The relevance of European and American conceptions of history

[Tom 1]

...To current events.

A couple of things I came across recently have made me question whether people living in the US have a fundamentally different way of thinking about what constitutes recent history, and what might be called ancient history, or just things that occurred 'a long time ago'.

The first was an article written by a young woman that I read on Medium about certain themes in 'ancient' literature. What the article was actually about was medieval and renaissance literature, which the writer appears to think of as periods of 'ancient' history. The second was the idea I've seen in a few threads here on CF that the period of slavery in the US happened so long ago that it no longer has any relevance.

This last idea is worth discussing, I think. As a European, I tend to see history as stretching back in one unbroken line (which is indeed what it does) to the very earliest times we know anything about. Everything that ever happened in any significant way had an effect on everything that came after it. To me, that seems obvious - am I wrong? I have spent most of my adult life living in the UK, in England specifically. The dual influences of the classical world and the Germanic/Nordic world are obvious and widespread in English society, thinking, language - pretty much everything. It is not difficult to see how major events in history have shaped the way the English see themselves and how English society functions, 1066 (and all that), the great plague, the subsequent peasants revolt and so on and so on. All of these historic influences come together to inform the perceptions and prejudices of the average person in the street. Again, this seems obvious.

Slavery was common in the US during what was in England the Victorian era - of course slavery was effectively exported to the US from England and other European countries, via colonialism, so this isn't about apportioning blame in any sense, just about things that happened - but wasn't part of most people's lives actually in England at that time. But that same period was tremendously influential on English society and how English people see themselves in all kinds of ways that are absolutely still relevant to how that society functions now. A society and its history are ineluctably bound to each other, what society is now in any country is what previous actions and events have made it. Again, this seems blatantly obvious.

It does to me, anyway, but it does seem that maybe this way of thinking isn't so common or regarded as obvious in the US - ? Is that true? To me, the Victorian period was really not all that long ago, in historical terms. Slavery in the US ended, as I understand it, in the late 1800s, there were laws in place that defined black people in some parts of the US as unequal citizens up until the 1960s, and quantifiable social prejudice continued into the 1970s. None of this is ancient history, but the view that none of this has any relevance today, with regard to the current situation as much as the wider picture of race relations in the US, seems to be quite common.

That's my impression in any case, and it is just an impression, so I'd be interested in hearing what people living in the US think about it. The US is after all a very young country and so a different understanding of history, and different conceptions of what constitutes ancient history, are explainable.

 

[Jamesone5]

...To current events.

A couple of things I came across recently have made me question whether people living in the US have a fundamentally different way of thinking about what constitutes recent history, and what might be called ancient history, or just things that occurred 'a long time ago'.

The first was an article written by a young woman that I read on Medium about certain themes in 'ancient' literature. What the article was actually about was medieval and renaissance literature, which the writer appears to think of as periods of 'ancient' history. The second was the idea I've seen in a few threads here on CF that the period of slavery in the US happened so long ago that it no longer has any relevance.

This last idea is worth discussing, I think. As a European, I tend to see history as stretching back in one unbroken line (which is indeed what it does) to the very earliest times we know anything about. Everything that ever happened in any significant way had an effect on everything that came after it. To me, that seems obvious - am I wrong? I have spent most of my adult life living in the UK, in England specifically. The dual influences of the classical world and the Germanic/Nordic world are obvious and widespread in English society, thinking, language - pretty much everything. It is not difficult to see how major events in history have shaped the way the English see themselves and how English society functions, 1066 (and all that), the great plague, the subsequent peasants revolt and so on and so on. All of these historic influences come together to form the perceptions and prejudices of the average person in the street. Again, this seems obvious.

Slavery was common in the US during what was in England the Victorian era - of course slavery was effectively exported to the US from England and other European countries, via colonialism, so this isn't about apportioning blame in any sense, just about things that happened - but wasn't part of most people's lives actually in England at that time. But that same period was tremendously influential on English society and how English people see themselves in all kinds of ways that are absolutely still relevant to how that society functions now. A society and its history are ineluctably bound to each other, what society is now in any country is what previous actions and events have made it. Again, this seems blatantly obvious.

