Final answer:
The main distinction between barbarism and civilization, as construed by Morgan and historical perspectives, typically lies in qualities like technological and social advancement, cultural sophistication, and ethical standards, with civilization being seen as superior. However, this distinction has been challenged and revised to recognize the oversimplification and ethnocentrism inherent in such views.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Morgan, the main distinction between barbarism and civilization is often framed in ethnocentric terms. In historical contexts, civilization was associated with cultural superiority, moral goodness, and technological progress, while barbarism was seen as culturally inferior, morally wrong, and technologically backward. This dichotomy has been challenged over time as the understanding of these terms evolved, recognizing the biases and misunderstandings inherent in such a simple binary classification.
Civilizations have been characterized by foundational technologies such as agriculture, social specialization, technological advancements, and cultural sophistication. In contrast, those termed barbaric were often nomadic or lacking centralized political structures, and were depicted as living outside the walls—literal or metaphorical—of 'civilized' societies. However, organized large-scale violence has been a hallmark of both civilized societies and those labeled barbaric, and peaceful coexistence is possible for any human group.
Ultimately, the true distinction between barbarism and civilization may lie in the cultural and subjective lens through which different societies are viewed, rather than in objectively measurable qualities. Historical insights caution us against oversimplified binary views and encourage a more nuanced understanding of different cultures and societies throughout history.