The history of manners - History Extra
"By the law of nature... people who occupied territory ought to cultivate it, they ought to practice agriculture. So when the early explorers, travellers, colonists encountered say the Native Americans, they found that they had very little agriculture and they hunted over lands, but they didn't actually turn over the soils. They didn't till the soil and the theory was that if people occupied land without cultivating it, they were not entitled to own it and the people who came along and say took even the land and cultivated it were, and that was because God had intended that the land should be used. Quite sincerely, I mean it certainly worked to their advantage, but that's not why they said it I think...
The question of dissimulation bothered a lot of 18th Century philosophers, including the famous continental philosopher Immanuel Kant who spent ages agonizing as to whether it was immoral to tell your servant to say that you were not at home or to sign a letter Yours Faithfully when you weren't really very faithful. But the consensus which emerged which I think is what is still the position today is that benevolence should take priority over truthfulness...
'Many people in England at least, were slightly antagonistic towards the idea of Continental feminised manners'
'They were certainly resistant to Italian and French men. As in the Italians and the French were the real architects of civility because they thought they effemininised men in the sense that they made them quite unsuitable for a sort of military'...
The 16th, 17th century were periods of intense friendship between men. Not necessarily homosexual friendships, but very close friendships. And people were quite explicit about that. And there was a great cult of friendship. Similarly, friendships between women, that was regarded as a sort of ideal to which one should aspire, everybody needed an intimate friend...
In Israel in the late 1990s, somebody actually tried to bring in a law against queue jumping but of course it wasn't passed. And the role of manners today is to fill the gaps which the laws have left. There is no law against pushing and shoving in a queue... Manners or civility is essentially about how can people live together in large communities, particularly live with strangers...
In recent years, and particularly in the United States, there has been a lot of talk about civility, and by civility, they mean the ability to conduct arguments between people of different ethnic, religious, social character without coming to blows. And how can you, Barack Obama said the important thing is to be able to disagree without being disagreeable...
[Civility] began in the early modern period. When they for example, allowed there to be a loyal opposition to the government. I mean, that would be inconceivable in the second century but there it is in the 18th century... disagree with people but conduct what we would call a civilized debate. That's to say without starting to lash out and hit the other person. And that ability today, when we live in a multiracial society, multiethnic society, different religions, all sorts of values, conflicting in many ways, at that point civility can become the essential form of social cement for keeping the show on the road.
Since civility is a tool of white supremacy, Obama is a white supremacist