Writing Future Politics
Dan Goodman
There are three easy ways to write about politics in the future.
The first is to assume your beliefs and causes will triumph. There may
be solid evidence for this, as solid as Nevada's law banning gambling
forever. (Passed 1909, took effect 1910.) Or the victory of
monarchical power in Britain after Oliver Cromwell's death.
The second is to be certain your side will go down to defeat. The
Satanic [liberals, conservatives, greens, pugoristas] will win. The
Soviet Union will prevail over the Free World -- oops, that one doesn't
work any more.
The third is to take for granted that future politics will be just like
today's. This is plausible provided there are no new industries,
geographic shifts of old industries, new technologies, population
changes, major Supreme Court decisions, changes elsewhere in the
world....
One way which looks easy: Assume the future will repeat the past. The
US will fall apart the same way the Roman Empire did, and be succeeded
by feudal societies. Knights will use flying cars rather than horses,
and so forth.
To do this well (defined as "not making editors and readers laugh in
the wrong places") requires a bit of historical study. It also
requires thinking: what will be to the American Empire as Christianity
was to the Roman Empire? What language will Canadian barbarians speak:
French or Inuit? Will China, India, the EU, and Indonesia undergo the
same transition?
What follows is based on these assumptions:
1. You want to avoid having your future become outdated before an
editor reads your submission. (Setting your story centuries in the
future won't help if you get the near future blazingly wrong. Think of
the writers who took for granted that the Soviet Union be around for
centuries, and had their submissions read after Russia seceded from the
USSR.)
2. You like the idea of having your fiction reprinted all during your
lifetime and earning you more money.
3. You want your fictional future to be different from everyone else's.
Begin by looking at what's already happened. The post-WW II US Baby
Boom started in 1946. By 1950, it should have been obvious that around
1958 there would be a whole lot more high school students than came out
of the Baby Bust. And a bit farther on, American colleges were going
to be crowded. (The people in charge of planning for schools and
colleges didn't see the obvious, by the way.)
In the 1950s, English writers wrote futures in which England was still
a Great Power on Earth, and had become a Great Power in space. (Yes, I
meant "England." It was then easy to forget there were other countries
in the United Kingdom.) The UK was no longer a Great Power by then.
Investigate cycles. The United States has a conservative/liberal
political cycle of about twenty or thirty years.
Then there are "moral panic" cycles. There are times of little worry
about drunk driving, and times when it's considered a major problem.
Periods when it's difficult to get police to care about accusations of
pedophilia, and others when authorities believe 150% of such
allegations.
And then there's the heroin/cocaine cycle. At one point, heroin will
be the Big Bad Drug. There will be experts who say cocaine isn't
really addictive, and doesn't cause nearly as much damage as heroin.
Some heroin users will turn to the safer drug. At another point,
cocaine will be the Evil Drug and heroin relatively harmless. (Cynics
might find this similar to the conservative/liberal cycle.)
Investigate trends. The US reached its peak of relative economic power
in 1945, and has undergone relative decline since then. This probably
won't continue to the point where the US is the least prosperous
nation, but it might continue for some decades.
And then you guess. What position in the political spectrum will go
with which economic theory? Which religious affiliations are most
likely to go with conservatism or liberalism? Who is most likely to be
pleased, or most likely to be offended, by the results of Vatican III?
Oh -- then you do this again for the next story, giving it a new
future.
Yes, there are advantages to keeping the same background; Robert A.
Heinlein was able to use his for decades. But he had to postpone the
Strike of 1956 to 1966, 1976, and then an indefinite time in the
future, among other feats of fudging.
--
Dan Goodman
Journal at:
dsgood.livejournal.com
dsgood.dreamwidth.org
dsgood.insanejournal.com
James A. Donald
> One way which looks easy: Assume the future will
> repeat the past. The US will fall apart the same way
> the Roman Empire did, and be succeeded by feudal
> societies. Knights will use flying cars rather than
> horses, and so forth.
Already happening. We have social decay, democracy is
becoming unworkable, violence is being privatized, the
state is hollowing out. Feudalism is a system where
most violence is privatized, hollowing out the state,
but only the elite are allowed to be violent.
The Roman Empire path would be to become a military
dictatorship, the dictatorship becomes less capable of
controlling the troops, and the troops less capable of
defending against foreign invaders, so that eventually
native troops and foreign invaders become feudal
overlords.
Since feudalism is a pretty cool system, while Imperium
really sucks, I hope we get to feudalism without passing
through as lengthy and painful imperium and foreign
conquest as Rome did
There was a science fictional universe, whose author
escapes my recollection, in which the main battle
platforms were giant approximately humanoid mecha, like
Heinlein's powered battle armor only considerably
bigger, and one man fighter space planes with air and
near space capability. In the course of the stories,
these pass increasingly into private hands, and the
owners of these battle platforms become the political
elite, no longer answerable to anyone except each other,
and not much answerable to each other.
Eric Ammadon
>"Dan Goodman"
>> One way which looks easy: Assume the future will
>> repeat the past. The US will fall apart the same way
>> the Roman Empire did, and be succeeded by feudal
>> societies. Knights will use flying cars rather than
>> horses, and so forth.
>
>Already happening. We have social decay, democracy is
>becoming unworkable, violence is being privatized, the
>state is hollowing out. Feudalism is a system where
>most violence is privatized, hollowing out the state,
>but only the elite are allowed to be violent.
>
>The Roman Empire path would be to become a military
>dictatorship, the dictatorship becomes less capable of
>controlling the troops, and the troops less capable of
>defending against foreign invaders, so that eventually
>native troops and foreign invaders become feudal
>overlords.
Whenever the citizenry perceives itself to be limited in choice and
ruled by force, the details of whether the "ruler" is a king, a
military dicator, a representative, or a vote, is as irrelevant as are
the details of whether the force used to rule is an army, a group of
henchmen, nobility, the national guard, or the local police; the
bottom line remains the same, do only what daddy allows or he'll kick
your ass.
>Since feudalism is a pretty cool system, while Imperium
>really sucks, I hope we get to feudalism without passing
>through as lengthy and painful imperium and foreign
>conquest as Rome did
If you consider feudalism to be "a pretty cool system" you must
perceive yourself as a noble with a significant feifdom instead of
some serf slopping pigs. Feudalism does not offer a lot of
opportunity for inter-class mobility unless one is a scheming ruthless
murdering sonofabitch.
>There was a science fictional universe, whose author
>escapes my recollection, in which the main battle
>platforms were giant approximately humanoid mecha, like
>Heinlein's powered battle armor only considerably
>bigger, and one man fighter space planes with air and
>near space capability. In the course of the stories,
>these pass increasingly into private hands, and the
>owners of these battle platforms become the political
>elite, no longer answerable to anyone except each other,
>and not much answerable to each other.
The difference between the battle platform owners you describe and the
governments of today's nations is fairly trivial. The difference
between the governments of today's nations and the rich'n'powerful who
move those puppets' hands is fairly trivial.
When it comes to government there are basically three choices: suck it
up, bust it up, or be invisible and let it go to hell.
--
arggh, is it priate day again?
David Friedman
Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
> If you consider feudalism to be "a pretty cool system" you must
> perceive yourself as a noble with a significant feifdom instead of
> some serf slopping pigs. Feudalism does not offer a lot of
> opportunity for inter-class mobility unless one is a scheming ruthless
> murdering sonofabitch.
I think you may be confusing the political system, feudalism, with the
the fact that people were much poorer in the middle ages than they are
now. So far as I can see, there's no obvious connection in either
direction--no obvious reason why feudalism would create poverty or
poverty create feudalism.
_The Game Beyond_ is both a good story and an interesting portrayal of a
society more advanced than our own with a feudal structure. Part of what
makes it better than the usual kings and dukes with spaceships is that
the author has thought about what circumstances would bring such a
system into existence and what happens when those circumstances no
longer exist.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Eric Ammadon
>In article <tbh0m5tuikr7afihp...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
>
>> If you consider feudalism to be "a pretty cool system" you must
>> perceive yourself as a noble with a significant feifdom instead of
>> some serf slopping pigs. Feudalism does not offer a lot of
>> opportunity for inter-class mobility unless one is a scheming ruthless
>> murdering sonofabitch.
>
>I think you may be confusing the political system, feudalism, with the
>the fact that people were much poorer in the middle ages than they are
>now.
I don't think so.
> So far as I can see, there's no obvious connection in either
>direction--no obvious reason why feudalism would create poverty or
>poverty create feudalism.
Poverty has little to do with it unless that's where you happen to be
born. Feudalism is a clique system, either you're one of the in crowd
or you're not, and your ability to create change stems primarily from
the position within the system that you happen to have been given.
Not that it differs _all_that_much_ from what we in the US consider
democracy, the difference here is that we choose our nobility by
electing it (often, perhaps usually, based on the monetary power they
already hold) and then they proceed to run amok after having been
elected to the nobility, as opposed to having their nobility dispensed
by a king figure (who might have sense enough to choose "good" people
for the nobility).
>_The Game Beyond_ is both a good story and an interesting portrayal of a
>society more advanced than our own with a feudal structure.
I haven't read that story (that I recall), and don't have time (or the
inclination) to hunt it down at the moment.
"I think you may be confusing" an advanced technology with an advanced
society.
mcdowella
wrote:
(trimmed)
>
> > If you consider feudalism to be "a pretty cool system" you must
> > perceive yourself as a noble with a significant feifdom instead of
> > some serf slopping pigs. Feudalism does not offer a lot of
> > opportunity for inter-class mobility unless one is a scheming ruthless
> > murdering sonofabitch.
>
> I think you may be confusing the political system, feudalism, with the
> the fact that people were much poorer in the middle ages than they are
> now. So far as I can see, there's no obvious connection in either
> direction--no obvious reason why feudalism would create poverty or
> poverty create feudalism.
>
I think feudalism is great as a setting for stories, and I think that
human beings have a tendancy to fall into feudalism under a wide range
of conditions - protection in return for service can mean anything
from people working to a familiar boss within a civilised but informal
company, to people suffering under an illegal protection racket.
However I believe that historical feudalism came in a variety of
flavours, ranging from an English system some centuries _after_ the
Norman Conquest when nobles felt some sense of obligation to their
dependents, to various varieties of serfdom, when those on the bottom
were little more than slaves. Only the best would be even vaguely
acceptable in today's terms.
