Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

I can understand your feelings on the matter. Fortunately, if I'm right about where the Western World really stands, our period of 'Universal Empire' ran from roughly 1946 to roughly 1970, with the Fifties and early Sixties as the 'Golden Age'. We've been in decline since 1970. Thus, individualism, IMO, is under no threat from any global dystopia disguised as a global utopia.

That's the trick though, there's no way to be completely sure on the matter until it's all over & done with.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Ahh, so you're in belief of what Network (1976) said would come. One world where there is no wars, famines, brutalities, or oppression: one great ecumenical company where all peoples are shareholders and workers for the company, where all pain is alleviated, where all necessaries are provided, all anxieties are tranquilized, and all boredom is amused. And individualism is as dead as Jacob Marley.

Network speech

Quite frankly, if that's the future of the West, I'd gladly help my children and grandchildren--heck maybe even my great-grandchildren--tear it apart.

~Chas'88

Not exactly, My exact views of what the Western universal state will look like is different from Mr. Reilly's. I'm thinking of something like a civilization-wide version of the so-called "Brussels Eurocrats" that are mocked in the EU for constantly bringing up things to the national governments or electorates over and over again until the EU states give in. The de jure liberal democratic constitutional forms will live on, just like Octavian "restored the Republic" and kept the republican constitutional forms, but increasingly power will become concentrated into the hands of unelected, intellectually-minded elitist bureaucrats

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

I can see Afro-Americans coming to occupy the same spot in our history that the Illyrians did in the Later Roman Empire: the tough-as-nails soldiers and commanders, from a formerly disparaged part of the society, who rise to the top purely by merit, and provide the innovative leadership that saves us from annihilation now, and affords us the rest of the century. e.g. Aurelian (270-275), Probus (276-282), Diocletian (284-305), co-Emperor Galerius (293-311), Constantine I (306-337), and Valentinian I (364-375), among others. Obama may well be the precursor, paving the way to a similar lineup in our near future.

Are you saying that Obama is Maximinius Thrax, if you are comparing to the 3rd century he is the only precurser to the illyrian emperors I can think of, however if I remember correctly Thrax was not a particularly popular emperor. Obama also does not seem to have any similarity with alexander severus either.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Are you saying that Obama is Maximinius Thrax, if you are comparing to the 3rd century he is the only precurser to the Illyrian emperors I can think of, however if I remember correctly Thrax was not a particularly popular emperor. Obama also does not seem to have any similarity with Alexander Severus either.

I was thinking somewhere between the Gordians and Gallienus. That would take in Gordians I thru III, Balbinus, Pupienus, Philip the Arab, Decius, Aemilianus, Gallus, Valerian, and Gallienus, among others. Possibly also Claudius II Gothicus, even though he came between Gallienus and Aurelian, and was in fact the first of the Illyrian Emperors.

2007

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

I was thinking somewhere between the Gordians and Gallienus. That would take in Gordians I thru III, Balbinus, Pupienus, Philip the Arab, Decius, Aemilianus, Gallus, Valerian, and Gallienus, among others. Possibly also Claudius II Gothicus, even though he came between Gallienus and Aurelian, and was in fact the first of the Illyrian Emperors.

IMO Obama = Tiberius Gracchus.

Are you sure FDR wasn't Tiberius Gracchus?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Are you sure FDR wasn't Tiberius Gracchus?

Well based on that Obama would be Caesar and he sure doesn't look like Caesar (claims of the teabaggers to the contrary.

I would say FDR and Ike = Scipio Africanus.

Originally Posted by Odin

Well based on that Obama would be Caesar and he sure doesn't look like Caesar (claims of the teabaggers to the contrary.

I would say FDR and Ike = Scipio Africanus.

Barack ******* Obama = Lucius ******* Catilina




Catilinae

Originally Posted by Sallust

5... His mind was daring, subtle, and versatile, capable of pretending or dissembling whatever he wished. He was covetous of other men’s property, and prodigal of his own. He had abundance of eloquence, though but little wisdom. His insatiable ambition was always pursuing objects extravagant, romantic, and unattainable. ...

14In so populous and so corrupt a city, Catiline, as it was very easy to do, kept about him, like a body-guard, crowds of the unprincipled and desperate. For all those shameless, libertine, and profligate characters, who had dissipated their patrimonies by gaming, luxury, and sensuality; all who had contracted heavy debts, to purchase immunity for their crimes or offences; all assassins or sacrilegious persons from every quarter, convicted or dreading conviction for their evil deeds; all, besides, whom their tongue or their hand maintained by perjury or civil bloodshed; all, in fine, whom wickedness, poverty, or a guilty conscience disquieted, were the associates and intimate friends of Catiline. And if any one, as yet of unblemished character, fell into his society, he was presently rendered, by daily intercourse and temptation, similar and equal to the rest. But it was the young whose acquaintance he chiefly courted; as their minds, ductile and unsettled from their age, were easily ensnared by his stratagems. For as the passions of each, according to his years, appeared excited, he furnished mistresses to some, bought horses and dogs for others, and spared, in a word, neither his purse nor his character, if he could but make them his devoted and trustworthy supporters. There were some, I know, who thought that the youth, who frequented the house of Catiline, were guilty of crimes against nature; but this report arose rather from other causes than from any evidence of the fact.

