There are some things in the first two chapters that Lao Zhou knows may lead to some discussion.

But I still think it’s better to write it down, so that it can at least inspire some thinking.

There is such a phenomenon in historical online articles, and I don’t think it is a good phenomenon.

A book friend's comment is very illustrative, defining civilization and barbarism as ideological differences; at the same time, he believes that massacre is a choice made to subsequently attack other cities to reduce his own casualties, which has proven to be effective; he also said that everyone has a position

, it is inappropriate to criticize other people’s choices from one’s own standpoint.

This is actually a common phenomenon on the Internet. Today, Lao Zhou will explain his views on this issue.

In order to answer the three aspects of book friends, Lao Zhou also talked about three aspects.

In fact, it has been said in the previous chapter that first of all, the definition of civilization.

Civilization is the sum of the humanistic spirit, inventions and creations, as well as public order and good customs that have been accumulated throughout history and are beneficial to enhance human beings' adaptation and understanding of the objective world. They are in line with human spiritual pursuits and can be recognized and accepted by the vast majority of people.

Civilization is the collection of all social and natural behaviors that lift humans out of barbarism.

Civilization is a new stage in the development of human culture and society. The characteristics of this stage are: the continuous development of material material production, the continuous enrichment of spiritual life, the intensification of social division of labor and differentiation, the development of social division of labor and class differentiation into different classes, and the emergence of compulsory

public power - the state.

Civilization is the sum of material, spiritual and institutional inventions and creations created under state management.

There are two main types, material and spiritual.

Needless to say, there is no need to say much about material things, but spiritual civilization is the sum of the spiritual achievements made by human beings in the process of transforming the objective world and the subjective world. It is the state of progress of human wisdom and morality.

Therefore, simply reducing civilization to ideological things is still a concept of European colonists in the eighteenth century, and it is obviously not in line with the definition of civilization in modern society.

After reading this definition, the first question that book friends have about "civilization" and "barbarism" can be easily solved.

At the same time, we can also know that some authors have coined the term "barbaric civilization" and regard the behavior that destroys the achievements of human civilization as another way of existence of civilization. In fact, it cannot withstand scrutiny.

The second one is about whether the "massacre" is a crime against humanity.

I think there is no doubt about it.

Crimes against humanity refer to atrocities in which people with power resources carry out political extermination or political abuse against other people for political, military or economic purposes based on country, race, religion or a certain ideology.

.

The proposal of crimes against humanity is based on the concept that human beings are a big family of equality and harmonious coexistence. People regardless of country, race, culture, belief, class or gender should enjoy the basic human rights of fairness, freedom and dignity.

This is the development result of human civilization breaking through narrow nationalism and nationalistic prejudice.

The book friend said that massacre of cities is "effective". There is no doubt about this. In many cases, it is indeed effective.

But everyone should think further. Does “effective” necessarily mean “necessary”?

As a nation that has experienced the tragedy of the Nanjing Massacre, we should have basic judgment ability to understand this point.

What Lao Zhou wants to say is that even if it is an "effective" method, it does not necessarily "must" be adopted. This is the huge difference between "sticking to the bottom line" and "unscrupulous means", and at the same time, this in itself is a sign of civilization and progress.

You can use it "as a last resort", but you will be held accountable later and recorded as a stain instead of being praised or praised.

From the large-scale use of chemical weapons in World War I to the implementation of comprehensive bans and sanctions in human society today, this problem can actually be explained.

The third one is a matter of stance.

It is true that everyone has a position and everyone is different, but don't forget that there are two other things called common values ​​and universal consensus.

Everyone is different, but everyone is the same.

In other words, people are individuals and naturally have individual personalities, but they are also social animals, so of course they also have commonalities.

In other words, the basis for the existence of human society requires that everyone in this society should have some commonalities.

It is not wise to ignore one side and only emphasize the other.

Respecting the elderly, loving the young, being filial to parents, and abiding by the law... down to the lowest level, protecting the two most basic rights of human beings, the right to life and the right to survival, should be the consensus of all mankind and should be the minimum commonality for all people.

As a modern person, this must be accepted.

Most book friends who like historical texts also like to study history. When reading history, they often encounter cognitive problems of one kind or another.

Going back to the section about massacre, can we now understand it this way: it may indeed have been effective at the time, or even the only option, but this kind of behavior is not worthy of praise at least. Right?
Chapter completed!