Have you started to worry about your parents?

[Fragony]

Uhm, what?

Roman Empire - slavery
Medieval Europe - feudalism
Industrial Europe - limited democracy
Modern Europe - democracy

I fail to see where I got things wrong?

How about missing at least half a millenium of history. That's what you got wrong.

[HoreTore]

How about missing at least half a millenium of history. That's what you got wrong.

How, where, when?

Are you suggesting that feudalism existed prior to the Romans, or what?

[Fragony]

How, where, when?

Are you suggesting that feudalism existed prior to the Romans, or what?

I am suggesting that you should take some history lessons as your knowledge is kinda lacking, read up, then I'll oblige.

[HoreTore]

I am suggesting that you should take some history lessons as your knowledge is kinda lacking, read up, then I'll oblige.

Well, I guess I have earned that reply from you....

First of all, my summary was:

1. Brief(since I can't be arsed to do more)
2. Eurocentric(because nobody cares about blacks or asians, and in fact I disregarded large parts of europe as well)

I started with slavery, which we found in the cultures around the med in the classical period, ie. Romans, Greeks(semi, I know), and so on. Then I skipped through the dark ages, because I'm afraid of the dark, to medieval Europe with feudalism. Here different parts of Europe went different ways, with serfdom remaining in Russia to the 19th century, but I skipped the absolute monarchies of the Rennessaince anyway. Then I went into the Industrial age, with the french and yank revolutions giving us a limited form of democracy(disregarding the brits, who desperately try to convince everyone they're aliens), before ending up with the universal suffrage of the 20th century.

And a question for you, frags: If you add a "primitive/natural stage" to the start of my list, and replace "modern europe and democracy" with "future", whose historical analysis would that be?

[Rhyfelwyr]

And a question for you, frags: If you add a "primitive/natural stage" to the start of my list, and replace "modern europe and democracy" with "future", whose historical analysis would that be?

Adam Smith's. I'm serious, look up 'stadial theory'. The Marxist narrative really just an extension of a historiographic trend going back to the Scottish School and even the likes of Grotius and Pufendorf.

[a completely inoffensive name]

HoreTore's position is unverifiable. If the Greatest Generation/Baby Boomers had let the world die during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we would not be here. His argument depends on the luck of having successive generations merely keep the bare minimum of staying alive for another generation to be born. But that says nothing about whether we are smarter than them, because anyone can throw generalizations of arbitrary generational lines.

[Montmorency]

Of course, as a good socialist Horetore also knows deep down that people are only suited for their particular historical context. A very great majority of us would utterly fail if obliged to deal with the peculiar problems of ages past - and it is precisely because those problems were solved that we can no longer deal with them. It has nothing to do with intelligence.

The true realization of Horetore's dream lies not in any notion of "generation progress"; it would be for us humans to design and tutor a whole new race of sentient Non-Men, and subsequently allow ourselves to be "phased out" as obsolete material, so that the Non-Men might raise their glorious new race and civilization upon the dust of our bones...

[HoreTore]

Adam Smith's. I'm serious, look up 'stadial theory'. The Marxist narrative really just an extension of a historiographic trend going back to the Scottish School and even the likes of Grotius and Pufendorf.

'ol Smithy had hunter/gatherer->pastoralism->agriculture->commerce, didn't he?

[Rhyfelwyr]

'ol Smithy had hunter/gatherer->pastoralism->agriculture->commerce, didn't he?

Yes, it's pretty similar isn't it?

[Fragony]

Well, I guess I have earned that reply from you....

First of all, my summary was:

1. Brief(since I can't be arsed to do more)
2. Eurocentric(because nobody cares about blacks or asians, and in fact I disregarded large parts of europe as well)

I started with slavery, which we found in the cultures around the med in the classical period, ie. Romans, Greeks(semi, I know), and so on. Then I skipped through the dark ages, because I'm afraid of the dark, to medieval Europe with feudalism. Here different parts of Europe went different ways, with serfdom remaining in Russia to the 19th century, but I skipped the absolute monarchies of the Rennessaince anyway. Then I went into the Industrial age, with the french and yank revolutions giving us a limited form of democracy(disregarding the brits, who desperately try to convince everyone they're aliens), before ending up with the universal suffrage of the 20th century.

And a question for you, frags: If you add a "primitive/natural stage" to the start of my list, and replace "modern europe and democracy" with "future", whose historical analysis would that be?

Ffs Horetore the age of colonism was WAY after the Feudal period. It's true that serfdom was still in Russia in the 19th century but it doesn't apply to Europe the Feudal period ended century's before that

[HoreTore]

Ffs Horetore the age of colonism was WAY after the Feudal period. It's true that serfdom was still in Russia in the 19th century but it doesn't apply to Europe the Feudal period ended century's before that

I didn't touch on colonialism at all, because the world outside Europe doesn't matter.

"Slavery" in a historical sense refers to the time when the European states included a slave class, ie. the Romans, not the later african slave trade.

[Fragony]

I didn't touch on colonialism at all, because the world outside Europe doesn't matter.

"Slavery" in a historical sense refers to the time when the European states included a slave class, ie. the Romans, not the later african slave trade.

Uhm, no

[rajpoot]

I didn't touch on colonialism at all, because the world outside Europe doesn't matter.

"Slavery" in a historical sense refers to the time when the European states included a slave class, ie. the Romans, not the later african slave trade.

A quick Google search about 'slavery historical' gives a result where 8 out of 11 links lead to pages about transatlantic slavery. You need to reassess that historical sense.

[CrossLOPER]

I didn't touch on colonialism at all, because the world outside Europe doesn't matter.

"Slavery" in a historical sense refers to the time when the European states included a slave class, ie. the Romans, not the later african slave trade.

Your arguments are worse than Total Realism's.

You are attributing progress to individual rather than the collective effort of societies, which disseminate beliefs and ideas. Your impression that Europe is incapable of sliding into another Dark Age is naive. Things tend to go in cycles and fundamental characteristics of human societies tend not to change. You would probably know this first hand if you were older than 27.

I agree with the suggestion that you may be afraid of aging.