The Cradles of Civilization in Civ V

[Masada]

Masada, spread didn't mean the same thing as colonized, ever, throughout this thread. That's just taking things too literally.

Please stop strawmanning me, I haven't said a word about 'colonization'. Instead I'm taking exception to the notion that civilization spread out from cradles. Something that should be patently obvious because I've repeated myself a half dozen times.

Because, so far, nobody said what the alternative is.

Jeez that civilization developed in lots of different places, at different times without reference to 'cradles'? That isn't hard to understand is it.

I can make a more rational argument for other regions.

Make one, I'm yet to see one.

 

[CivOasis]

Then... what are you trying to argue? It seems rather inane to argue a point that you've freely admitted you know nothing about.

I'm trying to argue that the whole thing is irrelevant, because the thread was posted to discuss possible candidates for two regions, based on their histories. I used "cradles of civilizations", as that is how I had always seen the regions referred to, and, thus, it was included in the title. However, in the long run, I don't care what the regions are called, I just want to discuss them, and the civs within them.

Which isn't what's been happening.

 

[CivOasis]

Please stop strawmanning me, I haven't said a word about 'colonization'. Instead I'm taking exception to the notion that civilization spread out from cradles. Something that should be patently obvious because I've repeated myself a half dozen times.

Yes, when you claimed that I believe that China founded Korea, or when PCH claimed that I believed that Sumeria founded parts of Europe. That would be considered "colonization", and you have repeatedly said that I believe that. Which is untrue.

 

[LightSpectra]

I'm trying to argue that the whole thing is irrelevant, because the thread was posted to discuss possible candidates for two regions, based on their histories. I used "cradles of civilizations", as that is how I had always seen the regions referred to, and, thus, it was included in the title. However, in the long run, I don't care what the regions are called, I just want to discuss them, and the civs within them.

Which isn't what's been happening.

So instead of admitting that you said something inaccurate because you weren't well-versed in that particular subject matter, you're defending a thesis that's been thoroughly discredited for a good period of time, over the course of six pages?

 

[CivOasis]

And, when I use "cradles", I just mean regions that developed without outside influence. I don't care how many or where they are, but you cannot logically deny that at least a few such location existed.

 

[CivOasis]

So instead of admitting that you said something inaccurate because you weren't well-versed in that particular subject matter, you're defending a thesis that's been thoroughly discredited for a good period of time, over the course of six pages?

I'm not even defending it, I've said it was a misphrased statement several pages back, I'm trying to explain what I meant, and being told that I mean something completely different.

 

[CivOasis]

Jeez that civilization developed in lots of different places, at different times without reference to 'cradles'? That isn't hard to understand is it.

...WTH do you think I've been saying? The only difference between that and what I posted, is that I happened to call those regions "cradles", and I said that there were six that I had read were normally recognized. Which is likely untrue, something that I admitted.

Seriously, read this. The issue is within semantics, not meaning.

 

[Masada]

Yes, when you claimed that I believe that China founded Korea, or when PCH claimed that I believed that Sumeria founded parts of Europe.

That would be considered "colonization", and you have repeatedly said that I believe that. Which is untrue.

No, it wouldn't. Colonization would involve the movement of people, not discredited notions of the diffusion of civilization from a ‘cradle’ out to a passive ‘periphery’. Something that didn’t happen.

And, when I use "cradles", I just mean regions that developed without outside influence. I don't care how many or where they are, but you cannot logically deny that at least a few such location existed.

Sumeria --> ??? --> Ireland!

...WTH do you think I've been saying? The only difference between that and what I posted, is that I happened to call those regions "cradles", and I said that there were six that I had read were normally recognized. Which is likely untrue, something that I admitted.

Because there's no such thing as 'cradles' and civilization still didn't diffuse out of them. It developed all over the place and under different impulses not related to lolSumerianIreland.

 

[LightSpectra]

I'm not even defending it, I've said it was a misphrased statement several pages back, I'm trying to explain what I meant, and being told that I mean something completely different.

OK, you keep saying that there's no disagreement except in people strawmanning you on account of a big misunderstanding, but I call to mind page 3, where PCH cited Peter and Fiona Somerset Fry and Masada cited the Cambridge Histor of Southeast Asia, both credible sources in this matter. At that point, you should have said, "I agree with these sources, I believe you misunderstood me." What you actually replied with was:

To respond to all of the above, I think the difficulty may lay in the definition of civilization, since the "textbook" definition is certainly rather poor. Note that I'm still not buying some of Park's dates, though.

which indicates that you're disputing the aforementioned sources, rather than disputing how people in this thread are reading your posts. Now, you can now say that we are misreading your post on page 3, but according to the literal meaning of your words, we're not; which is why it appears that you're just trying to cover up your lack of knowledge in this field, rather than trying to clear up a big misunderstanding.

 

[CivOasis]

Sumeria-Ireland was something PCH came up with, by being overliteral. I've been trying to stress that its not literally Sumeria-Ireland.

As to the cradles, I don't care what you call it, there were regions where civilization arose, and some of those civilizations arose without the influence of others (early Norte Chico), and some didn't (the modern-day U.S., if you could call a nation a civilization).

In that sense, there were, sort of, cradles. And, there were civilizations that evolved via the influence of others.