I was interested enough in this to read histories of Plantagent
England, and I gained the impression that feudalism slowly died out
because it was simply not efficient in anything more complex than an
agriculture-mostly economy. Short of genetic engineering or castes
that amount to separate races, you need a meritocracy to pick out
people for the skilled jobs of a modern economy - or even one with a
significant merchant and trading class.
Brian M. Scott
in vl51m557v9lo4630s...@4ax.com:
[...]
> Feudalism is a clique system, either you're one of the in crowd
> or you're not, and your ability to create change stems primarily from
> the position within the system that you happen to have been given.
As any good medieval historian could tell you, the term
'feudalism' isn't even well-defined, so it's rather
difficult to extract any meaning from your assertion.
[...]
Dan Goodman
> In article <tbh0m5tuikr7afihp...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
>
> > If you consider feudalism to be "a pretty cool system" you must
> > perceive yourself as a noble with a significant feifdom instead of
> > some serf slopping pigs. Feudalism does not offer a lot of
> > opportunity for inter-class mobility unless one is a scheming
> > ruthless murdering sonofabitch.
Or a merchant successful enough to buy land and the title which goes
with it....
> I think you may be confusing the political system, feudalism, with
> the the fact that people were much poorer in the middle ages than
> they are now. So far as I can see, there's no obvious connection in
> either direction--no obvious reason why feudalism would create
> poverty or poverty create feudalism.
As I understand it, feudalism has historically begun with the breakdown
of central government. Which goes along with poverty -- for some
people in that society, but not all.
> _The Game Beyond_ is both a good story and an interesting portrayal
> of a society more advanced than our own with a feudal structure. Part
> of what makes it better than the usual kings and dukes with
> spaceships is that the author has thought about what circumstances
> would bring such a system into existence and what happens when those
> circumstances no longer exist.
--
David Friedman
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > I think you may be confusing the political system, feudalism, with
> > the the fact that people were much poorer in the middle ages than
> > they are now. So far as I can see, there's no obvious connection in
> > either direction--no obvious reason why feudalism would create
> > poverty or poverty create feudalism.
>
> As I understand it, feudalism has historically begun with the breakdown
> of central government. Which goes along with poverty -- for some
> people in that society, but not all.
The example most of us are familiar with is feudalism arising from the
ruins of the Roman Empire. I don't think it is at all clear that people
were poorer in, say, 800 or 1000 than in 400. The population growth
figures suggest the opposite--European population is falling in the late
Roman period, starts back up about 600, passes the previous peak about
800, keeps going up until the 14th century.
If anything, I think your "some people ... but not all," assuming I
understand it, has things backwards. Centralized systems tend to funnel
resources to the center, producing the visible signs of a wealthy
society--monuments, palaces, artists and the like. That makes them look
better, relative to more decentralized societies, than they actually are
in terms of the welfare of the ordinary individual.
David Friedman
<797958f0-1ab5-4919...@h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
mcdowella <andrew-...@o2.co.uk> wrote:
> I was interested enough in this to read histories of Plantagent
> England, and I gained the impression that feudalism slowly died out
> because it was simply not efficient in anything more complex than an
> agriculture-mostly economy. Short of genetic engineering or castes
> that amount to separate races, you need a meritocracy to pick out
> people for the skilled jobs of a modern economy - or even one with a
> significant merchant and trading class.
I don't see that feudalism is inconsistent with using a meritocracy to
pick out people for skilled jobs, supposing the sort of economy that
needs that.
Adam Smith proposed an elegant explanation for the decline of feudalism.
When there wasn't much trade, a lord got his income in grain and beer
and such--and there was only so much he could eat and drink himself. So
he spent the rest on retainers--people who would be loyal to him. The
result was a private army--a cheap one, since there weren't a lot of
alternative uses for the income.
When trade revived and the division of labor increased, he had the
option of exporting his surplus grain and beer and using the money to
buy luxury goods for himself--diamond shoe buckles and the like. Since
people would rather spend money on themselves than on others, he did.
His money was still supporting lots of people, but they were scattered
around and not available to fight for him. So having a private army was
expensive, so lords were less inclined to have private armies, so
political power shifted away from them.
I tend to think of the essential feature of feudalism as being that the
key resource is held fairly far down the political system, making higher
level rulers into something more like coalition leaders than independent
powers. In medieval Europe, the key resource was heavy cavalry. In big
city political machines in the 20th century, it was the ability to
deliver votes.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> If you consider feudalism to be "a pretty cool system" you must
> perceive yourself as a noble with a significant feifdom instead of
> some serf slopping pigs. Feudalism does not offer a lot of
> opportunity for inter-class mobility unless one is a scheming ruthless
> murdering sonofabitch.
It varied. Where and when the privilege to bear arms was narrowly
held, Feudalism sucked. Where and when lots of people were entitled
to bear arms, it worked pretty well.
Feudalism was in theory a contractually based system. To the extent
that it actually was a contractually based system, it worked pretty
well.
As democracy starts to perform worse and worse, all other systems
start to look better and better.
James A. Donald
> As any good medieval historian could tell you, the
> term 'feudalism' isn't even well-defined,
By which you mean any sufficiently Marxist historian.
If a medieval historian thinks that feudalism is quite
well defined, you declare he is not a good historian.
The Century Cyclopedia tells us:
Feudalism:
The Feudal system and its incidents; the system
of holding lands my military service.
Feudal System:
A system of political organization with
reference to the tenure of land and to military
service and allegiance prevalent in Europe in
the middle ages. Its main peculiarity was that
the bulk of the land was divided into feuds or
fiefs, held by their owners on condition of the
performance of certain duties, especially
military services, to a superior lord, who, on
default of such performance, could reclaim the
land. This superior might be either the
sovereign, or some subject who thus held of the
sovereign, and in turn had created the fief by
subinfeudation. According to the pure feudal
system, the lord was entitled to the fealty of
his tenants, but not to that of his subtenants,
every man looking only to his immediate lord.
On the continent of Europe, while the system was
in full operation, this principle made the great
lords practically independent of their nominal
sovereigns.
James A. Donald
<andrew-...@o2.co.uk> wrote:
> However I believe that historical feudalism came in a
> variety of flavours, ranging from an English system
> some centuries _after_ the Norman Conquest when nobles
> felt some sense of obligation to their dependents, to
> various varieties of serfdom, when those on the bottom
> were little more than slaves. Only the best would be
> even vaguely acceptable in today's terms.
In Africa, democracy only works in those countries where
political activists who raise certain disturbing issues
get chained into the shape of suitcases, and then fed to
crocodiles. (They call it "suitcasing".) The best
governed country in Africa south of the sahara was,
until recently, Botswana, which was, until recently
monarchical/feudal with a thin pretence of democracy.
As the democracy became more genuine, the place started
to fall apart, Zimbabwe style.
Democracy has had more success in America, but perhaps
any system would have more success in America.
Ric Locke
I'm trying to remember the name of the character in "The Mote in God's
Eye" who demanded that the aristocracy do their jobs. Kevin something...
For a long time in America, we didn't have an aristocracy and did fairly
well. Now that we have one -- no "patents of nobility", but an Ivy
League degree makes an acceptable substitute, as all agree -- we have
the worst of both worlds: the aristocracy wants the plebs to continue
doing things, while they get the bennies. This is not working well.
Countries that still have their natively-formed aristocracies, which is
most of them (perhaps all, now that the US has one), do badly with
democracy for the same reason. The aristos continue to get the benefits,
do none of the work, and are able to blame the plebs for their own
failures of action.
Perhaps, as you suggest indirectly, the correct course of action is to
make them get on with it and /do/ the job they claim to be Divinely
qualified for. Grade so far: F, no improvement shown.
Regards,
Ric
James A. Donald
> well. Now that we have one -- no "patents of nobility", but an Ivy
> League degree makes an acceptable substitute, as all agree -- we have
> the worst of both worlds: the aristocracy wants the plebs to continue
> doing things, while they get the bennies. This is not working well.
This is clerical rule, theocracy, not aristocratic rule. Theocracy
always works badly. The elite are selected by their allegiance to the
most holy doctrine of the consensus of the synod, rather than because
their fathers were good old boys.
This always has the result that the synod is dominated by those whose
most holy doctrine is most completely impervious to reality.
Dan Goodman
And the term itself dates from after 1) the thing itself was prevalent
in parts of Europe and 2) It had been fossilized by members of the
upper classes.
Dan Goodman
> In article <4b60add4$0$637$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com>,
> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> > > I think you may be confusing the political system, feudalism, with
> > > the the fact that people were much poorer in the middle ages than
> > > they are now. So far as I can see, there's no obvious connection
> > > in either direction--no obvious reason why feudalism would create
> > > poverty or poverty create feudalism.
> >
> > As I understand it, feudalism has historically begun with the
> > breakdown of central government. Which goes along with poverty --
> > for some people in that society, but not all.
>
> The example most of us are familiar with is feudalism arising from
> the ruins of the Roman Empire. I don't think it is at all clear that
> people were poorer in, say, 800 or 1000 than in 400. The population
> growth figures suggest the opposite--European population is falling
> in the late Roman period, starts back up about 600, passes the
> previous peak about 800, keeps going up until the 14th century.
Is this a general trend throughout Europe? There could easily have
been increases in some areas and decreases in others.
> If anything, I think your "some people ... but not all," assuming I
> understand it, has things backwards. Centralized systems tend to
> funnel resources to the center, producing the visible signs of a
> wealthy society--monuments, palaces, artists and the like. That makes
> them look better, relative to more decentralized societies, than they
> actually are in terms of the welfare of the ordinary individual.
I'm crossposting this to soc.history.medieval.
Bill Swears
business has our best interests at heart for a couple decades, and they
keep proving us wrong. Right now, we're being told that the economy is
so much stronger, and the big corporates are rolling out the hundred
plus million dollar bonuses, but the country is still at 10%
unemployment, if you care to look at the hoi-polloi. I think the big
businesses, in general, are actively trying to disconnect themselves
from HR concerns, and have been for some years.
Bill
--
Living on the polemic may be temporarily satisfying, but it will raise
your blood-pressure, and gives you tunnel vision.
