 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
okblacke
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Toynbee discusses this at length in A Study of History, and shows how each unique civilization (meaning, those without any predecessors) arose in less-than-idyllic terrain, while cultures in lands of plenty lazed in barbarism. |
Toynbee's problem was that he never left his ivory tower, so he made straight-faced claims that (for example) Africans never developed like the other four cultures because their environments weren't challenging enough.
He got it backwards: a very harsh environment induces apathy. When your life can end at any second, you don't think much in terms of "planning for the future", which is what civilizations are all about. People who actually work with peoples that haven't thrived find this problem.
I mean, think about it, if his logic held, the greatest cultures in the world would have been born in tundras, deserts, jungles.
Not that the equation is that simple, of course. The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential (www.iahp.org) have a saying that "civilization is 18 inches in front of your nose". In their view, the key distinction between whether a society evolves is whether or not the ground (or floor) is a safe place to put their babies. It's hands-and-knees creeping that develops the ability of the brain to converge, and thus evolve things like writing.
Again, unlike Toynbee, the IAHP actually has worked with different peoples all over the world.
OK, enough off-topic ranting. Sorry. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
[ok]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
okblacke
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vmxa1
okblacke that was interesting, but is this were you mean for it be be placed? |
Well, it would be nice if it had come out directly underneath the Toynbee message as a response, but I don't think these message boards work that way.
Thanks, though.
[ok]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by okblacke
Toynbee's problem was that he never left his ivory tower, so he made straight-faced claims that (for example) Africans never developed like the other four cultures because their environments weren't challenging enough.
He got it backwards: a very harsh environment induces apathy. When your life can end at any second, you don't think much in terms of "planning for the future", which is what civilizations are all about. People who actually work with peoples that haven't thrived find this problem.
I mean, think about it, if his logic held, the greatest cultures in the world would have been born in tundras, deserts, jungles. |
Okay, so I see you actually haven't read Toynbee and are just making an assumption of his arguments. If you had read Toynbee, you'd know he specifically--at great length--explains that there is a point of diminishing returns for the harshness of environments. He explicitley says there comes a point where the terrain is so harsh that the energy expended on mere survival will leave nothing left for the creation of civilization, and cites several examples of this (Eskimos, for instance). So no, great civilizations will not arise in the harshest terrains, and Toynbee wouldn't say otherwise (Although great cultures have arisen in jungles--Mayan, Indus--and near-desert environments--Egyptaic, Sumeric, Aztec).
Toynbee's claims vis-a-vis sub-Saharan Africans are based on knowledge from the 1930s, so aren't complete, no. But his assessment as to why no such civilizations arose there seems to fit--either the conditions were too harsh or not harsh enough. If you combine with that the insights given by Diamond about the environments, I think Toynbee's argument continues to hold.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-12-2003 04:08
Attachment: 
|
