Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 69

Thread: Are countries trapped by their history?

  1. #41
    Ecthelion's Avatar Great Ramen Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The land beyond the River Styx
    Posts
    1,304

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    Few questions for you: When did the so-called thing we call Germani culture form? Did they come out of the ground as Germanic cultures people? What were they doing when Egypt and Mesopotamia had mutliple social revolution thousands of years ago with the only thing coming out of Europe being Stonehenge which is a kid in relation to the developments in what today constitutes middle east...and then tell how middle east became what it is today and forest-living Germanics built an industrial giant....

    Germanic culture initially came about the same way all primary cultures come about: people, environment, random chance.

    Answer this as well

    What makes Scandinavia what it is today, IS to an extend the Protestanism-induced culture...but at the same time, they've created to themselves a unique new cultural word-outlook based on their existing conditions. In the 30 years war however, so-called Germanics butchered each other...so it was not something that came from inside, its was a result of specific conflicts that at the end managed to dominate. How do you explain Germans living under catholicism form centuries before Protestanism came to be then? If Protestanism is not a specific result of specific historical moments and something ingrained in Germanic culture, where was it for centuries?

    How do I explain Germans living under Catholicism for the better part of 1,000 years before coming up with Protestantism?
    Are you for real?
    How do you explain the English living with muscle power for millennia before inventing the steam engine? How do you explain anything taking time before anything else happening? What kind of question is this?
    And Protestantism didn’t COME to them in the way Catholicism was forced upon them by a Latin cultured Roman Empire. The Germans INVENTED Protestantism. They freed themselves from the mental prison of the Romans.


    Or has it ever occurred to you that current Scandinavian "models" lets say has a lot to do with how the production had been handled there and how the society had organized for so long......how feudalism in France and Germany and Sweden took different forms which had a massive impact on the transition process and to building up of the new era...the modern Swedish state formed under very different circumstances than that of modern British state...not because of their ethnicity but because of their specific historical conditions at the time along with how which ideas managed to dominate the un-ending conflicts within a society....
    how did Turkey become such a westernized democracy despite its faults? Why is it so different from rest of the Middle East? Or central Asia which is of same "ethnicity" with Turkey?

    I normally don’t bother to reply to things written this poorly… but for completion sake:

    Yes, Feudalism took different forms in different countries… what’s your point? How is even relevant? You’ve neither given an explanation for the differences nor an explanation of what the results of the differences were. It’s a non-statement.

    And you’re right, Turkey has adopted the veneer of a Western democracy, in fact they’ve been wearing it for many decades. I guess this is why they’ve managed to catch up to the West in every way. We should all move to Turkey, which is totally developed like Germany, the UK or Sweden. And let’s visit Erdogan’s new “Presidential Palace” which looks nothing like a sultan’s palace, cause clearly the current regime in Turkey, and the Ottoman Sultanate share NOTHING in common, nope, complete break with their history.



    Removed-Garb.
    Last edited by Garbarsardar; December 18, 2014 at 02:57 AM. Reason: off topic and continuity
    This is my signature. Isn't it awesome?

  2. #42
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Germanic culture initially came about the same way all primary cultures come about: people, environment, random chance.
    And it changed throughout the time...there is nothing like an inherent German ethnic culture. Or it did not?
    What do you say? You admit that Germanic ethique is not something that came out of the ground but at some point some people started forming this "abstract" concept in "real world terms". What happened to it afterwards? Can you measure this "germanic culture" in empirical terms? Can you test it at the face of history?
    Like another poster said, what you are explaining here is un-falsifiable. With a good deal of cutting and fitting, you can make everything fit into your argument.