Eric Ammadon
>James A. Donald wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:19:43 -0600, Ric Locke
>>> For a long time in America, we didn't have an aristocracy and did fairly
>>> well. Now that we have one -- no "patents of nobility", but an Ivy
>>> League degree makes an acceptable substitute, as all agree -- we have
>>> the worst of both worlds: the aristocracy wants the plebs to continue
>>> doing things, while they get the bennies. This is not working well.
>>
>> This is clerical rule, theocracy, not aristocratic rule. Theocracy
>> always works badly. The elite are selected by their allegiance to the
>> most holy doctrine of the consensus of the synod, rather than because
>> their fathers were good old boys.
>>
>> This always has the result that the synod is dominated by those whose
>> most holy doctrine is most completely impervious to reality.
>>
>>
>>
>I think Ric has the lock on our problem. We've been acting like big
>business has our best interests at heart for a couple decades, and they
>keep proving us wrong.
Why would one think that big business has anyone's best interests at
heart except its own? According to what appears to be the prevalent
belief, big business exists solely as a mechanism through which
executives can enrich themselves by making short-term decisions that
maximize the value of their stock options and bonuses.
> Right now, we're being told that the economy is
>so much stronger, and the big corporates are rolling out the hundred
>plus million dollar bonuses, but the country is still at 10%
>unemployment, if you care to look at the hoi-polloi. I think the big
>businesses, in general, are actively trying to disconnect themselves
>from HR concerns, and have been for some years.
>
>Bill
HR concerns relate to employees, and employees are an expense; the
purpose of business is to make a profit, the more usurous the better,
and that means costs are held down.
In a free market things work themselves out to the benefit of all, but
there has been no free market in a very long time. I am thinking that
the free market expired at the onset of the industrial revolution.
When individuals have to compete with mass-produced goods, what was
once a free market becomes a plutocracy hiding under a skirt.
Eric Ammadon
Feudalism is no more than fancy name for a hierarchy of simple
strongman governments.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> I think Ric has the lock on our problem. We've been acting like big
> business has our best interests at heart for a couple decades, and they
> keep proving us wrong.
No one suggests big business has other people's best interests at
heart. The argument is that if each pursues his own interest, all
will be well.
The economic crisis occurred because dud loans were falsely rated AAA
and sold on to someone else, so that the company making the loan had
no incentive to check that the property was worth the loan, and the
borrower able to pay the loan. Now one might ask did this occur
because big business corrupted the regulators, or the regulators
wanted big business to make loans to voting blocks, primarily blacks
and hispanics, selected by the politicians.
That the vast majority of money that was pissed away, was pissed away
in loans to black and hispanics, suggests an answer to this question.
That while big business has stopped making dud loans, Fannie, Freddy,
and the FHA continue to make dud loans, also suggests an answer to
this question.
Eric Ammadon
>The argument is that if each pursues his own interest, all
>will be well.
Although that is a good enough argument if taken literally, its
interpretation generally means take care of yourself and let the Devil
take the hindmost. A policy of self-interest is not a policy of
enlightened self-interest, not if it's taken to be a license for the
accumulation of wealth and power wherever such is not specifically
prohibited by stringently enforced law.
>The economic crisis occurred because dud loans were falsely rated AAA
>and sold on to someone else, so that the company making the loan had
>no incentive to check that the property was worth the loan, and the
>borrower able to pay the loan.
No, I don't think so; certainly that has been a contributing factor,
but I think the cause of the crisis is the way the argument is
interpreted, the view that it's a dog-eat-dog world and you better
take before you're taken, which is one reason I think that any
consideration of the economic crisis as a past event is naive.
>That the vast majority of money that was pissed away, was pissed away
>in loans to black and hispanics, suggests an answer to this question.
How very politic, "blacks and hispanics". At the risk of being
politically incorrect, it sounds to me as if you're working very hard
to avoid facing a fear that all the money will go to the niggers and
you won't get a suitable nobleman's share. Well, if you choose to
interpret a policy of self-interest as one of taking before you can be
taken, it seems that you are one of the hindmost and you better start
eating more dogs before you are eaten.
The period of time just prior to the "great depression" was one of
rampant speculation, just as the 1990s was a time of rampant
speculation, a time of widespread greedy accumulation of undeserved
wealth, a time that made it look so easy that those afraid they'd miss
out on their share risked more than they could afford to lose.
It is fear that is the enemy. The reason people lust after power and
wealth is that they are afraid, afraid someone will be mean to them,
afraid that they will not have enough, afraid they will go hungry and
starve. Ask anyone you know how much is enough and the best he'll be
able to do is guess. But, he'll be pretty sure he needs more than he
has.
So people accumulate wealth because they think they might not have
enough, they need a little more just in case. They accumulate power
because they might not have enough, they might need to defend
themselves from someone more powerful.
The result is that they accumulate much more than they need, and in
doing so they become what they fear, political or economic despots,
because they are afraid, afraid that they will go hungry, afraid they
will be abused, afraid they will die and go to hell.
There can be no Hell worse than what Man has created for himself here
on Earth, a Hell that does not care, where the Universe is a vast
machine and every little cog better eat its smaller dogs or die. In
point of fact the Universe does care, it strives to match every
deficiency with an excess, and every excess with a deficiency, in
every area from electrical potential to global depression.
Paul J Gans
Well, that was a mistake. ;-)
In fact the term "feudalism" is essentially a modern invention.
The term has been used to cover such a broad range of institutions
and human relationships as to have basically no meaning.
A quick introduction to the modern view can be seen at:
http://historymedren.about.com/od/feudalism/a/feudalism.htm
Another good one, written by a medievalist is at:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1i.html#Feudalism
Governmental relationships varied enormously during the medieval
period. There was no universal meaning to "vassal". Land tenure
was complex and grew more complex as time went on.
The "absolute monarchy" didn't exist in the Middle Ages, though
the power of kings and princes varied from region to region and
from person to person.
All that said, the term is in common use and it is very hard
to convince folks that it is basically meaningless.
One can get some flavor of the problem by following the links
in Halsall's article (the second one above).
Sorry to have to do this, but you asked... ;-)
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Ric Locke
The notion that there is somehow a fundamental difference between big
business and Government is risible.
What we know today as "corporations" began as extensions of the taxing
power to those not ruled -- the King couldn't tax Russian peasants, but
the Company of Friends could sell things to Russian peasants, and the
King could tax the profits. The structure turned out to have important
use as a way to accumulate capital to build the infrastructure of the
Industrial Revolution, but the original purpose remains.
A Corporation is a deputy Government, and the bigger it is the more
closely it aligns with the interests of Government.
Regards,
Ric
Ric Locke
No need to apologize; that was a useful and contributory bit of
information.
Regards,
Ric
Peter Knutsen
> The example most of us are familiar with is feudalism arising from the
> ruins of the Roman Empire. I don't think it is at all clear that people
> were poorer in, say, 800 or 1000 than in 400. The population growth
> figures suggest the opposite--European population is falling in the late
> Roman period, starts back up about 600, passes the previous peak about
> 800, keeps going up until the 14th century.
>
> If anything, I think your "some people ... but not all," assuming I
> understand it, has things backwards. Centralized systems tend to funnel
> resources to the center, producing the visible signs of a wealthy
> society--monuments, palaces, artists and the like. That makes them look
> better, relative to more decentralized societies, than they actually are
> in terms of the welfare of the ordinary individual.
Isn't the problem that most 8th century people were extremely
self-sufficient? Very little specialization going on.
There's a lot to be said for the northern European cultures in my 10th
century ï¿œrth setting, but I often describe them as "stupidly
self-sufficient". Each extended-family farmstead makes nearly everything
that it needs, with very, very little trade. Lots of men have some
carpentry or blacksmithing skill, but anything resembling true
expertise, as in doing it for a day-job (or just half-day job), is quite
rare.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Bob Throllop
> I think Ric has the lock on our problem. We've been acting like big
> business has our best interests at heart for a couple decades, and they
> keep proving us wrong. Right now, we're being told that the economy is
> so much stronger, and the big corporates are rolling out the hundred
> plus million dollar bonuses, but the country is still at 10%
> unemployment, if you care to look at the hoi-polloi. I think the big
> businesses, in general, are actively trying to disconnect themselves
> from HR concerns, and have been for some years.
>
> Bill
In fact, in big business the management doesn't even have the best
interests of the stockholders at heart, as the bonuses for short-term
performance demonstrate. If you buy stock in a big company today and
the company makes money, management will skim off the profits and you
won't get much. Stockholders find it almost impossible to fire boards
of directors who pay managers fifty times what they're worth.
The investor Carl Icahn wrote an opinion piece about this in the New
York Times last year. He said that one source of the problem (in the
US) is especially management-friendly laws in states where large
companies are incorporated (for the rest of you, a US corporation is
incorporated under the laws of a particular state, which vary in tax
laws and the rules they apply to such things as stockholder meetings
and even whether the company headquarters has to be located in the
state Delaware, the second-smallest state, is home to most of
America's largest corporations.)* Icahn suggests that one solution
to many of our current corporate problems is to make it easier for
stockholders to change their companies' state of incorporation if they
don't like the way they are being run.
*As the following link explains, this is almost entirely due to
Delaware's deep commitment to the public interest:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-delaware-corporation.htm
"A Delaware corporation is a corporation that has its legal business
affairs registered in the US State of Delaware. The corporation or
business does not actually have to be in business or do any type of
business in the State of Delaware, but it must be registered as a
business there. The corporation can be a limited liability company or
a sole-operated business.
"Almost half of the businesses listed on the Fortune 500 are Delaware
corporations. The reason for this may be that, because of the amount
of businesses in the State, the courts in Delaware are very
experienced in corporate law. If a limited liability company is sued,
the courts in Delaware can provide better guidance and counsel than
other courts due to their greater experience.
"There are many other distinct advantages to registering or chartering
your business as a Delaware corporation. Delaware’s business laws are
some of the most flexible and pro-businesses laws in the nation. You
can become a Delaware corporation from anywhere in the world. You do
not have to live or conduct your business in Delaware.
You can register as a Delaware corporation by telephone, Internet, or
fax through a recognized agent from anywhere in the world. Another
advantage for some is the fact that a Delaware corporation does not
have to be identified in the public state records. No income tax is
charged if your business is out of state, although this is the case
with most out of state businesses...