...37 Nor was this disaffected spirit confined to those who were actually concerned in the conspiracy; for the whole of the common people, from a desire of change, favored the projects of Catiline. This they seemed to do in accordance with their general character; for, in every state, they that are poor envy those of a better class, and endeavor to exalt the factious; they dislike the established condition of things, and long for something new; they are discontented with their own circumstances, and desire a general alteration; they can support themselves amidst revolt and sedition, without anxiety, since poverty does not easily suffer loss.

As for the populace of the city, they had become disaffected from various causes. In the first place, such as everywhere took the lead in crime and profligacy, with others who had squandered their fortunes in dissipation, and, in a word, all whom vice and villainy had driven from their homes, had flocked to Rome as a general receptacle of impurity. In the next place, many, who thought of the success of Sylla, when they had seen some raised from common soldiers into senators, and others so enriched as to live in regal luxury and pomp, hoped, each for himself, similar results from victory, if they should once take up arms. In addition to this, the youth, who, in the country, had earned a scanty livelihood by manual labor, tempted by public and private largesses, had preferred idleness in the city to unwelcome toil in the field. To these and all others of similar character, public disorders would furnish subsistence. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that men in distress, of dissolute principles and extravagant expectations, should have consulted the interest of the state no further than as it was subservient to their own. Besides, those whose parents, by the victory of Sylla, had been proscribed, whose property had been confiscated, and whose civil rights had been curtailed, looked forward to the event of a war with precisely the same feelings.

All those, too, who were of any party opposed to that of the senate, were desirous rather that the state should be embroiled, than that they themselves should be out of power. This was an evil, which, after many years, had returned upon the community to the extent to which it now prevailed.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Question: How much overlap is there between the terms Hispanic and Indian? Consider an immigrant from Peru, who speaks the language of the Incas as well as Spanish. Or the Tarahumara of northern Mexico.

When I think of the Native Americans and Hispanics portrayed in American culture, that's what I think. At this point I don't think the US has run into a lot of cases where the Hispanic-Native-Americans have preserved their Native-American culture enough to count as that mix properly as the example you provide.

Again, I think this has more to deal with the groups that are found more commonly within the US. Native-American in US culture terms would mean a Great Plains Native-American culture mostly, with the other US perceived sub-cultures under its cloak.

Hispanic culture would similarly mostly mean Mexican, Cuban, and Puerto Rican (depending on where you are in the US) with smaller US perceived "sub-cultures" under their collective wing.

For Asians, the majority would be Chinese, with perhaps Japanese giving it a close run. The US perceived sub-cultures would be Korean, Vietnamese, Filipinos.

However that's just my opinion

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

To which I would add my belief that the outlying areas of the West (like Australia and New Zealand) will go under this time, just as Dacia (modern day Romania) and the Agri Decumates (modern day Baden-Wurttemburg, Germany) did in 3rd c. Rome.

Maybe, but the Europeans are way closer to the end than we are.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

When I think of the Native Americans and Hispanics portrayed in American culture, that's what I think. At this point I don't think the US has run into a lot of cases where the Hispanic-Native-Americans have preserved their Native-American culture enough to count as that mix properly as the example you provide.

Again, I think this has more to deal with the groups that are found more commonly within the US. Native-American in US culture terms would mean a Great Plains Native-American culture mostly, with the other US perceived sub-cultures under its cloak.

Hispanic culture would similarly mostly mean Mexican, Cuban, and Puerto Rican (depending on where you are in the US) with smaller US perceived "sub-cultures" under their collective wing.

For Asians, the majority would be Chinese, with perhaps Japanese giving it a close run. The US perceived sub-cultures would be Korean, Vietnamese, Filipinos.

However that's just my opinion

~Chas'88

Here in the States the classic examples are the Pueblos of the Southwest. "Hispanic" covers such a diversity that a lot of people consider it to be fit only for use by the United States Government, but it is a term that's taking hold. (Yes, similarly with "Asian", I'd wager my rebate check.)

The usual "Native American" culture seen as an overarching uber-culture amongst the many tribes owes a lot to the Plains pow-wow culture, as a visit to the Gathering of Nations (coming up here next weekend) will show, but in terms of food it's Southwestern food all the way. "Real Indian Cooking" being enchiladas, burritos, etc clear down into Florida. Oh, and fry bread. Native America's answer to "your commodities make us fat? I'll show you fattening! Here! With powdered sugar and honey."

