posted on July 19, 2000 08:08:13 AMPasterleon: if you will look at my post, nowhere did I say that either the Chinese or Russian Revolutions were wonderful or that their leaders were either. I said that *regardless of what they became* they did bring improvements for *the lower classes.* And they did.
Now, as to China: Mao fell under the maxim "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Very true--so much so that he came close to destroying his country. However, you are slightly off on a couple of things: the law on one child per family was passed, IIRC, *after* his death. And breaking it does not bring the death penalty--such families lose priviledges & must pay a special tax I believe (as well as being "shamed". And considering the country's population, I can't say as I blame them. It would probably do the world as a whole a lot of good population-explosion-wise if others followed a similar policy . And you might not be so quick to pooh-pooh the abolition of foot-binding if it had *boys* who at the age of five had four of their toes ruthlessly bound against the soles of their feet with increasingly tight bandages over time that resulted in grotesque 3 inch long feet that essentially crippled them.
edited 'cause "past" does not equal "passed"
Sigh. And again, because there is no "m" in "pay"
[ edited by bunnicula on Jul 19, 2000 12:43 PM ]
[ edited by bunnicula on Jul 19, 2000 12:50 PM ]
posted on July 19, 2000 12:49:40 PMPasterleon:you also, might not be so quick to applaud the improvement to the lower classes if you had a relative who was shot for reading a Bible.
? Not quite sure what you mean by this. That your relative was shot for reading the Bible by lower classes who had had improvement? That said relative was shot for reading the Bible *because* the lower classes had improved their lot? (perhaps it was thought this person was responsible for the improvements?) That said relative was of the lower classes & because his/her lot was improved was *able* to read the Bible & was shot when discovered?
posted on July 19, 2000 01:11:36 PM
marwin - When I read your post it got me to thinking and doing a little research. And although you started out with some interesting uncontestable facts. You lost your argument when you started suggesting that after 40 you loose everything.
jamesoblivion - Sorry but the Cold War at its basic roots was a war of Ideolgies and Economics. The Pope had nothing to do with it, because neither of the major participants in the darn thing were or are Catholic. With that said being a Democrat by political affliation. I have to give the credit to a Republican Ronald Reagan. He turned up the heat on the poor Soviets by saying enough of this piddly you destroy me and I destroy you nonsense. I will engage to quote Admrial Yamato, "The Sleeping Giant whose vast economic and industrial might has never been fully realized", he tasked our weapons engineers to make an Accurate Delivery to Target Short Range Medium Ballistic Missile System (Pershing II). He tasked them to make fighters capable of ending the dog fight by having the ability to shoot down planes and never actually see them (F15, F16, F14, F18). He made an anti-missile system (The Patriot). He built a main battle tank that can fire while moving and accurately hit the target (M-1). He built a bomber that elludes radar, and fighter bomber that does the same. (B-2, F117).
Then to top it off he reminded people living in communism that no form of government or economic system can survive that surpresses the individual wants and desire of the individual. With that said the Pope was just a small time player. Besides that same Vatican is also responsible for some of the Modern Worlds greatest mistakes. So even if you think he wasn't a small time player. You have to agree its time they atoned for some of their atrocities.
posted on July 19, 2000 01:50:54 PM
Obviously John Paul II didn't crush the Soviet Union. A number of factors led to it's demise. There are always a multiplicity of factors in anything. In this case, he was one of them. He was the great inspiration for Lech Walesa's Solidarity movement in Poland. Solidarity was instrumental (one of the aforementioned factors) in the USSR's demise. That makes him an instrumental cause.
A relevant quote:
Timothy Garton Ash, who cronicled the Solidarity movement: "Without the Pope, no Solidarity. Without Solidarity, no Gorbachev. Without Gorbachev, no fall of Communism."
With regard to Catholicism, Poland has been a Catholic country for what, 900 years? True, religion was banned under Communist rule, but all we have to do is see how entrenched the Catholic Church is in Poland today, only ten years after the collapse of Communism, to see that the influence never went away. It only went underground. In fact, it is my understanding that Catholics share a similarity to Jews in the sense that they feel an affiliation regardless of religous commitment. A non-practicing Methodist most likely won't think of himself as Methodist at all, whereas non-practicing Catholics generally do consider themselves Catholics. That's been the case with the ones I know or have met.
That being the case, John Paul II was a considerably influential force in Poland (especially because he is Polish).
Unfortunately it's hard to pin this down definitively because there are a lot of anti-Catholic bigots who want to portray John Paul II as Satan on the one hand, and a lot of Catholic apologists who write from the view of infallibility on the other hand.
Historical interpretation is subjective. Many laugh at the notion that Reagan had anything to do with it.
James.
posted on July 19, 2000 03:46:59 PM
james - Any one that would laugh at that notion had better write their Congressman real quick because they are about to give him and his wife a medal for it. They have named practically every new building after him for it. And he is the first person in the history of the United States Navy to have a warship named after him while he is alive. So I guess we are giving him all of these rewards because he was a really great actor who happened to be President.
Now I am not anti-catholic. I will not take away his credits in many endeavors as the leader of the Catholic Church. In fact when John Paul II visited Chicago during my Childhood. We spent the night on the side of the curb on Columbus Drive so we could see him up close. Seeing a Pope from 10 feet away is something to tell your Grandkids about. Hearing a mass delivered by the Pope is special. I have heard him as a child in Chicago, and as an adult at the Vatican. And I am truly amazed at the chrisma that he displays and his ability to look at things from all sides.
