Civilized, Barbarians, Savages, Part 1

By Antonio C. S. Rosa

Caricature of Darwin’s theory in the Punch almanac for 1882. In the public domain.

A civilization or culture is defined as a set of customs, traditions, ethics, values, language, music, dance, gastronomy, clothing, religion, and social and political organization of a people, ethnic group, tribe, or nation.

British scholars of the 19th century classified the peoples and races as Civilized, Barbarians and Savages, based on their respective “evolutions.” Such classification was based primarily on three factors:

  1. Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution;
  2. the Industrial Revolution in the beginning of industrial capitalism; and
  3. the Reformation of the Catholic Church, the schism from which Protestantism arose.

False premises that led to false conclusions.

Such a classification made the field fertile for the appearance of a Capitalist/Protestant ethic, which would produce today’s capitalist system.

The Theory of Evolution (not a science, but a theory) postulates that only the most capable, among the various species of living organisms, survives and evolves. Darwin labeled his theory Survival of the Fittest. This competition for survival and evolution would be in genetic, biological, adaptive and/or mutative terms, in relation to the environment from which they would have evolved and where they would live. Human beings have been labeled Homo Sapiens, representatives of the supposedly most evolved species–the most apt. The civilized, barbaric and savages represented an attempt to hierarchize Homo Sapiens.

To speak of capitalist ethics is to incur a contradiction in terms as capitalism does not have an ethic, but a single overriding value: profits. On the other hand, a Protestant ethics is based on the Old Testament of the Bible and on the doctrine of Martin Luther that God, a supposedly elderly, male, white entity, distributes His blessings in the form of material wealth, power, good life to those most deserving and for whom He feels greater affection. The subtext is that the poor are poor because they are sinners. And Jesus, the messiah son of that God, was a white Jew. The pieces fit together historically.

  • In the Civilized category would be the European, white and Christian colonial empires, with Anglo-Saxons being the civilized par excellence.
  • Labeled as Barbarians would be Asians (yellow skinned, in their classification), nomadic peoples, Arabs and North Africans, Eskimos, all non-Christians (pagans), as well as all dark-skinned races that were not in the category of savages, such as the Indians (from India).
  • Finally, the Savages would be the inhabitants of black Africa, the Indians of the American continent, the so-called primitives of the Pacific Islands: Aborigines, Maori, Polynesians, Melanesians, Micronesians, etc., and cannibals.

 The only two other civilizations respected by this novel Western Civilization were the Greek and the Roman, their progenitors–not very civilized to be sure, built and sustained by wars, conquests and slavery.

There were also the Slaves, captured like animals from the Savage group, who in the 19th century came predominantly from the native peoples of sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas. Christians believed that these savages, like animals, did not have a soul. Hence the legality and morality of their objectification by Christians who sold them as merchandise. Arabs also exploited the slave trade, a major source of investment/profits.

A corollary of such doctrines and beliefs were attempts to ‘civilize’ barbarians and savages through Christian missions that would take European religious organizations to evangelize the African, American and Asian continents, as well as the Pacific Islands. Such missions gave rise to genocides and exterminations of nations and native peoples who refused to be ‘evangelized’ and ‘civilized’. Spain (Corona de Castilla) is an extreme example of this in South and Central America where its conquistadores decimated the Inca, Maya and Aztec civilizations among others. The religious missions exist and persist today, albeit in derisory numbers and without much influence and credibility.

Antonio Carlos da Silva Rosa (Antonio C. S. Rosa), born 1946, is founder-editor of the pioneering Peace Journalism website, TRANSCEND Media Service-TMS (from 2008), an assistant to Prof. Johan Galtung, Secretary of the International Board of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment, and recipient of the Psychologists for Social Responsibility’s 2017 Anthony J. Marsella Prize for the Psychology of Peace and Social Justice. He is on the Global Advisory Board of Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies and completed his B.A., M.A., and graduate Ph.D. work in the fields of Communication-Journalism and Political Science-Peace Studies/International Relations at the University of Hawai’i. Originally from Brazil, he lives presently in Porto, Portugal. Antonio was educated in the USA where he lived for 20 years; in Europe-India since 1994. Books: Transcender e Transformar: Uma Introdução ao Trabalho de Conflitos (from Johan Galtung, translation to Portuguese, 2004); Peace Journalism: 80 Galtung Editorials on War and Peace (2010, editor); Cobertura de Conflitos: Jornalismo para a Paz (from Johan Galtung, Jake Lynch & Annabel McGoldrick, translation to Portuguese, 2010). TMS articles by Mr. Rosa HERE. Videos HERE and HERE.

The psychology of revolutions, Part I

By guest author, Dr. Majed Ashy

There are at least two models for national development: evolution and revolution.

The Centennial of Independence by Henri Rousseau, 1892
Le centenaire de l’independance by Henri Rousseau, 1892. In public domain.

Evolution involves the gradual development of a nation over considerable time. It requires progress by both the government and the people in ways that address socioeconomic and cultural realities. It takes into account:

  • Principles of justice
  • Inclusion of society’s diverse members and groups
  • An understanding by both the people and the government regarding the basic concepts of human rights
  • Recognition of the importance of civilian governments standing at equal distances from all groups in society.

By contrast, revolutions happen when the government is rigid and biased towards certain groups in society. Revolutions are most likely when people feel stagnated socioeconomically and culturally in ways that reflect unfairness and corruption in the ruling parties.

Revolutions represent hope for radical changes in the system and society that will allow for rapid development and counter the times lost in stagnation. They tend to be motivated by popular hopes for justice, equality, and dignity. However, these hopes might conflict with the realities in society of some people motivated by personal greed, power, or revenge.

Among today’s Western European democracies, we can identify governments that were largely achieved through revolution as well as governments that emerged through a more evolutionary process. For example, the French government grew out of revolutionary activity that involved about 200 years of bloodshed, fighting between the partners in the revolution, wars with other countries, and counter-revolutions.

At the same time, England’s democratic system evolved gradually, without major internal revolutions, after the 1215 signing of the Magna Carta (The Great Charter of the Liberties of England), which imposed limits on the power of the king.

In recent years, the Middle East has seen several revolutions. There are two visions that joined hands in the Middle Eastern revolutions. The first vision pictures the Arab world as moving toward various versions of Islamic states; these states might be hybrid between some form of democracy and Sharia law. The second vision reflects a desire for a civilian secular government focused on respecting diversity, liberty, human rights, and socioeconomic development. These visions will be considered further in my next post.

For further reading, please see The Psychology of Revolution, by Gustave Le Bon.

Dr. Majed Ashy is an assistant professor of psychology at Merrimack College and a research fellow in psychiatry at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School.