Century 21: Bi Uni or Multi?
phil of the future
world of the British Empire, whose decline was well underway if under
noticed, morphed into the multipolar world of European, and world wars then
froze in the bipolarity of the US/USSR for most of the rest of the century.
Far be it for me to suggest that this century will repeat the pattern of
the last but the similar start is suggestive.
Discuss.
Derek Lyons
Yeah, a century that ends with a pattern completely and utterly
different patter than it begins with will certainly have the pattern
repeated. I mean look, other than having no elements in common they
look so much alike except for all the parts that don't!
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Jack Tingle
> "phil of the future" <Ph...@the.future> wrote:
>
>> The good ol' 20th century began with the setting on the arguably unipolar
>> world of the British Empire, whose decline was well underway if under
>> noticed, morphed into the multipolar world of European, and world wars then
>> froze in the bipolarity of the US/USSR for most of the rest of the century.
>>
>> Far be it for me to suggest that this century will repeat the pattern of
>> the last but the similar start is suggestive.
>
> Yeah, a century that ends with a pattern completely and utterly
> different patter than it begins with will certainly have the pattern
> repeated. I mean look, other than having no elements in common they
> look so much alike except for all the parts that don't!
I always wondered what Spengler would have done with fractals. Or maybe
wavelets.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
Joel Olson
news:gmfd01$l4s$2...@news.motzarella.org...
He'd have colored them.
phil of the future
"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:498e2091....@news.supernews.com...
> "phil of the future" <Ph...@the.future> wrote:
>
>>The good ol' 20th century began with the setting on the arguably unipolar
>>world of the British Empire, whose decline was well underway if under
>>noticed, morphed into the multipolar world of European, and world wars
>>then
>>froze in the bipolarity of the US/USSR for most of the rest of the
>>century.
>>
>> Far be it for me to suggest that this century will repeat the pattern of
>>the last but the similar start is suggestive.
>
> Yeah, a century that ends with a pattern completely and utterly
> different patter than it begins with will certainly have the pattern
> repeated. I mean look, other than having no elements in common they
> look so much alike except for all the parts that don't!
Nine years in and you already know how the 21st century will unfold? Around
1999 The Economist related a somewhat ambiguous description of the world the
point of which was that it really was a description of the turn of the 20th
that could equally have fit the 21st.
il...@rcn.com
> 1999 The Economist related a somewhat ambiguous description of the world the
> point of which was that it really was a description of the turn of the 20th
> that could equally have fit the 21st
And if you get ambiguous enough, anything can be made to look like
anything else.
Do we really have to enunciate all the ways in which 2000 US is unlike
1900 UK? Or the ways in which Russia, China, Japan, Brazil, Australia,
India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. of year 2000 are unlike Russia,
Germany, France, US and Japan (a much sorter list, BTW) of 1900?
phil of the future
<il...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:1782ba6d-a9d4-4e67...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
You don't _have_ to. But then again I ever said they were the same so I'm
not sure why you would see the need to.
Derek Lyons
>
Because while you've never stated outright that the situation is the
same, you've gone to great lengths to imply that the situation is the
same - amounting to the same thing as stating it outright.
phil of the future
> "phil of the future" <Ph...@the.future> wrote:
>>
>><il...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>>news:1782ba6d-a9d4-4e67...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Nine years in and you already know how the 21st century will unfold?
>>>> Around 1999 The Economist related a somewhat ambiguous description of
>>>> the world
>>>> the point of which was that it really was a description of the turn of
>>>> the
>>>> 20th that could equally have fit the 21st
>>>
>>> And if you get ambiguous enough, anything can be made to look like
>>> anything else.
>>>
>>> Do we really have to enunciate all the ways in which 2000 US is unlike
>>> 1900 UK? Or the ways in which Russia, China, Japan, Brazil, Australia,
>>> India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. of year 2000 are unlike Russia,
>>> Germany, France, US and Japan (a much sorter list, BTW) of 1900?
>>
>>You don't _have_ to. But then again I ever said they were the same so I'm
>>not sure why you would see the need to.
>
> Because while you've never stated outright that the situation is the
> same, you've gone to great lengths to imply that the situation is the
> same - amounting to the same thing as stating it outright.
No I did not. I said they were similar. I'm sorry you do not comprehend
anything other than black and white.
Derek Lyons
I do comprehend other than in black and white, I also comprehend and
enjoy watching someone wiggle like a bug on a pin when the flaws in
their thinking is exposed.
You provide much such enjoyment.
phil of the future
You think it is I who is wiggling when I point out a critics inability to
comprehend?
> You provide much such enjoyment.
