[deleted]
Context matters. Always. One person can use a word and it will be not racist, another can use the same term and it will be racist. You should ask the person what they define as “civilized”. Their reasoning is your answer.
[deleted]
Submitted 3 weeks ago by Tiffany1994@lemmy.cafe to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Comments
woop_woop@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Exactly! I’m sick of people being labelled as racist because they’ve said some keyword that someone has decided makes them racist, even when their intents and opinions are clearly not racist.
Saying it’s “uncivilised” to publicly beat someone to death because they <insert whatever>, cannot be racist, because you’re not concerned with “race” in any way. Going further and saying that a country that allows such practices is uncivilised is, again, inherently not racist, because the reason for calling them uncivilised has nothing to do with the “race” of the people involved.
scarabic@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The context was provided here and the comment was, frankly, uncivilized. Race isn’t directly involved but there’s a deep legacy of racist attitudes expressed in terms like “uncivilized savages” that this comment unfortunately treads near. Obi Wan Kenobi taking about blasters being uncivilized does not.
So I agree context matters, but I don’t care that they were thinking - It’s a badly chosen word for this situation. Does it make the person a racist? Not on its own. But it does make me wonder what kind of person makes this sort of slip in 2025.
Someone can say the word “negro” in a respectful tone with all the best intentions but yeah, they should still just plain find another way to say it.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Designating a country as “uncivilised” is gravely offensive, and immensely arrogant. No country would refer to itself as uncivilised. There are a few which may be lawless, or ungovernable, but uncivilised has connotations that just don’t apply.
Randomgal@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
What you’re seeing is western privilege and ignorance. What people aren’t realizing is that “civilized” has often meant “western-white culture”.
Native American weren uncivilized, they were not-white and not-western, and so on.
Yes, caling another culture “uncivilized” is offensive and racist.
scarabic@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Thank you and the person above you for having adult attitudes. I can’t believe the teenagers in here shrieking “you don’t know what’s in my heart from one word I said!”
People need to learn the meaning of the words they use. Mistakes can happen, but they should not be amended not defended.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
Depends on context. In the context of an informal conversation about a specific kind of law it’s fine IMO. It’s also fine if it’s obviously not that serious, like e.g. different styles of toilets that are both found in the ‘developed world’. When you’re talking about a topic where overwhelmingly, richer countries do it one way and poorer countries do it another way, that’s where calling the poorer countries ‘uncivilized’ starts sounding racist (or maybe just classist, considering countries like Belarus which are poor, authoritarian and underdeveloped but not inhabited by any brown people).
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
White on white can still be racism. There are subtle differences between nations.
“Jews” is actually a good example. Its both a religion and a race.
Its actually quite telling how when the less different looking people there are the more we start hating on even the smallest physical differences.
Lembot_0002@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Jews are not a separate race. Separate religion and nation, but not race.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
I don’t think that can accurately be described as “racism” though, if even the “racists” won’t say that the ethnicity they’re hating is a different race. More general terms like ‘chauvinism’ would fit better.
Sunsofold@lemmings.world 3 weeks ago
Less racist in the modern sense, more profoundly stupid and racist in the archaic sense.
Civilized coutry is a redundant phrase if taken literally. A country is a territory and the associated state. You can’t have a state (political structure) without being ‘civilized.’ (participating in some kind of civic process) They are using civilized in a manner akin to how people used ‘white’ many years ago, referring to acceptability rather than color. e.g. The oft noted ‘Irish and jews weren’t white.’ In that context it seems more of a sign of lack of critical thinking than colorism or essentialism.
vvilld@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
I would say ‘chauvinistic’ rather than racist.
The word “civilized” essentially just means “people who act in a way I deem morally good.” What ‘morally good’ means is 100% subjective to the individual saying it. Since personal morals are so heavily influenced by the culture and society one was raised in, the term ‘civilized’ is almost necessarily going to be used to justify why one’s own culture is necessarily better than another.
This isn’t necessarily racist, but since modern western society is so heavily based on white supremacy, it’s inherently going to be racist when used by someone supporting western society. But it can also be used in other contexts in a non-racist way. But it’s always going to be chauvinistic.
throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
“Developed” Countries and “Developing” Countries are the terms I would use in this context.
AFIAK, there is no negative connotation with the term “Developing Country”, to me it just means they haven’t been given the opportunity to develop, possibly due to external factors like colonialism.
But as for Conversion therapy, even “Banned in most Developed Countries” would be inaccurate since South Korea and Japan hasn’t banned it, so perhaps “Western Democracies” would fit your conversation about the ban on Conversion therapy.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
“Banned in most Developed Countries” would be inaccurate since South Korea and Japan hasn’t banned it
Do we agree there’s a difference between ‘most’ and ‘all’?
Lembot_0002@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
No by definition: races are not defined or related to countries’ borders. It might be chauvinistic, but not racist.
And in many situations it is possible to define the objective criterium of being “civilized”.
wuzzlewoggle@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
There are no different races in humans. The sooner we stop promoting this unscientific lie, the better.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
While that’s true, the wrong meaning might absolutely be the intended one.
Apepollo11@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
My wife still has a book from when she studied Archaeology at uni called “From Savagery to Civilization” by Grahame Clark.
Civilization is what we make it to be, and is usually measured by the norms and standards of the country doing the judging.
The book is from the 40s. By the standards of the day, a lot of what we do now would probably be considered uncivilised. We work from home, eat meals on our own, and rely on a court of opinion more than a court of law. Homelessness is endemic and many people are working around the clock for subsistence wages. Classical definitions of civilisations - community, care for the vulnerable, improved quality of life - are all being stripped away.
I don’t think the term “uncivilised” can really be taken as a slur, at least no more than the word “bad” can be, because it’s just a reflection of what the speaker values.
Deestan@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
These days I see it used in a derogatory way to describe countries and their culture more than the genetics of the people living in them.
E.g. even though I am genetically identical to white Texans, I’d happily call Texas uncivilized because it lets assholes with guns override government.
Irelephant@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
It comes off as very ignorant.
People typically used developed and developing as a result.
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
It can be argued that it’s racist because “civilized” means “western” or “western-influenced”, i.e. contrasts countries in Europe + North America + Australia + maybe some of Eastern Asia with countries in Africa or Southern Asia.
You are very close to figuring out some of the problems with “social justice” ideology.
Standing up for all “oppressed groups” is contradictory. For example, in western countries, LGBT people are an oppressed group, and so are Muslims, yet when the latter are in power, they treat the former very badly, so which side do you stand up for? Or try these: usnews.com/…/blacks-are-more-socially-conservativ… news.gallup.com/…/blacks-conservative-republicans…
It also doesn’t help in conflicts such as Israel/Palestine (are Palestinians oppressed by Israel, so we stand up for them? are Israelis oppressed by the Muslim world, so we stand up for Israel?) or trans activists vs. trans-exclusionary feminists (are trans people an oppressed group whose rights we support? are women an oppressed group whose identity is being appropriated by trans women?). You can see it’s possible to argue nearly everything from the premise that we stand up for “oppressed groups”.
So I suggest people stop thinking in these terms at all and instead pick some other way of thinking, such as supporting a society in which anyone is allowed to live their life as long as they aren’t harming anyone else. Not saying this helps in the specific (somewhat silly) argument you are quoting.
november@lemmy.vg 3 weeks ago
Standing up for all “oppressed groups” is contradictory. For example, in western countries, LGBT people are an oppressed group, and so are Muslims, yet when the latter are in power, they treat the former very badly, so which side do you stand up for?
This is nonsense. I can want Muslim people to have human rights without wanting to live in a Muslim theocracy. Just like I want Christian theocrats out of the US government, but I don’t want to murder Christians.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Exactly.
groups a, b, and c enjoy the same rights doesn’t change if group b wants to take those rights away from c, it is cool with a having them.
B still enjoys those rights and C still enjoys those rights. Everyone also gets to call group B assholes, though, for trying to shit on group C.
In any case, I’d call the US uncivilized. I don’t think that’s particularly racist, in the same way it would be if I called South Africa uncivilized , or something. It kind of depends on the reason and way I’m using it.
I think the US is uncivilized because kids are going to school hungry and not being fed because some asshole in Texas thinks feeding kids is bad.
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
I agree with you substantially.
But just very recently there was a story in Germany where a male elementary school teacher revealed that he was gay. Many of his students were Muslims who were taught to hate gay people and now refused to respect him in various ways (including refusing to go to his classes).
Who is the “oppressed group” here?
Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Standing up for all “oppressed groups” is contradictory. For example, in western countries, LGBT people are an oppressed group, and so are Muslims, yet when the latter are in power, they treat the former very badly, so which side do you stand up for
Easy. The answer is that you stand up for the oppressed group.
Why, exactly, do you think that’s a contradiction? When a group is in power, they are by definition not oppressed.
In all of your examples - all of them - there are oppressors in power, and there are oppressed that are not.
As generalized groups,
- LGBT people are not in power over Muslims.
- Transgender women are not in power over cisgender women.
- Palestinians are not in power over Israel.
In case it really needs to be said - obviously, not all Muslims, cisgender women, or Israelis are oppressors. But all Palestinians and most LGBT people are oppressed.
Palestinians are not “the Muslim world” and painting such a massive and diverse group as a monolith is disingenious at best. The same should be said for associating all Jewish people with the actions of Israel - it’s fundamentally wrong.
The answer remains the same, in any and every case. You stand up for the oppressed group.
Doing so is the only way you stand for:
a society in which anyone is allowed to live their life as long as they aren’t harming anyone else.
ChowJeeBai@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Not racist. Class-ist/ clan-ist, if it’s a thing, probably. What is considered covilised in one societal context may not be in another.
Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
a handful of countries
Person A: “I meant in most civilized countries”
That person used the term without knowing ANY meaning of it, just as an excuse for knowing only a tiny fraction of the world but still making bold generalizations regarding the whole world.
Nikls94@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I think there’s this one island where the natives kill absolutely any stranger coming on their island.
I think it’s North Sentinel Island
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I think it’s Staten Island.
spacecadet@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
No
Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
For me, “civilized countries” explicitely excludes the US. Does this make me a racist, or just a fact checker?
KombatWombat@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s not racist. People accuse others of that term too flippantly. It is ignorant though.
Language changes a great deal over time, and slurs are no exception. What is a completely inoffensive label at some point can be a slur later on. What is a mild insult in one area can be much more severe somewhere else. Sometimes what was a slur can be reclaimed and become acceptable, even positive. But that can also depend on who is saying it and other contextual details. I don’t know anything about “k!wifarms” but I wouldn’t assume malicious intent without more information.
That example looks much like the No True Scotsman fallacy, since a word is redefined later to exclude what would be exceptions to their claim based on an added qualification. Person A also made Person B get the evidence to refute their claim rather than fulfilling the burden of proof themselves. I know it’s not a formal debate or anything, but even so, bad faith arguments are just rude. Just own the mistake and say “you’re right, I was only thinking of first world countries/liberal democracies/developed nations/whatever”.
BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
No
I refer to the country I live in as uncivilized
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Words are words. But there’s differences between the social structures, economic level and common cultures of some countries when compared to others.
And some of this aspects in some of this countries are worse than in other and expected to become better in the future, which implies there is a progression going on and different countries are in different points in this progression path.
Liberteez@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
North Korea is uncivilized. South Korea is civilized. It’s not a race thing.
kaeurenne@kadaikupi.space 3 weeks ago
Personally, I am not sure whether I should judge these behaviors as racist or not.
RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I don’t know about strictly racist, but it’s definitely got colonial overtones. Europe has used “they are uncivilized” as an excuse for the way they brutalized their colonies, erased cultures and enslaved people for centuries
abbadon420@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
I don’t think we’re doing that anymore. For the most part, at least.
scarabic@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s been one of the UN’s primary missions since its inception to unwind the horrific legacy of European colonialism, and help every former colony complete the transition to statehood. When I visited the UN and took the tour some 20 years ago, they were almost ready to call this mission done, but still had about 5 spots they were working on. It’s worth learning more about. Regardless, the course of history has been changed forever by colonialism and Europe continues to enjoy benefits built on its spoils while developing countries still struggle from their wounds. The world will in all practical terms never be free from the stain of colonialism.