"In today’s business world, companies and corporations are sued on a
regular basis. Registering as a Delaware corporation offers a definite
benefit, not just legally, but also in charging terms. The laws of
Delaware are very pro-business, and the State of Delaware also has
very lax interest laws. Banks and companies can basically set any
interest rates they wish. This may be one reason for the high number
of credit card businesses operating from the state..."
Brian M. Scott
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote in
<news:3aq1m510l88l4hud9...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> As any good medieval historian could tell you, the
>> term 'feudalism' isn't even well-defined,
> By which you mean any sufficiently Marxist historian.
No. Quite the contrary, in fact: Marxist historians (who
are increasingly thin on the ground these days) tend to use
the word in a fairly specific sense. Unfortunately, others
use it in different senses, and laymen tend to use it in
ways that are either uselessly vague or inapplicable to any
medieval society that actually existed.
But then, I doubt that you have any more idea of what is
actually meant by 'Marxist history' than you have of
feudalism.
[...]
Bill Swears
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:11:59 -0900, Bill Swears <wsw...@gci.net>
> wrote:
>> I think Ric has the lock on our problem. We've been acting like big
>> business has our best interests at heart for a couple decades, and they
>> keep proving us wrong.
>
>
> No one suggests big business has other people's best interests at
> heart. The argument is that if each pursues his own interest, all
> will be well.
Which is clearly a false argument. No big business today allows any
form of competition that it can kill, so all major forms of commerce end
up in the unregulated hands of a very small minority. Most of the
failing banks and major businesses of the bust didn't participate in the
economic crisis you sketch below at all.
_snipped as undeserving_
James A. Donald
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >The argument is that if each pursues his own interest, all
> >will be well.
Eric Ammadon
> Although that is a good enough argument if taken literally, its
> interpretation generally means take care of yourself and let the Devil
> take the hindmost.
Again, let us compare countries that pursue supposedly caring
policies, for example the government guarantees food for everyone,
with countries that don't.
Where you have an "iron ricebowl" policy, you get famine, slavery, and
mass murder. Compare China before the reforms with Hong Kong, or with
China after the reforms.
Our current economic crisis was the result of a supposedly caring
policy - a policy that aimed to make sure that everyone could get a
loan, especially blacks and hispanics.
> How very politic, "blacks and hispanics". At the risk of being
> politically incorrect, it sounds to me as if you're working very hard
> to avoid facing a fear that all the money will go to the niggers and
> you won't get a suitable nobleman's share.
The money should have been loaned on the basis of ability and
willingness to repay, and the underlying security. Instead it was in
substantial part loaned on the basis of political correctness, as
demonstrated by who is defaulting.
That this disastrous policy was a government policy rather than the
evils of capitalism, is demonstrated by the continuing misconduct of
Fannie, Freddy, and the FHA.
Bill Swears
In the U.S., the larger the corporation, the more sternly is subverts
the rule and role of government.
I used to be a believer in small government. I still do, but "small
government" as a use term has begun to be "control the individual
citizen, obey the money."
Bill
>
> Regards,
> Ric
James A. Donald
> The term has been used to cover such a broad range of institutions
> and human relationships as to have basically no meaning.
Marxist claptrap.
Feudalism is entirely well defined:
>
> A quick introduction to the modern view can be seen at:
>
> http://historymedren.about.com/od/feudalism/a/feudalism.htm
That is more like the Postmodern view.
The Cyclopedia is the modern view. ("Modern" in historians goes back
to a fair bit earlier than "modern" in science and engineering)
Suzanne Blom
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-2B0ECE.1...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com...
>
> If anything, I think your "some people ... but not all," assuming I
> understand it, has things backwards. Centralized systems tend to funnel
> resources to the center, producing the visible signs of a wealthy
> society--monuments, palaces, artists and the like. That makes them look
> better, relative to more decentralized societies, than they actually are
> in terms of the welfare of the ordinary individual.
>
James A. Donald
> are increasingly thin on the ground these days) tend to use
> the word in a fairly specific sense. Unfortunately, others
> use it in different senses,
Any historian who says that Feudalism is ill defined, means that the
regular meaning and the Marxist meaning are equally valid, much like
all those economists who presented a "balanced" account of the Soviet
economy and the capitalist economy, and all those historians who gave
a "balanced" account of the Moscow trials, all of which were revealed
to be totally unbalanced.
Because Marxism is a conspiratorial movement, anything that purports
to "balance" between Marxist and mainstream views never does.
James A. Donald
> > No one suggests big business has other people's best interests at
> > heart. The argument is that if each pursues his own interest, all
> > will be well.
Bill Swears
> Which is clearly a false argument. No big business today allows any
> form of competition that it can kill,
But big business cannot and does not kill competition - Big government
kills those who compete with favored big businesses.
Further, the present problems, to which you referred, are not lack of
competition, but rather that wall street losses are socialized, wall
street profits are privatized, as happened in this crisis, and in two
Clinton crises.
Government looks after big business by bailing them out, as repeatedly
happened under Clinton and recently happened under Bush/Obama, big
business looks after government by directing funds to targeted voter
blocks - the affirmative action/political correctness aspect of our
present crisis.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> In the U.S., the larger the corporation, the more sternly is subverts
> the rule and role of government.
That is an accurate account of the doings of Goldman and Sach, but the
affirmative action aspect of our current crisis is the government
subverting corporations.
erilar
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> I'm crossposting this to soc.history.medieval.
before pontificating about "feudalism", at LEAST read Susan Reynold's
_Fiefs and Vassals_.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
erilar
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:00:23 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> > In fact the term "feudalism" is essentially a modern invention.
> > The term has been used to cover such a broad range of institutions
> > and human relationships as to have basically no meaning.
>
> Marxist claptrap.
>
> Feudalism is entirely well defined:
>
> The Century Cyclopedia tells us:
Is that a Wiki relative? You have no idea what you're nattering about.
Renia
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:00:23 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>> In fact the term "feudalism" is essentially a modern invention.
>> The term has been used to cover such a broad range of institutions
>> and human relationships as to have basically no meaning.
>
> Marxist claptrap.
Quite so.
But Paul Gans will try and persuade you otherwise. He will particularly
cite "Fiefs and Vassals" by Susan Reynolds.
He will mumble about how no one ever had their land taken away from them
under feudalism but there are plenty of examples, particularly in England
His other beef, is the "Dark Ages". They didn't exist, to him, as an
"age", because they weren't dark. He fails to take on board that the
above mentioned "dark" refers to the lack of written sources, not any
purported violence of the age.
It's a bit like Political Correctness, where everything has to renamed
because of guilt. Once it's renamed, new connotations will surface, and
the thing, whatever it is, will have to be renamed again.
Have a gay day!
Renia
> In article <4b613773$0$33858$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com>,
> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> I'm crossposting this to soc.history.medieval.
>
> before pontificating about "feudalism", at LEAST read Susan Reynold's
> _Fiefs and Vassals_.
That was very quick, Erilar. You got that in before Paul Gans did.
Renia
> In article <k9k3m5hhipla6187b...@4ax.com>,
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:00:23 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>>> In fact the term "feudalism" is essentially a modern invention.
>>> The term has been used to cover such a broad range of institutions
>>> and human relationships as to have basically no meaning.
>> Marxist claptrap.
>>
>> Feudalism is entirely well defined:
>>
>> The Century Cyclopedia tells us:
>
> Is that a Wiki relative? You have no idea what you're nattering about.
He probably means this:
Whitney, William Dwight, 1827-1894; Smith, Benjamin E. (Benjamin Eli),
1857-1913, ed., The century dictionary and cyclopedia Volume 4, New
York: The Century co.
Which is well prior to the "new thinking" on everything.
Brian M. Scott
<re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in
<news:hjsoc5$8bs$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in
rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.medieval:
> James A. Donald wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:00:23 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>>> In fact the term "feudalism" is essentially a modern invention.
>>> The term has been used to cover such a broad range of institutions
>>> and human relationships as to have basically no meaning.
>> Marxist claptrap.
> Quite so.
I expected you to chime in at some point: your understanding
of history is as outdated as JAD's, though not for the same
reasons, and at least on this subject you're as ineducable
as he is on most of the topics on which he holds forth with
great authority and greater ignorance. (Apparently you
don't know what is meant by 'Marxist history' either.)
> But Paul Gans will try and persuade you otherwise. He will
> particularly cite "Fiefs and Vassals" by Susan Reynolds.
And properly so, if he does, though I see that erilar has
beaten him to it: it's an important book. But there are
more accessible sources, as he's already pointed out (and
has in the past mentioned in s.h.m.).
[...]
> His other beef, is the "Dark Ages". They didn't exist, to
> him, as an "age", because they weren't dark. He fails to
> take on board that the above mentioned "dark" refers to
> the lack of written sources, not any purported violence
> of the age.
This is a flat lie.
[...]
Brian
David Friedman
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> > His other beef, is the "Dark Ages". They didn't exist, to
> > him, as an "age", because they weren't dark. He fails to
> > take on board that the above mentioned "dark" refers to
> > the lack of written sources, not any purported violence
> > of the age.
>
> This is a flat lie.
An oversimplification, perhaps. Wikipedia's account:
"The concept of a Dark Age originated with the Italian scholar Petrarch
(Francesco Petrarca) in the 1330s, and was originally intended as a
sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature.[6][7]
Petrarch regarded the centuries since the fall of Rome as "dark"
compared to the light of classical antiquity. Later historians expanded
the term to refer to the transitional period between Roman times and the
High Middle Ages, including not only the lack of Latin literature, but
also a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic
decline, limited building activity and material cultural achievements in
general. Popular culture has further expanded on the term as a vehicle
to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its
pejorative use and expanding its scope.[8]"
Do you disagree?
If that is correct, then she is right that it does not refer to "any
purported violence of the age," although "lack of written sources" is
only one of multiple things that it does refer to.
Or were you objecting to her account of Paul Gans' views?
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Eric Ammadon
>On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:38:16 -0700, <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
>
>James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> >The argument is that if each pursues his own interest, all
>> >will be well.
>
>Eric Ammadon
>> Although that is a good enough argument if taken literally, its
>> interpretation generally means take care of yourself and let the Devil
>> take the hindmost.
