View the H-World Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-World's February 2013 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-World's February 2013 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-World home page.
Southwestern Oklahoma State University firstname.lastname@example.org I agree with Yasir's proposal that we should evaluate civilizations on something more than material success. I have argued for a long time that when world historians research and teach the nature of historical "civilizations" our students and the field of "world history" might be best served if we include a moral component to our definition. In his 1964 Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, Martin Luther King said, “civilization and violence are antithetical concepts.” His argument rejected the bland convention, which defines civilization by particular advances such as cities, agriculture, or written language. Dr. King proposed instead that civilization by its nature demands human rights, and he constructed each individual as an agent on the road of civilizing developments. King refused to accept, "the idea that man is mere flotsam and jetsam in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him." Individuals can and do have impact on history, the world, and on our developing humanity, and that can be the central thesis to World History.