Top ten innovations of the last 250 years

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Ok, so whats your definition of nationalism.

My impression is that the average middle class town dwelling Englishman in say, 1590, is not only proud of the realm and supportive of the monarch, but has a strong sense of NOT wanting to be ruled by a Spanish dynasty, qua Spanish. Elizabeth calls herself "mere (ie pure) English" The attachment to the Tudors, by that point, is about more than dynastic legitimacy - its partly about religion, but even that is driven to some degree by national loyalty.

Now its true theres no articulated ideology relating government to language, culture and other "national" charecteristics. But is that not to some degree a matter of philosophy, as the owl of minerva, crying at dusk - IE describing phenomena AFTER they happen. Surely one wouldnt say that capitalism wasnt invented till Turgot or Adam Smith (the 18thc guy, not the poster)? They DISCOVERED capitalism so to speak, they didnt invent it. Similarly with regard to nationalism I think.

OTOH it could be argued that nationalism, unlike capitalism (but like socialism) IS an ideology, and not a social system, and so its not possible to be unconsciously nationalistic.

Hmm. I think there are arguements both ways.

My definition of Nationalism is an idelogy that states that the basis of legitimacy of a state is based on said state representing the will of a specific Nation, nation bieng defined as a certain enhtho-linguistic cultural entity.

People in England may not have wanted a foreigner ruling, anymore than the Romans wanted an Egyptian Queen around, but no one in 1590 would have claimed that the very legitimacy of the English Crown and more importantly the English state rested solely on IT being the expression of the English nation.

Nationalism is an idelogy, unlike Patriotism and other forms of parochialism and "local pride", which are a decendent of human tribalism and xenophobia.

So saying people don't want some foreigner ruling them (because they are, well foreign) is not the same as accepting that the legitimacy of the state rest solely on it bieng an expression of the will of the Nation.

Saying someone in 1590 was a Nationalist is like saying that anyone living in some commune in 1590 was a Bolshevik.

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: Top ten innovations of the last 250 years

Originally posted by GePap


All the ones based on the notion of science, given that the idea that the world can be examined empirically was a philosophical notion.

*dies*

[GePap]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Top ten innovations of the last 250 years

Originally posted by Asher


*dies*

Finally. Keep your weak trolls out, and leave them in your thread.

[Asher]

It's just funny for somebody talking about how critical modern philosophy is, you leave out philosophy from your list of innovations from the past 250 years.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap
People in England may not have wanted a foreigner ruling, anymore than the Romans wanted an Egyptian Queen around, but no one in 1590 would have claimed that the very legitimacy of the English Crown and more importantly the English state rested solely on IT being the expression of the English nation.

Horse hockey.

The notion that the government existed to protect the Common Weal was preeminent by the accession of Elizabeth.

[Urban Ranger]

1. Quantum theory
1. General Relativity
1. Evolution - modern biology doesn't make sense without it
4. Integrated circuit (this includes the transistor)
5. The concept of modern computer (gives us software)
6. High temperature superconductor (okay, slowly getting there)
7. Fiber optics
8. Nanotechology
9. Stem cells
10. Genetic engineering

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


You'll note my inital post referred to the part where all men were created equal hence able to achieve citizenship. Thus the distinction from ancient democracies.

Yet obviously they weren't- since the American Supreme Court could decide that 'negroes' weren't men, and neither, fairly obviously, were women.

The idea of 'all men' being 'created equal' leaves a lot of room for definition as to who or what is a man- and in fact it was declaration made in an age when classification by 'race' was being given a spurious scientific background.

You'll note as well that one signatory of the Declaration of Indpendence certainly wasn't equal to the others- Charles Carroll, being Roman Catholic, didn't have the franchise:

After Carroll's return to Maryland in 1765, he began lobbying for repeal of the Stamp Act.

"The irony of this is that Carroll was prohibited from voting on any political issue because he was Catholic, and though many immigrants had renounced their faith he remained steadfast to the Church," McDermott said.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GePap


My definition of Nationalism is an idelogy that states that the basis of legitimacy of a state is based on said state representing the will of a specific Nation, nation bieng defined as a certain enhtho-linguistic cultural entity.

People in England may not have wanted a foreigner ruling, anymore than the Romans wanted an Egyptian Queen around, but no one in 1590 would have claimed that the very legitimacy of the English Crown and more importantly the English state rested solely on IT being the expression of the English nation.

Nationalism is an idelogy- saying someone in 1590 was a Nationalist is like saying that anyone living in some commune in 1590 was a Bolshevik.

No it isn't- you really need to brush up on your English history of the Tudor period.

The disengaging from the mainland of Europe (begun during the latter part of the Hundred Years' War) was effectively ended with the loss of Calais during the reign of Mary Tudor.

It was however given even greater emphasis by Henry VIII's break with the Church of Rome- which meant a liturgy in the vernacular, a prayer book in the vernacular, and all manner of religious services that affected the lives of ordinary English people being conducted in their own tongue- no more would baptism or christenings or weddings or funerals be carried out only in Latin.

Up until Henry VIII's reign, England had still been a part of the 'international' European culture, but after the establishment of the Anglican church, and the renewal of translations of the Bible from Hebrew, Greek and the Vulgate into English, a distinct English national identity was formed- not part of the Protestant Calvinist community, opposed to the German Lutherans, and not subject to the Church of Rome.