    How do I explain Germans living under Catholicism for the better part of 1,000 years before coming up with Protestantism?
    Are you for real?
    How do you explain the English living with muscle power for millennia before inventing the steam engine? How do you explain anything taking time before anything else happening? What kind of question is this?
    And Protestantism didn’t COME to them in the way Catholicism was forced upon them by a Latin cultured Roman Empire. The Germans INVENTED Protestantism. They freed themselves from the mental prison of the Romans.
    You are misinterpreting the question. Your argument is that cultures are inherent in certain ethnic groups and these cultures paved the way for the future development. So Germans have a progressive culture inherently. Why have they embraced Roman catholicism or an inferior form of culture for centuries and not break through it all that time. If they had an inherent superior cultural form, why did they not challenge it for so long? What if the 30 years war was dominantly won by Catholic League? It is highly possible that they would have continued to be that inferior form of culture and not be where they are today?
    This is exactly why your argument is un-falsifiable. In that millenia Germans shifted to another culture, you do not consider that possible alternatives that could have happened......just because Germany(or rest of the Germanics as well) became what it is today, you dig the past over what we have at hand now.
    I am not necessarily refuting your argument here either....as a Marxist, I could make a case for class-conflict in formation of Protestanism in an un-falsifiable manner here as well.
    The fact of the matter is that, your approach is HIGHLY ideological. All social science is ideological, but you do not even attempt to clear yourself from it. You take everything at face value, whereas for a while now social scientists have shifted to a position where they are trying to abstract everything and show that they are social products.....and that science itself cannot be objective when looking at society.
    Again, like another poster said, you are straight out of 19th century in your argument and position. You have a century to put on your current perception.

    Yes, Feudalism took different forms in different countries… what’s your point? How is even relevant? You’ve neither given an explanation for the differences nor an explanation of what the results of the differences were. It’s a non-statement.
    Its because by now its clear that you have no idea you are talking about regarding these country's transformation into modern-state mechanisms. England, Germany and Sweden in 1930 have completely different social structures for instance. There is nothing that connects them...they've built completely differing state mechanism through this as well. But by your argument they are of the same ethnic group and are on the path to right development.
    So you do have an image in your head, of a -real- state of developed-ness, a superior social form that can be achieved by Germanics. But they are wildly different from each other, even if measure them on a "development" scale with certain variables....

    And you’re right, Turkey has adopted the veneer of a Western democracy, in fact they’ve been wearing it for many decades. I guess this is why they’ve managed to catch up to the West in every way. We should all move to Turkey, which is totally developed like Germany, the UK or Sweden. And let’s visit Erdogan’s new “Presidential Palace” which looks nothing like a sultan’s palace, cause clearly the current regime in Turkey, and the Ottoman Sultanate share NOTHING in common, nope, complete break with their history
    What you say does not conflict my point, that things change. But it does not correspond to Turkey's massive transition. Did Turkey suddenly get an inflow of Germanics? Did it go through ethnic change in rapid industrialization?

    You are thinking of development in pure "cultural" terms, a metaphysical, unhistorical, abstract concept that we have created.
    Did Japan, one of world's top 5 economies, South Korea, Taiwan went through wave of Germanic migrations?
    Are you incapable of seeing economic factors? How global capitalism works? How each society had different forms of pre-capitalist societies for instance? How they fared in the modern world's context? Their political structures? Natural resources, capabilities, population? Did everyone for instance, had the means for an agricultural transformation in the same sense Europe did? Maybe climate is a major factor?

    You realize, and I am talking in purely empirical terms here, by 1820, pretty much all people in the world, except for rulers and bureaucrats which made up the majority of the world lived in approximately exact same conditions...by 1820. Whether you were a German peasant or a Chinese peasant or a Latin American peasant...sure, the political context was maybe different, maybe some bit had more violance, some bit more freedom. Your argument does not take a shot at position of industrial revolution which clearly is the main reason the social development levels are so different today. You think protestant germans were living a better life in 1700s than Ottoman peasantry?
    Last edited by Garbarsardar; December 18, 2014 at 02:37 AM. Reason: off topic and continuity
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  3. #43
    Ecthelion's Avatar Great Ramen Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The land beyond the River Styx
    Posts
    1,304

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Bro what are you even arguing? Do you even have a counter thesis other than "it's complicated"?

