[jbmorgado]

> The article notes a cycle, which is closer to my understanding of history

That's because either your understanding of history, your written comprehension, or both are quite bad actually.

The article notes a cycle that is always corrected with some kind of revolution, armed or not.

The article also notes that in open societies sons never end up living worts than their parents (in general, not with your naive example of a particular case where a son ends up living a worst life than his parents because of some hurricane) because either society functions properly and that is not a issue, or if it doesn't revolution takes place.

[dragontamer]

The article isn't matching my political views, so don't pretend that I agree with what it says. But that's beside the point.

> in general, not with your naive example of a particular case where a son ends up living a worst life than his parents because of some hurricane

You know you're dissing "Their Eyes were Watching God", right? This isn't exactly an unpopular novel.

---------

My point is that the article is actually good on history (although I disagree with how the author interprets history). You however, are nowhere close to historically accurate.