|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:29 am Post subject: Did Mr. Orwell call it? |
 |
|
"All past oligarchiess have fallen from power either because they ossified or because they grew soft. Either they became stupi and arrogant, failed to adjust themselves to changing circumstances, and were overthrown, or they became liberal and cowardly, made concessions when they should have used force, and once again were overthrown".
Makes you wonder.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:06 am Post subject: Re: Did Mr. Orwell call it? |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
"All past oligarchiess have fallen from power either because they ossified or because they grew soft. Either they became stupi and arrogant, failed to adjust themselves to changing circumstances, and were overthrown, or they became liberal and cowardly, made concessions when they should have used force, and once again were overthrown".
Makes you wonder. |
Makes you wonder what exactly? The reasons he gives for past oligarchies falling from power are so incredibly vague, general, and open to interpretation that they could easily be used to describe more or less any political entity that fell from power. I have a hard time imagining an oligarchy falling from power in such a way that one could not obstenibly categorize it's failings in one of those vague categories. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:26 am Post subject: Re: Did Mr. Orwell call it? |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
"All past oligarchiess have fallen from power either because they ossified or because they grew soft. Either they became stupi and arrogant, failed to adjust themselves to changing circumstances, and were overthrown, or they became liberal and cowardly, made concessions when they should have used force, and once again were overthrown".
Makes you wonder.
dmbfan |
No, Empires or 'oligarchies' fall because they go broke. Rome fell due to massive military spending and its bloated cancerous bureaucracies that ate off the productive ( Read private) sector. End the wars, restrain the bureaucracies and let the entrepreneur build wealth are the keys to a prosperous future.
A similar story of how empires fall can be found here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:18 am Post subject: Re: Did Mr. Orwell call it? |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| dmbfan wrote: |
"All past oligarchiess have fallen from power either because they ossified or because they grew soft. Either they became stupi and arrogant, failed to adjust themselves to changing circumstances, and were overthrown, or they became liberal and cowardly, made concessions when they should have used force, and once again were overthrown".
Makes you wonder.
dmbfan |
No, Empires or 'oligarchies' fall because they go broke. Rome fell due to massive military spending and its bloated cancerous bureaucracies that ate off the productive ( Read private) sector. End the wars, restrain the bureaucracies and let the entrepreneur build wealth are the keys to a prosperous future. |
No, Rome declined because of demographic collapse accompanied by over-reliance on slavery, the provinces (particularly Egypt), and mercenaries.
America may be in decline and it may indeed have massive military spending, bloated bureaucracies, and a dwindling productive private sector. But that does not get us to what happened in Rome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Rome fell due to massive military spending and its bloated cancerous bureaucracies that ate off the productive ( Read private) sector. |
Wow! Where were you before I spent all that time reading Gibbons' 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'? Thousands of pages about many complex issues dismissed with a bumper sticker explanation. And you skipped the part about mass withdrawal of support for the government. Wow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The reasons he gives for past oligarchies falling from power are so incredibly vague, general, and open to interpretation that they could easily be used to describe more or less any political entity that fell
frompower. |
Much of the political theory underlying 1984 is unconvincing. I doubt, for example, that too many political leaders consciously believe that their ideology can be boiled down to a boot stamping on a human face.
But as an analyst of political rhetoric and propaganda, Orwell was pretty much spot-on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Much of the political theory underlying 1984 is unconvincing. |
How so? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Makes you wonder what exactly? The reasons he gives for past oligarchies falling from power are so incredibly vague, general, and open to interpretation that they could easily be used to describe more or less any political entity that fell from power. I have a hard time imagining an oligarchy falling from power in such a way that one could not obstenibly categorize it's failings in one of those vague categories. |
No offense, but you are talking in cirlces.
How are they vague? He gave some clear points as to which you can identify with many points in history.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Much of the political theory underlying 1984 is unconvincing. |
How so? |
Well, I gave one example in my post...
| Quote: |
I doubt, for example, that too many political leaders consciously believe that their ideology can be boiled down to a boot stamping on a human face.
|
What I meant, broadly speaking, was that I don't think many politicians, even guys like Hitler and Stalin, consciously define their agenda as being evil.