>
>Again, let us compare countries
Again let us not, James. It is individuals that matter. Some
individuals act to further their own advantage, some individuals act
to do what they believe is right, and most are a weak mixture who
would like to do what they believe is right if only it was not so
terribly risky.
Countries are the result of the people who comprise them. Every
country in the world that I have ever heard of is (or was) run by a
government that, once matured, acts (or acted) to further its own
advantage, whether an iron-fisted monarchy or a pure democracy.
>Our current economic crisis was the result of a supposedly caring
>policy - a policy that aimed to make sure that everyone could get a
>loan, especially blacks and hispanics.
I never before realized the extent of your naivte (or perhaps my own
cynicism), James; the policy you speak of was devised by lenders in
order to maximize short-term profit, then advertised in terms that
made it appealing to enough rubes and bleeding hearts to see set it
into place.
>The money should have been loaned on the basis of ability and
>willingness to repay, and the underlying security. Instead it was in
>substantial part loaned on the basis of political correctness, as
>demonstrated by who is defaulting.
>
>That this disastrous policy was a government policy rather than the
>evils of capitalism, is demonstrated by the continuing misconduct of
>Fannie, Freddy, and the FHA.
It continues to be profitable for them to misbehave, and profit is the
nature of the beast. Do not expect an entity without blood that was
conceived for the specific purpose of acting to its own benefit to
feel sorry for you.
. . . .
Story idea:
A planet devises a utopian dream, a dream lacking strongmen who would
become politicians and dictators, and sets about achieving it by
genetic culling. It is successfull and thousands of years of peace
ensue. Then a throwback is born.
Renia
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:26:00 +0200, Renia
> <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in
> <news:hjsoc5$8bs$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in
> rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.medieval:
>
>> James A. Donald wrote:
>
>>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:00:23 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
>>>> In fact the term "feudalism" is essentially a modern invention.
>>>> The term has been used to cover such a broad range of institutions
>>>> and human relationships as to have basically no meaning.
>
>>> Marxist claptrap.
>
>> Quite so.
>
> I expected you to chime in at some point: your understanding
> of history is as outdated as JAD's, though not for the same
> reasons, and at least on this subject you're as ineducable
> as he is on most of the topics on which he holds forth with
> great authority and greater ignorance. (Apparently you
> don't know what is meant by 'Marxist history' either.)
Oh, yes I do. I studied it.
>
>> But Paul Gans will try and persuade you otherwise. He will
>> particularly cite "Fiefs and Vassals" by Susan Reynolds.
>
> And properly so, if he does, though I see that erilar has
> beaten him to it: it's an important book. But there are
> more accessible sources, as he's already pointed out (and
> has in the past mentioned in s.h.m.).
>
> [...]
>
>> His other beef, is the "Dark Ages". They didn't exist, to
>> him, as an "age", because they weren't dark. He fails to
>> take on board that the above mentioned "dark" refers to
>> the lack of written sources, not any purported violence
>> of the age.
>
> This is a flat lie.
Not intended to be a lie. What does he say that is different, then?
Peter Jason
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:4b613773$0$33858$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com...
> David Friedman wrote:
>
>> In article
>> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > I think you may be confusing the political system,
>> > > feudalism, with
>> > > the the fact that people were much poorer in the
>> > > middle ages than
>> > > they are now. So far as I can see, there's no obvious
>> > > connection
>> > > in either direction--no obvious reason why feudalism
>> > > would create
>> > > poverty or poverty create feudalism.
>> >
>> > As I understand it, feudalism has historically begun
>> > with the
>> > breakdown of central government. Which goes along with
>> > poverty --
>> > for some people in that society, but not all.
>>
>> arising from
>> the ruins of the Roman Empire. I don't think it is at all
>> clear that
>> people were poorer in, say, 800 or 1000 than in 400. The
>> population
>> growth figures suggest the opposite--European population
>> is falling
>> in the late Roman period, starts back up about 600,
>> passes the
>> previous peak about 800, keeps going up until the 14th
>> century.
>
> easily have
> been increases in some areas and decreases in others.
>
>> assuming I
>> understand it, has things backwards. Centralized systems
>> tend to
>> funnel resources to the center, producing the visible
>> signs of a
>> wealthy society--monuments, palaces, artists and the
>> like. That makes
>> them look better, relative to more decentralized
>> societies, than they
>> actually are in terms of the welfare of the ordinary
>> individual.
Perhaps we have real live feudalism in Afghanistan today.
In Europe feudalism was dealt a death blow by the
Renaissance that weakened the power of the church. All
indicates just how primitive Muslim societies are today;
about 500 years behind the times.
Alex Markov
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:00:23 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
> > In fact the term "feudalism" is essentially a modern invention.
> > The term has been used to cover such a broad range of institutions
> > and human relationships as to have basically no meaning.
>
> Marxist claptrap.
>
???
Feudalism is crucial term of Marxism, as one of the stages of
development every society must necessary come through.
Marxist historians spent the last century and half searching for
feudalism everywhere - in history of China, India, Africa or
Middle East. It had to be there, because Marx said so.
If Marxist admits that feudalism was a myth he admits that Marx was
talking nonsense.
The "war agains feudalism" is waged by Annales school historians, who
are water to Marx's fire.
In Marxism, what matters in history are means of production. They are
base of every society and everything else is "superstructure". For
Annales school, what matters is mentality and world view of society.
The Annalists want to know _why_ people did what they did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mentalities
> Feudalism is entirely well defined:
>
> The Century Cyclopedia tells us:
>
> Feudalism:
> The Feudal system and its incidents; the system
> of holding lands my military service.
>
> Feudal System:
> A system of political organization with
> reference to the tenure of land and to military
> service and allegiance prevalent in Europe in
> the middle ages.
Yes, it is clearly defined. The problem is that feudalism as defined
there never existed as general norm of Europe. Read the article posted
by previous poster.
[...snip...]
>
> > A quick introduction to the modern view can be seen at:
>
> > http://historymedren.about.com/od/feudalism/a/feudalism.htm
>
> That is more like the Postmodern view.
Nope. This is scientific history, based by study on actual medieval
sources, not by late propaganda.
>
> The Cyclopedia is the modern view. ("Modern" in historians goes back
> to a fair bit earlier than "modern" in science and engineering)
Exactly the opposite. Scientific history, this is history using
numbers, statistics and models, is now barely starting.
James A. Donald
> > Feudalism is entirely well defined:
> >
> > The Century Cyclopedia tells us:
erilar
> Is that a Wiki relative?
It is an encyclopedia sufficient old to avoid Marxist influence and,
more importantly, be out of copyright - hence conveniently available.
And if you don't recognize it, you don't know enough history to have a
valid opinion on feudalism.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> Whitney, William Dwight, 1827-1894; Smith, Benjamin E. (Benjamin Eli),
> 1857-1913, ed., The century dictionary and cyclopedia Volume 4, New
> York: The Century co.
>
>
> Which is well prior to the "new thinking" on everything.
That, and being out of copyright, being the reasons I selected it.
Whenever you see some claim about the past that smells of political
correctness, check out older books to detect if the past is being
rewritten.
Paul J Gans
>Marxist claptrap.
May I respectfully suggest that you read real books and articles
by real medieval historians? I gave you one reference (the
Halsall one). Others are not hard to find.
The Century Cyclopedia is, in fact, quite wrong. No such general
system existed.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Quite so.
>Have a gay day!
Renia, I suggest that you too should read up on this. Things
have changed over the last decade. Almost nobody accepts the
older view.
You choose to restrict "feudalism" to land tenure in England.
That's fine. But the word is, as previous posts here illustrate,
used in a much wider sense than that. And that's wrong.
James A. Donald
> your understanding of history is as outdated as JAD's
History can only become "outdated" if the past is
rewritten from time to time.
As the ministry of truth tells us:
He who controls the present, controls the past.
He who controls the past, controls the future.
Paul J Gans
>In article <nl9ooytjxr1o.1nu6yb4jd398k$.d...@40tude.net>,
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> > His other beef, is the "Dark Ages". They didn't exist, to
>> > him, as an "age", because they weren't dark. He fails to
>> > take on board that the above mentioned "dark" refers to
>> > the lack of written sources, not any purported violence
>> > of the age.
>>
>> This is a flat lie.
>An oversimplification, perhaps. Wikipedia's account:
>"The concept of a Dark Age originated with the Italian scholar Petrarch
>(Francesco Petrarca) in the 1330s, and was originally intended as a
>sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature.[6][7]
>Petrarch regarded the centuries since the fall of Rome as "dark"
>compared to the light of classical antiquity. Later historians expanded
>the term to refer to the transitional period between Roman times and the
>High Middle Ages, including not only the lack of Latin literature, but
>also a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic
>decline, limited building activity and material cultural achievements in
>general. Popular culture has further expanded on the term as a vehicle
>to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its
>pejorative use and expanding its scope.[8]"
>Do you disagree?
Strongly, mainly because it isn't true. Might I suggest
Chris Wickham's "The Inheritance of Rome", subtitled "Illuminating
the Dark Ages 400-1000. He rather demonishes most of that,
even pointing out that there is small literary output for a
number of period WHILE THE ROMAN EMPIRE STILL EXISTED in
Western Europe. And there is more "Dark Age" literary output
in England than normally thought.
If you don't like Wickham, you could also try Peter Heather's
"The Fall of the Roman Empire" subtitled "A New History of
Rome and the Barbarians".
Paul J Gans
Huh? What does that mean? History is a subject in which new
things are constantly being discovered. We know much MORE now
about the Middle Ages than were known prior to Marx. Much more.
Renia
Oh, it is.
Renia
Anything which uses "models" to explain something, is on the wrong
track. For example, the "models" used to tell us all about Global
Warming, er, Climate Change. And the "models" used to explain how
"society" works which has done nothing more than unravel society itself.
Earth, society and history, are all much bigger and more complex than
any "models" used to try to explain it.
James A. Donald
> development every society must necessary come through.
> Marxist historians spent the last century and half searching for
> feudalism everywhere - in history of China, India, Africa or
> Middle East. It had to be there, because Marx said so.
>
> If Marxist admits that feudalism was a myth he admits that Marx was
> talking nonsense.
