For a long time, agents of the western world (Human Rights Watch –HRW) have held the view that the problem with Africa is that Africa was not ‘civilized’.

Others have said, however, that Africa is the New Frontier for development and investment. The perception that Africa is ‘uncivilized’ is still held by many western powers which at times influence decisions of United Nations, World Bank and the international Monetary and many other agencies.

It is important, therefore, to understand why the perception still persists in the modern world.

As far as Africans are concerned, what is called civilisation has been spread by colonisation, invasion, religious conversion, by introducing new methods of agriculture or other means of production.

Many so-called non-civilized people have adapted to ‘civilized behavior’. Civilization is also spread by the technical, material and social dominance that civilization involves.

Stages of development may be called advances in the level of civilisation, when compared to advances in different countries which may be at different levels of development. Those countries may have methods of advanced agriculture, advanced levels in manufacturing and service delivery.

Other criteria may include more developed transportation systems, standardised measurement, legal systems, mathematics, scientific understanding, political structures and organized religion.

Countries that managed to achieve military, ideological and economic power defined themselves as "civilized” as opposed to other societies or human groupings outside their sphere of influence—calling them uncivilized just as Macron & the rest of the west call Africa.

"Civilisation” can also refer to the culture of a complex society, not just the society itself. Every society, civilized or not, has a specific set of ideas and customs, and a certain amount of industrial development earns them the label ‘civilized’.

Civilisations tend to develop intricate cultures, including state-based decision making systems or as the west calls it ‘democracy’.

The west has focused on cultural spheres of influence (Francophone or Anglophone Africa) and have treated western culture as the origin of civilization that must be spread among the ‘uncivilised’ for the benefit of the ‘uncivilized’.

Even taking that premise, however, one finds that African or Asian countries can be called civilised to the extent that they adapted many western traditions. So the question becomes: Why does the west persist in calling Africa uncivilized, when in some cases they know that the continent is civilized?

The answer may have to do with the historical Spheres of influence (Anglophone, Francophone, Asia-pacific). These spheres originated from the colonial era until the 20th century, when constituents of those spheres became independent countries.

The spheres are much larger than either cultural spheres or political spheres. Even before the colonial era, there were trade relations between Europe to the Middle East through India to China, established more than 2000 years ago, when these civilizations scarcely shared any political, diplomatic, military, or cultural relations.

At that time, there was no distinction between ‘civilized’ and ‘uncivilized’. The distinction was invented to provide rationale for colonization of territories.

In the modern world, the distinction is becoming irrelevant in that the world has become integrated into a single system now called globalization. The new system was in many ways driven by interdependence in technological, economic (import-export), political, or military-diplomatic relations.

It may be said that globalization started at the end of WW 2 and  the end of colonialism. Perceptions of ‘’civilized’ and ‘uncivilized’ classification of societies thus depend on the extent to which scholars and politicians are still stuck in the colonial instead of the global perspective.

Contradictions

One apparent contradiction arises when ‘civilization’ is assumed to be synonymous with ‘civility’. The western world has often referred to the developing world as "savage’, illiterate’, ‘inhumane’ or ‘uncivilized’.

The ‘Civil Societies’ in particular insist on continuing to take the ‘colonialist’ perspective on the non-western world. That could have been what President Macron of France meant when he said that Africa was ‘uncivilized’.

However, when one listens to individuals in the ‘developed world’, one hears what might be called ‘savage’ or ‘inhumane’ behavior. At election time, when competing politicians use insulting, belligerent language, or ad hominem arguments, that becomes savage, uncivilized or uncivil behavior.

It is in that context that ‘civilization’ and ‘civility’ are not synonymous. When the western world mixes up the two terms, they should remember that countries can be ‘civilized’ without being ‘civil’ and vice versa.   Changing terminology

It is necessary, therefore, to change perceptions linked to certain terminology. In this instance, the word ‘civilization’ should only be used to refer to level of development (technological, scientific, economic, political) and should not be regarded as synonymous with ‘civility’, morality or even intellectual honesty.

When the terms are mixed up, then Africans would have the right to regard certain countries in the western world as "uncivilized’.

Dangers of Mixing Terminology

The main danger in confusing levels of development and basic mores, moral traditions and culture may be seen as the cause of what is currently called ‘terrorism’ and the reason for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and past wars in Vietnam and other parts of the developing world.

These conflicts are clashes in cultural perspectives. The conflicts between the Islamic and Christian ‘civilizations’ are based on views of morals in the different and other cultural perspectives.

As the world in the 21st. century becomes increasingly global and more urban, people in different cities in different countries, connected by economic (need for basic necessities like food and natural resources) and environmental (climate change) interests, people will become more interested in each other if they ignore differences in cultural mores and morals in general.

It is important for citizens of the One World to prevail on their governments to disassociate what is moral and cultural from what is economic, scientific, technological or developmental. That might have been the rational for isolating what is moral and spiritual from what is political and economic.     The writer is a retired Professor of Linguistics, who continues to be passionate about the use of words, language and communication.