Apparently, its the same thing you're trying to say, albeit, under a different name, and you've proven there were more than six.

Seriously, besides my name for the term, where's the issue?
It's not "diffusion" of one civ, it's diffusion of ideas, something that undeniably happened. The only debate is where it happened, something which (as I have pointed out), I don't know the full details of.

 

[CivOasis]

OK, you keep saying that there's no disagreement except in people strawmanning you on account of a big misunderstanding, but I call to mind page 3, where PCH cited Peter and Fiona Somerset Fry and Masada cited the Cambridge Histor of Southeast Asia, both credible sources in this matter. At that point, you should have said, "I agree with these sources, I believe you misunderstood me." What you actually replied with was:



which indicates that you're disputing the aforementioned sources, rather than disputing how people in this thread are reading your posts. Now, you can now say that we are misreading your post on page 3, but according to the literal meaning of your words, we're not; which is why it appears that you're just trying to cover up your lack of knowledge in this field, rather than trying to clear up a big misunderstanding.

That was because, at that point, I didn't think it was a misunderstanding, i thought there were two completely different theories.

 

[LightSpectra]

Okay. Do you understand, then, why people are getting upset at you making authoritative claims about a subject you've admitted you don't know much about?

 

[CivOasis]

Okay. Do you understand, then, why people are getting upset at you making authoritative claims about a subject you've admitted you don't know much about?

Absolutely, and I admitted as much. All I'm requesting is, now that they've made their point, they please suggest a possible re-phrasing of the OP, and turn to the discussion of the two regions.

BTW, you're very good at getting to the point.

The edit was to fix a typo.

 

[Masada]

Sumeria-Ireland was something PCH came up with, by being overliteral. I've been trying to stress that its not literally Sumeria-Ireland.

So PCH is right except for some nuance? Hmm colour me unimpressed with these protestrations of change

In that sense, there were, sort of, cradles. And, there were civilizations that evolved via the influence of others.

And I was right. There's been no real change save in the formulation. All that's happened is that we've gone from 'cradles' creating 'civilization' in the 'periphery' to 'not-cradles-but-still-cradles' influencing (read: creating) 'civilization' in the 'periphery'. Which is still wrong. Moreover, you've provided no evidence in support of this even happening.

That was because, at that point, I didn't think it was a misunderstanding, i thought there were two completely different theories.

There are two different freaking theories. You've just chosen to read what I'm writing in whatever the hell way you want. Which is part for the course now.

 

[CivOasis]

So PCH is right except for some nuance? Hmm colour me unimpressed with these protestrations of change



And I was right. There's been no real change save in the formulation. All that's happened is that we've gone from 'cradles' creating 'civilization' in the 'periphery' to 'not-cradles-but-still-cradles' influencing (read: creating) 'civilization' in the 'periphery'. Which is still wrong. Moreover, you've provided no evidence in support of this even happening.



There are two different freaking theories. You've just chosen to read what I'm writing in whatever the hell way you want. Which is part for the course now.

Frankly, if I'm reading you wrong, then you're probably stating that either one civilization founded everyone else, or that civilization doesn't even exist.

There's not a ton of middle ground left, honestly, because, as I am reading it, you're saying that some/many civilizations created themselves independently. Which is exactly what I've been saying, except that I happened to mis-term the regions where it happened "cradles".

 

[Tee Kay]

I think the argument was that "civilisation" need not to have been under the influence of "cradles" in order to arise in a given location.

If you happen to agree with this, then "cradles" is indeed a misnomer, since it implies that "civilisation" cannot arise without input from certain, more advanced regions.

It's quite straightforward, actually.

 

[say1988]

The way I see it is that these "cradles" were so common and widespread as to be useless. The biggest problem this has is that its entire purpose is that it explains the appearance and spread of civilization in a geographic area.
The Chinese cradle suffers because it relies on the Chinese cultural influence on other Eastand South-east Asian nations. However this assumes that the Chinese influence extends back to the beginning in those areas, which as has been noted they don't, it was brought into a functioning society at a later date (it would be like claiming that the Turks brough civlization to Anatolia).

 

[Dachs]

However this assumes that the Chinese influence extends back to the beginning in those areas, which as has been noted they don't, it was brought into a functioning society at a later date (it would be like claiming that the Turks brough civlization to Anatolia).

That's really not a very good comparison at all.

 

[say1988]

The original assumption was that, Chinese influence is evident now and they are geographically close, so it must always have been. At a cursory glance you see Turkish influence in Anatolia, without other knowledge you make the same assumption. Of course it is a lot easier to find Greek and other cultures that long predate anything that is Turkish than to definitively find evidence of Korea prior to Chinese influence, meaning it is the very extreme example. And intentionally so since everyone knows the complexity of Anatolia.

 

[Dachs]

The original assumption was that, Chinese influence is evident now and they are geographically close, so it must always have been. At a cursory glance you see Turkish influence in Anatolia, without other knowledge you make the same assumption. Of course it is a lot easier to find Greek and other cultures that long predate anything that is Turkish than to definitively find evidence of Korea prior to Chinese influence, meaning it is the very extreme example. And intentionally so since everyone knows the complexity of Anatolia.

That seems like a very convoluted way of saying "yeah, it's a pretty crappy comparison".