Uwe M?ller
12/24/2007 2:11:00 PM
<<am05@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:7846264e-c79c-4dc7-9bff-583e0919bb9f@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 23, 2:30 pm, "Uwe Müller" <uwemuel...@go4more.de> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <a...@hotmail.com>
>> Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
>> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 7:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: Were the Dark Ages a time of chaos?
>>
>> On Dec 23, 1:14 pm, "Uwe Müller" <uwemuel...@go4more.de> wrote:
>> > "Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wil...@users.easynews.com> schrieb im
>> > Newsbeitragnews:pan.2007.12.23.18.03.34@users.easynews.com...
>>
>> >> >I was arguing with someone in the political newsgroups about the Dark
>> >> > Ages. I said the Dark Ages were a time of chaos. I mentioned
>> >> > shifting
>> >> > political boundaries, disruption of record-keeping, abandonment of
>> >> > Roman
>> >> > public works and institutions, predation of the strong against the
>> >> > weak
>> >> > in areas that had formerly been civilized. My adversary said the
>> >> > Dark
>> >> > Ages were no more chaotic than any period of history. Comments?
>>
>> >> > Charlie
>>
>> >> By your definition, now would be a times of chaos, a dark age. Plenty
>> >> of
>> >> support for that,
>>
>> I'll add the bit you cut out "but then, are modern times more or less
>> chaotic compared
>> with other times?"
>> Seems you did not get what why intended to say.
>>
>> >Short of abandonment of the Roman institutions, I don't see too much
>> >of support for this list as far as Europe is concerned. Would you care
>> >to elaborate?
>>
>> I did not restrict it to Europe.
>Well, AFAIK, the term itself usually was applicable to Europe and,
>anyway, it does not make sense to apply it to the places were there
>was no history of the 'orderly' things for (in the best case) at least
>1000 years.
Which would restrict the question to Italy, Spain, and France, andof course
England.
Which neither the guy who started the thread did, nor I. And if you want it
to be restricted to those areas, maybe it would have been easier to say so.
>> But let's see:
>> shifting political boundaries - there is little to argue about that, the
>> break down of the Warsaw pact,
>Has nothing in common with the Dark Ages because this was a peaceful
>event.
Again, nobody except yourself was arguing about war-like events, the
definition was simply a shift of politival boundaries. Do you consider the
wars for decolonization, you may think of Algeria, as peacefull, too?
>>the division of Yugoslavia,
>OK, this was a bloody mess but hardly of any effect outside the narrow
>geographic area.
Compared with the whole of Europe, the Roman Empire was a narrow geographic
area. Compared with the areas settled by men, it was even less important.
>>expansion of the
>> EC
>Bloodless process with a lot of a paperwork and no noticeable violence
see above
>> disruption of record keeping - many countries are very concerned about
>> the
>> way and the scope ther secret services have been collecting data lately
>> and
>> have tried to implement restrictions
>Only on extremely paranoid level this can be claimed as common to the
>record disruption of the Dark Ages. It is rather a manifestation of an
>opposite extreme: EVERYTHING is recorded and any lapse is considered
>as worthy of a prolonged investigation.
You might want to care to wait a couple of centuries before judging on this
point. It is not the disappearance of writing or of record keeping, that
marks that period in southern European history, but the failure to preserve
the archives across the centuries. Something similar may happen to all these
secret electonic databases, and most of the public electronic data as well.
On top of that consider modern paper, with its high acid content, which will
not readily keep for centuries. In a1000 years there will be few original
sources from the 20th c., devastatingly few after centuries of printed
records etc. on durable paper.
>> predation of the strong against the weak - compare the rise in investment
>> return and taxes with the decrease in social benefits, health care,
>> wages,
>> etc.
>Does not make any sense whatsoever because the Dark Ages assume
>VIOLENT predation.
You assume violent predation, no one else said anything about it. And using
violence was just a sign of lacking finesse. Today loans and mortgages are
used (interstingly one area, where the muslim countries do not copy the
western 'standard'), it's far more effective.
>Not to mention that, at least in the US, majority of the ordinary
>people ('the weak') are investing, directly or not, in the stock
>market.
1- it was you who wanted to restrict the rather general question to a
specied area, the US is definitely outside.
2 - how many times have the ordinary peoples investments in the US stock
market, or real estate, been burned during the last century? How has the
value of the dollar changed? Hasn't someone just said, he'd rather go back
to bartering than accept dollars in return for his oil?
>Can't comment on decrease in the wages because I did not notice it.
>
>As for the social benefits, IIRC, a number of the European countries
>did have them on unsustainable level so they are probably on a
>decrease.
As long as those countries can invest in war and military domination, and
rapidly increase their investments in that field, I feel I can not accept
that argument. One major failure was indeed having politicians regulate who
got which benefits. In Germany a system that had been working well over a
century, created by Bismarck, was destroyed.
>Not sure that this is an action of the 'strong' (all these
>countries being democracies) or something comparable to the Dark Ages.
They are surely as democratic as the roman empire.
>> You can argue about the " in areas that had formerly been civilized" bit
>I'm not going to 'argue' on this because it simply does not make sense
>elswhere else. Just as it did not make sense outside the boundraries
>of the Western Roman Empire.
Your arguments do not make much sense, except in England and its former
colony. And that was, what I was aiming at. There are always, and
everywhere, agents of change, and agents of persistence at work. Some
things change, and some things don't. The disappearance of archives may have
had more impact on the 17/18th c. than on the 5/6 th. How much of that
argument may be true for the other definitions?
>>and
>> of course there has been a rise in funds for the upkeep of Roman public
>> works,
>During the Dark Ages?
No, of course not. Try to follow the argument. That was the sentence where I
was conceding two points in favour of your notion, a marked difference
between late Antiquity and today. I was referring to the rise of funds
today, you know, media coverage, museums, exhibition, art dealers.
>>not a decline.
>AFAIK, the evergrowing part of the US budget are 'entitlements'.
Could you please decide on what you want to argue and why? It makes it
easier for me to understand. Thank you.
have fun (whereever)
Uwe Mueller