Originally Posted by Exon Auxus
Re-read that definition paying close attention to the first word. Primarily. Not always. That's the core of my argument, and it's as if you're looking right through it to argue something else. You must look beyond our contemporary definitions and realize that this has not always been the commonly accepted definition of civilization. This was not it's definition a millenium ago, and last I checked, there was civilization a millenium years ago.
And right, I never said civilization meant wholesome either. I used that term as an extension of the message I conveyed with my allusion to the Native Americans. It relates to their lifestyle as a whole, regardless of whether or not they're civilized. Once more you've scoped in on some minute detail that I provided in an example, and doesn't chiefly act as the basis of my argument. Discussing this is getting you nowhere.
...And you aren't just gonna go believe everything you see on wikipedia are you...?
The Journal "Nature", a well-established scientific journal, found that Wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. There is little reason to cast doubt on Wikipedia on as uncontroversial a topic as civilization. It's inaccuracies mostly stem from political issues.
You're arguing the exception to the rule, the outlier, the rarity. There's almost exceptions to every single rule, so there's little point in attempting to prove a general rule by pointing out the exceptions. Furthermore, what was the definition a thousand years ago doesn't matter (the term, and possibly the concept, certainly did not exist a thousand years ago). What matters is its definition today.
Unless we are going to debate about the ancient Babylonians would have fared in a world without technology, there is little point in showing how they would have thought about the subject.