PDA

View Full Version : When Will the 20th Century End? Or Has It Already?


John Cole
04-06-2003, 06:26 PM
Gertrude Stein once remarked that America is the oldest country in the world because it has been living in the 20th century longer than any other. If we dismiss with mere dates, as is done with such endeavors as literary periodization, we can look at when eras begin and end using other sorts of criteria. I think that Conrad's Heart of Darkness certainly offers a glimpse at what will become the horrors of the 20th century, horrors that haven't ceased and perhaps never will.

Although historical revisionism is routinely characterized as "false" history or willful misreading of events according to some, revisionism can actually help us to revise (literally, re-see) the past. Future historians, I'm sure, will find an event or date to mark the end of the 20th century. Some may point to 9/11/01, and others may may indicate other events. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if someday historians point to the end of the Cold War as the end of the 20th century.

Of course, I expect others to take a more global view, using all sorts of events, innovations, and shifts. Has the 20th century ended?

John

Ray Zee
04-06-2003, 08:27 PM
those events will get lost in history as they are major to us in the current situation but the future will look at them as insignificant.

besides what started the calendar anyway. the life of some mythical character that people worship, and half the world do not recognize.

scalf
04-06-2003, 09:10 PM
/forums/images/icons/blush.gif infernal combustion engines still paramount...

20th cent ends with reliable cold fusion..jnho..shoulda happened by now...maybe 15 years...gl /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif /forums/images/icons/diamond.gif

HDPM
04-06-2003, 11:13 PM
End of the Cold War is a pretty good milestone. But another way to look at it is the clash of cultures. In that regard, the advent of the computer, internet and instant communication may be the real milestone. September 11 represents a pre-industrial, primitive, superstitious society striking out at the culture it rightfully sees as a threat to its survival. Information based societies can coexist with industrial ones, but anti-information societies will have increasing difficulty in the world. Orthodox religions of all forms are fading and will continue to fade. Information and wealth are their enemies and the 21st century will bring more information and more wealth. There will be strife between those who embrace human development and those who are afraid of it. This will continue and will also be the basis for internal strife in nations that are relatively advanced, i.e. normal or advanced people vs. John Ashcroft type people in the US. IOW the transition of the advanced countries from industrial countries to information-based countries will probably be the milestone.

andyfox
04-07-2003, 01:19 AM
Although historical revisionism is routinely characterized as "false" history or willful misreading of events according to some, revisionism can actually help us to revise (literally, re-see) the past.

I first heard the term "revisionism" in reference to writing about the Cold War. Early histories were basically triumphalist, trumpeting America's goodness and the evils of communism in a strictly manichean worldview. Later historians pointed out mistakes, misreadings, and missteps in American's Cold Wart foreign policy.

Revisionism is a necessary historical process. Policy is made by politicians, and politicians of every political stripe lie and try to make themselves look good. So the information initially available is limited. Goverments routinely classify information that might make them look bad and only later, if at all, does this information become available to the general public. And only later do the participants in events feel a compunction to reveal what they kept secret before, either because they feel it was a mistake to have supported originally the policies they took part in, or that those policies have now taken an unforeseen or unacceptible turn for the worse.

And, perhaps most importantly, it's very hard to have perspective on events within a larger framework when those event are taking place or shortly thereafter. It is only after a number of years, when more information about those events become avabile, and a bigger picture can be seen in which to frame those events, that a reasonable and reasoned view of what actually took place and its import can be seen.

So very difficult to tell right now when the 20th century truly did end or will end. I remember a few year back we were told that the most important historical fact of the 20th century might well be that the Russians were caucasians and the Chinese were not. The pundits who said this were predicting that the Sin-Soviet split would cause the caucasians to become our allies against the Chinese menace. Seems silly now.