Marx's feudalism is a myth. Feudalism, of course, was perfectly real.
> The "war against feudalism" is waged by Annales school historians, who
> are water to Marx's fire.
I know little about the Annales school, but since the most famous book
of that school may well be "Feudal society" they seem fairly confident
that feudalism existed. Perhaps they wage war against the idea that
Feudalism as envisaged by Marx existed?
Bill Swears
Histories written about the discovery of America generally treat the
Indians as being without souls, or at least suspected of that. They're
full of purported "facts" that support the great man theory, and for a
long time ignored small pox blankets, and the concentrated effort to
wipe out the Buffalo. The known "truthes" of the colonized orient from
at least the seventeen hundreds were written around the obvious need for
Europeans to go there and save or civilize the middle and far east.
They were often written in contradiction to facts on the ground.
Historians, like effective academicians in almost any field, need to
spend a good portion of their time figuring out which of their great
truths are facts, and which are believed to be true without
justification, and which of their reference books mangle the facts to
support a greater truth.
Bill
--
Living on the polemic may be temporarily satisfying, but it will raise
your blood-pressure, and gives you tunnel vision.
Paul J Gans
Do you think that the past has a monopoly on truth? Back
then nobody paid too much attention to charters or grants
that conveyed property -- or to appointments recorded in
various roll books.
The study of such things, including port records containing
inventories of ship's cargos, etc., started right after WWII,
led mainly by the French.
We also have a better understanding of the Latin of the period,
as well as the vernacular.
So the history gets rewritten into a more accurate shape.
If you want old history you can read Geoffrey of Monmouth's
"History of the Kings of England". Since it was written
around the middle of the 12th century. It must contain
The Real Truth.
Paul J Gans
>> your understanding of history is as outdated as JAD's
>History can only become "outdated" if the past is
>rewritten from time to time.
Not at all. We today have manuscripts that were not known 100
years ago. That's just one example.
Paul J Gans
You do know that science works with models all the time, don't
you? Your TV works, your cell phone works, and your computer
works. Maybe there is something to this "model" business?
Paul J Gans
>On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:02:21 -0800 (PST), Alex Markov
>> Feudalism is crucial term of Marxism, as one of the stages of
>> development every society must necessary come through.
>> Marxist historians spent the last century and half searching for
>> feudalism everywhere - in history of China, India, Africa or
>> Middle East. It had to be there, because Marx said so.
>>
>> If Marxist admits that feudalism was a myth he admits that Marx was
>> talking nonsense.
>Marx's feudalism is a myth. Feudalism, of course, was perfectly real.
Citation please?
>> The "war against feudalism" is waged by Annales school historians, who
>> are water to Marx's fire.
>I know little about the Annales school, but since the most famous book
>of that school may well be "Feudal society" they seem fairly confident
>that feudalism existed. Perhaps they wage war against the idea that
>Feudalism as envisaged by Marx existed?
Never mind.
am...@hotmail.com
> In soc.history.medieval David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <nl9ooytjxr1o.1nu6yb4jd398k$....@40tude.net>,
> > "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> >> > His other beef, is the "Dark Ages". They didn't exist, to
> >> > him, as an "age", because they weren't dark. He fails to
> >> > take on board that the above mentioned "dark" refers to
> >> > the lack of written sources, not any purported violence
> >> > of the age.
>
> >> This is a flat lie.
> >An oversimplification, perhaps. Wikipedia's account:
> >"The concept of a Dark Age originated with the Italian scholar Petrarch
> >(Francesco Petrarca) in the 1330s, and was originally intended as a
> >sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature.[6][7]
> >Petrarch regarded the centuries since the fall of Rome as "dark"
> >compared to the light of classical antiquity. Later historians expanded
> >the term to refer to the transitional period between Roman times and the
> >High Middle Ages, including not only the lack of Latin literature, but
> >also a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic
> >decline, limited building activity and material cultural achievements in
> >general. Popular culture has further expanded on the term as a vehicle
> >to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its
> >pejorative use and expanding its scope.[8]"
> >Do you disagree?
>
> Strongly, mainly because it isn't true.
Errr.... it is "true" because Petrarch DID (alledgedly) came with this
term by the reasons listed AND popular culture DID expanded it as <see
above>.
I suspect that what you are trying to say is that the concept is
_wrong_ (which has nothing to do with the facts listed above) and that
this concept is obsolete. :-)
> Might I suggest
> Chris Wickham's "The Inheritance of Rome", subtitled "Illuminating
> the Dark Ages 400-1000. He rather demonishes most of that,
> even pointing out that there is small literary output for a
> number of period WHILE THE ROMAN EMPIRE STILL EXISTED in
> Western Europe. And there is more "Dark Age" literary output
> in England than normally thought.
>
> If you don't like Wickham, you could also try Peter Heather's
> "The Fall of the Roman Empire" subtitled "A New History of
> Rome and the Barbarians".
Paul, I'm afraid that you are missing one important point: concept had
been originated by a person who is hardly in a good position to read
any of the books you mentioned by a virtue of being dead for quite a
few centuries. This concept reflects understanding of the situation
which existed at his times. The only thing we can safely say is that,
based on what we know NOW, it does not reflect the true situation,
etc. However, this term, rightly or wrongly, had been in use for well
over 5 centuries and, as a result, has some ...er... "historical
right" for existence even if it is not factually 100% accurate. It is
reasonably convenient for designation of a certain time interval and
that's pretty much it.
James A. Donald
> _Fiefs and Vassals_.
"Fief's and Vassals" is unreadable and unread. Susan Reynold wrote it
but appears to have spent insufficient time reading it.
People cite "Fiefs and vassals" not because they know or care whether
it contains any evidence for their position, but because it asserts
their position is true in highly scholarly sounding language with lots
and lots of obscure citations - lots and lots and lots of very obscure
citations, and to assess whether she was full of shit or not, you
would have to read all those citations, which people are even less
likely to do than read "Fiefs and Vassals" in the first place.
Renia
> In soc.history.medieval Renia <re...@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:
>> Alex Markov wrote:
>>> On Jan 28, 7:07 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Exactly the opposite. Scientific history, this is history using
>>> numbers, statistics and models, is now barely starting.
>
>
>> Anything which uses "models" to explain something, is on the wrong
>> track. For example, the "models" used to tell us all about Global
>> Warming, er, Climate Change. And the "models" used to explain how
>> "society" works which has done nothing more than unravel society itself.
>> Earth, society and history, are all much bigger and more complex than
>> any "models" used to try to explain it.
>
> You do know that science works with models all the time, don't
> you?
Yes.
> Your TV works, your cell phone works, and your computer
> works. Maybe there is something to this "model" business?
These are products. There may be something to this "model" business for
them and for things which are absolute. (If you put one brick on top of
another, what happens? If you put 100 bricks on top of one another, what
happens? They fall over. Every time. Unless someone invents brickmaking
and mortar.)
I do not believe "models" work for ideas or beliefs.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> Perhaps we have real live feudalism in Afghanistan today.
No one in Afghanistan holds land or other assets as payment
for military service and conditional on military service.
am...@hotmail.com
> On Jan 28, 7:07 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:00:23 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
> > > In fact the term "feudalism" is essentially a modern invention.
> > > The term has been used to cover such a broad range of institutions
> > > and human relationships as to have basically no meaning.
>
> > Marxist claptrap.
>
> ???
> Feudalism is crucial term of Marxism, as one of the stages of
> development every society must necessary come through.
Yes, but I doubt that it was invented by one of 2 Great Beards: most
probably they used historical terminology of their times because it
provided clear definition convenient for their primitive schema of a
social development (pre-class society -> slavery -> feudalism ->
capitalism -> worker's paradise) and because they did not know any
better.
> Marxist historians spent the last century and half searching for
> feudalism everywhere - in history of China, India, Africa or
> Middle East. It had to be there, because Marx said so.
Well, they were studying (AFAIK) electron because Lenin wrote that it
just as complicated as atom....
>
> If Marxist admits that feudalism was a myth he admits that Marx was
> talking nonsense.
True Marxist can't "admit" anything because his duty is to memorize as
many quotations as he/she/it can and to use them as an argument.
What's written in the "sources" can't be questioned or doubted (well,
it can be "interpreted", if necessary :-)).
Renia
I'm in agreement with this last paragraph.
I'm not saying that definitions of feudalism are correct or accurate or
even across theglobal board. (Ditto with Dark Ages.) These are just
terms for periods of time and I'm against re-naming them just because
they're not what we thought they were.
It's a bit like demanding that a tomato may no longer be called a fruit
because everybody uses it as a vegetable. It's still a fruit, no matter
what anyone does with it.
And as to re-defining feudalism (or the Dark Ages) in light of more
recent research, well, you can't any more than you can give it a new
name. Both terms, are really used for eras in time, not actual facts.
Just as Thatcherism is used today, but is meaningless, in reality.
James A. Donald
> >> >The argument is that if each pursues his own interest, all
> >> >will be well.
Eric Ammadon
> >> Although that is a good enough argument if taken literally, its
> >> interpretation generally means take care of yourself and let the Devil
> >> take the hindmost.
James A. Donald
> >Again, let us compare countries
Eric Ammadon
> Again let us not, James. It is individuals that matter.
But when do gooders have charge to make everyone do good, they proceed
to destroy individuals in large numbers.
> I never before realized the extent of your naivte (or perhaps my own
> cynicism), James; the policy you speak of was devised by lenders in
> order to maximize short-term profit, then advertised in terms that
> made it appealing to enough rubes and bleeding hearts to see set it
> into place.
The policy was devised by regulators to get the poor, the black, and
the hispanic, into housing. It was a classic do gooder policy
proclaimed from on high in defiance of the laws of economics.
This is apparent when you look at the suburbs where the defaults are,
and at the particular houses that have been abandoned.
James A. Donald
> Huh? What does that mean? History is a subject in
> which new things are constantly being discovered.
What tends to be discovered is that history was
supposedly completely different from what people who
lived at the time or shortly afterwards thought had
happened.
Daniel R. Reitman
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>. . . .
>If you want old history you can read Geoffrey of Monmouth's
>"History of the Kings of England". Since it was written
>around the middle of the 12th century. It must contain
>The Real Truth.