I'm also skeptical that Great Power conflicts involve nothing more than a bunch of world leaders deliberately colluding with one another to keep war going as an end in itself. Though I can't quite recall if this idea is openly stated in 1984, or if I'm extrapolating from what I've read about Orewll's private views on world politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Makes you wonder what exactly? The reasons he gives for past oligarchies falling from power are so incredibly vague, general, and open to interpretation that they could easily be used to describe more or less any political entity that fell from power. I have a hard time imagining an oligarchy falling from power in such a way that one could not obstenibly categorize it's failings in one of those vague categories. |
No offense, but you are talking in cirlces.
How are they vague? He gave some clear points as to which you can identify with many points in history.
dmbfan |
I'm speaking specifically of the passage of text you quoted. Almost any fallen oligarchy could be said to have "ossified", "gone soft", etc given you can interpret such vagueries almost any way you like. When another oligarchy falls, you can inevitably list it under one of those categories, specifically because they are so vague. Taking examples out of history and using them to illustrate such categorization doesn't make them less vague. If anything, it illustrates just how vague they are, as the fall of an oligarchy is a complex thing: summarizing it in a few words like "it ossified" takes some awfully vague words.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "talking in circles," given I didn't really make an argument that could circle in on itself, just an assertion, (specifically, I asserted the categories listed in your quote are so vague of course you can classify the fall of any oligarchy as one of them, barring something like a massive, uncurable disease wiping them out). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChopChaeJoe
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
their ideology can be boiled down to a boot stamping on a human face.
|
Sounds like what that chick got at the beef protests last year. And what someone who dares to speak out (even if ignorant and misguided) gets every year, everywhere.
We live in a facist world, though that chomping on the wire, total paranoia aspect is usually hidden from our view. But the weather will not change. Get used to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:52 am Post subject: Re: Did Mr. Orwell call it? |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
No, Rome declined because of demographic collapse accompanied by over-reliance on slavery, the provinces (particularly Egypt), and mercenaries.
America may be in decline and it may indeed have massive military spending, bloated bureaucracies, and a dwindling productive private sector. But that does not get us to what happened in Rome. |
Well, the short of it is that Rome's military was demanding more than what the private sector economy could produce. The OP was suggesting an over reliance on military force or having an imperialist foreign policy as way to preserve the current order. Yes, what you mentioned was also correct about slavery, renegade provinces, particularly Egypt; all of this was touched upon in the linked essay. Also, Byzantium would continue on for another thousand years after Romes fall. Rome, in fact, did what the OP was suggesting. Rome seemed to always be fighting with with Persians to the east and Germans to the north.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Wow! Where were you before I spent all that time reading Gibbons' 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'? Thousands of pages about many complex issues dismissed with a bumper sticker explanation. And you skipped the part about mass withdrawal of support for the government. Wow.
|
I see you claimed to have read Edward Gibbon's The History. Well, BULLY FOR YOU!
Last edited by Pluto on Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| I'm also skeptical that Great Power conflicts involve nothing more than a bunch of world leaders deliberately colluding with one another to keep war going as an end in itself. Though I can't quite recall if this idea is openly stated in 1984, or if I'm extrapolating from what I've read about Orewll's private views on world politics. |
I think in the novel it is ambiguous whether or not there actually is still a war going on. The point, I guess, is that it just doesn't matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
samcheokguy
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Location: Samcheok G-do
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
-the fall of rome is at least partially due to the huns/and tatars pushing west out of the steppes, causing the germans to migrate west in relocation.
-once again, an issue far, far, FAR to large to discuss meaningfully on Daves.
-However check out the pics of racing girls! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
harlowethrombey
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While all administrations are guilty of it, the Bush whitehouse took 'Orwellian' to a whole new level. I've actually written an entire essay on this, which I wont post here because its at home and I dont think anyone would want to slog through it anyway.
But, briefly:
Doublespeak: Remember how in 1984 the 'Ministery of Love' was where they tortured the sh&t out of you? The 'Healthy Trees Act' decimated stretches of forests including those within National Parks. The 'Clean Air Act' allowed more toxins into our airflow and did away with most of the oversight designed to keep pollution in check.