Cyrus
04-07-2003, 02:36 AM
I find rather convenient the lines drawn by Eric Hobsbawm:

The Age of Revolution 1789 - 1848
The Age of Capital 1848 - 1875
The Age of Empire 1875 - 1914
The Age of Extremes 1914 - 1991

"I expect others to take a more global view, using all sorts of events, innovations, and shifts."

Not me. The history of this train is the history of its locomotive. Western history is this world's history.

Mark Heide
04-07-2003, 06:42 PM
John,

This past century just proves once more that mankind is just the same as it always has been.

If you are looking for a title, like the "Industrial Age" maybe this is the "Technology Age." We will always have wars and starvation. The only significant difference is information flows much faster.

Mark

AmericanAirlines
04-07-2003, 08:16 PM
"This past century just proves once more that mankind is just the same as it always has been."

So what should be done about it?

Sincerely,
AA

andyfox
04-08-2003, 12:14 AM
Here are war-related deaths per 1,000 of the global population for the past ten centuries:

11th century: .18
12th century: .36
13th century: 1.14
14th century: 1.43
15th century: 2.07
16th century: 3.23
17th century: 11.20
18th century: 9.72
19th century: 16.19
20th century: 44.37 (thru 1950)

Obviously, these are estimates, especially for the ealier centuries, but certainly the 20th century was the most violent in history.

Chris Alger
04-08-2003, 07:04 AM
The 20th century was just the most recent hundred years of a period of mass poltical consolidaton that roughly began just after Prince Henry the Navigator. It's not over but it might be soon.

People as a whole did okay for their first two million years, certainly better than the big, slow, furry species they encountered. Then about 10,000 years ago the Natufians invented agriculture in Mesopotamia and begat civilization. 9,500 years later an unfortunate geographic coincidence of technology, poltical crisis and messianic religion induced one of the meanest and best-equipped of these to start conquering the world. The upshot was some really neat stuff, but unprecedented destruction and instability. Although they learned in the 20th century that more of the same means the likely extinction, they seem to be unable to quit, driven by their record of narrowly missing or surviving catastrophe to redouble their efforts.

Examples of imperial self-destruction abound, such as the current war and the policies underlying it. Another is the development of first strike nuclear weapons systems and other nuclear crises after the Cuban missile crisis. We knew at the time that the crisis caused the system to begin spinning out of control, and know now that three Soviet submarine commanders were one vote away from firing a nuclear torpedo at a US destroyer attacking them, which probably would have unleashed a nuclear retalliation (the vote of the commanders was 2-1, and the rule required 3 in favor; see e.g., http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/cuba/reunion2.htm).

One can measure the degree to which such lessons are taken to heart by looking at the trend and the utter lack of concern for it among leading officials. Before his present campaign to make his boss as internationally popular as Hitler, Rumsfeld bragged, in essence, that the world's leaders can be proud of their record of 50 years without using nuclear weapons, that is, without blowing up the earth. If there's much correlation between how one defines success and what one is willing to risk, comments like these -- which aren't uncommon -- can hardly inspire confidence, particularly among hypothetical future generations, had they any chance to consider them.

I had the rare privilege of seeing Noam Chomsky in Boulder last week. In response to the usual question about rational people can be leading us to destruction when it means their own destruction as well, he said, in effect: "Look at the history of war. A good portion, maybe half, of the wars in history were initiated by countries that ended up destroying themselves." You see this a lot in history: social systems often bring to the apex of decision-making people who either don't care about the likely result of their efforts or think some things are worth the risk.

Mark Heide
04-08-2003, 09:03 PM
AmericanAirlines,

The reason I made that statement is there are a group of people that believe all the marvelous technological wonders will improve the world. But, actually, what happens is each technological advance that brings good also creates evil. It's a kind of ying yang.

Good Luck

Mark

Mark Heide
04-08-2003, 09:09 PM
andyfox,

From the history you have presented, I'll assume the 21st Century will exceed the 20th. It's pretty alarming! And we are already off to a great start in the middle east or I should say a continuation of the same mayhem.

Good Luck

Mark