    The only example you seem to have put forth so far of a country escaping its historical narrative is Turkey. Cause apparently a country previously ruled by a heavily centralized strong man cult of personality based at least partially on religion which built super fancy resorts for himself at the expense of the general public and lags behind the rest of Europe in development is completely different from the Turkey we have today. Amiright gaiz?

    And your point of "if the Germans were so smart, why didn't come up with Protestantism sooner" is just wow... I guess the Germans really do owe everyone an apology, they took too long to put out a Martin Luther. Clearly they were lagging.
    /sarcasm

    So why were virtually all the Protestant areas German, even if not all German areas were Protestant?

    Is it just random chance that Germanic kings and princes and clerics and townsmen decided to adopt Protestantism over Catholicism?

    Sure, I will conceded that they all had their various earthly reasons to divorce themselves from the Pope and conveniently confiscate Church property in the process, but there’s got to be more than that since France and Poland were in a similar position but Catholicism won out.

    Could it possibly be because an egalitarian, non-hierarchical, “read it for yourself and come up with your own interpretation” version of a religion appeals more to people who come from a culture where those traits are viewed more positively?

    If “culture has nothing to do with it”, how do you explain the fact that all the major nations of a given cultural group are all roughly in the same level of develop and political efficiency, or rapidly catching up to it (China and Vietnam for example)?

    Why are all the Germanic cultured countries and regions of Europe (northern France and Italy included) outperforming the Latin and Slavic countries/regions? There are a few exceptions, but all the major players fall into this rule.
    Last edited by Ecthelion; December 17, 2014 at 08:07 PM.
    This is my signature. Isn't it awesome?

  4. #44

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Am I worth it? You haven't challenged a single one of my points or corrections.

  5. #45
    Ecthelion's Avatar Great Ramen Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The land beyond the River Styx
    Posts
    1,304

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrets54 View Post
    Am I worth it? You haven't challenged a single one of my points or corrections.
    You compared the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy with the Lombard occupation of northern Italy, and implied that they should have the same effect culturally and politically.

    I don’t think this warrants a serious reply from me. I’m sorry.
    This is my signature. Isn't it awesome?

  6. #46

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion View Post
    You compared the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy with the Lombard occupation of northern Italy, and implied that they should have the same effect culturally and politically.
    I didn't imply they would have the same effect at all (you can quote me if you believe otherwise) but comparing the two is completely reasonable. They are both examples of Germanic peoples invading, occupying, establishing states in Italy and eventually being assimilated by Italians. The Lombard Kingdom followed the collapse of the Ostrogothic Kingdom by barely a decade. Saying that you cannot compare and contrast the two is absurd, and suggests you do not have a solid understanding of what either of these states were.

    I don’t think this warrants a serious reply from me. I’m sorry.
    I've literally provided several pieces of evidence that discount the central assumptions of your view. Is the problem that you do not want to face the data that in accepting you will have to change your mind?

  7. #47
    Ecthelion's Avatar Great Ramen Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The land beyond the River Styx
    Posts
    1,304

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrets54 View Post
    I didn't imply they would have the same effect at all (you can quote me if you believe otherwise) but comparing the two is completely reasonable. They are both examples of Germanic peoples invading, occupying, establishing states in Italy and eventually being assimilated by Italians. The Lombard Kingdom followed the collapse of the Ostrogothic Kingdom by barely a decade. Saying that you cannot compare and contrast the two is absurd, and suggests you do not have a solid understanding of what either of these states were.
    You’re grossly oversimplifying the issue.

    The Ostrogothic and Lombardic kingdoms in Italy are not comparable in the way you’ve described.

    Ostrogothic:
    • Tiny Ostrogothic ruling military elite of heavily Romanized generals and mercenaries
    • Last for… a century?
    • Followed by the complete reoccupation and attempted re-Latinization under Belisarius and his successors.

    Lombardic:
    • Large scale migration of an entire tribal confederation wholesale into northern Italy.
    • Was never really “ended” per se. Just assimilated into northern Italy.

