There are some things in the first two chapters, and Lao Zhou knows that there may be some discussion.

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

There is such a phenomenon in the history online article, which I don't think is a good phenomenon.

There is a book friend's comment that is very revealing, defining civilization and barbarism as the difference between ideology; At the same time, it is believed that the slaughter of the city is a choice made in order to attack other cities in the future to reduce its own casualties, and it has proved to be effective; It is also inappropriate to say that everyone has a position, and to stand on their own position to criticize the choices of others.

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

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

In fact, as mentioned in the previous chapters, first of all, the definition of civilization.

Civilization is the sum total of the humanistic spirit, invention and creation, public order and good customs that are conducive to enhancing human beings' adaptation and cognition of the objective world, conforming to the spiritual pursuit of mankind, and being recognized and accepted by the vast majority of people.

Civilization is the collection of all the social and natural behaviors that have lifted humanity out of barbarism.

Civilization is a new stage in the development of human culture and society. This stage is characterized by the continuous development of the production of material materials, the continuous enrichment of spiritual life, the intensification of the social division of labor and differentiation, the development of different classes from the social division of labor and strata, and the emergence of coercive public power - the state.

Civilization is the sum total of material, spiritual, and institutional inventions created under the administration of the state.

There are two main types, material, and spiritual.

Needless to say, material civilization is the sum of the spiritual achievements made by human beings in the process of transforming the objective world and the subjective world, and it is the state of human wisdom and moral progress.

Therefore, simply reducing civilization to ideological things is still the concept of the European colonizers in the eighteenth century, and it obviously does not fit the definition of civilization in modern society.

And after reading this definition, the first question of "civilization" and "barbarism" is easy to solve.

At the same time, we can also know that some authors have coined a term for "barbaric civilization", and regard the act of destroying the achievements of human civilization as another way of existence of civilization, which actually does not stand up to scrutiny.

The second is the question of whether the "massacre of the city" is a crime against humanity.

I think there is no doubt about it.

Crimes against humanity refer to atrocities committed by people who hold the resources of power to exterminate or politically abuse others for political, military or economic purposes, along the borders of the country, race, religion or ideology.

Crimes against humanity are based on the idea that human beings are an equal and harmonious family, and that people should enjoy the basic human rights of fairness, freedom and dignity regardless of nationality, race, culture, creed, class or gender.

This is the result of the development of human civilization to break through the prejudice of narrow nationalism and nationalism.

The book friend said that the slaughter of the city was "effective", and there is no doubt about that, and in many cases, it did.

But we should think about it further. Does "effective" necessarily mean "necessary"?

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

What Lao Zhou wants to say is that even if it is "effective", 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 itself is a sign of the progress of civilization.

You can "use it as a last resort", but then you will be held accountable and recorded as a stain, not as praised, praised.

From the large-scale use of chemical weapons at the beginning of World War I to the comprehensive prohibition and sanctions imposed by human society today, this problem can be explained.

Third, there is the question of position.

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

Everyone has a different opposite, but everyone is the same.

In other words, people are individuals and naturally have individuality, but they are also social animals, so of course, there will be commonalities.

In other words, the basis of the existence of human society is to require that everyone in this society should have some commonalities.

It is not the work of a wise man to set aside one side and emphasize the other.

Respect for the elderly, love for the young, filial piety, law-abiding...... At the lowest level, the protection of the right to life and the right to survival, the two most basic human rights, should be the consensus of all mankind and should be the least the same for all people.

As a modern person, this should be accepted as well.

Most of the book lovers who like history also like to study history. And when reading history, I often encounter cognitive problems of one kind or another.

Returning to the section on the massacre, we can now understand that it may have been effective at the time, or even the only option, but this kind of behavior is not worthy of praise at least. Right?

Lao Zhou is also half a history lover, and today I will take a little time to tell you the methodology I used when reading history, which is a one-pronged opinion, and it is best to help, if it is useless, you can continue to discuss, or laugh it off.