" Such regressive developments can only be pauses in an ongoing forward movement."
Trashy globalist arrogance.
The 'Germanics' have been around for a few thousand years, it's not an issue of 'nation state' - if they believe that all that they are is more than some Federalist, unelected Bureaucracy, then so be it.
Sweden is in many ways more successful than many US states - so then why do they need a Federation?
Why do certain people think that the tendency towards global governance and the abolition of states, ethnicity (i.e. actual diversity) is a good thing?
And how do they somehow make it a moral issue?
For about 1000 years the borders of Europe have bounced around but somehow they almost always end up roughly along ethnic lines.
How many wars were fought over Spanish succession? By French, Habsbourgs etc? And yet, 'Spain' is pretty much 'Spain' even to this day (yes, an amalgamation surely, but most of them roughly 'Spanish' at least considerably more so than they are 'German' or 'French').
It's also a crazy paradox that those usually virtue signalling 'diversity' in specific locales, are the same one's pushing for policies which tend to break up and delegitimize ethnic groups, thereby decreasing ethnicity in the world.
I'm an historian of Europe in the 1500-1800 period and I have to say, respectfully, that your assumptions about the continuity of ethnic identity are just factually incorrect. As an example, 'Spain' was not just a single ethno-state in earlier periods - it was a patchwork of different kingdoms with distinct languages and customs. In fact Spanish identity is not even a single formation today, as any Galician or Catalan or Basque would be likely to tell you. And indeed there are many parts of Spain that have more in common with neighboring regions in France (or Portugal) than with other parts of Spain. This was the norm up until the 19th century when ethnicity became fetishized. I can point you to many books and journal articles on this if you're genuinely interested.
I share your beliefs, the English empires in France, or Norman, Gascon and Aquitanian empires in Britain, are another example where the borders of today do not reflect the borders of history. I am less well read than you and would like to ask you to post some links if you have some.
Posting ideological flamebait is pretty well the most destructive thing people can do on HN, so we ban accounts that do it repeatedly. Since your account has largely been using HN for ideological battle, I've banned it.
What we're looking for here is thoughtful conversation in which intellectual curiosity can thrive and people can learn. Bashing the other side, or throwing stock ideological flammables, is what is not indicated.
You started with the quote "Such regressive developments can only be pauses in an ongoing forward movement." and described it as "Trashy globalist arrogance".
I don't think you noticed that the author was constructing that position as something to knock down, or at least reevaluate. That paragraph starts:
"Closer to home, those who believe that history flows forwards are adamant that the institutions of the European Union will long outlast the nation states that exist on the continent today (many of which are themselves not very old). ..." and ends " But what if these supposed reversions to the past are actually glimpses of the future?."
The subsequent paragraph gives on alternative interpretation, "a Maori-style concept of time of the kind Norman Davies describes may prove a better guide to events."
> Why do certain people think that the tendency towards global governance and the abolition of states, ethnicity (i.e. actual diversity) is a good thing?
Because the rise of ethnic-based nationalism lead to two world wars that killed millions of people and included several genocides?
You mean the war triggered by the Yugoslav nationalist who assassinated the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, with the goal of having Austria-Hungary cede the South Slav provinces to Yugoslavia?
> Austria-Hungary was a great power but it contained a large number of ethnic groups that sought their own nation. It was ruled by a coalition of two powerful minorities, the Germans and the Hungarians. Stresses regarding nationalism were building up, and the severe shock of a poorly handled war caused the system to collapse.
> [Historians] look at such factors as political, territorial and economic conflicts, militarism, a complex web of alliances and alignments, imperialism, the growth of nationalism, and the power vacuum created by the decline of the Ottoman Empire.
The Ottoman Empire, as a reminder, carried out genocide against several ethnic groups during WWI.
That Wikipedia page also points out:
> Senior German generals such as Helmuth von Moltke talked in apocalyptic terms about the need for Germans to fight for their existence as a people and culture. MacMillan states: "Reflecting the Social Darwinist theories of the era, many Germans saw Slavs, as especially Russia as the natural opponent of the Teutonic races".
and further says:
> Bénézet's book The World War and What was Behind It (1918) blamed on German aggression combined with perceived threats to the traditional social order from radicals and ethnic nationalists.
I see that view as a form of revisionism. Was it ethnic based nationalism, or was it ethnic based nationalism and political ideology and perverse financial incentives and class warfare and... seemingly countless other things.
Perhaps we need to look at it from a meta-perspective then? I'd argue that it was caused by the existence, and ultimate subservience of people to, a state. Large states too, where power was allowed to accumulate, develop and weaponize itself in the form of an army.
Doctors and Executives are not 'pyramid schemes' in any sense of the word, and profs at elite universities represent a very small economy.
'Management' is a skill, not a 'market manipulation' and a very difficult skill at that.
Most of these 1% work huge numbers of hours, typically had to work pretty hard through school, and are smart and talented people - even if there is shifty stuff here and there, and a lot of 'born in the right family luck'.
I don't know any successful people who are fools who just lucked out through life. They're all pretty amazing.
Management is a skill. Moving up the totem pole to executive at increasingly senior levels is political games. It's a skill, but not one that contributes to economic output.
The irony is that while the words are stupid (“alignment”, “intentionality” and “end-state visions”) - this pretty good actually.
Most white collar jobs are full of 'waking sleep' - and if we focus on outcomes, and drive them forward with intentional work - we would be more productive.
"Bullshit jobs" - if you doing anything to move the ball forward - like working a checkout or pumping gas - your job may feel meaningless, but it's not BS by any means. Middle management tends to be the most BC. And many gov. jobs.
"US employee now spends 45% of their working day doing their real job. The other 55% is spent doing things such as wading through endless emails or attending pointless meetings."
This is part of the job. Communicating is work, and we can't be 100% efficient at all times.
Spirituality and Religion are not quite the same thing.
Even hearing Angels is not necessarily very religious (and of course, we may hear a lot of things with chemical help ...).
Spirituality is a personal, intellectual, possibly experiential thing.
Religion often entails cultural overhead, community, and generally a lot of work: those who have had the opportunity to 'see angels' have the responsibility of then promoting their new understanding in the world, living as examples to others yada yada, i.e. it's mostly hard work and heavy cross-bearing, i.e. 1% inspiration (seeing angels) and 99% perspiration (being a good person, which is hard).
"Spirituality and Religion are not quite the same thing."
Exactly. I've been saying this for years to anyone who asks me if I'm religious. I say "no, but I am spiritual". I reject the notion that God takes attendance every Sunday and doesn't like me eating meat on Fridays. I also find zero need for organized religion. Spirituality is something different.
But, hey, if the religious thing works for other people, then have at it. It doesn't work for me, but maybe it does for them.
Spirituality doesn't require religion, just as getting in shape doesn't require a gym membership or a group class.
I'm kind of saying spirituality is easy, less practical part. :)
The 'work' of spirituality is hard. It's often done through religion.
Crazy point: those who 'religious and attend services' are least likely to commit crimes, but those who are 'spiritual but not religious' commit the most! Sorry no reference. Point being, we are creatures of habit, and action speaks louder than words.
I guess there is a lot of theological debate about whether or not it's more important to 'have faith' which is a matter of spirituality, or to 'go to church and be a good person' ...
He is remembered because people took the tablets and transcribed it from medium to medium. Wrote books about it. Made movies about it. And created internet articles about it. If no one moved it from tablets to these new mediums, he would not have been remembered.
Tutankhamun is a great example of this. His name was forgotten. His existence forgotten until they discovered his tomb, read the tablets, and then transcribed knowledge of his life to the modern medium. His memory now exists because we transcribe and communicate this information today.
A) It's the power centres that we remember, because they make the decisions - most notably, Royalty. The articles comments are off on this - maybe 80% of UK Royal heads of state are almost household names in the UK. Even around the world.
B) 'Religious figures, hopefully, will lose their relevance.' - as we dive into selfish consumer materialism, and narrow minded scientific materialism, the better religious figures words are more important than ever now, I for one wish some legitimate leader would come along in this regard.
C) Musicians - Mozart, Beethoven and Bach are still household names.
The one's that will be around:
QE2, Hitler, possibly Obama - I think American academics will create a big historical thing around him and America is a 'big power' they have the ability to bend history. Think JFK but times 10, and more globally oriented. Mao especially due to his foundational status of the new Chinese state - and they are huge. Possibly Stalin. Gandhi - depending on how Indians decide to propagate his history. He has some really ugly spots that we overlook.
Possibly Marx and Adam Smith as 'founders' of economics.
Maybe another common thread is 'those who are the foundation of something' - because Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are taught in Music class as kind of the kings 'basic of music' (even though they were not there at the start). No matter how many music genres we go through, at music school the rudiments will likely still be interpreted with them in mind.
Any serious Monarch that lasts more than 30 years will get a spot in the textbooks at least.