The printing presses of England became precursors of the information technology revolution of the 20th Century- which is why there were so many debates on the fitness or otherwise of the English language to express ideas and feelings previously given expression only in Latin or Greek- and which is why there were suggestions for replacing terms of rhetoric, grammar and philosophy with English coinages based on Anglo-Saxon-Norse models.

There were diatribes against foreign derived, imported, 'inkhorn' terms- and the popular literature of drama, ballads and short prose works becomes filled with foreigners who stand in for the old mediaeval vice figures of morality plays- Italians are Machiavellians, Spaniards are warlike or devious, Frenchmen are Papist agents plotting to undermine the Protestant cause.

In fact, the drama grew so nationalist that the Spanish ambassador complained about the play 'A Game At Chess':

Middleton's patriotic drama, A Game at Chess, (1624), unprecedentedly successful, was closed after nine performances due to its inflammatory anti-Spanish content and the Spanish Ambassador's outrage. The writer and the actors were reprimanded and fined.

http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/middleton/thomasbio.htm

and Shakespeare memorably includes national stereotypes of the Scots, Welsh and Irish in his history plays for comic effect, and to contrast them with the English.

[lord of the mark]

i think the nationalism issue is complex. There is clearly something new evolving early modern France, Holland, and especially Tudor England in terms of the relation of the citizen community to the state that is different than in most earlier polities - I dont know enough about Rome to make a strong statement about it, but I dont think Roman pride was quite the same thing. And this was even more true, I think, during the English civil war and the Glorious Revolution.

But, it was still a far cry from the explicit nationalist ideology of the age of revolution and beyond.

And the nationalism of the early 19th century had mixed roots I think - to some extent the question of nationalism was naturally raised by democratic politics - if legitimacy was to come from the majority in a given state, what was to be done where a particular linguistic cultural group was a minority, and, the politics of culture and language were strong enough to make them a permanent electoral minority? This is an issue in many places, but becomes especially interesting in the Habsburg empire. On the other hand there is the Herderian approach in which nationality is the supreme value, and is not merely instrumental. There is also the way that democratic politics elevates the language question, by moving politics out of the ownership of elites who speak latin or other lingua francas (for example, look at Hungary, which in the 19th c shifts the language of the Diet from Latin to Magyar, provoking the raise of Croat nationalism)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Yet obviously they weren't- since the American Supreme Court could decide that 'negroes' weren't men, and neither, fairly obviously, were women.

The idea of 'all men' being 'created equal' leaves a lot of room for definition as to who or what is a man- and in fact it was declaration made in an age when classification by 'race' was being given a spurious scientific background.

You'll note as well that one signatory of the Declaration of Indpendence certainly wasn't equal to the others- Charles Carroll, being Roman Catholic, didn't have the franchise:

ah, but the Jacksonian movement, which knocked down most remaining property and religious requirements to vote, has direct relations to the free soil movement, at least among Northern Jacksonians, according to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Looking at US history from 1776 to 1920 you see a steadily crumbling limit to suffrage - each attempt to hold the line - all men are created equal, but states can maintain property qualifications for suffrage, all white men should vote, but blacks arent really men, all men should vote, but not women, proves untenable, and generally (in historic terms) in fairly short order. The contradictions are intrinsic once the first principle is adopted. Of course this happens in europe as well - the sequences arent always the same - the French are quick to grab at manhood suffrage (which is only put back in the bottle very artificially from 1815 to 1848) but slow on womens suffrage - while UK holds onto property quals a long time, but is fast on womans suffrage. So Id say modern democracy IS a different animal than ancient democracy.


Good point about Charles Carrol. He was a member of the Continental Congress, and a signer of the Declaration, yet Catholic emancipation was spotty, on a state by state basis (the First amendment guarantees on religion applied only to the federal govt, and that was only after 1789) Virginia had abolished religious tests with Jeffersons Statute of Religious freedom in 1785, I think, and Massachusetts was even earlier, with the first independence era constitution (which also banned slavery) largely authored by John Adams.

[Ecthy]

I'm biased, I've read political theories about nations and nationalism before in seminars. I'd say that makes me more qualified to judge than most of you are, but I know it won't be accepted.

Anyway, nationalism is a modern phenomenon, post 1800.

[Dauphin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Top ten innovations of the last 250 years

The steam engine is over 250 years old. If you count Savery as the inventor, thats some 60 years before 1755. The next innovation by Newcomen was 40 years before 1750.

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by Asher
It's just funny for somebody talking about how critical modern philosophy is, you leave out philosophy from your list of innovations from the past 250 years.

Now, now, let's not make fun of philosophy. Philosophy is the birthplace of all the sciences. When an area of study within philosophy gains enough interest and momentum, it generally becomes a separate science. Don't mock the fields that remain under the Philosophy banner just because they are too small or young to go it alone.

I've been out of the academic loop for awhile, but when I was in university there was some excitement about the generation of new classes and a department for an area borne of Advanced Math, Psychology, and...Logics from Philosophy - it was Artificial Intelligence. You of all people, Asher, should appreciate that.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Top ten innovations of the last 250 years

Originally posted by Asher

Nationalism maybe (and what a great contribution).

Nationalism definately, and it's contributions have been good and bad.

William Gilbert (electricity) was a scientist.

Benjamin Franklin was a philospher.

Thomas Savery (steam power) was an engineer.

Hero invented the steam engine in ancient times.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Horse hockey.

The notion that the government existed to protect the Common Weal was preeminent by the accession of Elizabeth.

This has nothing to do with nationalism.