The New York Times has an article about how archeologists are unearthing findings that strengthen some people's claims to their land, while others dispute this. You'd think that the whole issue is rather farcical: why would ancient findings be relevant to the politics of the modern world, after all, aren't we rational pragmatists who can't be bothered by primordial myths and legends? But you'd be wrong. Apparently it does matter.
In China, by the way. Nothing to do with what you thought I was insinuating.
FROM CAROL HERMAN
ReplyDeleteLet me recommend a wonderful book:
SIMON WINCHESTER'S "THE MAN WHO LOVED CHINA." It's the story of Professor John Needham. Who was sent to China, back around 1942. And, he spent years there, trying to find how old were the ancient discoveries.
In this book, John Needham discovers, for instance, that many centuries before the West had Gutenburg discovering the printing press; the Chinese had both paper, and a printing press. Which were composed wooden blocks. And, on which were printed "religious" prayers;
The cave they were hidden in, was a treasure trove. And, this, too, is part of the story.
What is also known is that China excelled at boat making. AND, bridges over water. Since the Yangse is like a belt ... Traveling the entire width of China. And, deviding the Chinese into two sectors. In the North, they like noodles. In the South, rice.
Anyway, there was, of course, the SILK ROAD. So, yes. You got people who weren't recognizably Chinese ... traveling through 1000 miles of desert. With few oasis. And, many remnants of these ancient civilizations remain.
What becomes the Conclusion, though, is that in the year 1500 ... when Magellin circumnavigates the globe; and shipping becomes a Western strength ... Building a new middle class. As the money starts flowing into European centers.
The lights go off in China! And, China becomes less developed! No reasons are given. Other than that there is an "up and down" motion to discoveries.
We also know that Eygpt was far advanced. (And, again, you'd see the feats. Not just the pyramids. But the ways the society gained ground, even with indoor plumbing.)
The Greeks and the Eygptians definitely had "head starts" ... but it's the past. It is not how things are now.
Meanwhile John Needham's story is so interesting! And, just to give you an idea of how high he was at Oxford, all you have to know is that now HAWKINS has his old Oxford rooms.)
When people make modern claims they're not being honest. Because doors do close on the ancient world. And, yes. Others open.
The real miracle is the United States! I say this because we're the only democracy on earth that wrote its own manual! Only we have Founding Fathers! Who got a lot of it "about right."
They saw religious groups as the anathema to public good.
And, they saw what the Greeks said; that you can have democratic states ONLY in small pockets, as being a very wrong idea, indeed.
The Founding Fathers, beginning with just 13 colonies, was that the LARGER you can spread democracy wide, the better the system you can build. IF you disgorge religion from the mix. And, separate Church from State.
In your other post you couple the word "parliamentsary" to "democracy." And, by and large this is wrong.
Parliaments are for THUGS.
That thugs end up in politics? Sure.
But it's Marx that gives THUGS the system to grab power. And, keep it pocketed.
In the American system, where elections occur every four years; and not by insiders who topple governments ... You'd see the whole story rests on one thing: Marx wanted to be born out of the body of the Queen of England.
Marx felt entitled to be an aristocrat. Wasn't. But he sat in England, and he figured out a way to steal the birth-rights of those born into the aristocracy. He gave birth to THUGGARY ... and gave it a name. Treat people like children. Take away all adult privileges. Keep the money. And, sprinkle the small change on the heads of the idiots who have no choice but to be your subjects.
No. I'm not surprised that Marx was embraced by Lenin. Who suffered from advanced syphlis by the time he snuck back itno russia. Nor that Trotsky had to run for his life. Just to see how long the russian arms could stretch. (He was killed in Mexico.) And, then? Look at all the thugs! STALIN killed more people that hitler! But it shows ya. There's a difference only by dint of "sides."
And, that FDR got to be close to death, when he finally meets up at Malta. He insults Churchill. (Since Americans have no interest in recreating an Anglo-Saxon alliance.) And, because FDR wanted to build a relationship with Stalin, he gave away much too much.
Plus, Stalin wasn't in to being "nice." When the Germans withdrew; Stalin ran in and put his troops into a number of eastern nations. You can still see the scar tissue, if you look.
All because Stalin was a master THUG. And, he saw what Marx really offered.
While in Israel, we're stuck with this notion that you can teach "the faith" through the orthodox. And, somehow even Livni makes this mistake. I think the world will choke before it swallows this disaster!
How nice it would have been to see a Constitution written for Israelis, that eliminated the THUGS. And, allowed for voting to occur ... Every 4 years for Prime Minister. Every 2 years, for members of the lower House. And, every 6 years for upper House members. (Judges get "elected" for life.) But it matters who is in charge!
No system is perfect.
But eliminating the thugs and the aristocrats is about as ideal as you can get. And, America's Founding Fathers especially designed the US Constitution to "get rid of aristocrats."
In America, you can't have a successful party without a BASE.
Oh. And, you only need "a little more than half of the votes, to win." Think about it. You win when you garner a bit more 50% of the people.
While most people don't want to be bothered to have to think about politics all that much.
When was the last time you liked having to take a history class?