    These are obviously not going to have the same effect. There is virtually no trace of the Ostrogothic Kingdom left. Less than 5 significant ruins remain, the largest of which is a relatively small mausoleum. Not so for the Lombards, there’s a reason why it’s still called “Lombardy” even to this day.

    The Ostrogoths are similar to the Mughals or Manchus. They ruled, but were largely insignificant in terms of culturally influencing the native population. The Ostrogoths are actually even more extreme in this respect since they didn't even have their own army or natural population. Just a few men in positions of power, men who had been largely brought up in the Roman culture.

    If you're looking for Germanic influence in Southern Italy, you're better off with citing the Norman Kingdom of Sicily. That one lasted longer but was still an extended military occupation which had little long term influence on the local population and culture.
    Last edited by Ecthelion; December 18, 2014 at 01:13 AM.
    This is my signature. Isn't it awesome?

  8. #48

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion View Post
    You’re grossly oversimplifying the issue.

    The Ostrogothic and Lombardic kingdoms in Italy are not comparable in the way you’ve described.

    Ostrogothic:
    • Tiny Ostrogothic ruling military elite of heavily Romanized generals and mercenaries
    • Last for… a century?
    • Followed by the complete reoccupation and attempted re-Latinization under Belisarius and his successors.
    I was the one that pointed out to you that it was an elite replacement invasion, and therefore your central idea that these German invaders are responsible for Northern Italy's economic prosperity vs. the South doesn't make sense. You seem to agree with this, so how do you defend your view?

  9. #49
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion View Post
    Bro what are you even arguing? Do you even have a counter thesis other than "it's complicated"?
    Here is my argument: You are trying to swallow something bigger than you can here.
    You do not have an epistemological stance, you are not up to date on arguments within social sciences on this very obvious matter, the question the world and the academics had been dealing with for almost 100 years(and since post-war period EXTENSIVE literature went into this). Many arguments had been put forth through carefully rationalized epistemological positions that tried to merge multiple factors...etc.
    But even without getting into that, the major problem here is your ignorance; you make this thread like this is the obvious reality in front of our eyes. For the record, I'd have no problem with you if you put this up here and said "well guys, look, isn't this an interesting phenomena. Maybe there is something behind this, I think it is this that blablabla"...but you are here as an ignorant fella who is judging us as SJWs and telling us that this is the obvious truth.

    As a person who had given a thesis in the field of development, I must say this is one of the weakest arguments I have seen. And EVEN those who have a similar argument to this does not go the way you do about this.


    The only example you seem to have put forth so far of a country escaping its historical narrative is Turkey. Cause apparently a country previously ruled by a heavily centralized strong man cult of personality based at least partially on religion which built super fancy resorts for himself at the expense of the general public and lags behind the rest of Europe in development is completely different from the Turkey we have today. Amiright gaiz?
    Again an un-falsifiable argument. How about Japan? Korea? Taiwan?
    Have you read for instance Ferrets's comparisons on same ethnic groups and diverging per capita incomes?


    And your point of "if the Germans were so smart, why didn't come up with Protestantism sooner" is just wow... I guess the Germans really do owe everyone an apology, they took too long to put out a Martin Luther. Clearly they were lagging.
    /sarcasm
    You are not getting my point again.
    Its not that I am saying "why they had not come up with Protestantism" earlier....Protestantism in that case for me is a SYMBOL of progressiveness. You argue that BECAUSE they are of german ethnic background, they had protestanism. Its a self-confirming point. We cannot measure it because it has happened. You are building your case on what has happened. We cannot falsify it.
    You are not for instance, explaining WHY it has happened, or why it has happened in 16th century and not before.....you are basing your argument on happened phenomena. Maybe Germans today are doing so well solely because of protestanism, but how can you prove that whats lying below that is because they were Germanics? What about all the Germanics that had not been this way? What about Austria or other Southern Germanics for instance? What if what happened was a moment specific thing, what if the sole reason protestanism spread was the conditions they were in and Luther was there at the right time?
    I don't know if you notice but you are not even being a Weberian here.



