To: Neocon who wrote (1301 ) 11/9/1999 7:40:00 PM From: jbe Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 3246
Now, to a few more points, Neocon.The "misery index." I agree,there is no real way to calculate that. But I was not talking about "misery." I was talking about "unsettlement" = dislocation, disorientation, alienation, etc. A peasant working his land, the way his ancestors have done for centuries, may be cold, hungry and "miserable"; but he will not be "unsettled," "dislocated," "alienated.' If, however, he has arrived, along with lots of other displaced peasants, in an unfamiliar big city, and gotten thrown into a totally unfamiliar factory, doing totally unfamiliar work, living in a filthy barracks, etc., he probably IS going to feel not just miserable, but also "alienated", etc. Those displaced peasants who sailed across the ocean to seek their fortunes in the New World were probably somewhat more adventurous and psychologically sturdy than those they left behind, but even at that, it must have been rough adjusting to the new environment. (Ah yes, another thing to be remembered about the 19th century: large-scale internal migration and settling of new lands, in North America and in the Asian part of Russia.) As for nationalism, fascism et al. What is more important, the development of the idea, or its realization? Instead of saying that fascism was the "culmination" of the "nationalist idea" (which I would dispute, by the way), you could point out that the former was only possible because of the latter. One might add that Nazism could never have emerged, if Bismarck had not created a united Germany in the 19th century. Another example: it was the 19th century that developed almost all the ideas that inspired 20th century labor movements & revolutions: everything from Marxism to anarchism to evolutionary socialism. It is all a question of emphasis, a question of whether one assigns more significance to the end than to the beginning. You say that colonialism did not being "convulsing" until the 20th century. Well, pardon me, but the imposition of colonial rule was as significant -- and as productive of "dislocations" and "unsettlements" -- as the dismantling of colonial rule was later to be. Every century since the 17th has been called, by somebody or other, "The Age of Revolution." Now that I think about it, what probably really distinguishes the 20th century from the preceding three is the globalization of revolutionary change, especially in the area of communications. But we won't really see the full flower of that until the 21st century. Perhaps our 20th century will just turn out to have been nothing more than a "transitional century." Joan