As for Scientists - how many can the average person name past 'Einstein'? And FYI - Einstein had a marketing/branding campaign behind him that he was aware of and somewhat weary of. Niels Bohr? Oppenheimer? Walk down the street nobody knows who they are. Maybe if they get a particle or theory named after them ...
Athletes not really.
Actors - this is a new one - because we now have the ability to record performances for future generations. Maybe the early actors will be minted as 'the originals' and be studied for 1000 years ...
The kind of history we have post 1900 will be very different than before because now everything is recorded and written down. Imagine if we could just pull up Billy Shakespeare on YouTube ...
I disagree about Obama. He did nothing special as compared to other presidents. He will be remembered as much as they are, but not any more than that.
As I think back pretty much the only thing I remember about him is healthcare, and that's he's the first half-back-half-white president.
That's really not much, as compared to other presidents.
Even Trump's antics will not be remembered in detail (how many do you remember from 6 months ago?) He will be remembered in a general sort of "said lots of dumb things" kind of way, as a trope basically.
Want to be specially remembered as President? Start [or end] a huge social program, or make peace in Israel.
But I have to distinguish peace in Israel vs. peace in the Middle East.
Peace in Israel is likely to be a military kind of peace where no one dares attack, and with the Palestinians having their own state, no one has a good excuse anymore.
But they will still have bad excuses, because no one is even trying to bring peace to the Middle East.
i.e. it will be a famous conflict zone for a lot longer than you might expect because of Sunni/Shia conflict.
Also the underlying hate and antisemitism will persist even after the Palestinian negotiate a state, giving another reason for it to stay a famous conflict zone.
> Quick, who was involved in bringing peace to Northern Ireland?
Obama was the 'First Black President' - this is, on a historical scale - massive. Just massive. Also, America is kind of a 'world leading' country, so 'leader of the free world' - meaning, a black man as 'leader of the free world' - only about 150 years after slavery. This is a big deal, historically. I think his story is just getting written. Academics love him and they will write the history books. In 50 years, I think Obama will be up there with the 'big ones' in terms of being a 'landmark president'.
But I'm coming to think they may go: Lincoln, Washington, Obama as the 'big 3' over time. Again, a 'Black leader of the free world' is historically massive, and it transcends USA issues.
Not saying I think that, just how academics will write it.
> because we now have the ability to record performances for future generations
I think this has the potential to be extremely interesting. Until relatively recently, you could see a performance and be influenced by it, and that fusion of ideas could still be seen as new and original. As more and more things are recorded, and become more readily accessible to a much wider audience, I wonder if we'll start to see people unpicking the minutiae of an actor's influences and what effect that will have on how actors are perceived.
I'd bet on at least one President - Bush. Because every history book of the next couple of centuries will mark the millennial new year with imagery of 9/11 and the "Clash of Civilizations" meme. 19 guys and 1 President changed the course of history.
Musical theory only developed during the renaissance and was basically formalized by the baroques i.e. Bach - and Moazart/Beethoven mastered it.
Music as we understand it really didn't exist before that. No real way to write it down, no way to create complex arrangements.
Italians thought of it, Germans formalized it and then mastered it. Nobody has pushed it much further since.
---> Scientists ...
Aristotle, Plato, Archimedes - not Scientists, but I get what you are saying - again I'd suggest that these are 'fundamentalists'. Founders of rational thought.
Newton = foundations of classical physics.
There are 1000x more Scientists alive today than ever before, and the only one we're going to remember is from 300 years ago? Point being - maybe there are no easy/major discoveries to be made so nobody will be remembered. Who will be remembered for CERN? Probably nobody.
Yes, technically there were 'people who wrote music' but we wouldn't really call them composers, and we were not attributing anything to them.
And it wasn't a 'maslow' thing - it was that we had yet to develop proper instruments, scales, etc. etc.
FYI Music during about that time was mostly Gregorian chanting and what not - and for a time music was banned by the church, at other times it was only allowed to be made 'for God' type thing. Come to think of it there are I think some composers and attributions but minimal stuff. We don't 'remember them' because what they did was not remarkable like Beethoven.
Throwing out code is easy, throwing out hours you've spent investing into something is hard (e.g. learning, promoting, developing, money, etc).
These aren't technical issues with technical solutions, these are issues relating to people's egos and their willingness to throw out acquired skills and effort.
For one example, you could go from being the biggest expert in that area to being behind others just by turning against a technology you've helped spearhead. I've seen it happen (and people resist it who knew they'd gone down a dead end).