    So why were virtually all the Protestant areas German, even if not all German areas were Protestant?

    Is it just random chance that Germanic kings and princes and clerics and townsmen decided to adopt Protestantism over Catholicism?
    No. I am not putting a counter-thesis here, I am trying show you the flaws in your absolutism. I have my own ideas regarding the differences on development gaps but I am too lazy to present anything here. Note that I am not dismissing culture as a possible cause of these processes. But I have a proper epistemological judgement for how to perceive culture unlike your weird 19th century nationalism mindset on the matter.
    England was also influenced by this wave and they also have germanic roots...and yet England went full class-conflict throughout 16th-19th century. French society too was built on peasant communes, and yet they were so unequal that the ones in the bottom beheaded the ones at the top. Even Germany was so diverse in-intself. The social structures of Austria, Prussia or that of western germany varied greatly within itself.
    Protestanism's spread among Germans can be explained by other factors than their "inherent egalitarianism"...it can be judged in its political, economic context as well.
    It also does not explain where protestanism HAS NOT spread to Germans. So you have nothing solid in your hand.

    Sure, I will conceded that they all had their various earthly reasons to divorce themselves from the Pope and conveniently confiscate Church property in the process, but there’s got to be more than that since France and Poland were in a similar position but Catholicism won out.

    Could it possibly be because an egalitarian, non-hierarchical, “read it for yourself and come up with your own interpretation” version of a religion appeals more to people who come from a culture where those traits are viewed more positively?
    Put it this way, and you'll get better feedback. Your problem with cultural phenomena is that you take it as an inherent genetic ethnic code or something. Culture is a historically specific form, it changes in time. Culture indeed can be a factor and I am again, too lazy to talk about workings of culture and how it relates to development.
    But you cannot simply come here and say, the inherent culture of timeless reality is the only reason the world is this way today and so it will have this gaps forever. How do you know that culture is the independent variable in this case? What if culture is the product? How can you know which comes first? Culture or development? Can you prove that there is a linear causality here?
    We can present countless examples where your argument fails...and you can cut and fit it into an unfalsifiable psuedo-scientific paradigm if you want to believe it.

    Confirmation bias does not go well with the real, honest search for truth. I've experienced this first-hand as a Marxist.

    If “culture has nothing to do with it”, how do you explain the fact that all the major nations of a given cultural group are all roughly in the same level of develop and political efficiency, or rapidly catching up to it (China and Vietnam for example)?
    While I do not say culture has nothing to do with it, its remarkable how much you can ignore industrial revolution and how it spread and how global capitalism formed. For instance, Chinese and Vietnamese underdevelopment for a long time can be related to many many many factors, one of them being that they were given primarily an agricultural role in the global capitalism's formation. Given the similarity of their political structures, due to specific historical moments and leadership, they've decided to take the same step and liberalize in the same manner since 1980s achieving a rapid rate of growth. But having said that, this is also highly dependent on geographic position and how global capital is faring at the time....for instance what sort of FDI is going in or is it a good time to invest, hws the infrastructure, logistics....etc


    Why are all the Germanic cultured countries and regions of Europe (northern France and Italy included) outperforming the Latin and Slavic countries/regions? There are a few exceptions, but all the major players fall into this rule.
    We can come up with a lot of factors. For instance, capitalism was after all ignited in the area of England-Netherlands. It spread from there. The social dynamics changed in that area earlier than the rest of the world, and the more global capitalism sucked up these lands the earlier they took their position in global capitalism. So there is maybe an advantage in establishing a capitalist basis for economy earlier than other so that others have to shape their economy according to yours...the whole history of colonialism is an example of this.
    There can be many factors for transition into capitalism as well....culture could be one, social structures, political context, dominant ideological mind-set....etc

    Like I said, the problem is your handling of the question of culture...not that you are using it. And that you are presenting it as the only deal in the most unfalsifiable way possible.
    Last edited by dogukan; December 18, 2014 at 08:10 AM.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  10. #50

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Yes, I think if I could force you to respond to one of the many data points I gave you it would be the seperate GFP per capitas of various states with the same cultural/linguistic family.