Not neatly as much as you provide.
phil of the future
> "phil of the future" <Ph...@the.future> wrote:
>
>>The good ol' 20th century began with the setting on the arguably unipolar
>>world of the British Empire, whose decline was well underway if under
>>noticed, morphed into the multipolar world of European, and world wars
>>then
>>froze in the bipolarity of the US/USSR for most of the rest of the
>>century.
>>
>> Far be it for me to suggest that this century will repeat the pattern of
>>the last but the similar start is suggestive.
>
> Yeah, a century that ends with a pattern completely and utterly
> different patter than it begins with will certainly have the pattern
> repeated. I mean look, other than having no elements in common they
> look so much alike except for all the parts that don't!
I should take your word over Harvard Professor of Economic History Niall
Ferguson?
From 'Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons
for Global Power'.
"The parallels between today's empire and yesterday's can never be exact of
course. But it is clear that today's debate about American Global power can
only be enriched by a proper understanding of how the last global empire
functioned."
He also cites others:
"Thomas Donnelly of the Project for the New American Century explicitly
models his proposed 21st century pax americana on the pax britannica of
Queen Victoria's reign. Max Boot of the Wall Street Journal has argued that
America should be providing anarchic countries like Afghanistan with the
sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident
Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets. In Boot's words: the chaotic post
cold war environment resembles that of the post-Napoleonic world, with the
United States thrust willy-nilly into the Britain's old role as globocop.
Similar parallels have been have been drawn by Robert Kaplan, who sees the
British campaign in the Sudan in 1898 as the precursor of recent American
exercises in 'asymmetric warfare'. Even Joseph Nye - no proponent of the
unilateral flexing of American muscle - believes the US can 'learn a....
useful lesson from the period when Britain held primacy among the global
powers.'"
None of which is to suggest I, Niall or anyone else is claiming that this
and the last turn of centuries are _exactly_ the same. I shouldn't have to
repeat it again but some people are thick.
What it does suggest is that such parallels and comparison's are worthy of
consideration and unworthy of your sneering contempt.
eatfastnoodle
Well, I'm not sure you can call it a unipolar world when British
Empire still ruled the sea. True, British Empire was the largest and
most influential power in many part of the world back then by virtue
of her fleet and colonies. But she's far from being the kind of
superpower as understood by us. Britain certainly wasn't unipolar in
Europe where multiple powers coexisted. And unlike current US, Britain
wasn't the only nation that could project significant power half a
world away from her shore, France, Russia, Germany all could do it.
phil of the future
"eatfastnoodle" <d12s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:56574f62-b3d0-423a...@f20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 5, 9:56 am, "phil of the future" <P...@the.future> wrote:
>> The good ol' 20th century began with the setting on the arguably unipolar
>> world of the British Empire, whose decline was well underway if under
>> noticed, morphed into the multipolar world of European, and world wars
>> then
>> froze in the bipolarity of the US/USSR for most of the rest of the
>> century.
>
>> Far be it for me to suggest that this century will repeat the pattern of
>> the last but the similar start is suggestive.
>
>> Discuss.
> Well, I'm not sure you can call it a unipolar world
Which is why I said ARGUABLY.
> when British Empire still ruled the sea. True, British Empire was the
> largest and
> most influential power in many part of the world back then by virtue
> of her fleet and colonies. But she's far from being the kind of
> superpower as understood by us. Britain certainly wasn't unipolar in
> Europe where multiple powers coexisted. And unlike current US, Britain
> wasn't the only nation that could project significant power half a
> world away from her shore, France, Russia, Germany all could do it.
While not half a world away at least India, Russia and most notably China
can project power somewhat if not in the same league as America - YET.
I would argue military and political power derives ultimately from economic
power and at this point there is a very real possibility of America losing
ground.
eatfastnoodle
> "eatfastnoodle" <d12s34...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I would argue that the world we live in right now is more of a
historical anomaly. Think about it, ever since the discovery of new
world and the start of industrialisation, European civilisation has
always enjoyed tremendous advantage in science, culture, political
system, etc against the rest of the world. America's superpower status
happened during a transitional period during which old colonial order
was crumbling, old colonial powers were collapsing, non-European
cultures/nations just gained their independence and began to become
enlightened enough to pursue goals similar to western powers with the
same kind of passion and dedication. The emergence of Asian economic
powers served as the first step in the reordering of world order. The
world we are familiar with, namely the world dominated by one or a few
economic powers will gradually fade. Relative economic power of
America will inevitably fade because it's the first time in 400 years
that pretty much every nation in the world joined the economic
competition under the same system without the distortion of
colonialism, communism and various anachronistic ancient cultures.