necessary in society. It is good to have a strong structure, but class divisions may do more harm than good. Some class divisions could lead to discrimination and cause a negative division between people. I think there should be a class division to a certain extent.

Shlok Ganguly

10023606 — 2024-09-10 17:47:09 UTC

I disagree. I do not think the natural tendency of a society is towards injustice or inequality between groups of people, but I think that it becomes common when there is corruption or greed in a materialistic society. I think social stratification is not inevitable.

Abhiram Kuuram

10024429 — 2024-09-10 17:47:19 UTC

For some, finding purpose in life (enough purpose to keep society running) is achieved through the sole ownership of some things. Purpose can be achieved without this sense in other people, but I do not think it is fair to limit what people are allowed to do by not letting them own things (especially since it is not directly harmful to other people, like for example murdering to achieve purpose)

It is not needed, though, for a society to function.

Shiven Dhruv

2024-09-10 17:47:44 UTC

Civilizations do require a strong state because a strong state means that each individual in the civilization has a purpose for the greater good. Having a strong state means that the society is running efficiently and that order is maintained throughout the civilization. Another important aspect is that a strong state also results in better security for civilians.

Jahnabee C.

10018858 — 2024-09-10 17:47:45 UTC

I do agree that civilizations require a strong state. If they don't have a strong state, everything will be all over the place and things and orders in that civilization will fall apart. A strong state assures that everything is kept up to date in a civilization, and it holds a civilization up.

Shahrian Masud

2024-09-10 17:47:47 UTC

I think that civilization usually results in social stratification which leads to wealth disparities as like not all jobs people can do are equal to one another in terms of how hard they are to do, etc. So people would feel like one job should earn more than another.

Niles Pavley

100175411 — 2024-09-10 17:47:48 UTC

As long as someone is willing to do the work in a society to keep essential "low-glamor" skills or work then class division is a needless hindrance to civilization.

Sahana

2024-09-10 17:47:57 UTC

I do not believe that a civilization requires a strong state, but having a strong state would put that civilization ahead of others, and ensure that it has lasting impact and relevance. A strong state would also mean a stronger society.

Hemanya Kolla

30002983 — 2024-09-10 17:48:22 UTC

People who live outside of civilization have history but it is not known. Individuals who do not live in a civilization have their own traditions, values, and ethics but no one knows them or tried to understand them because they are a small population.

Sreeram Vuppala

2024-09-10 17:48:29 UTC

I disagree, because there is no need for private property for people to live together and contribute to society. People could have what they have even while it is owned collectively as long as there is enough surplus for everyone to have what they want.

30004282_ — 2024-09-10 17:48:31 UTC

I think that civilizations do require a sense of property and ownership. This is because humans have historically been motivated to advance themselves before those around them. By providing private property and ownership, an incentive is created for people to continue working their jobs and making new innovations because they know it will have a major benefit for them.

Petralyn

2024-09-10 17:48:44 UTC

Living in a civilization is natural to human beings. As people find things they are interested in, naturally they will form civilizations around those ideals (religion, morals, language, etc).

Rishab Kangyampeta

2024-09-10 17:48:44 UTC

I don't think that it is possible to develop a universal systematic definition of a civilization because there are so many factors that make them differ from one another. Each civilization has their own unique location, culture, lifestyle and way of operating making it difficult to place one universal meaning.

Shlok Ganguly

10023606 — 2024-09-10 17:48:51 UTC

I think history should focus on the history of civilizations, because I think civilizations have an immense impact on the environment and the humans living in an area. This does not mean that non-civilized history should be excluded, but I think civilizations have a larger scale and a bigger impact on humanity and should be focused on more.

Samaira Tewatia

2024-09-10 17:48:51 UTC

Civilizations usually tend to require a strong state. Strong states ensure structure, strength in government, and some commonality. Without this, civilizations tend to fall apart and become chaotic because no one person is in charge.

Shahrian masud

2024-09-10 17:49:04 UTC

I dont think civilizations need a sense of private property and ownership as you could still go about your life just not owning anything.

2024-09-10 17:49:07 UTC

I believe it is not possible. Every civilization is different, either in its language, religion, culture, or way of life. All of that comes from where it is situated and the people who live in it. It is impossible for there to be one specific type of definition for it.

