|
Actually, my view is extremely influenced by history prior to 1950. You cite Nazi Germany, but Nazi Germany was actually a new occurrence. It wasn't from tradition. Hitler was a modern politician, and fascism a new movement. It lends credence to my point, it doesn't take away. The culture that replaced the Nazis, too, was not representative of the culture prior to the Nazi government. Languages have died prior to 1950. Internationalization comes for all. Even the Catholic Ireland you cite is a relatively new concept, part of the internationalization of the region. Christianity has a rich history there, but it's only a relatively recent happening that they cared about Papal supremacy; it wasn't a great deal of generations ago that the Church of Ireland was by far the largest, and prior to that, papal supremacy never got that much of a foothold in the region. Presently? 69% of people in the Republic of Ireland believe in God. It's a plurality, but the trend is still down. Cultures die; any view other than this is ahistorical. Prior to 1950, much of the dialects of French within North America were dead, or close enough that it didn't matter. Quebec is left, but Quebec is considered an oddity. There are a few dialects that are hanging on by a single speaker, but is that really a living culture? Those will be gone in a generation. Wales was oppressed similarly to Ireland, and Welsh is on the path to dying, too; reactionary pushback won't save it. Try and save the language all you want; it will die. Scots will die, too, despite the pride stereotypical to the region. It's basically already dead; its Wikipedia was written in a fake pidgin of Scots for years, and it took years for anyone to notice. The failing of civilizations and internal slaughter is inevitable. I agree with that. There's no avoiding it. I think it's funny when people try to avoid it. They will lose, inevitably. My position is without regard for the quality of culture, without concern for what culture is going into, but rather, with full enthusiasm over seeing things turn over, and the reactionary, exclusionary attitudes that come when cultures are near death. A subculture that will survive for another century isn't filled with people trying to keep it small, it wins via numerical superiority. There's a reason that Latin is the basis of most language in most continents. Californication, in a century, may be known as a Mandarin Shift, or Hindufication. California isn't eternal, but tiny cultures being subsumed by larger ones is. Certain conservative cultures will stay around, at least for a while. It's likely they'll get bigger, even. Geographically-insular ones rooted in exclusion rather than proselytizing won't, though. |
I agree culture must die over time; any finite container with new input experiences that. But abstract culture doesn't, it cycles. Like the level of social order/norms, freedom and hierarchy in culture.
I'm glad you took up the Germany bit, as I wanted to compare there: What were the two most leftwards countries in the 1920s? The attempt at democracy in Germany, and Russias liberalisation (e.g. the sexual liberalisation well preceding that in the USA with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_of_water_theory)
But today, one country is considered to the left - Germany - and one to the right - Russia?
How can that be if history moves in one direction?
Can it be the present condition or culture of politics has less influence in time than economics and cycles, and trends and ways of human behaviour that have been observed and commented on for thousands of years, like by Will Durant? Why did the Roman empire and Christian nations swing from liberal to conservative views largely with no truly extreme points in long term political mechanisms (relatively speaking) until in both cases their end of dominance, in the Christian case, birth control?
I simply suggest the abstract nature of culture, such as fear, social norms and order as reactions to recent generations experiences are far greater predictors of future political culture than time alone. And one usually sees societies over longer time scale cycle between the strongest norms and conservative attitude, to more liberal ones in times of abundance, and then back in teams of need for order.
You may find that if the population starved, like in history, a strongly social norm based low tolerance society would emerge rapidly. Think about the 90s in Russia or the dole issues. The enforced norms could be left or right wing, but by the lessons of history, they will be enforced absolutely, in a conservative, order-based or dictator-like manner. Freedom and freedom from norms tends to fall away in such times. I think you see part of this wider abstract view, from your last two paragraphs, but viewing history as shifts rather than cycles containing within them eras, is a choice you are making to fit your own vision.