Endless Wars: Every good Orwell needs a 'THEM'. If its Oceana, that's fine, but whatever an even better boogeyman? How about 'Terrorists' or, better yet, a war that, be definition, can have no end. A war on 'Terror!' which is as winnable as a War on Happiness. But the terrorists did well until it was clear they'd high-tailed it out of Afghanistan, so to continue an endless war and keep giving jingoists their victories, the admin turned its eyes on Iraq. Bingo, more war, more 'terrorists' (or insurgents) and the cycle continues.
Because with special times (re: war time) the president gets to assume 'special powers' and if the country is perpetually at war. . .
Secrecy: Cheney actually blanking his little house out of Google Earth is the least of it. Justhow many memos and emails and videotapes were 'accidentally' destroyed. NOt to mention all the secret conversations which have no records.
Spying: Instead of looking through videoscreens in our homes, the Bush Admin just decided to use a supercomputer to filer information from our emails/cell phone calls. Of course this info would only be used to catch terrorists or 'enemy combatents'. Also, the president alone gets to decide who is an 'enemy combatant'. Convenient that.
Secret Torture Prisons: Rats in your face is pretty bad. That's old school, Soviet style bad. Of course being stripped naked and forced to the ground while dogs snarl at you and/or being almost drowned is pretty bad, too.
Ministery of: The announcement of the Department of Homeland Security was the precise instant where the little voice in the back of my mind said 'waiiiiiit a minute. this is sounding scary.' We had a panel of 'experts' address an open forum at my college. Mine was the first question and I simply asked that the DHS's powers were, because it sounded 'like something out of 1984'. No one really knew the answer. It connects/has authority over every government agency which means it has authority over every citizen which means. . . who knows? Either way, when you start using words like 'Homeland' and 'MOtherland' things have gone off the deepend.
Ignorance is authority: Keeping its citizens stupid is an admirable goal, but its best to have a stupid leadership just keep its citizens ignorant (apparently). I'm not a gambling man but I would bet all my savings that Bush did not know there were 3 different groups that made up the core of the Iraqi people. Orwell's government didnt mind switching enemies in the middle of a war rally because the citizens were so ill-informed they werent even sure who they were fighting. Quick, someone, are the Sunnis our allies or enemies in Iraq?
2+2=4: From striking out 'evolution' to deciding that NASA would be better served as a dumping ground for political devotees, the Bush admin. declared war on science. Endangered species-->no, they're fine (until they went extinct). Climate change-->made up nonsense (until they grudgingly admitted it wasnt). Stem Cell research-->Blasphemy! Only a murderous, godless liberal would want such a thing! (oh, and Nancy Reagan).
Jingoism: Freedom Fries. Support our President AND our Troops. You're either with us or with the terrorists. Bring 'em on. The list is endless. I really enjoyed (sar) being in the minority those first few years after 9/11. With other people informing me of my ignorance and my naivity. Everything Bush did was gold, the government was unquestionable. Questioning a policey was the same as exposing yoursefl as a benedict arnold. Patriotism=support for the president and his agenda.
U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
What civil rights?: Detention without charges. Indefinate detention without a trial. Trial without a jury. No access to legal consul. And back to the spying again, just for fun.
In Closing: I know I had more examples but those are all I can think of off the top of my head. I originally wrote the essay just as a response to people that kept questioning my 'patriotism'. Way too many of my friends and family had the knee-jerk Britany Spears syndrome of patriotism and I just wanted to give them a lucid, alternate argument. The gut answer of 'I bleed red, white and blue, you wanna terists to WIN?' gets a long, carefully worded argument in response.
By no means is the OBama Admin perfect. He's kept the Office of Religious Affairs (or whatever its called) which is BS. He has yet to decisevly rule on many civil rights issues or even scale back some of the vast powers of the Pres. and VP from the previous admin. But, no one in my lifetime has ever come close to Curious George and his quest to turn America into 1984: The Cliff's Notes Version.
peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