Originally Posted by myk'87

Maybe, but the Europeans are way closer to the end than we are.

IMO, they're just beginning the transition from late 3T into 4T. They're still very much in 3T culture, at least what I see here from Austria, Germany, Slovakia, and Hungary. There hasn't been a cultural end to the 3T yet, the economics have effected things, but you only hear about it. As long as Germany stays strong, i think that Europe and the Euro will hold on to the late stages of the 3T for a bit longer. Germany is really the economic powerhouse behind the Euro. If we get news of a complete economic collapse in Germany, then I'd definately say Europe would finally have moved completely into the 4T.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Here in the States the classic examples are the Pueblos of the Southwest. "Hispanic" covers such a diversity that a lot of people consider it to be fit only for use by the United States Government, but it is a term that's taking hold. (Yes, similarly with "Asian", I'd wager my rebate check.)

The usual "Native American" culture seen as an overarching uber-culture amongst the many tribes owes a lot to the Plains pow-wow culture, as a visit to the Gathering of Nations (coming up here next weekend) will show, but in terms of food it's Southwestern food all the way. "Real Indian Cooking" being enchiladas, burritos, etc clear down into Florida. Oh, and fry bread. Native America's answer to "your commodities make us fat? I'll show you fattening! Here! With powdered sugar and honey."

Yeah, but when the average person thinks of a Native American, I'll bet they wouldn't think of the Pueblos right off the bat unless they had had a good deal of interaction with the Pueblo people or lived in the area they do--but rather what Hollywood sells/sold us as "Native American". Hollywood's stereotype has to be gotten over & more communications about the actualities of the interconnectedness of Native American & Hispanic society (like the snippet you just gave) would definately help in the long run.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

IMO, they're just beginning the transition from late 3T into 4T. They're still very much in 3T culture, at least what I see here from Austria, Germany, Slovakia, and Hungary. There hasn't been a cultural end to the 3T yet, the economics have effected things, but you only hear about it. As long as Germany stays strong, i think that Europe and the Euro will hold on to the late stages of the 3T for a bit longer. Germany is really the economic powerhouse behind the Euro. If we get news of a complete economic collapse in Germany, then I'd definately say Europe would finally have moved completely into the 4T.

~Chas'88

its not about who goes into the 4th turning first, seeing as everyone in the west is basically going to face the same crisis. While the war on terror for America and Australia largely represents an external threat (albeit one us Aussies are probably ill-equipped to handle), for the Europeans the enemy is already inside the gates, and happily outbreeding them whilst not conforming to their society. they're stuffed.

Originally Posted by myk'87

its not about who goes into the 4th turning first, seeing as everyone in the west is basically going to face the same crisis. While the war on terror for America and Australia largely represents an external threat (albeit one us Aussies are probably ill-equipped to handle), for the Europeans the enemy is already inside the gates, and happily outbreeding them whilst not conforming to their society. they're stuffed.

It depends on who you talk to. If you're talking to a European who's 50+ then yes they see it as a problem & a threat to their "homogeneous" nation. People younger than that don't see it as much of a problem at all. Older Europeans want to continue denying Turkey access into the EU, while younger ones that I've talked to don't see what all the fuss is about. Austria I know for a fact is one of the leading members in wanting to deny Turkey entry into the EU, because they're still sore of all the attacks on Vienna & what the Turks did while invading at that time. However, when in Austria, one does live in the past. More so than in other European nations.

It's sort of like the Hispanics in America. That's what I think of the Turks & other Muslims spreading throughout Europe.

So again, it's who you talk to.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by myk'87

Maybe, but the Europeans are way closer to the end than we are.

Quite true. Not only that, but the end, when it does come for each, will still leave North America as a part of a new, predominantly Latino 'Western World', which may well include the Antipodes (and the Philippines). Europe most certainly will not. Europe's future is certainly as a part of the House of Islam. IMO, the Antipodes and Philippines could go either way (Latino West or House of Islam).

Foreign Affairs November/December 2010

A Globalized God by Scott M. Thomas

"Another aspect of the religious resurgence is the disintegrating relationship between the West and Christianity. Traditionally seen as a Western or European religion steeped in that continent's culture, Christianity evolved from its Jewish origins in Palestine, conquered the pagan world, and spread east to Iraq, India, and China before the Mongol invasions reduced it to its European setting. It is now returning to its roots by becoming a post-Western religion dominated by the peoples, cultures, and countries of the global South. For U.S. policymakers - many of whom currently consider Islamism to be the most urgent religious challenge to Washington's foreign policy - the politics of global Christianity may soon prove just as pivotal."

A Globalized God...

