Survival and melting pots

[nutronjon]

The thread about Peter the Great got me to reading Russian history and I am blown away by the number of different people who were able to take control of Russia, and the effect each had. I don't have an opinion at this time, but write out of a sense of wonder.

 

Throughout history, people have been invaded by different people. Sometimes the invaders are assimulated into the culture they invade. Sometimes the invaders destroy the culture of invaded people.

 

I hold an idea that cultures are shaped by environments, and civilization as we know it today, is a blend of primitive civilized people, who lived in gentle environments and could believe a God or Goddess cares for them, and they developed all the arts; and the opposite- those who lived in harsh environments, were nomadic, without soil for farming, and therefore interested only in technology for survial reasons, and cared nothing about the arts, and from their experience, if there is a God, He just assume kill pathetic humans, and if they survive, it is inspite of this God.

 

History therefore is like a kaleidoscope. Even the conquers are changed by the mixing of different people with different beliefs and different ways. What is it that determines change? Come on, I am sure you can think of a few things that determine change.

[Tolouse]

i think sometimes change comes forcefully, like you said about invading

 

other times, peacefully as in living close enough with each other that through trade and bartering, ideas get passed on, sometimes over great distances

 

the invaded, when taken as hostages, would also bring their own ideas with them. and when the invaders would take interest in them, they would share these ideas

 

or almost like Stockholm Syndrome, they would take to their captors and share these new ideas and beliefs

 

it is interesting how ideas and beliefs melted together in these ways

[nutronjon]

I come back to this thread after posting in the Peter the Reformer thread, where we are arguing about what makes a person great.

 

I often wonder, what the US would be like, if the invading Europeans adopted themselves to the existing native Americans, instead of taking their land from them, destrorying their way of life and economic system. I think we would be better people.

 

Peter the Great is not great in my book, because he was driven by his own ego and self interest and took advance of serfs to achieve what he wanted to achieve, rather than liberating the people and giving them the individual liberty and freedom that made the US great.

 

The culture people have, depends so much on their leaders. Under Genghis Khan the Mongols were great warriors who will be remember in history, but the Mongols did not gain culture under his leadership. Alexander the Great was great for why? He was a war leader who looting and plundered people without benefiting them, and is hated by them. We still live with the damage he did. Why do we continue to call him great? He didn't spread culture and unite people under a better government.

 

In the past, the world looked up to the US, and modeled themselves after our democracy. Today, the US is hated and living in fear of its enemies. Today, the US has a president who wants to go down in history as Bush the Great, and many are associating him with Hitler.

 

Then there is Jesus or at least those who created a bible telling us about a Jesus, and continue to shape us with his story, and there is Mohommed and Islam that spread through many countries and rivals with Christianity for converts. Actaully Christians have Paul to thank for making Christianity the religion it is and the following church leaders. Paul increased the number of Christians by saying a Christian didn't have to be circumsized like a Jew and didn't have to eat the restricted diet that defined being a Jew, and he gave the church organization. Later church leaders adopted pagan celebrations to Christianity giving them a Christian interpretation. With no resistance, suddenly pagans became Christians with Easter Bunnies, and Easter Eggs, and Christmas trees celebrating not the events of nature, but the events of Jesus's life.

 

Religions put a God above all. This is very different from a human leader, forcing others to serve his will. Or Europeans forcing everyone to live their way, and excluding people from their society, because they look Indian or Chinese or Black. Are there any thoughts about this difference?

[Doctordick]

Hi! I ran across this while looking at the new format of the forum. When I was a kid, I hated history and saw it as nothing worth paying any attention to; however, as an adult, I have come to love it. I would much rather read an historical document than fiction of any kind. I have also developed some very strong opinions on how we got to where we are.

 

First of all, I would like to bring up “government”. In essence, government is control. Among any living animal, the institution of government is inevitable. The central issue of government is behavior control. In its simplest form, the action of a bully is simply an attempt to control the behavior of another. As such, government is, by its very nature, antisocial behavior and that is exactly the factor behind the idea that “the government which governs least governs best”. Since we absolutely must have government, the most important aspect of a “good” government is that it prevents the rise of alternate government (prevents that arbitrary bully, be it an individual or a group, from ruling your behavior). If it fails in that respect, it fails as a government and all governments inevitably fail.