It does to me, anyway, but it does seem that maybe this way of thinking isn't so common or regarded as obvious in the US - ? Is that true? To me, the Victorian period was really not all that long ago, in historical terms. Slavery in the US ended, as I understand it, in the late 1800s, there were laws in place that defined black people in some parts of the US as unequal citizens up until the 1960s, and quantifiable social prejudice continued into the 1970s. None of this is ancient history, but the view that none of this has any relevance today, with regard to the current situation as much as the wider picture of race relations in the US, seems to be quite common.

That's my impression in any case, and it is just an impression, so I'd be interested in hearing what people living in the US think about it. The US is after all a very young country and so a different understanding of history, and different conceptions of what constitutes ancient history, are explainable.

I will comment if I may as I can see part of the problem, living in the US.
History is really just as "phase" or at least that is way most people look at it, in reality. This pandemic will soon be over [maybe] and so we will go to the next phase of our ongoing history. The protests [if they stop] will soon be forgotten. That is why I am gratified to still see protests in cities across the world with the same slogans on protest signs "I can't breath" in many News Reports. I am white but I am concerned about the White Nationalists that are coming back.

So, many here in the US, tend to view our history as cycles in a sense--- that what happened 6 months ago is no longer relevant.

I believe the News Media has us somewhat hostage as it is all about ratings, so that is why I go to BBC,[ for instance] to get a more balanced perspective. I believe we have to look at our News in a perspective that takes into consideration of what others are saying around the world and not forget where we were a few months ago.

We have access, thanks to technology, but yet some unconsciously think that Fox News is the only News outlet that has the Truth. And it is partially the same with CNN, but to a lesser degree. Those are the two representative sides---if you will. I do not spend a lot of time watching television as I stream on the Internet but when I do---I flick from channel to channel to get these balanced viewpoints on a particular story.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This is very true. I feel the modern world in general, but the New World states like the US, Australia, Canada, etc. have a profound lack of sense of the past. In a way, they have the same ideas as mediaeval Europeans, lumping everything beyond a century or so into a single 'ancient' time. This idea that these threads don't directly impact you is laughable, but a culture that doesn't celebrate their past ultimately forgets it. I feel there is far more of an historic consciousness in Europe, but I say that as an outsider. I recently saw attempts to put back up statues of Mary in Prague thrown down as the Hapsburg Austro-Hungary crumbled, and jockeying over the borders of old Hungary in eastern Europe; or how money used to depict old mediaeval kings there, too. National heroes are as varied as Skanderbeg, Barbarossa, Robin Hood, Boudicca, Caesar, etc. I think the New countries simply have too little history there, no old heroes, and there seems to be a clear starting point with colonisation or Independance, that what came before seems less relevant. It is psychological blindness.

 

[Tom 1]

This is very true. I feel the modern world in general, but the New World states like the US, Australia, Canada, etc. have a profound lack of sense of the past. In a way, they have the same ideas as mediaeval Europeans, lumping everything beyond a century or so into a single 'ancient' time. This idea that these threads don't directly impact you is laughable, but a culture that doesn't celebrate their past ultimately forgets it. I feel there is far more of an historic consciousness in Europe, but I say that as an outsider. I recently saw attempts to put back up statues of Mary in Prague thrown down as the Hapsburg Austro-Hungary crumbled, and jockeying over the borders of old Hungary in eastern Europe; or how money used to depict old mediaeval kings there, too. National heroes are as varied as Skanderbeg, Barbarossa, Robin Hood, Boudicca, Caesar, etc. I think the New countries simply have too little history there, no old heroes, and there seems to be a clear starting point with colonisation or Independance, that what came before seems less relevant. It is psychological blindness.

Is there a similar lack of continuity in SA?

 

[solid_core]

...To current events.

A couple of things I came across recently have made me question whether people living in the US have a fundamentally different way of thinking about what constitutes recent history, and what might be called ancient history, or just things that occurred 'a long time ago'.

The first was an article written by a young woman that I read on Medium about certain themes in 'ancient' literature. What the article was actually about was medieval and renaissance literature, which the writer appears to think of as periods of 'ancient' history. The second was the idea I've seen in a few threads here on CF that the period of slavery in the US happened so long ago that it no longer has any relevance.

This last idea is worth discussing, I think. As a European, I tend to see history as stretching back in one unbroken line (which is indeed what it does) to the very earliest times we know anything about. Everything that ever happened in any significant way had an effect on everything that came after it. To me, that seems obvious - am I wrong? I have spent most of my adult life living in the UK, in England specifically. The dual influences of the classical world and the Germanic/Nordic world are obvious and widespread in English society, thinking, language - pretty much everything. It is not difficult to see how major events in history have shaped the way the English see themselves and how English society functions, 1066 (and all that), the great plague, the subsequent peasants revolt and so on and so on. All of these historic influences come together to form the perceptions and prejudices of the average person in the street. Again, this seems obvious.

Slavery was common in the US during what was in England the Victorian era - of course slavery was effectively exported to the US from England and other European countries, via colonialism, so this isn't about apportioning blame in any sense, just about things that happened - but wasn't part of most people's lives actually in England at that time. But that same period was tremendously influential on English society and how English people see themselves in all kinds of ways that are absolutely still relevant to how that society functions now. A society and its history are ineluctably bound to each other, what society is now in any country is what previous actions and events have made it. Again, this seems blatantly obvious.

It does to me, anyway, but it does seem that maybe this way of thinking isn't so common or regarded as obvious in the US - ? Is that true? To me, the Victorian period was really not all that long ago, in historical terms. Slavery in the US ended, as I understand it, in the late 1800s, there were laws in place that defined black people in some parts of the US as unequal citizens up until the 1960s, and quantifiable social prejudice continued into the 1970s. None of this is ancient history, but the view that none of this has any relevance today, with regard to the current situation as much as the wider picture of race relations in the US, seems to be quite common.

That's my impression in any case, and it is just an impression, so I'd be interested in hearing what people living in the US think about it. The US is after all a very young country and so a different understanding of history, and different conceptions of what constitutes ancient history, are explainable.

Slavery in the USA never ended, because they have an ammedment in their constitution that if you are a criminal, you can be enslaved. And there are many criminals in the US prisons. White, black, hispanic, asians...

Slaves just changed their place of living.

 

[Tom 1]

Slavery in the USA never ended, because they have an ammedment in their constitution that if you are a criminal, you can be enslaved. And there are many criminals in the US prisons. White, black, hispanic, asians...

Slaves just changed their place of living.

Not getting your point here. People convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail can be forced to perform labour without pay, is that what you mean? That would be a punitive measure. Not really comparable to people kidnapped to be bought and sold en mass as ‘work units’ on anything but the most superficial level.

 

[solid_core]

Not getting your point here. People convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail can be forced to perform labour without pay, is that what you mean? That would be a punitive measure. Not really comparable to people kidnapped to be bought and sold en mass as ‘work units’ on anything but the most superficial level.

Yes, being forced to live in a cell and to do labour without a pay is slavery.

 

[Tom 1]

Yes, being forced to live in a cell and to do labour without a pay is slavery.

Incarceration and punishment I would say, as the result of being convicted of a crime. Call it slavery if you like, I don’t think it’s the most accurate term. I still don’t get what the point is you are making.

 

[Chesterton]

...To current events.

A couple of things I came across recently have made me question whether people living in the US have a fundamentally different way of thinking about what constitutes recent history, and what might be called ancient history, or just things that occurred 'a long time ago'.

The first was an article written by a young woman that I read on Medium about certain themes in 'ancient' literature. What the article was actually about was medieval and renaissance literature, which the writer appears to think of as periods of 'ancient' history. The second was the idea I've seen in a few threads here on CF that the period of slavery in the US happened so long ago that it no longer has any relevance.

I think you're very right about different perceptions of time. I have an anecdote. My brother once hosted a team of youth soccer players from England. We were driving in a van though town one day and he thought he'd mention some local sites of interest. He pointed at a building and proudly said "That building is over 150 years old!" The kids were clearly unimpressed, one of them muttering something like "There're a couple of churches in our town over 1,000 years old".

This last idea is worth discussing, I think. As a European, I tend to see history as stretching back in one unbroken line (which is indeed what it does) to the very earliest times we know anything about. Everything that ever happened in any significant way had an effect on everything that came after it. To me, that seems obvious - am I wrong? I have spent most of my adult life living in the UK, in England specifically. The dual influences of the classical world and the Germanic/Nordic world are obvious and widespread in English society, thinking, language - pretty much everything. It is not difficult to see how major events in history have shaped the way the English see themselves and how English society functions, 1066 (and all that), the great plague, the subsequent peasants revolt and so on and so on. All of these historic influences come together to form the perceptions and prejudices of the average person in the street. Again, this seems obvious.

What you said may be true for Europeans, but wrong for Americans, and the reason is - the Atlantic Ocean. We live in spacetime, so geography is a factor also. I think we Americans have a sense of disconnectedness with world history simply because of the physical space between the Old World and the New World. I know Jews don't refer to the Old Testament as the Old Testament, and I don't know if Europeans refer to themselves as the Old World, but the fact that we use the terms is perhaps some evidence of what I'm saying.

I believe men do feel a connection with the land they live on, even if subconsciously. Europeans live on a "historic" land, i.e., you have much of the writings, ruins and artifacts which the men of those lands produced. America began on a land which was still "prehistoric" in a sense. The past of our land is murkier.

And some of the disconnectedness was intentional, as reflected in the earliest political thought which strongly encouraged non-interventionism. They knew European history with all its complicated entanglements and bloody wars, and said "we want nothing to do with that, we can be a blank slate, we're starting something new".

So since your main point is about slavery, which occurred on American soil, I guess nothing I just said is relevant. My apologies for that, but I thought what you brought up is interesting in itself.

Slavery was common in the US during what was in England the Victorian era - of course slavery was effectively exported to the US from England and other European countries, via colonialism, so this isn't about apportioning blame in any sense, just about things that happened - but wasn't part of most people's lives actually in England at that time. But that same period was tremendously influential on English society and how English people see themselves in all kinds of ways that are absolutely still relevant to how that society functions now. A society and its history are ineluctably bound to each other, what society is now in any country is what previous actions and events have made it. Again, this seems blatantly obvious.

It does to me, anyway, but it does seem that maybe this way of thinking isn't so common or regarded as obvious in the US - ? Is that true? To me, the Victorian period was really not all that long ago, in historical terms. Slavery in the US ended, as I understand it, in the late 1800s, there were laws in place that defined black people in some parts of the US as unequal citizens up until the 1960s, and quantifiable social prejudice continued into the 1970s. None of this is ancient history, but the view that none of this has any relevance today, with regard to the current situation as much as the wider picture of race relations in the US, seems to be quite common.

That's my impression in any case, and it is just an impression, so I'd be interested in hearing what people living in the US think about it. The US is after all a very young country and so a different understanding of history, and different conceptions of what constitutes ancient history, are explainable.

I agree to an extent that a society and its history are bound to each other, but history does not determine society. We are individuals, and groups of individuals, who make free choices. I couldn't find it when I searched just now, but many years ago I came across a Fiji web forum. There was a thread where Fijians were discussing how they should feel about their history of cannibalism. The responses varied widely from "We should feel horribly ashamed" to "It's nothing to be ashamed of. It was the cultural norm of the times" to one gentleman who said "There's nothing wrong with it. I think we should still eat people today." So, as I say, individuals make choices. And part of making choices is picking and choosing what influences you. The French still celebrate Bastille Day. They may be right to be proud of that event, but there are other events of the revolutionary period which I'm sure they do not celebrate.

 

[Jamesone5]

Not getting your point here. People convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail can be forced to perform labour without pay, is that what you mean? That would be a punitive measure. Not really comparable to people kidnapped to be bought and sold en mass as ‘work units’ on anything but the most superficial level.

I am only guessing here, but I think he might mean that we have a lot of poor people here like the rest of the world. And our incarceration rates are mainly with poor people who cannot afford a high dollar attorney to represent them. Take drug crimes----someone who is wealthy can get an attorney to get their sentence rescued or just with a slap on the wrist, while someone with less means gets a higher sentence. I write to a prisoner in a medium security prison and I think he gets .30 an hour for his job in that facility.

 

[solid_core]

Incarceration and punishment I would say, as the result of being convicted of a crime. Call it slavery if you like, I don’t think it’s the most accurate term. I still don’t get what the point is you are making.

There is a document on Netflix, called The 13th. It explains it better than I could.

 

[Tom 1]

There is a document on Netflix, called The 13th. It explains it better than I could.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

 

[grasping the after wind]

There is a document on Netflix, called The 13th. It explains it better than I could.

I am sure the documentary explains what you want to explain but I don't have that much time on my hands. You claim that imprisoning criminals is slavery. Do you really need me to invest an hour and a half to tell me why you think that?

 

[solid_core]

Do you really need me to invest an hour and a half to tell me why you think that?

No, I do not need you to invest your time. I was responding to Tom 1. You just appeared right now in the thread out of the blue.

 

[Tom 1]

So since your main point is about slavery, which occurred on American soil, I guess nothing I just said is relevant. My apologies for that, but I thought what you brought up is interesting in itself.

Not at all, I was hoping other ideas and thoughts would come up. My question was prompted by the two things I mention in the OP but the broader question is interesting also. Thanks for your comments.

I agree to an extent that a society and its history are bound to each other, but history does not determine society.

I think is does in broad strokes maybe. There are elements of the European societies I am most familiar with whose development can be traced back through time, you can see the same issues of snobbery and inverse snobbery in Chaucer's Canterbury tales for example, and it could be argued some of that comes out of the preceding period of Norman rule of England. As you say we all have different opinions about things within the societies we live in but countries do have national characteristics, I mean I think it would be hard to argue against how different European countries are from each other, for example. All kinds of things from the local climate to historical events have an influence on those differences.

 

[solid_core]

You claim that imprisoning criminals is slavery.

Not exactly.

I claim that imprisoning people (who are frequently not criminals, they just did not have money for caution or for a lawyer) and forcing them to labour without a pay, as practiced in the USA in high numbers, is slavery. In full meaning of the word.

 

[grasping the after wind]

No, I do not need you to invest your time. I was responding to Tom 1. You just appeared right now in the thread out of the blue.

Nonetheless I would like to know your reasoning and I cannot invest that much time and perhaps still end up not understanding it as has often proven to be the case in the past when someone has offered a video as an explanation. If you would rather not invest your own time I will understand but if you would explain I would be grateful. Why do you consider imprisonment for committing a crime the equivalent of enslavement of the innocent?

 

[solid_core]

Nonetheless I would like to know your reasoning and I cannot invest that much time and perhaps still end up not understanding it as has often proven to be the case in the past when someone has offered a video as an explanation. If you would rather not invest your own time I will understand but if you would explain I would be grateful. Why do you consider imprisonment for committing a crime the equivalent of enslavement of the innocent?

Viz my post #16.

 

[Tom 1]

I believe men do feel a connection with the land they live on, even if subconsciously. Europeans live on a "historic" land, i.e., you have much of the writings, ruins and artifacts which the men of those lands produced.

I think these points are very true. There are ancient remains in the UK, prehistoric, but which through remaining links in folk tales, pseudo-histories, the remaining bits and pieces of pre-Christian religions and so on form some sort of link with the present, even if it's not always easy to define. Same here in Romania where some parts of the landscape and aspects of culture have links to religions and practices no-one really holds to any more but which are sort of blended into some current religious practices. I suppose the European invasion of the North American continent is something like the taking over of Scotland by the Scots, from the Picts, just more recent, a relatively rapid replacement of one culture with another which then adapts over time to the new land. I imagine that other factors like the sheer size of the US have some influence on how people think and see themselves also.

 

[Chesterton]

I think is does in broad strokes maybe. There are elements of the European societies I am most familiar with whose development can be traced back through time, you can see the same issues of snobbery and inverse snobbery in Chaucer's Canterbury tales for example, and it could be argued some of that comes out of the preceding period of Norman rule of England. As you say we all have different opinions about things within the societies we live in but countries do have national characteristics, I mean I think it would be hard to argue against how different European countries are from each other, for example. All kinds of things from the local climate to historical events have an influence on those differences.

I think maybe we're both right. G. K. Chesterton said "tradition is the democracy of the dead". The reason we know of Chaucer is because our ancestors "voted" his work valuable and worth preserving and passing on. Perhaps there was a 14th century man named Smith who also wrote tales, but he is lost to history because his work wasn't deemed as valuable. But we, the living, also get to vote by what we choose to pass on as good and leave behind as bad. So you're right, we recieve national characteristics that we didn't participate in forming, but we do get to play a role in how the characteristics we pass on may change.