Now how history will write the final pages of the cold war remains to be seen. However since I am only 33 years old. I for one will hopefully be around to see the 25 year analysis. Besides like all great historical events there are many players. Gorbachav, Reagan, The Pope, Margret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, and many others played their respective roles.
posted on July 19, 2000 04:43:00 PM
pastorleon: Correction: 50 million is the estimated total number of casualties for WWII. Not the Stalin murders numbers. It has to be substantially less. The population of the USSR during the Stalin years was probably averaging 150 million. Some studies indicate that possibly as many as 1 in every 10 persons was deported or imprisoned at one point or another. Many of these people survived though. Maybe he exterminated 10 million people. I don't know what the official number is if there is one. A gruesome number anyway.
posted on July 24, 2000 10:00:10 AM
Just catching up on reading and especially enjoyed this thread; one of the more interesting discussions that I've read in a while. The topic assertion and subsequent examination reminded me of Sir Francis Bacon's essay Of Youth and Age except that he presents his opinions of the strengths and weaknesses of both. I couldn't find a modern translation of the essay though the original is not too difficult to read and it is short, if anyone is interested.
posted on July 24, 2000 10:31:52 AM
My main interest would have been in discussing the impact of a growing older population, on the evolution of society and culture, considering that innovation comes overwhelmingly from the young.
At some point which may already have passed, the older segments of populations are probably slowing down or preventing further evolution and progress on cultural grounds.
This is a new and recent development in terms of its magnitude for we have never had such a large older population.
We can question for instance if as much would have been achieved since WWII had the population charts been 50 years ago what they are today.
posted on July 24, 2000 11:23:53 AMMarwin: If that is really what you wanted to discuss, you should have said so. Us old fogies, with our decrepit non-producing brains don't have the ability to read minds that you young whippersnappers have...
posted on July 24, 2000 03:31:40 PM
I have become so much older since this thread started that I'm in my THIRD childhood now.
What were we talking about anyway????
posted on July 24, 2000 04:14:51 PMTegan: my arteries are hardening as we speak, but I will try to summarize...
The thread's premise was that people under the age of 40 always have and always will think or do anything of importance. And that any accomplishments managed by the over-40 crowd were & are merely exceptions that prove the rule. This segued into a conversation about revolutions & whether they can accomplish anything good--most especially in this case, the Russian & Chinese Communist revolutions. Now the thread's originator tells us that what he/she *really* wanted to discuss was the idea that the poor overworked younger population is being weighted down by the ever-growing elderly population (forgetting that the elderly were once the much-vaunted & over-achieving young). That this elderly population is the cause of stagnation in society. Presumably we should all just shuffle off to buffalo and leave the world to the young.
Actually, there is a famous novel (which spawned a film) on this very subject: Logan's Run. In it, people are slated to die on their 21 birthday (the movie upped it to 30).
typos, typos, typos....too old to type, I guess
edited to edit the above for a typo. I can't help it--I'm old.
[ edited by bunnicula on Jul 24, 2000 04:17 PM ]
[ edited by bunnicula on Jul 24, 2000 04:47 PM ]
posted on July 24, 2000 06:07:06 PM
Thanks Bunnicula: Us grey panthers have to stick together.( I'm only 40 something but this thread is ageing me I tell you)
History has taught me that the young will change thier tune as they get more life experience.
Remember Jerry Rubin? He was sure about not trusting anyone over 30 ...until he was over 30, wearing a suit and working on wall street.
One of the most important life lessons and the hardest to learn is that most everyone tends to judge themselves as a work in progress and the rest of the world as finished pieces. Since I have learned this (due to my advanced age ) I tend to judge people differently I'm far more patient. Arguments like this just don't get under my skin any more.
Time will tell.
posted on July 24, 2000 10:46:34 PM
It was suggested in the opening statement that perhaps there should be no Income Tax on those under 35 (that the useless elderly could pay more). That perhaps age discrimination should be encouraged and pushed so that the Smart Young (sic) have priority in everything from job openings, advancement, promotions, to grants, loans, financing, and research facilities. That maybe the right to vote should just expire at the age of 50. Here is where logic eluded the poster. It was also stated in that first post:
In view of the growing number of over 50 in the population....
If the population is getting topheavy with oldfarts a preemptive strike may be on the wind if more of the "Smart Young" vocalize similar opinions like that suggested in Marwins post. The rules are made by the masses, and unless you got the votes - which obviously they don't - they perhaps should be hesitant to make certain suggestions. Those same suggestions might come home to roost.
Stated also was, Food for thought. For those still young enough to think.
Well, I be athinkin' that I'd be a votin' to raise taxes on anyone who couldn't demonstrate they understood the value or the difference between book learnin' and experience!
[ edited by yorequest on Jul 24, 2000 10:58 PM ]
. And considering the country's population, I can't say as I blame them. It would probably do the world as a whole a lot of good population-explosion-wise if others followed a similar policy 
. And you might not be so quick to pooh-pooh the abolition of foot-binding if it had *boys* who at the age of five had four of their toes ruthlessly bound against the soles of their feet with increasingly tight bandages over time that resulted in grotesque 3 inch long feet that essentially crippled them.
At the advanced age of 40 (I'm 45 BTW), senility has surely set in...
if more of the "Smart Young" vocalize similar opinions like that suggested in Marwins post. The rules are made by the masses, and unless you got the votes - which obviously they don't - they perhaps should be hesitant to make certain suggestions. Those same suggestions might come home to roost.