The Ship Model Forum

by **Anonymous** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:32 am

Most of these revolutions have changed the upbringing of the young. They did so in gradually expanding the percentage of the population for which this was seen as relevant (this applies to both formal -school-eduction and family life). And they did so in forcing the small nuclear family/ small scale patriarchate version of family life, which was a way of life of a very small educated higher middle class minority until the late 19the century, on both the larger uneducated population and the aristocracy. Upbringing and family life of a 10 year old in say 1750 in europe woudl be totally incomprehensible to modern eyes. This nuclear family thing was in may ways a (western)world wide uniformation and control process had even farther reaching consequences than the dual revolution of conscription and mass education a few decades before. It made, amongst other things, mass suburbanisation and mass car ownership (nuclear families are small) possible.

BTW the only thing poor old Spock did was to take the nuclear family concept to its logical conclusion and write down what was current practice in the higher middle class circles which as noted set the pattern for family life.

by **MichelB** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:51 am

But I wonder how many of those revolutions tried and succeeded to change the very foundation of the upbringing of the young, except for the moments when totalitarion regimes began professional indoctrination. (Cultural revolution in China?) None of the revolutions up to 1917 really wanted and succeeded in abolishing the basic relationship between pupil and teacher. Whatever the teacher told, the kids had to listen and memorize, and kids were still pressured to avoid those things considered immoral. Yes, there were ideas about free love in the 19th century, but were any of those 'visionaries' talking about 16-year olds? No, because they knew that one had to have developed some sense of responsibility to engage in 'free love', not to mention stable personal economics to care for the fruit of the loins. And did any of those serious revolutionairies ever consider a classroom where the pupils decided what to learn, with the teacher merely supervising?
This is a very specific post-WW II phenomenon, and you shouldn't tie that to general currents of cultural pessimism. Oh, I accept that my complainings sound like any cultural pessimist of any age, but that doesn;t mean you can dismiss my complaints! By using the same standard, revolutionairies, squatters and other malcontents shouldn't be allowed to complain or squat either, because they just sound like any old malcontents from any age.
My point is that until the 1960's, liberal ideas were projected onto the person after the completion of one's formal and informal education, thus creating freedoms and relative 'excesses' on a solid foundation of accepted senses of social responsibilies. These days, however, the sense of freedom and tolerance is projected in the midst of and even before the wild years of puberty. Nothing to reign them in, the only and ultimate borders for wild youngsters being the Law, the other guy's fists and venereal diseases.

And yes, it started all with that wacko Spock.

Pheew... even longer rant!

by **Anonymous** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 6:09 am

Michel, I did notice what point you were slowly driving at. That's why I put in my remarks on Burke. Most of the cultural and political thinking of the 'long' 19th century (in the Netherlands exemplified by people like Da Costa, Hogendorp and Groen van Prinsterer) was similar to what you wrote. For example the first official political party in the Netherlands (ARP) called itself anti-revolutionary precisely because of concern about the take over by youth and and their lack of responsibility....It was even quite visible in the way these politcicians dressed themselves; 'old for their age' in black costumes, smoking cigars and drinking jenever (refined dutch version of gin). You may have noticed that two of these 'too olds' are now in power in the Netherlands. The culture wars you seem to be willing to fight have bene remarkably constant since 1789, except that the terrible changes to the national character seem to shift every few decades. nowadays it's 1968, before it was 1917 and the german failed revolution of 1918/9, the Paris Commune of 1970 was an earlier flashpoint and in the Netherlands 1848 (when the king lost most of his power to parliament) was one of those terrible attacks on the national character. You may have noticed I believe in none of them. If I have to relate myself to any revolutionary moment I prefer to relate myself to the squatters' movement of the early 1980's. Indeed, how hedonistic has the current generatiosn of young squatters become compared to those time. They only squat to have a party, not to do any political work.

coberg1 wrote:
MichelB wrote: The point I was slowly driving at is that I think the notion of the child and the teenager has changed (for the worse): from a recipient of knowledge of culture, the child/teenager had been transformed into someone whose whims and follies now decide what is culture and relevant knowledge. Where once we tried to impose rules to the ' excesses' of teenagers in their turbulent years, our society had elevated these eruptions of irresponsible messing about to the level of rule. A hedonistic lifestyle, (ab)use of responsibilities beyond one's capacity to comprehend (the true powers of sexuality, of course liquor, drugs, political power, in short: adult responsibilities) are now de riguer and pressed home by their peers AND their seniors.
The subtle difference between what we (the culture) want our children to learn and what our children want to learn is crucial here. How can you expect a 16 year old to know what's best for him/her and his/her future life? You can't! Of course they don't want to learn German grammar, or the finer nuances of Greek poetry. So we gave them a choice: create your own curriculum. Don't want math? Don't do it! Don' t want history? Then forget about history! Go to Ibiza instead!

This is indeed the impoverisaton of our culture: letting kids decide what is important, what knowledge should be kept and carried on.

And it's bloody criminal!

Phew.... long, long rant. Sorry to have stept on any toes. (unless you are a minor )

i like a good rant now and then. i have to say i agree. it all goes back to that book that idiot benjamin spock wrote. all his child rearing theories were almost immediately adopted by the mainstream and have been evolving into the current condition you point out. (in my oppinion)

although i wouldn't mind checking out the beaches of ibiza myself sometime!

by **Dave Wooley** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:52 am

All events have some effect some more profound than others. The Industrial revolution had the more far reaching effect than all revolutions before or since. What we are today is due in most part to that seismic change. It changed the world, Socially, Militarily, Scientifically and economically.
Dave Wooley

by **kennylibben** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:55 pm

Marty,

I know what you mean but i'm talking about revolutions against the government, overthrowing them and establishing a new one. Not just a "revolution" that makes life better in general (or sometimes worse depending on your opinion!)

by **richter111** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:45 pm

Oh I fully agree about the fuedal life that I stated above being VEry Very simplistic. But I do stand by my statement that you simply accepted your lot in life. Not that it has changed much since then for the masses. It just seems that in this day and age, one can go further in life with more hard work. You were much more likely to be tied to your land, and even in the cases of kings, be illiterate.

Knowledge is power. what was true now is/was even more true then.

Ric

by **Filipe Ramires** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:18 pm

JWintjes wrote:Anyway, in terms of revolutions may I suggest the most important revolution in warfare, second perhaps only to the invention of the nuke? The introduction of the horse into military service.

Jorit

Well, I agree but not completely! Cavalry was indeed a great advance in warfare but when faced by archers...hum, remember Agincourt. Also, the improvement of field artillery brought cavalry to a stand still...and, finally, with the introduction of machine-guns it was its end.

by **coberg1** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 5:14 pm

MichelB wrote:
Pieter wrote:about the triumph of hedonism, tolerance and the destruction of the natural parent-child relationship. ... But nowadays we know better, don't we?
The point I was slowly driving at is that I think the notion of the child and the teenager has changed (for the worse): from a recipient of knowledge of culture, the child/teenager had been transformed into someone whose whims and follies now decide what is culture and relevant knowledge. Where once we tried to impose rules to the ' excesses' of teenagers in their turbulent years, our society had elevated these eruptions of irresponsible messing about to the level of rule. A hedonistic lifestyle, (ab)use of responsibilities beyond one's capacity to comprehend (the true powers of sexuality, of course liquor, drugs, political power, in short: adult responsibilities) are now de riguer and pressed home by their peers AND their seniors.
The subtle difference between what we (the culture) want our children to learn and what our children want to learn is crucial here. How can you expect a 16 year old to know what's best for him/her and his/her future life? You can't! Of course they don't want to learn German grammar, or the finer nuances of Greek poetry. So we gave them a choice: create your own curriculum. Don't want math? Don't do it! Don' t want history? Then forget about history! Go to Ibiza instead!

This is indeed the impoverisaton of our culture: letting kids decide what is important, what knowledge should be kept and carried on.

And it's bloody criminal!

Phew.... long, long rant. Sorry to have stept on any toes. (unless you are a minor )

i like a good rant now and then. i have to say i agree. it all goes back to that book that idiot benjamin spock wrote. all his child rearing theories were almost immediately adopted by the mainstream and have been evolving into the current condition you point out. (in my oppinion)

although i wouldn't mind checking out the beaches of ibiza myself sometime!

by **MichelB** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:26 pm

Pieter wrote:about the triumph of hedonism, tolerance and the destruction of the natural parent-child relationship. ... But nowadays we know better, don't we?

The point I was slowly driving at is that I think the notion of the child and the teenager has changed (for the worse): from a recipient of knowledge of culture, the child/teenager had been transformed into someone whose whims and follies now decide what is culture and relevant knowledge. Where once we tried to impose rules to the ' excesses' of teenagers in their turbulent years, our society had elevated these eruptions of irresponsible messing about to the level of rule. A hedonistic lifestyle, (ab)use of responsibilities beyond one's capacity to comprehend (the true powers of sexuality, of course liquor, drugs, political power, in short: adult responsibilities) are now de riguer and pressed home by their peers AND their seniors.
The subtle difference between what we (the culture) want our children to learn and what our children want to learn is crucial here. How can you expect a 16 year old to know what's best for him/her and his/her future life? You can't! Of course they don't want to learn German grammar, or the finer nuances of Greek poetry. So we gave them a choice: create your own curriculum. Don't want math? Don't do it! Don' t want history? Then forget about history! Go to Ibiza instead!

This is indeed the impoverisaton of our culture: letting kids decide what is important, what knowledge should be kept and carried on.

And it's bloody criminal!

Phew.... long, long rant. Sorry to have stept on any toes. (unless you are a minor

)

by **JWintjes** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:09 pm

richter111 wrote: Before this time, you accepted your lot in life. The concept of servitude or being "owned by your Lord" of the manor was not extreme, but the norm. Kings were seen as having the divine right of rulership, and attitudes were different.

I can't agree with that - feudal societies were far more complex than simply being divided into "lords" and "servants". What's more, antiquity saw societies which were markedly different; think of Athenian democracy, the Roman republic or the Roman principate.

Anyway, in terms of revolutions may I suggest the most important revolution in warfare, second perhaps only to the invention of the nuke? The introduction of the horse into military service.

Jorit

by **Anonymous** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:08 pm

I think the way humans viewed themselves had already been changed radically by humanism, reformation and contra-reformation. Which had caused their own revolutions (dutch, british). Wat was new in the 'post-enlightenment' revolutions was the notion that not only could common man decide for themselves but that a large number of them could act together in a meaningful way. Thus common people emerged on the scene as the masses, not the mob. Democracy suddenly stopped being the lowest form of government (Aristotle called it mob rule) and became the best form of government. Off course, after the American and French people revolutions, people like Edmund Burke immediately started to complain about the triumph of hedonism, tolerance and the destruction of the natural parent-child relationship. They also invented national cultures in order to be able to defend the foundations of it against these terrible enlightened ideas and get the masses under control again. But nowadays we know better, don't we?

by **richter111** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:12 am

Well said Marty.

As to the others, the concept of the age of enlightenment was revolutionary in the fact that it fundamentally changed the way humans viewed themselves. Before this time, you accepted your lot in life. The concept of servitude or being "owned by your Lord" of the manor was not extreme, but the norm. Kings were seen as having the divine right of rulership, and attitudes were different.

Enlightenment came about when people realised the value of themselves, the common man.

Without this fundamental value, None of the revolutions would have happened.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal"
-emphasis mine.

Ric

by **GWB** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 2:50 am

Kenny wrote: "i mean political revolutions here people! not economic ones."

They're ALL economic revolutions. Politics is the rationalisation, NOT the driving force. Poverty breeds dissent, the "have-nots" eventually get mad and decide to take from the established "haves".

Most wars can be viewed as "armed robbery" attempts. Politics is just the "fig leaf" to justify the bloodshed. It sounds wierd but when you scratch the surface there is always, always an economic motivation, access to resources, a trade route, tobacco, oil fields, diamonds, spices, silk, etc.

The three "revolutions" cited, the American, French and Russian revolution all had their roots with economic causes.

In the American Revolution the British imported a foreign army to enforce unfair tax laws on self sufficient colonies and provoked a violent reaction. The colonists repeatedly asked the King to reign in his out of control army before finally declaring Independance.

In France and Russia and China and Argentina and Cuba the "aristocracy" became so arrogant in their power that the average shnook got fed up and said "the hell with this". That's how revolutions happen, the average shnook gets fed up.

Marty

by **ddp** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:41 pm

what about the british civil wars??

by **chuck** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:53 am

MichelB wrote: In my opinion the greatest revolution of the past 200 years: the scientific revolution of the 19-hundreds; science becoming an establishment.

Age of enlightenment made it possible.

by **kennylibben** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:30 am

i mean political revolutions here people! not economic ones.

by **MichelB** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:46 pm

Filipe Ramires wrote:None of the above revolutions were possible if the technological and industrial revolutions never had take place. Those were probably the most influent revolutions of modern and contemporary ages!

Well.... the American patriots had no need for steam engines or even a cotton gin until several decades later. The French weren't miffed about machinery and industrialization (no Luddites there). 1776 and 1789 would have 'happened' with or without some chap having invented a moving kettle.

In my opinion the greatest revolution of the past 200 years: the scientific revolution of the 19-hundreds; science becoming an establishment.
The worst revolution ever (even surpassing 1917 in scope): the triumph of youthism, fundamentalist tolerance and hedonism since 1968. ESPECIALLY the destruction of the natural parent-child relationship is wreaking havoc under our feet. A direct result, the glorification of anything young and immature is a direct threat to the foundations of our culture.

by **Timmy C** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:22 pm

Which wouldn't have happened if the Big Bang didn't happen.

by **chuck** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 1:07 pm

Filipe Ramires wrote:None of the above revolutions were possible if the technological and industrial revolutions never had take place. Those were probably the most influent revolutions of modern and contemporary ages!

That's a bit general, like saying none of those revolution would have taken place were it not for the bipedal revolution that allowed human ancesters to stand up straight.

by **Filipe Ramires** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:58 pm

None of the above revolutions were possible if the technological and industrial revolutions never had take place. Those were probably the most influent revolutions of modern and contemporary ages!

The Ship Model Forum

Influential Polictical Revolutions

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Influential Polictical Revolutions