Ananya Karthik

2024-09-10 17:49:10 UTC

I do think civilizations require some sense of private property and ownership because I think it is definitely a common variable against almost if not all civilizations today. It always for humans to advance themselves individually while remaining int he society. It provides a balance.

Not really.

2024-09-10 17:49:12 UTC

No, it's not possible. Each civilization has different environments, languages, cultures, traditions, social norms, resources, and gov't structures. There is not one singular way to define civilization, as each one has their own unique way of functioning depending on their needs.

Atharv

2024-09-10 17:49:14 UTC

I don't think there is a possibility of a universal definition of civilization. Many people interpret the word 'civilization' differently. For example, some can say that civilization is a group of people who share the same culture; while others define it as a society that has a hierarchical structure.

30001201 — 2024-09-10 17:49:15 UTC

I do not think a sense of private property is that important in a civilization, though having it might be necessary for certain groups; there is not much benefit. Civilizations have more things to do that will see them prosper more than deciding who has control over land

Saesha Dham

2024-09-10 17:49:35 UTC

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.

Arunmoy Das

30001326 — 2024-09-10 17:49:41 UTC

"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.

Abhiram Kuuram

10024429 — 2024-09-10 17:49:43 UTC

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.

Shlok Ganguly

10023606 — 2024-09-10 17:49:52 UTC

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.

Sreeram Vuppala

2024-09-10 17:49:55 UTC

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.

Shahrian Masud

2024-09-10 17:50:10 UTC

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.

Srijan Poonati

30005416 — 2024-09-10 17:50:52 UTC

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.

2024-09-10 17:50:52 UTC

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.

2024-09-10 17:50:53 UTC

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.

Samaira Tewatia

2024-09-10 17:50:56 UTC

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.

Sahana

2024-09-10 17:50:58 UTC

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.

Jahnabee C.

10018858 — 2024-09-10 17:51:04 UTC

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.

Rishab Kangyampeta

2024-09-10 17:51:08 UTC

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.

Saesha Dham

2024-09-10 17:51:23 UTC

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.

2024-09-10 17:51:24 UTC

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.

Niles Pavley

100175411 — 2024-09-10 17:51:33 UTC

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.

Ananya Karthik

2024-09-10 17:51:38 UTC

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.

30001201 — 2024-09-10 17:51:41 UTC

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.

Mariam

2024-09-10 17:51:50 UTC

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.

Anindya Kasukurthi

2024-09-10 17:51:53 UTC

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.

Arbab Khan

2024-09-10 17:51:54 UTC

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.

Sreeram Vuppala

2024-09-10 17:51:58 UTC

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.

Shiven Dhruv

2024-09-10 17:52:07 UTC

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.

DeVoe

2024-09-10 17:52:10 UTC

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.

Atharv

2024-09-10 17:52:15 UTC

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.

Brooke Allen

2024-09-10 17:52:29 UTC

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.

Tara Salman

2024-09-10 17:52:31 UTC

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.

30004282_ — 2024-09-10 17:52:46 UTC

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.

Hemanya Kolla

30002983 — 2024-09-10 17:52:51 UTC

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.

Ayona

100189842 — 2024-09-10 17:53:05 UTC

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.

Rishab Kangyampeta

2024-09-10 17:53:08 UTC

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.

Petralyn

2024-09-10 17:53:13 UTC

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.

2024-09-10 17:53:23 UTC

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.

Saesha Dham

2024-09-10 17:53:28 UTC

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.

Srijan Poonati

30005416 — 2024-09-10 17:54:19 UTC

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.

Atharv

2024-09-10 17:54:25 UTC

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.

Petralyn

2024-09-10 17:54:26 UTC

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.

Niles Pavley

100175411 — 2024-09-10 17:54:28 UTC

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.

Noora Darwish

100244151 — 2024-09-10 17:54:30 UTC

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.

Abhiram Kuuram

10024429 — 2024-09-10 17:54:43 UTC

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.

Saesha Dham

2024-09-10 17:54:43 UTC

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.

30001201 — 2024-09-10 17:54:44 UTC

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

Arunmoy Das

30001326 — 2024-09-10 17:55:03 UTC

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.

Rishab Kangyampeta

2024-09-10 17:55:12 UTC

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.

Sahana

2024-09-10 17:55:14 UTC

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.

Mariam

2024-09-10 17:55:34 UTC

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.