"...religions have seldom operated as static blocs with set beliefs. They have always been adaptable and in flux, shaped by and shaping their surroundings. In his new book Holy Ignorance, Olivier Roy argues that globalization is facilitating the detachment of religion, culture, and territory, thus unraveling religious traditions from particular cultures and nationalities."

With all the increasing anger by Europeans against Muslim immigrants the predictions by the RWers in this thread about Europe becoming Islamic are looking laughable.

Originally Posted by Odin

With all the increasing anger by Europeans against Muslim immigrants the predictions by the RWers in this thread about Europe becoming Islamic are looking laughable.

Right-wing Eurabia BS is just as ridiculouos as left-wing multiculturalism BS IMO. Many Muslim immigrants are willing to integrate into European society, especially the middle class ones, and if Islamists try anything funny, they will just strengthen the far right immensely.

Before Germany becomes an Islamic theocracy, all Islamists would get a one-way ticket to whence they came from, believe me. The Boomers won't live forever.

book - copyright 2011The Future of History by John LukasAuthor of The Passing of the Modern Age (1970) and The End of The Twentieth Century and the End of the Modern Age (1993)."The very term The Midddle Ages, its very concept, did not appear until well after its passing. (The designation did not become current until about 1700 and even after.) The term 'modern,' applied to a succeeding new age, became current afterword. It is still current, even though less and less accurate (or even reasonable)...."...I came to think that perhaps the entire 1500-1950 period ought to be called The European Age. For many reasons; among them 'Europe' replacing the Mediterranean as the main theater of history after about 1500; and then because of the discovery and the possession and colonization and settlement of much of the globe by Europe's powers and by some of their peoples after 1500. However, note that in such a chronological framework '1500' is a generalized and necessarily imprecise date, while '1950' (I could have written '1945') is somewhat more precise, for it was then that The European Age had come to its end, and it was also then that the retreat of European powers from many parts of the world, and also the retreat of the once European settlers, had begun, and probably irreversibly so."

The Future of History...."...I can also believe that centuries from now people will have a respect for the five hundred years of The Eurpean Age, comparable to what the sudden blossoming respect men of the Renaissance had for the achievements of Greece and Rome. Comparable: but not identical. That admiration, six or more centuries ago, was often uncritical, and therefore unhistorical. It included, among other things, the rejection of many things in the Middle Ages, many of its achievements. Such a rejection of an entire epoch passing now will not happen. There will be no hearkening back to an idealized epoch that had preceded the last one. Our historical consciousness is more advanced than that."

Originally Posted by TimWalker

book - copyright 2011The Future of History by John LukasAuthor of The Passing of the Modern Age (1970) and The End of The Twentieth Century and the End of the Modern Age (1993)."The very term The Midddle Ages, its very concept, did not appear until well after its passing. (The designation did not become current until about 1700 and even after.) The term 'modern,' applied to a succeeding new age, became current afterword. It is still current, even though less and less accurate (or even reasonable)...."...I came to think that perhaps the entire 1500-1950 period ought to be called The European Age. For many reasons; among them 'Europe' replacing the Mediterranean as the main theater of history after about 1500; and then because of the discovery and the possession and colonization and settlement of much of the globe by Europe's powers and by some of their peoples after 1500...."

I'd have put the 20th century end-date at 1917 at the very latest. Or 1920 if you want to round things off. Other than that, I agree with the author totally. Though I do see where he gets his dates from and they feel like a compromise.

That is: politically, America's dominance was visibly complete around 1945; we were the last great power standing. Except Russia. Culturally, the break with the 1500-1900 world was visibly complete after World War I, and the Lost Generation were the first to manifest it en masse. But also, World War I is the beginning of a long transition period that culminated in, let's say, 1968 -- round it up to 1970, when judging by his book titles, Lukas first noticed that the old order was gone for good. So -- 1917, 1945, 1968 ... oh, let's just cut it off at 1950 and be done with it.

Pat, who apparently takes a microscope to history rather than a telescope.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I'd have put the 20th century end-date at 1917 at the very latest. Or 1920 if you want to round things off. Other than that, I agree with the author totally. Though I do see where he gets his dates from and they feel like a compromise.

That is: politically, America's dominance was visibly complete around 1945; we were the last great power standing. Except Russia. Culturally, the break with the 1500-1900 world was visibly complete after World War I, and the Lost Generation were the first to manifest it en masse. But also, World War I is the beginning of a long transition period that culminated in, let's say, 1968 -- round it up to 1970, when judging by his book titles, Lukas first noticed that the old order was gone for good. So -- 1917, 1945, 1968 ... oh, let's just cut it off at 1950 and be done with it.

Pat, who apparently takes a microscope to history rather than a telescope.

Heh, I'm thje one who likes using the historical telescope. I find the long-term patterns of history far more interesting that the personalities and little fluctuations. I like to see civilizations as superorganisms.