intheborders
Brexit is being used to help remove the last vestiges of the post-war consensus – as I’ve said previously, it’s the vehicle not the destination and pretty sure if we go back in history we’ll find similar strategies were used when they succeeded in getting ordinary folk to shaft themselves & their children.
Well after every war, famine and plague there is always the labour shortage whilst those that survive .
I mentioned WW I and Flu earlier.. the labour started recognising it's worth and Churchill had people machine gunned down coming out the the building he'd had set alight.
Reminds me of an old story.. of a Sultan with 3 sons (or could have been a Caliph) but it went something like:
He was old and had to decide who would be sultan when he died and he set them a task...
The oldest son was given an fez and sent to the sultan's country house where he was to bring back 3 mice.
He returned to the palace with an empty hat .. as did the 2nd son...
The 3rd youngest son arrived back and delivered 3 mice to his father...
"How did you do that?" he asks his son
"Oh it's easy" he said.. "I catch the mice then shake them about in the hat until they are senseless then every time they start to come around and gain their senses I shake the hat up again"
"How did you know to do that?" he asks his son
"I copied you father, you mistreat the peasants all the time and every time you see them start to get any sense so they may be dangerous to us you send in your troops and shake them up"
I think JRM has a public persona and has done since he was at university. I think the JRM that the public see is an act. He knows it and plays to it, and he gets him what he wants; Attention.
He's like diarrhoea; unpleasant while it's going on, but it'll pass
"<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';">Churchill had people machine gunned down coming out the the building he’d had set alight."</span>
Source?
Evil is religious concept
Mmmm no don't think so. Secular moral philosophy exists.
I was starting postulating why some countries/cultures redistribute wealth better or worse than others.
This is good:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Francis-Fukuyama-Collection-Political-Origins/dp/9123791896/
Size is a key factor, IMO. Smaller countries tend to be more equal possibly because they have fewer people at the upper extreme and it is easier to relate to people with whom you share more.
Source?
Edit, not sure, need to search again
I can’t honestly say that had I been the eldest child of a Monarch that I would have any different outlook on life; I tell myself I’d see the ridiculousness of it and bring about constitutional reform but I know I’d probably not. Rees-Mogg on the other hand would seem to revel in such a description and genuinely believe that his fortune (figuratively and financially) is because he is better than everyone else; I’m quite certain that had I been born into his life I would not be following his path.
Had you been brought up with them, attended their schools etc. you wouldn't be you and they been brought up with you they wouldn't be them.
Kind Charles could well be a 'Tim nice but dim' and Mogg some nasty criminal
and by way of illustration (despite my republican and atheist bias) had they been brought up with you Kind Charles wouldn't believe god had pre-destined him to rule and Mogg wouldn't think the Tim, nice but dim was.
If Mogg has been born in Saudi as a distant royal though then he'd probably believe that god had put the House of Saud where they are... and by corollary "Kind Charles" still seems to prefer the equality of the house of Saud over the unwashed of the UK.
You, me, and them ... we are all products of our upbringing and where that fits in the unbroken line...
I’m not an expert on French History – are you suggesting that 18th Century France was third world?
Well by the standards of someone born in Bagdad in the Islamic Golden age the whole of Europe at the time was 3rd world...
On July 14 1789 the Paris mob, hungry due to a lack of food from poor harvests, upset at the conditions of their lives and annoyed with their King and Government, stormed the Bastille fortress (a prison).
OK... that "hungry due to lack of food from poor harvests" seemed like a gift to my earlier agriculture-:> famines but lets stick with "hungry" (I can do the French ones if you like but they won't say hungry they will say "starving")
Nous sommes en 1789, la famine guette et la colère gronde dans le peuple. Le royaume continue à engraisser la noblesse alors que le pays est en faillite ! La population affamée croule sous les impôts.
We are in 1789, famine lurks and anger rages among the people
The kingdom continues to fatten the nobility while the country is bankrupt
The hungry population is drowning in taxes
Does that not sound like a 3rd world country to you?
or that had there not been a revolution it would have become 3rd world?
Basically I'm saying because of French history with violent uprising against the Monarchy (Feudal system wider context) they have a different perspective. It's not the same as a Scandinavian perspective who never really developed a "feudal system" (certainly nothing lasted unbroken for a millennia) but France is now sufficiently broken away from being a "feudal system" in the way French people think.
They are WAY less tolerant of governments and generally more open to taxes that they don't FEEL are simply siphoned to the rich (to what extent they are correct is another matter)... and they are more than happy to go out on the streets and violently oppose the government.
It took them a while and a few goes... but they have mentally broken free of the continuous "feudal" system unbroken since the Frankish Merovingian empire.
It wasn't easy they soon had an Emperor (and went through the add a extra layer phase as UK did with India).. then he got shut then they went back to Kings from 1815-48 until the wave of revolutions across Europe caught up and they had a 2nd republic .. and still not having fully learned they got Louis-Napoleon as President who in short order declared himself emperor again... went through the "go to war thing" and add another layer and got captured by the Prussians...
They end up in the 3rd Republic - divest power to a legislature (but still play the empire game) until 1948
bit of a coup with de gaulle and recent history stuff..
to repeat... it took a while and it wasn't easy.. but they mentally have Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité as a national motto.
they don't worship the president as appointed by god... they have their issues such as the dominance of the ecole militaire set up by Napoleon...and whilst they have a culture of "cadre" (officer class - > management from this) they have a stronger feeling of a waitress being someone doing a vocation (metier).
The last 2 translations are not literal...these are more perceptions.
molgrips
Evil is religious concept
Mmmm no don’t think so. Secular moral philosophy exists.
Yes of course secular moral philosophy exists ... but it is not tinged by a good/evil - god/devil perspective.
The etymology is one thing, yfel is old non scandanvian germanic (illr equates to bad in Old Norse) however it has been hijacked in modern English to equate to Christian beliefs.
I separate them because .. well because of the "why don't atheists just murder and rape" question ??
To illustrate the difference... ???
Someone like Rees Mogg can truly believe the Grenville residents died because they are inferior sub-humans or to even suggest deposing the monarch is truly Evil because god appointed him...
I can think that is morally reprehensible... I don't need the Devil or eternal damnation and all that christian stuff to come to that conclusion
Had you been brought up with them, attended their schools etc. you wouldn’t be you and they been brought up with you they wouldn’t be them.
Yeah I realise its an artificial hypothesis.
Kind Charles could well be a ‘Tim nice but dim’ and Mogg some nasty criminal
and by way of illustration (despite my republican and atheist bias) had they been brought up with you Kind Charles wouldn’t believe god had pre-destined him to rule and Mogg wouldn’t think the Tim, nice but dim was.
I wonder if you really think Charles believes he was selected by God? I mean he's always struck me as someone who would probably be an atheist if it wasn't for the uncomfortable issue of his parentage! I mean if you believe in god, it is quite a leap to believe that god takes such an interest in one country that "he" picks the monarch, whilst allowing all sorts of other shit to happen, and has done such a good job of picking the monarch that their progeny will always be the right successor (unless of course "he" has to step in with a thunderbolt or something!). I'm not sure how you would rationalise the decision to change the rules of succession to allow the eldest child rather than eldest son - presumably you'd have to believe you were following god's will...
And Mogg is a Catholic so why he thinks a slightly different religious God appointed Charles to overbear him is mystifying, unless of course whilst being deeply catholic with a small c he doesn't actually understand Catholicism with a big C.
they don’t worship the president as appointed by god…
I've never met anyone who actually thought that the UK Monarch was determined by god? I mean I don't hang around in particularly god-fearing religious circles but I've got friends and acquaintances who are regular church attendees, and those who think the Monarchy is a good thing (there's overlap in the venn diagram but its far from 100%) and yet I dont think I've ever met someone who believed that god was in charge of the selection process.
It’s not the same as a Scandinavian perspective who never really developed a “feudal system”
Ummm, I'm going to suggest that saying that the country that literally gave us the word for Earl as not being feudal is by some reckoning a revision of history.
This whole "Britain is a feudal society" stuff is utter, mad, ranting bobbins. This is an industrial, post-agrarian capitalist society - rightly or wrongly.
I think you’ll find it’s an anarcho-syndicalist commune
Yes of course secular moral philosophy exists … but it is not tinged by a good/evil – god/devil perspective.
Devil and evil aren't the same concept. The current Christian concept of the devil as we know it now is fairly recent as I understand it but there are a great many interpretations. The label of 'evil' is also fairly poorly defined but the concept of 'good' and 'bad' has been debated at length by non-religious philosophers.
Anyway the point I was making was similar to yours - that Marie Antoinette really had no understanding of the situation that poor people were in, which is the same problem a lot of Tories have now.
I think that it is human nature to help those in your group, and not help those outside it. The difference between Tories and various other political factions is where you draw that line between us and them. For the right wingers it only includes their family and friends; for the bleeding heart lefties it includes everyone. And this is a malleable construct, we can be persuaded one way or the other by our life experiences, our situation, and our EDUCATION.
nickc
Ummm, I’m going to suggest that saying that the country that literally gave us the word for Earl as not being feudal is by some reckoning a revision of history.
If by 'country' you mean the hundreds of Jarldoms...
A Jarl could be challenged and removed .. every freeman and woman was a warrior/gatherer/farmer and they were not dependent on agriculture (key word dependent). i.e. They didn't have a "class" of farmers and a "class" of warriors and a "class" only Jarls came from.. some were boat builders in addition but they were legally all the same only owing oaths.
or do you mean what is now Normandy?
Big difference (subtle as it might be) as the Normans (as stated above) adopted the Merovingian feudal system... were dependent on farming and hence had a class of farmers (peasants) who could NEVER be a Earl nor could any of their descendants EVER be an Earl.. and had to be kept in their place.
It is the keeping the entire class in their place (vasselage covering the entire structure) as much as the tenure that defines the feudal system whilst creating tax to flow in one direction only... the entire point was tax flowed towards the king and was shared through the nobility on the way for which the peasant was given the generous privilege of continuing to live.
To take the sensu strictu "feudal period in England" (based on the legal definition) it spans 1066-1660
(Tenures abolition act 1660)
However the Angles and Saxons being more agrarian had already established their own feudal (wider sense) systems based on thegns and ealdormen with their class structure again reflecting the warrior/farmer (peasant) split...
Though similar it was subtly different but to all intents the Normans took over the systems of the Anglo Saxon Heptarchy
Thought I'd pop back in to the thread and see how things stood. Jeez.
they have their issues such as the dominance of the ecole militaire set up by Napoleon
If that's the biggest issue we have we're doing pretty well. 🙂 And assuming you're talking about Saint-Cyr, what's not to like? It's not something people are bothered about unless their kid fancies a military career. I can't think of anyone notable in recent history who went there, Petain and de Gaulle is going back a bit. Jean-Louis Georgelin was in the news recently but that was because he fell off a mountain and killed himself rather than because he did anything controversial.
And the Normans were Vikings 😉
Not sure what this has got to do with the British tendancy to vote against ones own best interests. 🙂
The Siege of Sidney Street isn't exactly machine gunning workers rights activists fleeing a burning building set alight by Winston Churchill is it?
the entire point was tax flowed towards the king
I thought the Crown in England only levied a tax when it wanted to wage war? Hence the Baron's revolt, and later the Civil War?
Anyway. Not sure if you are one of these people who blame farming for all the world's evils (there was a popular history book arguing that wasn't there?) but without farming we would only be able to support a small fraction of people alive today, and we would all basically be in the stone or bronze age still so.. yeah. Not only would we not be having this conversation but you also wouldn't know any of the things you are talking about in it.
Thought I’d pop back in to the thread and see how things stood. Jeez.
I know, I know. You shouldn't feed the troll, but he's funny. Can we keep him?
" First against the wall when the revolution comes"
Might help things along by at least picking a suitable wall.
Edukator
what’s not to like? It’s not something people are bothered about unless their kid fancies a military career. I can’t think of anyone notable in recent history who went there
No I'm talking about the whole lot including ecole polytechnique... which have far too high a proportion of captains of industry, leadership of functionaires and politicians come from them and too many of the best academics...
I'm just pointing out that they still have this... like Ox-Bridge or Ivy League except run by the military.
And the Normans were Vikings 😉
Viking is a term for an activity ... what you mean I think is the Normans were descended from Vikings
Not sure what this has got to do with the British tendancy to vote against ones own best interests. 🙂
one sec ...
Molgrips
Anyway. Not sure if you are one of these people who blame farming for all the world’s evils (there was a popular history book arguing that wasn’t there?) but without farming we would only be able to support a small fraction of people alive today, and we would all basically be in the stone or bronze age still so.. yeah. Not only would we not be having this conversation but you also wouldn’t know any of the things you are talking about in it.
Farming is another activity... it's not a sentient being that can be blamed.
we would all basically be in the stone or bronze age still so.
I'll get to the population but non farming "Vikings" were masters of steel.. they sold their steel as far as Persia.
So yes of course the world would have a lower population but how is that a bad thing of itself?
As I've said, we are where we are... I'm simply linking the farming to requiring a class of sub-humans to till the earth for you to a system to control them. I'm aware we have tractors and combine harvesters today as well... we don't need a whole class to work the land for the nobility
Let me jump back to Edukator...
Not sure what this has got to do with the British tendancy to vote against ones own best interests. 🙂
I haven't said British, I've said English .. but it's obviously affected the Welsh and Scots as well but it seems to me they tend to vote differently. However examine what you mean by "ones own best interests" ... Does that mean financial or would voting for a fairer, more egalitarian way count or are we going back to genetics?
https://electionmaps.uk/parliament
I thought the Crown in England only levied a tax when it wanted to wage war?
As a specific direct tax ..but the rest of the feudal system was a funnel in terms of a whole set of taxes/obligations etc.
The Barons were ultimately pissed off in the run up to the Magna Carta because John wasn't honouring his part of the system that provided their income. The majority of the Magna Carta is putting into writing the existing unwritten <<vassalage>> and telling John "you can't just do what you want without our permission".
The details how something was paid changed over time and from numbers of day's service in fields to military service (that could also be paid separately as a financial scutage (a financial payment in lieu).
eg Inheritance Tax was formally introduced in 1290.. as a fee to transfer the <<socage>> but not called a tax but
So in short the system changed in detail and was no less complex that a tax specialist would understand today.. a couple of the terms you could google if you wanted ..
So in terms of "blame farming for all the world’s evils" - I'm just saying that having an agricultural system that fed the majority of the population and without which there would be famine in pre-mechanical times led again and again to a feudal style system of nobility and peasants.
As politecamera said.. we are post-agrarian now, FFS we have rockets going to the moon and planets etc. but what I am saying (that may well go against the EDUCATION) is that the feudal type system never ended.. it just adapted again.
It's not a conspiracy .. the elite's just want to keep hold of their power and wealth and our entire system and national psyche in ENGLAND is biased towards doffing our caps.
To take what Edukator said... about people voting against their best interests that isn't something you see dominating in Scandinavia or to put it differently their "best interests" might be living in a nicer, more equal society even if they are financially slightly poorer. To some extent I think Scotland, Wales and France also tend more towards this.
To put that all into the original question ... I think within this century the definition of what we could call 3rd world is going to change and those nations that still have a deeply unequal and divided populace are going to be at the bottom the the pile.
I reread your post as suggested. It remains a glib non-sequitur. If you think there’s a great point within, feel free to expand upon it.
@politecameraaction No need to expand on it - maybe put it back in your thesaurus and try again. I'll stick by my point that Iraq remains the bogey word for the Blair era.
I’m just saying that having an agricultural system that fed the majority of the population and without which there would be famine in pre-mechanical times led again and again to a feudal style system of nobility and peasants.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that everything would be better if we didn't have agriculture. But generally I'd dispute that anyway, it's a case of correlation vs causation. There are societies that practice agriculture that are still small and have small locally organised groups. Agriculture provides plentiful food - this is good. Plentiful food leads to lots of people, and that leads to powerful rich elites. So the issue is with how people organise, not agriculture. Agriculture basically leads to everything that's happened in the last 5,000 years so singling out feudalism is a little daft IMO.
that the feudal type system never ended
Of course it did. We are still unequal, but we're not feudal. You could equate my employer with a feudal overlord, but I don't actually have to work for them - I could start my own business selling my wares or services directly, or grow my own food, or work for someone else. Plus, if my employer decides to go to war they can't make me fight for them. It's not in my job description.
If you want to be pedantic at least get your facts right, Stevextc. 🙂
My statement that "the Normans are Vikings" is spot on in Norman land, by definition:
En français, le terme est également employé, par extension, pour désigner les peuples germaniques de scandinavie à partir de l'âge du fer romain au 2ième siècle
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings
Napeleon founded Saint-Cyr but others he did not, He militarised existing institions. You used the singular form so it's not surprising I only presented one - which also fulfilled your other condition that Napoleon did in fact found it. As for seeing these institutions as a problem, I'd argue they've been very much a part of making France an advanced and properous place, and that continues to the present.
Signed: another pedant when it suits. 🙂
I was interest with 18th century France being used as a third world comparison. Third World originally just meant under developed. France in the 18th century was highly developed for the time, les lumières were at the forefront of science, technology and philosophy: ideas that Jefferson drew on when staking out the US and founding its institutions. However, the living conditions for the mass of people were not even current third world in terms of life expectancy, access to medical care, infant mortality, sanitation...
Third World originally just meant under developed.
No, it didn't.
The term "Third World" arose during the Cold War and it was used to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Warsaw Pact...Strictly speaking, "Third World" was a political, rather than an economic, grouping.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
If you want to be pedantic at least get your facts right...
"Third World originally just meant under developed" is absolutely correct.
It was originally a French guy, Alfred Sauvy, who first talked about the "third world" and his condition for "tiers monde" was "sous-développé". He published in l'Observateur in 1952. That English wiki article omits the origin of th eexpression but the French page has it right:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiers_monde
Not the first time English Wiki passes over French achievements. 🙂
My last few posts have been either correcting bollocks or replying to criticism about France.
That English wiki article omits the origin of th eexpression but the French page has it right:
eh? it has the same paragraph explanation under "etymology" section that the French language one does. It clearly doesn't "pass over" French achievements in this case.
So why did politecameraaction interpret the English Wiki article to mean anything other than "under developed"? Because the sites are so radically different. The English one has a totally different opening section and ignores the key point in Sauvey's definition "sous-développé" - under developed. The English Wiki article defines in terms of cold war blocks and the French one in terms of the state of development of countries. English Wiki omits "sous développé" as the key.
As someone pointed out earlier in the thread "third world" has fallen from use as it is perjorative. It's cup half empty. The cup half full version being "pays en développement" developing countries. But even that isn't exactly complimentary which is convenient to this thread. The now more acceptable "developing countries" rather than "third world" does at least make it clear what the notion behind the categorisation is even if you don't agree with its use.
Molgrips
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that everything would be better if we didn’t have agriculture. But generally I’d dispute that anyway,
I'm not saying that, I'm saying it's simply one of the reasons but the one got the ball rolling and more importantly as we are no longer an agrarian economy we no longer need the inequality if only people could realise that.
it’s a case of correlation vs causation.
There are societies that practice agriculture that are still small and have small locally organised groups.
Perhaps ... but that doesn't characterise England... (or really Wales) but ...also I'm not talking about "agriculture" but a complete agrarian society.
Agriculture provides plentiful food – this is good.
I don't think that follows... At least in so far as
Plentiful food leads to lots of people, and that leads to powerful rich elites.
Equally rich and powerful elites need a sub-class ... which requires lots of people who need to be fixed to the land they work for the elites and they need to be subjugated in times of famine.
So the issue is with how people organise, not agriculture. Agriculture basically leads to everything that’s happened in the last 5,000 years so singling out feudalism is a little daft IMO.
To get all Douglas Adams...
“For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.”
but to put that into context ...
Agriculture basically leads to everything that’s happened in the last 5,000 years
Well it does or it doesn't... I think you mean "the good stuff" .. like we had time and resources to do art and science and stuff...
Of course it did. We are still unequal, but we’re not feudal. You could equate my employer with a feudal overlord, but I don’t actually have to work for them – I could start my own business selling my wares or services directly, or grow my own food, or work for someone else. Plus, if my employer decides to go to war they can’t make me fight for them. It’s not in my job description.
In terms of not being forced to fight for your employer you are actually half describing the feudal system of Scutage...
My point is not if we still have a formal feudal system but whether the system we have is so linked to it that its the same thing evolved into a different name.
The formal strict definition means the formal feudal system in England and Wales ended in 1610 predated by 6 years by the first inclosure acts removing access to common and waste land. (waste meaning was farmed by landless peasants)
You realise there was already a merchant class that equates to your ability to "start my own business selling my wares or services directly" .. before the formal end of the feudal system.
I'm saying that to point out one does not preclude the other.. Land was (is) wealth .. land was the ability to generate an income from tennant farmers/serfs.. the system evolved and the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 was really just another evolution not some step change.
This is nearly 20 minutes (if you get time), doesn't mention agriculture or feudalism once... merely about why we tax income not wealth... why council tax on the poor is a MUCH larger % of their home value than the rich and lots more but also "why don't labour change it" spoiler because it's too hard
My observation of how different cultures see tax and the benefit of living in a "nice society" tend to differ as to if that society had millennia of feudalism like segregation or not and if they had a revolution against it.
our rail network is a shambles
I commute into London daily, its supposedly 35minute this costs me over £6000 a year!
every day i end up at least 5minutes late and/or on ridiculously overcrowded trains, maybe fet a seat 30% of the time
trains are cancelled on a whim, stations don't have enough barriers/staff
toilets are grim if even open
ticket prices are ridiculous and the various franchises dont integrate well
lets not even talk about bike storage or security at stations ..
I've been doing it for 7 years now and its definitely got worse
So why did politecameraaction interpret the English Wiki article to mean anything other than “under developed”?
Excuuuuuuuuse me, but I read Sauvey's article, not merely the wikipedia entry, and if you do too, he quite clearly characterises the third world of underdeveloped countries as a residual category of countries that are neither capitalist nor socialist. It is not in other words their level of economic development that is critical (because it would be a nonsensical distinction between countries in all three "worlds" that are objectively at a similar level of development) but their political orientation.
every day i end up at least 5minutes late and/or on ridiculously overcrowded trains, maybe fet a seat 30% of the time
Don't disagree but whenever I'm in the South East on a train it looks like a glistening 21st century monument to modern infrastructure compared to what we have up here in Yorkshire.
It wasn't long ago my regular commute into Manchester was on one of these. They still appear every now and again just to torture us.
Not the first time English Wiki passes over French achievements. 🙂
Neither is it the first time a literal translation of a French compound noun doesn't translate well into English
Or for that matter why a direct translation of a Chinese company name ...
My last few posts have been either correcting bollocks or replying to criticism about France.
TLDR I haven't seen any criticisms of France? Who made those?
If you want to be pedantic at least get your facts right, Stevextc. 🙂
My statement that “the Normans are Vikings” is spot on in Norman land, by definition:
En français, le terme est également employé, par extension, pour désigner les peuples germaniques de scandinavie à partir de l’âge du fer romain au 2ième siècle
and the Ukranians are Russians ???
In this case you are arguing a extended French definition in English.
Vikings is the modern name given to seafaring people originally from Scandinavia (present-day Denmark, Norway and Sweden), who from the late 8th to the late 11th centuries raided, pirated, traded and settled throughout parts of Europe
Les Vikings (en vieux norrois : víkingr, au pluriel víkingar) sont des explorateurs, commerçants, pillards mais aussi pirates scandinaves au cours d’une période s’étendant du viiie au xie siècle1, communément nommée « âge des Vikings ». Ils sont souvent appelés Normands, étymologiquement « hommes du Nord », dans la bibliographie ancienne.
En français, le terme est également employé, par extension, pour désigner les peuples germaniques de Scandinavie à partir de l'âge du fer romain au iie siècle
More importantly though shouldn't we ask say the Swedish ?
Google translate Se/Fr
Les Vikings étaient des guerriers marins et des pirates[1], principalement originaires de la région nordique actuelle, qui ont participé à des raids en bateau et à des campagnes de guerre dans les pays nordiques, en Europe et en Asie occidentale de 793 jusqu'au XIIe siècle. Au cours de cette période, les guerriers nordiques ont conquis une grande partie des îles britanniques et du nord de la France.
Le mot viking apparaît pour la première fois dans les sources du vieil anglais, et dans la plupart des premières sources, y compris le norrois, il fait référence aux pirates, sans autre précision sur son origine. Le sens a ensuite été restreint pour ne faire référence qu'aux habitants du Nord (Norvégiens) à l'époque. Au cours du romantisme national du XIXe siècle, une vision romantique des Vikings a été façonnée par les poètes danois et suédois. Aujourd’hui, le mot, selon l’utilisateur, peut avoir des significations très différentes. Il peut donc faire référence à tout, depuis les marins guerriers scandinaves jusqu'à pratiquement tous les Scandinaves de l'ère viking.[2] Cette ambiguïté fait que le mot est évité par certains chercheurs, même s'il a encore une forte valeur symbolique.[3]
ANYWAY
The real point anyway is had a person from 10C Sweden or Norway that travelled to Kiev for work they would have conversed well enough and they would have found someone spoke a Nordic language well enough in Rouen but they wouldn't have recognised most of the society in either as being the same society they came from.
politecameraaction
because it would be a nonsensical distinction between countries in all three “worlds” that are objectively at a similar level of development) but their political orientation.
I think it is as important to work out what we mean by "development".
Regardless of GDP or GDP per capita etc. then different people will view say Sweden and USA as both different levels of development. Equally a large proportion (I hope not a majority) of the USA seem to view all Europe (or anywhere with social medicine) as being communist.
It wasn’t long ago my regular commute into Manchester was on one of these. They still appear every now and again just to torture us.
As a fellow Manchester commuter of many years standing, I'll agree with you about how bad they were but disagree with you on the last point; they have now all been fully withdrawn from service although I believe a couple ended up on heritage railways where you can pay lots of money for the privilege of reliving the shit times.
Britain seems to excel at that sort of thing. Look at how shit things were and celebrate our mediocrity but also claim to be world-leading because we owned (and usually made a total mess of) half the world.
We were world-leading in turning up to some corner of the planet, nicking all it's treasures then making a total horlicks of the place while in charge and eventually buggering off and leaving the natives to clear up what was left. Although to be fair we weren't the only country doing that...
We are however the only country that still seems proud of it and does the equivalent of sitting there in our armchair gazing wistfully out the window doing the old "I remember when this was all fields" thing that old people do so well just before they get put into a home for the terminally ill.
they have now all been fully withdrawn from service
Good. I don't know what model came after them but sometimes the train into Manchester from Burnley looks like it's been dragged out of the 1980s. Anyway, southerners moaning about shit public transport, they really have no idea what it's like up here. 🙄
Sorry, I was distracted at replying to your observation that small countries also tend to be more "pleasant" and also that book. I'll try and get back on the book, if its genuinely interesting but smaller countries in terms of populations also tend to be non dependent on agriculture..
I guess ultimately it doesn't matter why unless it's part of a solution OR recognising why needs to happen before the solution. That's assuming people even want a solution and what is frustrating is people pretending they would like a more equal, more pleasant society and then voting against it.
To look at this differently, instead look at rail commuters... and ask the question why do rail companies not spend the profits they make on upgrading or even maintaining the rail network? How come the board get bonuses and shareholders get a nice lump of cash yet most of the commuters suffering daily misery are not clammering for nationalisation or some other method that doesn't prioritise shareholder profits and director bonuses?
I'm not saying this purely in terms of past Tory/Labour votes... I'm saying why isn't the Labour party committed to removing the monarchy and hereditary Lords etc. why would anyone who wants a more equal society not start off by getting rid of hereditary privileges or voting for a party that is committed to getting rid of them? [obviously that doesn't seem to be the case]
Lets ignore the names for now and I'm using an extended feudalism to mean a strict hierarchy that defines everyone's immovable place in society by birth.
Whatever we call it - "post feudal capitalism" (seems a apt enough description but I'm not married to it) the system is different to "Scandinavian capitalism" ... and people in Scandinavia are more likely to vote for a more pleasant society over what is best financially for an individual. In general the Scandinavian countries also tend to have very limited periods of "feudal type systems" (a strict hierarchy that defines everyone's immovable place in society by birth) and they have usually been disastrous and overthrown.
The closest England came was swapping one set of landed gentry for another with a different sect. Accounts of the execution and signing of the warrant indicate even Cromwell as part of the ruling elite was reluctant to execute a king... whereas he had no compunction over the murder of commoners.
I think this is a fundamental difference in the way especially the English still see themselves in specific social structures based on birth.. all we did was evolve the feudal system rather than ever throw it out completely and we collectively keep voting for it
“feudal type systems” (a strict hierarchy that defines everyone’s immovable place in society by birth)
I am not sure that's exactly what feudalism means.
Accounts of the execution and signing of the warrant indicate even Cromwell as part of the ruling elite was reluctant to execute a king… whereas he had no compunction over the murder of commoners.
And why was that? Because he thought the King was better?
the English still see themselves in specific social structures based on birth
I really don't think that is a widespread phenomenon. In fact, the English are less reverent than some other cultures I could name. Yes, people fawn over the Royal family, but I think this is because of their celebrity status not because of their actual birth. People (these days) waste no time putting the boot into Royals they don't like despite their royal birth.
To look at this differently, instead look at rail commuters… and ask the question why do rail companies not spend the profits they make on upgrading or even maintaining the rail network? How come the board get bonuses and shareholders get a nice lump of cash yet most of the commuters suffering daily misery are not clammering for nationalisation or some other method that doesn’t prioritise shareholder profits and director bonuses?
That's not out of deference to percieved betters, that's because we have adopted a right of centre political landscape. Other countries that do not have a class system also have right wing landscapes and get similar results. The only time we went left of centre was just after the war, a time when class systems were a lot more embedded than they are now and people were more familiar with 'knowing their station in life'.
Society is a lot more complex than you realise, I think.
Molgrips
Society is a lot more complex than you realise, I think.
I'm sure, however how much of that complexity is manufactured or deliberate or a result of a specific history?
Ultimately why do a significant number of the English especially repeatedly vote against both their best financial interests but living in a more pleasant society to live in?
That’s not out of deference to perceived betters, that’s because we have adopted a right of centre political landscape. Other countries that do not have a class system also have right wing landscapes and get similar results. The only time we went left of centre was just after the war, a time when class systems were a lot more embedded than they are now and people were more familiar with ‘knowing their station in life’.
Firstly if you actually start listing those countries you will probably discover most of them have a class system that is either historic or inherited from European colonialism. Perhaps a stark example is the United States... and the various people they imported to work on the land, railways etc in various degrees of slavery and indentured servitude.
Secondly post WW II and WW I and at various other times such as Watt Tyler's uprising .. when the real people have been killed off to a point the aristocracy hasn't had sufficient people to work the land (or build railways, canals, work in factories etc.) people have started to realise their worth and that they are just cattle or domesticated humans and made a few small concessions... but it's a slow 3 steps forward and 2 steps back and against a backdrop of English Laws going back to feudal times...
I am not sure that’s exactly what feudalism means.
Hence why I am referring to a feudal type system.... although historians (basically posh people who don't need a real job and write history for us and tell us what we should think) debate the term "bastard feudalism" and it slips in and out of fashion the recognised end of the academic English Feudal system is 1660 with the Tenures Abolition Act.
The term bastard feudalism is applied (when convenient) to the replacement of land based tax in terms of providing knights service to the nobility to paying capital instead (socage). This isn't something progressive to the serfs who continued to be serfs, it's merely a gradual change acknowledging it doesn't matter how many knights you have they can't build a ship, buy cannon or any of the other things to need to be an empire. This wasn't something new... it just removed the option of a noble of providing knights instead of money. The net effect on the serfs was basically just to impose a tax on beer and cider on them and for their owner to have to extract tax from them for where else would than money come from.
The full title is
An Act takeing away the Court of Wards and Liveries and Tenures in Capite and by Knights Service and Purveyance, and for setling a Revenue upon his Majesty in Lieu thereof.
Feel free to read it.. I doubt it contains what you may expect it contains.
1660 also ends the fake commonwealth of Cromwell when we swapped one set of nobles and serfdom for another set of nobles.
It's not like the morning after the Tenures Abolition Act was signed the serfs woke up and were no longer the property of their nobleman. We didn't suddenly have freedom or universal suffrage or anything like that... laws still referred to "The King" .. Parliament still sits at the pleasure of a king unlike a republic or a Scandinavian monarchy.
This is still UK law... (technically different orders of precedence for each country)
It's a list of who is legally defined as better than you because of their birth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_precedence_in_the_United_Kingdom
The order of precedence in the United Kingdom is the sequential hierarchy for Peers of the Realm, officers of state, senior members of the clergy, holders of the various Orders of Chivalry, and is mostly determined, but not limited to, birth order, place in the line of succession, or distance from the reigning monarch. The order of precedence can also be applied to other persons in the three legal jurisdictions within the United Kingdom:
I moved to Portugal almost three years ago, Portugal being supposedly a poorer country of Europe.
The town where I live now has a slightly smaller population than the town I lived in the UK ... yet, twice as many shops of all types, thriving markets, lots of organised sports, loads of events put on for free. Health care is accessible, far from perfect but on the whole I've little to complain about. Very little vandalism or crime (that I'm aware of.
We have had a term at school to learn the language and are about to start another at the next level. The more I see of what is going on in the UK, the more I'm thankful I made this crazy leap in the pandemic!