OK, who wants to disabuse him of this?
Dan, ad nauseam
am...@hotmail.com
I'm not sure that any of us routinely 'modeling' TV set or computer.
Or are you, by any chance, talking about design processes that
resulted in their development?
> Maybe there is something to this "model" business?
Yes, there is a LOT in modeling but to have an adequate model you need
(a) to have an adequate knowledge of the laws governing process in
question, (b) to be able to formalize these processes into a computer
model, (c) to be able to define an adequate scope of the input data,
(d) to be able to collect these data and enter them into the model and
(e) to be able to process these data with a needed degree of accuracy.
Taking into an account that (unlike the cases with design of TV or
cell phone) a precise scientific definition of the laws governing
human society or (AFAIK) global climate is not necessarily available
and that adequate modeling of these cases may require enormous amounts
of data, I'd recommend certain cautiousness.
For example, providing data for a reasonably small-scale research on
the impact of the internet-based social groups on the smoking
cessation (less than couple thousands people, IIRC) turned into a
serious nightmare with extraction of few GB's nightmarishly
interrelated data.
John W Kennedy
> Do you think that the past has a monopoly on truth? Back
> then nobody paid too much attention to charters or grants
> that conveyed property -- or to appointments recorded in
> various roll books.
>
> The study of such things, including port records containing
> inventories of ship's cargos, etc., started right after WWII,
> led mainly by the French.
I believe Muriel St. Clare Byrne was doing that sort of thing by the 1930s.
--
John W Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index.html
am...@hotmail.com
A lot would depend on a definition. One used by Marx reflects typical
level of understanding of this issue in mid-/late-XIX century Europe
and represents model simplified to an extreme (well, the whole Marxist
schema of a social development is an extremely primitive model).
Usability of such a model is, shall we say, limited and it does not
stay to a detailed scrutiny. However, this does not mean that some
meaningful definition of this period is possible. To think about it,
even Marxist definition, primitive as it is, may be useful if you take
it as "general trend" and not as "everything must fit precisely".
Ric Locke
Modeling works well when the equations are known but are too much of a
pain in the butt to solve. It would be perfectly possible, in theory, to
set up and solve the equations for stress in a complicated part -- but
it would take a genius mathemetician a long time to do it. Simpler just
to feed it to CATIA and go have a coffee while the computer crunches the
finite element model. Nowadays you don't even have to grid it -- the
code does that from the geometry. It's a short cut based on ubiquitous
computing power, and the "hard way" remains possible.
The fundamental basis of modeling is linearization of partial
differential equations. In order to do that you have to observe two
precautions: you have to know what the equations are, and you have to
keep the steps small enough to make the assumption of linearity not too
absurd. If you don't know /all/ the equations and let the iterations
make large steps, literally any "result" is possible.
When the variables don't, the constants aren't, the coefficients are
neither co nor efficient, and the operators are ill-defined and written
in disappearing ink, "modeling" is a method for generating snazzy
PowerPoints that only accidentally have any relation to reality. The
nastiest revelation of the HADCRUT papers is in the code. Those guys
don't have a model. They have a bunch of ad hoc assumptions strung
together by the ancient sneer about engineering: chop to shape, bash to
fit, file to smooth, paint to hide. The resemblance to anything used to
make TVs, cell phones, computers, or anything else that actually gets
made, sold, and used is entirely in the name, and that's a blatant
misrepresentation.
Regards,
Ric
James A. Donald
> > Whenever you see some claim about the past that
> > smells of political correctness, check out older
> > books to detect if the past is being rewritten.
Paul J Gans
> Do you think that the past has a monopoly on truth?
People of the past have a very large advantage in
knowing the truth about their own past, the past of
their own country and nearby countries. If they are
wrong, we are unlikely to know better than they.
In addition, more highly centralized societies are more
prone to rewrite history for political reasons. Our
society is more centralized than anything that existed
in the west after 400AD, thus histories produced today
are inherently less likely to be reliable than histories
produced one hundred years ago, or even histories
produced thirty years ago.
Older historians are better placed to know the truth,
and older histories are less likely to rewrite the past
to control the future.
One might legitimately produce a version that differs in
focus and emphasis from earlier versions, or one that
differs not in the events described, but in the
explanation od the same events, but versions that differ
radically from older accounts in the basic facts of
reality cannot possibly be true, for example the
politically correct rewritings of the scientific
revolution, the Lewis and Clark expedition and Cook in
Hawaii. The modern revisionist histories of these
events are transparently fraudulent
Consider, for example, the effort to expunge cannibalism
from the history of the Americas. This and many other
similar frauds cast doubt on all revisionist history.
> Back then nobody paid too much attention to charters
> or grants that conveyed property -- or to appointments
> recorded in various roll books.
Such things are unlikely to change our understanding of
history in ways anyone is likely to care about, and when
they supposedly do, as for example Bellesiles "Arming
America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" the
usual reason for such a surprising result is fraud.
> We also have a better understanding of the Latin of
> the period, as well as the vernacular.
Modern understanding of old language is always
necessarily inferior to the understanding of those
closer to the time, because in earlier times, the taken
for granted context and environment was less changed,
the things that go without saying were less changed,
thus they had a better prospect of knowing what the
earlier writer was talking about, thus a better
opportunity to learn his language.
But the big reason for doubting modern claims to know
history better than those closer to it is that so much
modern revised history is just obvious bunkum, for
example Lewis and Clark with politically correct noble
savage natives, the Conquistadors oppressing non
cannibal highly civilized natives, the revised captain
cook, and so on and so forth.
James A. Donald
> Citation please?
I just gave one that feudalism existed. Are you asking for a cite
showing that Marx's feudalism was a myth?
James A. Donald
> A lot would depend on a definition. One used by Marx
> reflects typical level of understanding of this issue
> in mid-/late-XIX century Europe
Marx upended and extravagantly contradicted the
understanding of feudalism in nineteenth century Europe.
He superficially pretended that widespread opinion
agreed him, but it did not.
Marx's feudalism had no more resemblance to the standard
understanding of feudalism, than his labor theory of
value had to economist's theory of value. He was, as usual,
off in his own little world.
James A. Donald
> > development every society must necessary come through.
> Yes, but I doubt that it was invented by one of 2 Great Beards: most
> probably they used historical terminology of their times
But they did not use the historical terminology of their times.
Weland
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:32:41 +0200, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr>
> wrote:
>> Whitney, William Dwight, 1827-1894; Smith, Benjamin E. (Benjamin Eli),
>> 1857-1913, ed., The century dictionary and cyclopedia Volume 4, New
>> York: The Century co.
>>
>>
>> Which is well prior to the "new thinking" on everything.
>
> That, and being out of copyright, being the reasons I selected it.
>
> correctness, check out older books to detect if the past is being
> rewritten.
>
Because of course the old books had no need for political correctness,
even in 19th century terms, and no agenda whatsoever and always told the
facts as they are and no advances in understanding have been made since.
That's why Palin was right about everything she got wrong, right there
James A. Donald?
James A. Donald
> The Century Cyclopedia is, in fact, quite wrong. No such general
> system existed.
William the Marshall was operating within feudalism, as usually
described, in that he had to pay homage and give service for his
lands.
Weland
Sometimes true...because they aren't interested in history, but in
spinning the events to make themselves look good. And they don't much
care what the other side has to say, in fact anyone not on their side at
all. Whereas a modern historian is interested in what ALL parties have
to say about an event and will look at every scrap of evidence in order
to reconstruct as best as humanly possible what really happened.
Weland
> In article <nl9ooytjxr1o.1nu6yb4jd398k$.d...@40tude.net>,
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>>> His other beef, is the "Dark Ages". They didn't exist, to
>>> him, as an "age", because they weren't dark. He fails to
>>> take on board that the above mentioned "dark" refers to
>>> the lack of written sources, not any purported violence
>>> of the age.
>> This is a flat lie.
>
> An oversimplification, perhaps. Wikipedia's account:
>
> "The concept of a Dark Age originated with the Italian scholar Petrarch
> (Francesco Petrarca) in the 1330s, and was originally intended as a
> sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature.[6][7]
> Petrarch regarded the centuries since the fall of Rome as "dark"
> compared to the light of classical antiquity. Later historians expanded
> the term to refer to the transitional period between Roman times and the
> High Middle Ages, including not only the lack of Latin literature, but
> also a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic
> decline, limited building activity and material cultural achievements in
> general. Popular culture has further expanded on the term as a vehicle
> to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its
> pejorative use and expanding its scope.[8]"
>
> Do you disagree?
>
> purported violence of the age," although "lack of written sources" is
> only one of multiple things that it does refer to.
>
> Or were you objecting to her account of Paul Gans' views?
>
Not speaking for Brian, but to a degree both. The appellation "Dark
Ages" as used by professional historians now primarily refers to Britain
by British scholars in the fifth and sixth century. But that has really
only been in the last 30-50 years. And still in popular culture one
continually sees "dark ages" applied to much broader swaths of time and
territory. Even that is changing in some quarters of British
scholarship as other kinds of information and sources beyond the
literary are being used to reconstruct the period. And she didn't
represent Paul accurately either.
Weland
> In soc.history.medieval David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> In article <nl9ooytjxr1o.1nu6yb4jd398k$.d...@40tude.net>,
>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>>>> His other beef, is the "Dark Ages". They didn't exist, to
>>>> him, as an "age", because they weren't dark. He fails to
>>>> take on board that the above mentioned "dark" refers to
>>>> the lack of written sources, not any purported violence
>>>> of the age.
>>> This is a flat lie.
>
>> An oversimplification, perhaps. Wikipedia's account:
>
>> "The concept of a Dark Age originated with the Italian scholar Petrarch
>> (Francesco Petrarca) in the 1330s, and was originally intended as a
>> sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature.[6][7]
>> Petrarch regarded the centuries since the fall of Rome as "dark"
>> compared to the light of classical antiquity. Later historians expanded
>> the term to refer to the transitional period between Roman times and the
>> High Middle Ages, including not only the lack of Latin literature, but
>> also a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic
>> decline, limited building activity and material cultural achievements in
>> general. Popular culture has further expanded on the term as a vehicle
>> to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its
>> pejorative use and expanding its scope.[8]"
>
>> Do you disagree?
>
> Chris Wickham's "The Inheritance of Rome", subtitled "Illuminating
> the Dark Ages 400-1000. He rather demonishes most of that,
> even pointing out that there is small literary output for a
> number of period WHILE THE ROMAN EMPIRE STILL EXISTED in
> Western Europe. And there is more "Dark Age" literary output
> in England than normally thought.
>
> If you don't like Wickham, you could also try Peter Heather's
> "The Fall of the Roman Empire" subtitled "A New History of
> Rome and the Barbarians".
>
Though as I recall, Paul, Heather doesn't really deal with the issue of
the "dark age" much but rather argues for a hard fall to the empire and
its results mainly from a military perspective.
James A. Donald
> Histories written about the discovery of America
> generally treat the Indians as being without souls, or
> at least suspected of that.
I have read accounts by the people who were there, among
them accounts by two of the pilgrims and by a
conquistador.
Your claim is a ludicrous lie issued to demonize our
past in order to valorize efforts to destroy our
present, a history as bizarre, as maniacally hate
filled, and as disconnected from reality as the history
that the protagonist of 1984 learned and manufactured.
James A. Donald
> Not at all. We today have manuscripts that were not
> known 100 years ago. That's just one example.
I read writings by people who lived history, people who
were on the scene. They are invariably consistent with
the older version of history, inconsistent with the many
postmodern versions of history, which postmodern
histories change at bewildering speed, reminiscent of
the infamous Soviet Encyclopedia. Have the Aztecs been
redeclared cannibals this week?
Weland
> am...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Jan 28, 9:25 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Paul, I'm afraid that you are missing one important point: concept had
>> been originated by a person who is hardly in a good position to read
>> any of the books you mentioned by a virtue of being dead for quite a
>> few centuries. This concept reflects understanding of the situation
>> which existed at his times. The only thing we can safely say is that,
>> based on what we know NOW, it does not reflect the true situation,
>> etc. However, this term, rightly or wrongly, had been in use for well
>> over 5 centuries and, as a result, has some ...er... "historical
>> right" for existence even if it is not factually 100% accurate. It is
>> reasonably convenient for designation of a certain time interval and
>> that's pretty much it.
>
>
> I'm in agreement with this last paragraph.
>
> I'm not saying that definitions of feudalism are correct or accurate or
> even across theglobal board. (Ditto with Dark Ages.) These are just
> terms for periods of time and I'm against re-naming them just because
> they're not what we thought they were.
>
> It's a bit like demanding that a tomato may no longer be called a fruit
> because everybody uses it as a vegetable. It's still a fruit, no matter
> what anyone does with it.
But Renia, the case of "feudalism" is exactly the opposite of what you
describe here. You see, the nature of feudalism didn't change, what we
thought it was did. Tomatoes have always been fruit, even if people
thought of them as vegetables. Suddenly they discover it's a fruit and
their understanding of it changes, but the tomato hasn't moved anywhere.
Weland
> "Brian M. Scott"
>> your understanding of history is as outdated as JAD's
>
> History can only become "outdated" if the past is
> rewritten from time to time.
But he didn't say history was outdated, he said *YOUR* comprehension,
such as it is, was outdated. Get it?
James A. Donald
Paul J Gans
> Renia, I suggest that you too should read up on this.
> Things have changed over the last decade. Almost
> nobody accepts the older view.
When thousand year old history changes in single decade,
something smells funny.
Further, a lot of these revisions keep getting
re-revised. Are you quite sure you are hip with the
very latest past?
Further, a lot of these revisions are re-reading of old
books and old documents. People would for hundreds of
years be perfectly confident that such and such book said
such and such a thing, and suddenly, ten or twenty years
ago, someone claims it says the opposite thing, and
suddenly everyone supposedly agrees, even though no
actual relevant quotes from the document were ever
discussed, nor any new understandings of old words.
Further, the people who for hundreds of years the
document said X would quote extensively from the
document, whereas the people who today say the document
said not X instead quote each other, rather than the
document.
Renia
All serious historians have always done this.
The historians that we and our grandparents grew up with and were taught
by through their books, were probably more rigorously educated than we
were, in history and the classics, in what was known at the time. They
were without the distractions of modern life, such as TV, newspapers,
computers, political correctness and even tenpin bowling. They taught
us, and did their best with what they had learnt and later discovered
for themselves. Modern historians have an agenda. Like Olympic runners
or modern film-makers, they want to break records and convince people
they have found something new and fresh. One way to do that, is to trash
what went on before.
James A. Donald
> Anything which uses "models" to explain something, is
> on the wrong track.
"Models" are physics envy. Models are fine in physics
and similar disciplines. They are quackery and
horoscopes when modeling climate and society and
suchlike. They are often mighty smelly in economics.
Models are fine for situations where Galileo's
explanation of the scientific method tells us they are
fine.
James A. Donald
> May I respectfully suggest that you read real books and articles
> by real medieval historians? I gave you one reference (the
> Halsall one). Others are not hard to find.
A more reliable approach is to read translations of documents by real
medievals, which translations sound mighty feudal to me.
Weland
> erilar
>> before pontificating about "feudalism", at LEAST read Susan Reynold's
>> _Fiefs and Vassals_.
>
> "Fief's and Vassals" is unreadable and unread.
Both false. Of course, the reason you can spout such ignorant clap trap
is that you haven't read it and have to find reasons to dismiss it lest
it cause you to change your mind about the Century Cyclopedia.
Susan Reynold wrote it
> but appears to have spent insufficient time reading it.
>
> People cite "Fiefs and vassals" not because they know or care whether
> it contains any evidence for their position, but because it asserts
> their position is true in highly scholarly sounding language with lots
> and lots of obscure citations - lots and lots and lots of very obscure
> citations, and to assess whether she was full of shit or not, you
> would have to read all those citations, which people are even less
> likely to do than read "Fiefs and Vassals" in the first place.
Yeah, that's called knowing your material...you know, reading and
working through all the primary evidence....heaven forfend that you even
tackle a little bit of it, eh?
>
>
James A. Donald
> political correctness,
In a less centralized society, there was no need for
political correctness. Politics was not all
encompassing, not all enforced. If you read old
writings and newer writings, the inability to call a
spade a spade sets around perhaps 1905 or so, and gets
steadily worse and worse to the present.
James A. Donald
> > > History is a subject in which new things are
> > > constantly being discovered.
James A. Donald:
> > What tends to be discovered is that history was
> > supposedly completely different from what people who
> > lived at the time or shortly afterwards thought had
> > happened.
Weland
> Sometimes true...because they aren't interested in
> history, but in spinning the events to make themselves
> look good.
I recently read an account by a pilgrim of how he and
his group of heavily armed pilgrims were stealing
lobsters and lobster traps. An old native lady popped
up and indignantly berated them, not that they could
understand a word. They gave her back the traps and
lobsters.
I am pretty sure therefore, he was not spinning the
events to make himself look good to an extent that would
render the history wildly inaccurate.
Official government history has a distinctive bad odor -
it is pretty obvious baloney, and revisionist histories
stink of that odor, stink of official government history
as badly as the inscription on any pharonic self
monument. The source materials for western history do
not. We are not reduced to reading Pharaoh's monuments
to his own immense greatness - well not if we go back to
older source materials, though modern materials *are*
monuments to the greatness and goodness and deeply
caring character of today's political elite. The past
is demonized in order to glorify the present, and to
justify whatever political action is in play today.
Thus, for example, Lamarck was rewritten in direct and
immediate reaction to the introduction of affirmative
action in academia.
James A. Donald
> But Renia, the case of "feudalism" is exactly the opposite of what you
> describe here. You see, the nature of feudalism didn't change, what we
> thought it was did. Tomatoes have always been fruit, even if people
> thought of them as vegetables. Suddenly they discover it's a fruit and
> their understanding of it changes, but the tomato hasn't moved anywhere.
But what feudalism is supposed to be now does not fit with the life of
William the Marshal.
Similarly, with the expurgation of cannibalism from the Americas, the
rewriting of Lamarck, and so on and so forth.
James A. Donald
> > People cite "Fiefs and vassals" not because they know or care whether
> > it contains any evidence for their position, but because it asserts
> > their position is true in highly scholarly sounding language with lots
> > and lots of obscure citations - lots and lots and lots of very obscure
> > citations, and to assess whether she was full of shit or not, you
> > would have to read all those citations, which people are even less
> > likely to do than read "Fiefs and Vassals" in the first place.
Weland
> Yeah, that's called knowing your material.
I am entirely unconvinced that she knows her material, or cares
whether she knows or not, or that anyone who favorably cites her knows
or cares either, or indeed that she herself has read what she has
written.
David Friedman
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
What isn't true? The description of the development of the concept of a
Dark Age, or the concept itself? Are you disagreeing that Petrarch held
the view described or arguing that the view he held was wrong? I can't
tell from what you said.
> Might I suggest
> Chris Wickham's "The Inheritance of Rome", subtitled "Illuminating
> the Dark Ages 400-1000. He rather demonishes most of that,
> even pointing out that there is small literary output for a
> number of period WHILE THE ROMAN EMPIRE STILL EXISTED in
> Western Europe. And there is more "Dark Age" literary output
> in England than normally thought.
>
> If you don't like Wickham, you could also try Peter Heather's
> "The Fall of the Roman Empire" subtitled "A New History of
> Rome and the Barbarians".
It sounds as though you are disagreeing with the concept. I wasn't
arguing that it was true. The statement that Brian described as "a flat
lie" is either the description of your views or a description of why the
dark ages were called dark. What I was quoting provided partial support
for the description of why they were called dark.
That's an entirely separate question from whether they really were dark.
There I agree with you, if I correctly understand your view. But then,
I'm an admirer of migration period jewelry and the Icelandic
sagas--although whether the latter count as a product of the "dark ages"
depends both on when on believes they were composed and on how late on
thinks the "dark ages" ran in Iceland.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
David Friedman
David Friedman
Bill Swears <wsw...@gci.net> wrote:
> Histories written about the discovery of America generally treat the
> Indians as being without souls, or at least suspected of that.
Could you be a little more specific? I seem to remember that lots of
Spanish and Portuguese priests came over to convert the Indians, with a
good deal of success. Not a whole lot of point if they were believed not
to have souls.