 

Why do governments fail? Why because they are always run by idiots. Why are they run by idiots? Because only an idiot thinks he knows what ought to be done. So long as things are going fairly well, anybody with any brains doesn't want to rock the boat and yields the position of power to others (inevitably to people who want power). Eventually problems will occur. When that happens, some forceful idiot will declare that he knows what should be done. He may or may not be right; it really makes no difference, either the problem will be overcome or it won't. Sooner or later it won't and change will occur.

 

When I was young (in my forties - one's personal image of youth changes with time) I used to worry about what kind of government would be the best to have. After a number of years considering the issue, I finally realized that there exists but one form of government that has ever existed or will ever exist. It makes utterly no difference were you thinking of nations, businesses, clubs, religions academies or gangs People have the power to govern people (people they consider to be subjects of their rules) because they have the support of people who have the power to govern people beneath them. Thus all governments are fundamentally feudal in nature. Anytime the professed government is held to be different, the actual government is behind the scenes and the professed government is a ruse raised to prevent the rise of power in others (keep people happy so to speak).

 

So, by this means, I arrive at the underlying nature of the behavior of groups. Groups actions are a function of the beliefs of the people in charge (what they think ought to be done). In general a set of rules not really well thought out. That being the case (in my opinion), what is it that drives the surges of power and control we see in the history of the world. Actually I think is is quite simple. Leaders of groups can be divided into three different categories: the nobles (who are doing their best to benefit humanity from their perspective and are honest, trustworthy and courageous in that endeavor), the savages (who are without thought as to the consequences of their acts but merely want power for the benefit of having that power; they are often honest, trustworthy and courageous but have no real concern with damage they do to humanity) and, finally, the hypocrites (who are very much interested in the consequences of their acts but also want power merely for the benefit of having the power; they are dishonest, untrustworthy and seldom posses what one would call courage nor do they have any real concern for humanity).

 

These three groups interact in an interesting way. It is very much like the old scissors, rock and paper game. The nobles will always beat the savages as they get the support of common man. The hypocrites will always beat the nobles as the nobles cannot comprehend a fair way of beating them. And finally, the savages will always beat the hypocrites because they have no concern for the outcome beyond their own power. And so it goes on and on, round and round.

 

Now I know that none of that has any real bearing on the supposed intention of this thread but I think it has a lot to do with the underlying forces behind the major shifts we see in the historic record. It all begins with the nobles who make a mess of things, the hypocrites who acquire the control of the organization at its peak and then the uneducated savages who ravage the unorganized failing structure. Eventually the noble decedents of the savages who set the thing up make changes towards hospitality towards humanity and around we go again. All you guys are talking about are the residue left from the rolling battle and the details of who is in charge and what their historic bias is.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[nutronjon]

Dick, I think you made a valuable contribution to this thread. A word of hope. We have more than government. We also have enlightenment and enlightened people can safely enjoy liberty that is freedom from government. Our technology has made it possible to enlighten the masses. This is an interesting time in history, and promises to bring us a New Age. I will not attempt to govern you, but welcome you in joining the enlightenment made possible by forums like this and the Internet.

 

Shalom

 

PS- this is also the first time in history that there are so many long lived people. As you said, our perspective in our later years, is not the same as when we were young. Many of us come to appreciate history and other areas of human study much more when we are older, and thanks to the Internet we can share with the young. I expect good things.

[Freddy]

The culture people have, depends so much on their leaders. Under Genghis Khan the Mongols were great warriors who will be remember in history, but the Mongols did not gain culture under his leadership. Alexander the Great was great for why? He was a war leader who looting and plundered people without benefiting them, and is hated by them. We still live with the damage he did. Why do we continue to call him great? He didn't spread culture and unite people under a better government.

I would argue that the Mongols did gain from their conquering ways. They did gain new ideas of religion from conquered peoples and of course tribute. Actually, his sons and grandson, Batu, did more conquering after the Great Khan died in 1227. China, Russia, Persia, and Arabia gave much to the Mongols in religion and culture. If Ogedei Khan had not died in 1241 Europe would have been conquered too.

 

Concerning Alexander you must have come across the term, Hellenization, which describes the spread of Greek culture, religion, language, science, philosophy, and government throughout Alexander's conquered empire.

[nutronjon]

I would argue that the Mongols did gain from their conquering ways. They did gain new ideas of religion from conquered peoples and of course tribute. Actually, his sons and grandson, Batu, did more conquering after the Great Khan died in 1227. China, Russia, Persia, and Arabia gave much to the Mongols in religion and culture. If Ogedei Khan had not died in 1241 Europe would have been conquered too.

 

Concerning Alexander you must have come across the term, Hellenization, which describes the spread of Greek culture, religion, language, science, philosophy, and government throughout Alexander's conquered empire.

 

I agree with you. That is why I said the Mongols didn't gain culture under "his" leadership. My opinion is based on a book written about him, using his own documents. When he found a man in China who could write, he took this man with him, so we have a record of Genghis Khans history and commandments. He very much wanted to preserve their way of life. However, the China man, did convince Khan to stop razing all the cities to the ground, so his horses had pasture. The China man convinced Khan to start harvesting them instead. The concept of harvesting cities, that is collecting tribute, comes from a consciousness of farming which the Mongols didn't have. But to Khan, city people were very evil, immoral people, and he ordered his people to never start living in cities and accumulating things, and never choose one religion over another. By the third generation the Mongols broke both commandments and were finally defeated.

 

I am well aware of the spread of Hellenism and would not credit Alexander with that, because that was not his intent. Following the Persian wars, Athens built a university with the intent of attracting the world's greatest thinkers and dispersing Hellenism. That doesn't personally make Alexander a great man. He had nothing to do with it.

 

Culture is not spread with a sword nor Bush's bombs of "Shock and Awe". But unfortunately, because we call war leaders great men, enough believe being a war leader is being a great man, to perpetuate this unacceptable behavior, and bring civilizations down. It most certainly was Bush's motivation to go down in history as a Great Man, and out do his brother and father, and this reality brought his fathers to tears infront of TV camera's as it was obvious he wanted his second son to president, not George JR.. This is barbaric, and the US will be paying for this wrongful idea of greatness, for a very long time. As a culture we seriously need to put an end to this mentality. We seriously need to see how a son competing with his brother and father can misuse the military forces of the US and cut back the power we gave the president under Bush's administration. I hope others can see how much meaning is that word "barbaric" and why our concept of greatness needs to changed.

[Freddy]

I am well aware of the spread of Hellenism and would not credit Alexander with that, because that was not his intent. Following the Persian wars, Athens built a university with the intent of attracting the world's greatest thinkers and dispersing Hellenism. That doesn't personally make Alexander a great man. He had nothing to do with it.

Do you really believe that Greek culture would have spread without Alexander's conquests and control of those areas that became the empire? If you do, then I would love to hear how this would have happened without Alexander's conquests. From the link below:

 

"The cultural legacy of Alexander was that Hellenic art, drama, philosophy, architecture, literature, and language was diffused throughout the Near East. The cities he founded became the spring boards for the diffusion of Hellenistic culture. Of the 60 to 70,000 mercenaries he summoned from Greece, nearly 40,000 remained to inhabit these cities. His vision of empire no doubt appealed to the Romans, a people who would eventually inherit Alexander's Empire and, as we shall see, quite a bit more. However, when Alexander died in 323 B.C., the classical age of Greece came to an abrupt end. Something very different was about to emerge.

 

Hellenistic Greece was a predominately urban culture. The cities founded by Alexander were centers of government and trade as well as culture. These were large cities by ancient standards. For instance, Alexandria in Egypt contained perhaps 500,000 people. The Greeks brought their temples, their theatres and schools to other cities, thus exporting their culture and Greek culture became a way of life. The library at Alexandria is said to have contained some half a million volumes. The upper classes began to copy the Greek spirit. They sent their children to Greek schools and the Greek language (Koine) became a common, almost international language, in the same way that Latin was for Europe for fifteen centuries, or French in the 19th century.

 

What the breakdown of Alexander's empire had accomplished was nothing less than the Hellenization of the Mediterranean world. Cultures once foreign to the Hellenic world now became more Greek-like – they were Hellenized. One of the most important developments in association with this process of Hellenization, was the shift from the world of the polis to the new world of the cosmopolis. Such a shift was decisive in creating the Hellenistic world as a world of conflicting identities, and when identities are challenged or changed, intense internal conflicts are the result."

 

Lecture 9: From "Polis" to "Cosmopolis" -- Alexander and Hellenistic Greece, 323-30 B.C.

[nutronjon]

Do you really believe that Greek culture would have spread without Alexander's conquests and control of those areas that became the empire? If you do, then I would love to hear how this would have happened without Alexander's conquests. From the link below:

 

"The cultural legacy of Alexander was that Hellenic art, drama, philosophy, architecture, literature, and language was diffused throughout the Near East. The cities he founded became the spring boards for the diffusion of Hellenistic culture. Of the 60 to 70,000 mercenaries he summoned from Greece, nearly 40,000 remained to inhabit these cities. His vision of empire no doubt appealed to the Romans, a people who would eventually inherit Alexander's Empire and, as we shall see, quite a bit more. However, when Alexander died in 323 B.C., the classical age of Greece came to an abrupt end. Something very different was about to emerge.

 

Hellenistic Greece was a predominately urban culture. The cities founded by Alexander were centers of government and trade as well as culture. These were large cities by ancient standards. For instance, Alexandria in Egypt contained perhaps 500,000 people. The Greeks brought their temples, their theatres and schools to other cities, thus exporting their culture and Greek culture became a way of life. The library at Alexandria is said to have contained some half a million volumes. The upper classes began to copy the Greek spirit. They sent their children to Greek schools and the Greek language (Koine) became a common, almost international language, in the same way that Latin was for Europe for fifteen centuries, or French in the 19th century.

 

What the breakdown of Alexander's empire had accomplished was nothing less than the Hellenization of the Mediterranean world. Cultures once foreign to the Hellenic world now became more Greek-like – they were Hellenized. One of the most important developments in association with this process of Hellenization, was the shift from the world of the polis to the new world of the cosmopolis. Such a shift was decisive in creating the Hellenistic world as a world of conflicting identities, and when identities are challenged or changed, intense internal conflicts are the result."

 

Lecture 9: From "Polis" to "Cosmopolis" -- Alexander and Hellenistic Greece, 323-30 B.C.

 

 

I use a different source of information, and think the earlier efforts of Athens much more important to the spread of Hellenism than Alexander who did not hold the region he looted. What became Hellenized was the region that had shared a long history with Athens. Athenians wanted to claim their heritage came from Egypt, as present day US citizens like to claim their linage to those who came over on the Mayflower. Egypt was a well developed civilization long before there were any Greek civilizations. The Greeks did well, because they eagarly learned from the Egyptians. Greeks and Egyptians had a good relationship. Around them was a frontier where Greeks could and did establish colonies before Alexander did his thing.

 

When Athens began feeling its strenth, it deliberately changed its education to prepare its young for leadership and the spread of Hellenism. That is, its education became concerned with technological correctness and this could have contributed to fall of Athens, as some could argue the US forus on technlogical correctness is cause this civilization to atrophy.

 

Athens intentionally built a university to attract people from around the world, who did come to study in Athenians and took home what they learned. That is, Athens spread Hellenism with education and colonization before Alexander went on a looting spree leaving us with a historic conflict that still troubles the world today. The Roman gods were an adoptation of the Greek gods and goddesses and it is the stories of these gods and goddess that spread civilization. What spreads a culture is story telling and arts and organizational skills. Not wars.

[nutronjon]

Hi! I ran across this while looking at the new format of the forum. When I was a kid, I hated history and saw it as nothing worth paying any attention to; however, as an adult, I have come to love it. I would much rather read an historical document than fiction of any kind. I have also developed some very strong opinions on how we got to where we are.

 

First of all, I would like to bring up “government”. In essence, government is control. Among any living animal, the institution of government is inevitable. The central issue of government is behavior control. In its simplest form, the action of a bully is simply an attempt to control the behavior of another. As such, government is, by its very nature, antisocial behavior and that is exactly the factor behind the idea that “the government which governs least governs best”. Since we absolutely must have government, the most important aspect of a “good” government is that it prevents the rise of alternate government (prevents that arbitrary bully, be it an individual or a group, from ruling your behavior). If it fails in that respect, it fails as a government and all governments inevitably fail.