  11. #51
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,065

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrets54 View Post
    Really? I can think of tonnes, just in Europe, just in the last hundred years. Portugal has gone from monarchy to Republicanism to fascism to democracy. Spain, exactly the same. Germany has swung from authoritative monarchy to democracy to fascism to partition and back to democracy. Austria-Hungary collapsed, new countries formed and collapsed, adopted fascism, communism, democracy, et al. God there's countless examples, of course ethnicity doesn't determine political systems.
    You have anticipated my answer.Rep +

    --------------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion View Post
    Why are all the Germanic cultured countries and regions of Europe (northern France and Italy included) outperforming the Latin and Slavic countries/regions?
    Is there a genetic cause?...

    Is it just random chance that Germanic kings and princes and clerics and townsmen decided to adopt Protestantism over Catholicism?
    You are completely right. Smart genes don't make wrong choices.

    The rest of the Americas inherited the Catholic Iberian culture, and look at where they are now
    Reality check: Brazil has the largest number of Catholics in the world and this country is one of the fastest-growing major economies in the world...

    That said, Antero de Quental- one of the most remarkable characters in Portuguese cultural history, poet, philosopher, thinker- tried to find offers an explanation for the cultural decadence of Portugal and Spain after the glorious epoch of the discoveries, and he wrote the most influential treatment of this problem in 1871. The work is entitled: "Causes of the decline of the Peninsular peoples in the last three centuries"

    It was a speech delivered in May 27,1871 in Lisbon. According to Antero de Quental the causes of the peninsular decadence-reflected in the absence of science - were three: moral, political, and economic.
    1-The moral cause is in the transformation of Catholicism by the Council of Trent.
    2-The political cause was the establishment of absolutism erasing all public local liberties.
    3-And the third cause was an economy based on conquest.

    Here, full speech -This is well worth a read, so please take the time to read it.
    Causes of the decline of the peninsular peoples in the last three centuries

    ----------

    If you can think of another counter-example, let me know
    Portugal...read above. History teaches,
    Portugal's population was remarkably homogeneous and had been so for all of its history. This lack of ethnic variety helped it become the first unified nation-state in Western Europe. For centuries Portugal had virtually no ethnic, tribal, racial, religious, or cultural minorities. Almost all Portuguese spoke the national language, almost all were Roman Catholic, and almost all identified with Portuguese culture and the nation of Portugal

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    ...If not dangerous if you take into account the tenets of nazism, wich have a similar argumentation on this matter.
    Absolutely. Hitler would heartily agree with the OP.
    Last edited by Ludicus; December 18, 2014 at 02:00 PM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  12. #52

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    I think the most absurd suggestion by the OP is that every culture can wear any ideological coat (which is obviously correct), but they wear some coats better than others. Which is obviously .

    Germany has been a powerful country when they were united. After 1871 they were strong as an authoritarian state. After 1945 the west were strong as a democratic state. The east meanwhile weak as an authoritarian state. Before 1871 germanic people has been organized in so many different ways as to speak about a specific form of germanic ideology before this is absurd.

    Also, to claim germanics have a strong culture of individualism just reeks of 19th century national-romantic bullcrap. There were oppressed serfs in germanic lands too.

    Why did Western Germany become more prosperous than the East? Is it because the germans are better when working under a democratic coat? Or is it because the West was supported by the Allies while the East was looted by the Soviets? Your explanations, mr. OP, lean far too much on ideology.
    Have you ever seen Dirty Harry Guns and money are best diplomacy
    "At a football club, there's a holy trinity - the players, the manager and the supporters. Directors don't come into it. They are only there to sign the cheques."

    Bill Shankly

    "Not badly, considering I was seated between Jesus Christ and Napoleon"

    David Lloyd George was pleased with his performance at Versailles.

  13. #53

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    Absolutely. Hitler would heartily agree with the OP.
    The OP is proposing naked and totally discredited racist philosophies, it's true.