Jahnabee C.

10018858 — 2024-09-10 17:56:08 UTC

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.

Samaira Tewatia

2024-09-10 17:56:11 UTC

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.

Tara Salman

2024-09-10 17:56:14 UTC

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.

30004282_ — 2024-09-10 17:56:17 UTC

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.

Rishab Kangyampeta

2024-09-10 17:57:03 UTC

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.

Shiven Dhruv

2024-09-10 17:57:17 UTC

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.

Atharv

2024-09-10 17:57:26 UTC

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.

Mariam

2024-09-10 17:57:33 UTC

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.

Abhiram Kuuram

10024429 — 2024-09-10 17:57:37 UTC

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?

Hemanya Kolla

30002983 — 2024-09-10 17:57:39 UTC

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.

Arunmoy Das

30001326 — 2024-09-10 17:57:40 UTC

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.

Srijan Poonati

30005416 — 2024-09-10 17:57:43 UTC

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.

Arbab Khan

2024-09-10 17:57:53 UTC

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.

Sahana

2024-09-10 17:57:56 UTC

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.

Niles Pavley

100175411 — 2024-09-10 17:58:19 UTC

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.

Brooke Allen

2024-09-10 17:58:33 UTC

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.

Tara Salman

2024-09-10 17:58:41 UTC

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.

Petralyn

2024-09-10 17:58:56 UTC

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.

30001201 — 2024-09-10 17:59:15 UTC

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.

Ananya Karthik

2024-09-10 17:59:16 UTC

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.

Jahnabee C.

10018858 — 2024-09-10 17:59:36 UTC

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.

Srijan Poonati

30005416 — 2024-09-10 17:59:50 UTC

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.

2024-09-10 18:00:07 UTC

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.

30004282_ — 2024-09-10 18:00:11 UTC

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.

Anindya Kasukurthi

2024-09-10 18:00:14 UTC

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.

Samaira Tewatia

2024-09-10 18:00:36 UTC

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.

Atharv

2024-09-10 18:00:38 UTC

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.

Shiven Dhruv

2024-09-10 18:00:53 UTC

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.

Ananya Karthik

2024-09-10 18:00:54 UTC

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.

Hemanya Kolla

30002983 — 2024-09-10 18:01:03 UTC

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.

Srijan Poonati

30005416 — 2024-09-10 18:01:21 UTC

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.

Arunmoy Das

30001326 — 2024-09-10 18:01:50 UTC

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.

Tara Salman

2024-09-10 18:01:51 UTC

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.

Niles Pavley

100175411 — 2024-09-10 18:01:53 UTC

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.

Jahnabee C.

10018858 — 2024-09-10 18:02:33 UTC

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.

Sahana

2024-09-10 18:03:09 UTC

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.

Shiven Dhruv

2024-09-10 18:03:29 UTC

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.

Brooke Allen

2024-09-10 18:03:38 UTC

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.

Srijan Poonati

30005416 — 2024-09-10 18:03:52 UTC

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.

Arbab Khan

2024-09-10 18:04:01 UTC

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.

Hemanya Kolla

30002983 — 2024-09-10 18:04:16 UTC

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.

Noora Darwish

100244151 — 2024-09-10 18:04:43 UTC

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).

Niles Pavley

100175411 — 2024-09-10 18:05:03 UTC

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.

Tara Salman

2024-09-10 18:05:19 UTC

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.

Arunmoy Das

30001326 — 2024-09-10 18:05:27 UTC

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.

Anindya Kasukurthi

2024-09-10 18:06:18 UTC

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.

Jahnabee C.

10018858 — 2024-09-10 18:06:59 UTC

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).

Tara Salman

2024-09-10 18:08:09 UTC

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.

Sahana

2024-09-10 18:08:53 UTC

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.

Shiven Dhruv

2024-09-10 18:09:10 UTC

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.

Tara Salman

2024-09-10 18:11:09 UTC

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.

Arunmoy Das

30001326 — 2024-09-10 18:11:43 UTC

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.

Hemanya Kolla

30002983 — 2024-09-10 18:14:30 UTC

Civilizations will develop into hierarchical systems due to disparities in power. This is natural but injustice happens only when hierarchical systems go unchecked.

Noora Darwish

100244151 — 2024-09-10 18:15:23 UTC

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.