 

Why do governments fail? Why because they are always run by idiots. Why are they run by idiots? Because only an idiot thinks he knows what ought to be done. So long as things are going fairly well, anybody with any brains doesn't want to rock the boat and yields the position of power to others (inevitably to people who want power). Eventually problems will occur. When that happens, some forceful idiot will declare that he knows what should be done. He may or may not be right; it really makes no difference, either the problem will be overcome or it won't. Sooner or later it won't and change will occur.

 

When I was young (in my forties - one's personal image of youth changes with time) I used to worry about what kind of government would be the best to have. After a number of years considering the issue, I finally realized that there exists but one form of government that has ever existed or will ever exist. It makes utterly no difference were you thinking of nations, businesses, clubs, religions academies or gangs People have the power to govern people (people they consider to be subjects of their rules) because they have the support of people who have the power to govern people beneath them. Thus all governments are fundamentally feudal in nature. Anytime the professed government is held to be different, the actual government is behind the scenes and the professed government is a ruse raised to prevent the rise of power in others (keep people happy so to speak).

 

So, by this means, I arrive at the underlying nature of the behavior of groups. Groups actions are a function of the beliefs of the people in charge (what they think ought to be done). In general a set of rules not really well thought out. That being the case (in my opinion), what is it that drives the surges of power and control we see in the history of the world. Actually I think is is quite simple. Leaders of groups can be divided into three different categories: the nobles (who are doing their best to benefit humanity from their perspective and are honest, trustworthy and courageous in that endeavor), the savages (who are without thought as to the consequences of their acts but merely want power for the benefit of having that power; they are often honest, trustworthy and courageous but have no real concern with damage they do to humanity) and, finally, the hypocrites (who are very much interested in the consequences of their acts but also want power merely for the benefit of having the power; they are dishonest, untrustworthy and seldom posses what one would call courage nor do they have any real concern for humanity).

 

These three groups interact in an interesting way. It is very much like the old scissors, rock and paper game. The nobles will always beat the savages as they get the support of common man. The hypocrites will always beat the nobles as the nobles cannot comprehend a fair way of beating them. And finally, the savages will always beat the hypocrites because they have no concern for the outcome beyond their own power. And so it goes on and on, round and round.

 

Now I know that none of that has any real bearing on the supposed intention of this thread but I think it has a lot to do with the underlying forces behind the major shifts we see in the historic record. It all begins with the nobles who make a mess of things, the hypocrites who acquire the control of the organization at its peak and then the uneducated savages who ravage the unorganized failing structure. Eventually the noble decedents of the savages who set the thing up make changes towards hospitality towards humanity and around we go again. All you guys are talking about are the residue left from the rolling battle and the details of who is in charge and what their historic bias is.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. I haven't had time for long, complicated reading and responding.

 

Please, read Cicero if you have time. He is important to our democracy, because he stresses the importance of duty to state. He takes up a debate with Roman's wealthy who didn't engage in government, because they thought it beneath them to do so. The US had a long history of teaching "duty" in public education, and has been radically changed by New World Order education that prepares them to subject to the state rather the authority of that government.

 

Self government begins with governing self, and unfortunately in 1958 we adopted the German model of education for technology and left moral training to the church. This has reverted us back to authority over the people, making citizens as children who need a police state, rather than preparing them good moral judgement and liberty.

 

When we entered WWI we cried "Democracy and autocracy can not co exist", in denial of the fact that we modeled our industry after England's autocratic model. Later we adopted the model of Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens. The Deming Institute, teaches the democratic model, and it is a shame our nation is not aware of the differences. For sure, considering the high degree of autocracy in the US, it is not justified in bombing any nation in the name of democracy.

 

The belief of the people in charge, must be the people themselves, not an autocratic power above them. We are suppose to have government by consensus, and if our industry used the democratic model instead of the autocratic model, we would have a much healthier democracy and economy, with a republican form of government with balanced powers. I sure hope you respond, because your words are essential to this discussion.

 

Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were not savages and it is men like these who threw off the rule of the king, and established a democracy with a republican form of government, balancing the powers the people with an excutive branch and Judaical branch. These men were very literate in Greek and Roman classics and this is what is required for a healthy democracy.

[Freddy]

I use a different source of information, and think the earlier efforts of Athens much more important to the spread of Hellenism than Alexander who did not hold the region he looted. What became Hellenized was the region that had shared a long history with Athens. Athenians wanted to claim their heritage came from Egypt, as present day US citizens like to claim their linage to those who came over on the Mayflower. Egypt was a well developed civilization long before there were any Greek civilizations. The Greeks did well, because they eagarly learned from the Egyptians. Greeks and Egyptians had a good relationship. Around them was a frontier where Greeks could and did establish colonies before Alexander did his thing.

 

When Athens began feeling its strenth, it deliberately changed its education to prepare its young for leadership and the spread of Hellenism. That is, its education became concerned with technological correctness and this could have contributed to fall of Athens, as some could argue the US forus on technlogical correctness is cause this civilization to atrophy.

 

Athens intentionally built a university to attract people from around the world, who did come to study in Athenians and took home what they learned. That is, Athens spread Hellenism with education and colonization before Alexander went on a looting spree leaving us with a historic conflict that still troubles the world today. The Roman gods were an adoptation of the Greek gods and goddesses and it is the stories of these gods and goddess that spread civilization. What spreads a culture is story telling and arts and organizational skills. Not wars.

What is your source?

[CraigD]

I use a different source of information …

What is your source?

First, I second Freddy’s request. Nutronjon’s description of the personality, motives, and conduct of Alexander appears to me radically different than that given by all of the serious histories, encyclopedia articles (including his wikipedia article), and documentary movies and TV shows with which I’m familiar. Such a departure from the norm warrants careful consideration.

 

That said, on the subject of nutronjon’s sense of wonder about the interaction of conquering and conquered cultures, I’ve an off-beat recommendation: Piers Anthony’s 1976 science/historic fiction novel ”Steppe”. Intended by the author as the first in a series to present a comprehensive world history as a series of role-playing games in a SF future setting, it was received and sold poorly, causing it to be it the first and last of the intended series. However, a history-teaching technology described in it has long impressed me.

 

The novel’s protagonist, Alp, is a 9th century Turkoman (A few centuries early than, but historically related to Genghis) brought forward in time 15 centuries by future historic war gamers to be a “consultant” in his time period and culture, which is the subject of the game they are playing. To acquaint him with the broader history of his own time period, Alp views an interactive, computer-generated history in which cultures are represented as cartoon characters who shrink, grow, eat one another, break apart, etc. (Not only is Alp, who is literate in his own language, unable to read 24th century writing, but nearly every person in Anthony’s fictional 24th century is illiterate, text having been made obsolete by interactive graphical computer media) A substantial part of the book described this cartoon history.

 

IMHO, Anthony’s fictional description of the high-level history of 9th century Asia, and the idea of symbolic “cartoon” representations of history, is brilliant. The fiction of Piers Anthony is not something that everyone enjoys or can even tolerate, but for those who do and/or can, and who have an interest in the most general patterns of history, I recommend this less well-known book highly.

[nutronjon]

What is your source?

 

My favorite book about Athens is Donald Kagan's "Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy" He gives us a very serious warning that we should not take our democracy for granted. His understanding of both Sparta and Athens, would be very helpful to our discussions. Germany was the modern day Sparta and the US was the modern day Athens. Sparta won the war against Athens. The US won the war with Germany, but then imitated it in significant ways. The out come is pretty much the same.

 

I also love Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D.'s books "Gods in Everyman" and "Goddesses in Everywoman" which give us a better understand of mythology and human nature. I understand our Statue of Liberty, Lady of Justice and Spirit of America to be the three aspects of Athena, Athens patron Goddess and the Goddess of Liberty, Justice and the Defense of those who stand for Liberty and Justice.

 

People around the world have always been in conflict and regardless of who wins wars, their ideas can spread and influence the evolution of human development centuries after those who originated the ideas have died. When we learn to resolve our conflicts through reason, the world will be a better place, and that is the goal of democracy. But in the last days of Athens, people lost their sense of reason and destroyed what they had started. However, through books they still influence us today. The US seems to be following the same path Athens followed to its own destruction.