  14. #54

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion View Post
    The UK, or more specifically, England, is the classic example of my thesis actually.
    I think the best example regarding the UK would be Northern Ireland. I'd love to justify that point with a wall of text but I think the country and the situation there justifies itself.
    House of Caesers
    Under the patronage and son of Empress Meg
    Brother of the mighty Geat Carl von Döbeln


    Graphics Workshop | My Graphics Gallery

  15. #55

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion View Post
    The US and Canada inherited the largely Protestant Anglo-French culture (there were a lot of Huguenots in Canada), and look where they are now.
    The rest of the Americas inherited the Catholic Iberian culture, and look at where they are now.
    Oh please Brazil is not close to being perfect but is in the top 10 world economies and in BRIC acronym. Also consider Macau, former Portuguese colony and has one of the highest GDP per capita in the world.

    Plus Portugal =/= Spain. Just because it's on same peninsula don't think it's same culture or same thing overall.
    Last edited by fkizz; December 20, 2014 at 07:49 AM.

  16. #56

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Chile has a nice life index ratting. Being the most stable, and developed country in latin america for example.

  17. #57
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    there are many more examples I can think of today and in history but I don't think it should even go there.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  18. #58
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    Chile has a nice life index ratting. Being the most stable, and developed country in latin america for example.
    Chile is a developing country.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  19. #59

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    Chile is a developing country.
    if you say so... i and many other specialists would contest that designation atm.

    Whataver you wanna put it is far ahead of the rest south american countries. including the giant booming brazil.
    Chile has a high Human Development Index overall, ranking at 44th in the world, much better or on the same level of alot of european countries, that by " geographical chance" have a developed designation....

    Strongest points of Chile:
    - Universal healthcare, through a mixed public/private system.
    - Relatively high literacy rate and life expectancy.
    - Overall good access to resources, products and services.
    - Strong, stable economy. Excellent international economic relationships, with free trade agreements with the US, the European Union, China, Japan and many other countries.
    - Many economic export strongholds, including copper, wine and fresh fruit.
    Weakest points of Chile:
    - Awful income distribution and high inequality. Much of Chile's development is only enjoyed by a small percentage of the population.
    - Uncontrolled, unsustainable expansion of Chile's capital Santiago. A vicious circle of migration from the regions to the capital and lack of development of the rest of the country.
    - An insufficient educational system.
    It needs a:
    -Decentralization of population, industries and services. Not everything has to happen in Santiago. Power to the North and the South.
    -Decent railways infrastructure, covering the whole country.

    I can tell you i have been in european countries in much worse conditions, or walking into the oposite direction very fast. ( hell i live in one)

    Otherwise Chile is very developed. In many places you might think that you are in the U.S or Europe. But there are still a lot of poor people there, Inequality is the bigest issue. Not very different then Many places in Europe and in the US to be fair.

    so you can call it what you want it wont change reality.
    Last edited by Knight of Heaven; December 20, 2014 at 02:29 PM.

  20. #60

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    Chile has a nice life index ratting. Being the most stable, and developed country in latin america for example.
    As nice as it was/is, we had an big influx of Chilean immigrants to Portugal in mid 70s fleeing away from fascist persecution, and Pinochet had the same habit of kidnapping newborns to sell in the black market after telling their mothers their infant had just died, showing them a fake corpse. Just like Franco in Spain did, habits of hispanosphere.

    I don't recall Salazar doing this..

    That said on Chile overall I have no idea, it's a developing country but if you like it, ok, but just reminding you of a few things.
    But most interesting of all: Chile for the development of its economy followed Neo Liberal ideas with advice from Milton Friedman, so be careful when you complain about Neo liberalism later.

    @Ecthelion
    How come Germany never won a war and Israel, that state of its arch enemies, has never lost a war?

    Also how do you feel about Barbarian Invasions ruining the Roman Empire and later in the 1527 the sack of Rome?
    Last edited by fkizz; December 20, 2014 at 03:13 PM.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •