Are these two news items related?
China's People's Daily Online: Sculptures to improve interest in farmers
BBC Day in Pictures: Patriotic performance art event
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Faces in the sand
Are these two news items related?
China's People's Daily Online: Sculptures to improve interest in farmers
BBC Day in Pictures: Patriotic performance art event
Monday, March 12, 2007
Cold Reading
Cold reading is what 'psychics' do to make it seem that they have 'psychic' knowledge e.g. mind-reading, remote-viewing, talking to the dead, etc.
The example of cold reading given in James Randi's latest newsletter (and more fully here) - about an attempt by a famous US 'psychic' to locate a missing person - is very cold indeed (on so many levels). Note that the murderer of the missing person was in the studio while the 'psychic' was using her 'powers'.
The example of cold reading given in James Randi's latest newsletter (and more fully here) - about an attempt by a famous US 'psychic' to locate a missing person - is very cold indeed (on so many levels). Note that the murderer of the missing person was in the studio while the 'psychic' was using her 'powers'.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers
The other day, I started rereading a book by Paul Kennedy called The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers - published 20 years ago.
He argued that the relative fortunes of powerful states are determined by their available resources and economic growth. This was illustrated by examples such as: the decline of Spain and France relative to Britain during the Industrial Revolution; the decline of Britain relative to America and Germany as those larger countries industrialised; and comparisons of the military potential of each side in various big wars (especially the Axis powers versus US, UK and USSR in WWII).
He spends a huge number of pages talking about nuclear weapons, missiles, submarines and tanks - in a way that we just don't anymore - whilst it was getting to the end of the Cold War, no one really knew (or expected) it at the time.
Looking at it now, the most interesting thing is his review of the 5 actual and potential 'great' powers of the mid-1980s: US, USSR, Japan, EEC and China; and their prospects as they approached the 21st Century. India doesn't get a look in.
China: He correctly expected China to continue its hectic growth but saw its main problem being that the agricultural sector was doing very well and people in urban areas were still very poor - the opposite of what we see today.
Japan: He didn't foresee the popping of Japan's growth bubble; making much of its technological edge - in those days we all assumed that the future for factories was in robots and computers rather than millions of Chinese workers.
EEC: His review of Europe was fairly gloomy, he didn't foresee the consolidation of the single European market nor its expansion as countries queued up to join the EU (of course, this was all before the Berlin Wall came down). Funnily enough he saw Britain as continuing its relative decline (smaller than Italy and France economically) and France as out-growing West Germany. Of course, nowadays we see the continental economies as being stuck in the doldrums...
USSR: His analysis of just how bad the Soviet economy had become is probably spot on; but, despite quoting Gorbachev's calls for reform, he held out little hope that the country would embrace Chinese-style economic reforms let alone Western-style freedoms. Within a few years, of course, Eastern Europe was free and the USSR ceased to exist (no one predicted that).
USA: Given all the examples in the rest of his book, it's surprising that he didn't examine the prospect that a declining USSR would leave the US as by far the most dominant military power in the world. Indeed, in discussing China, Japan and Europe he stresses how small their military capabilities are with respect to America. It's funny now to think that people seriously considered that Japan's economy might out-strip America's.
His projected growth rates may have been wrong (under-estimating US and UK growth, over-estimating Japan and France) but his fundamental point appears very relevant, e.g. Japan's economic growth stopped and America's accelerated, so Japan dropped away as a threat.
Given how hard it is to predict the future, let's not bother; but we can ask a few pertinent questions: will China continue to grow relentlessly or will this fundamentally over-populated and under-resourced country hit the buffers? will climate change severely dent the economic prospects of India and China with their low lying plains? will American growth collapse as oil runs out?
He argued that the relative fortunes of powerful states are determined by their available resources and economic growth. This was illustrated by examples such as: the decline of Spain and France relative to Britain during the Industrial Revolution; the decline of Britain relative to America and Germany as those larger countries industrialised; and comparisons of the military potential of each side in various big wars (especially the Axis powers versus US, UK and USSR in WWII).
He spends a huge number of pages talking about nuclear weapons, missiles, submarines and tanks - in a way that we just don't anymore - whilst it was getting to the end of the Cold War, no one really knew (or expected) it at the time.
Looking at it now, the most interesting thing is his review of the 5 actual and potential 'great' powers of the mid-1980s: US, USSR, Japan, EEC and China; and their prospects as they approached the 21st Century. India doesn't get a look in.
China: He correctly expected China to continue its hectic growth but saw its main problem being that the agricultural sector was doing very well and people in urban areas were still very poor - the opposite of what we see today.
Japan: He didn't foresee the popping of Japan's growth bubble; making much of its technological edge - in those days we all assumed that the future for factories was in robots and computers rather than millions of Chinese workers.
EEC: His review of Europe was fairly gloomy, he didn't foresee the consolidation of the single European market nor its expansion as countries queued up to join the EU (of course, this was all before the Berlin Wall came down). Funnily enough he saw Britain as continuing its relative decline (smaller than Italy and France economically) and France as out-growing West Germany. Of course, nowadays we see the continental economies as being stuck in the doldrums...
USSR: His analysis of just how bad the Soviet economy had become is probably spot on; but, despite quoting Gorbachev's calls for reform, he held out little hope that the country would embrace Chinese-style economic reforms let alone Western-style freedoms. Within a few years, of course, Eastern Europe was free and the USSR ceased to exist (no one predicted that).
USA: Given all the examples in the rest of his book, it's surprising that he didn't examine the prospect that a declining USSR would leave the US as by far the most dominant military power in the world. Indeed, in discussing China, Japan and Europe he stresses how small their military capabilities are with respect to America. It's funny now to think that people seriously considered that Japan's economy might out-strip America's.
His projected growth rates may have been wrong (under-estimating US and UK growth, over-estimating Japan and France) but his fundamental point appears very relevant, e.g. Japan's economic growth stopped and America's accelerated, so Japan dropped away as a threat.
Given how hard it is to predict the future, let's not bother; but we can ask a few pertinent questions: will China continue to grow relentlessly or will this fundamentally over-populated and under-resourced country hit the buffers? will climate change severely dent the economic prospects of India and China with their low lying plains? will American growth collapse as oil runs out?
Friday, January 19, 2007
America's bizarre creation myths
Sadly, American mythology about 1776 tends to portray Britain as a cross between a Renaissance autocracy and Nazi Germany rather than as the country that bestowed on America the legacy of personal freedom, the rule of law and capitalism.
Reading the Economist the other day, I was astonished by such mythology passing for history in Lexington’s article about Seymour Martin Lipset and American exceptionalism.
Bizarrely, it says that the 1776 revolution got rid of feudalism. This seems an odd comment to make, given that the Britain of 1776 against whom the American colonists revolted was a Parliamentary democracy (albeit of very limited franchise), where Adam Smith was publishing ‘The Wealth of Nations’, and where most historians would agree that it is precisely the absence of feudalism that was one of the many factors allowing for the start of the Industrial Revolution at this time.
I found the inability to consider the bleeding obvious in this article astounding. Surely one need look no further than its huge size and its historical capacity to absorb people (and give them the opportunity to own land) to see why America is exceptional. No other country has had such relatively benign temperate lands to expand into.
It chooses to explain Canada's adoption of the Metric System by reference to a monarchist counter-revolution (that'll be people who chose to remain loyal to Britain in 1776) rather than the fact that Canada has a small population (32 million) and can agree this can of change fairly easily and amicably.
Having said all that, people in the UK are often just as ignorant of the past, choosing to celebrate dubious things like the Battle of Agincourt and the fact that Britain ruled a lot of other people's countries for them (without asking permission). Not many Brits would highlight the abolition of slavery as a key acheivement but the way that it happened was remarkable.
Slavery was pursued through the courts in Britain with the result that (in 1772) it was deemed unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable in Britain (but alas not her colonies); then a huge campaign against slavery was mounted until firstly the trade was banned (1807) by Parliament throughout the Empire and then slavery itself was banned (1833) - although it was the owners who got compensation rather than their victims. Unfortunately, slaves in the southern states of America were no longer living in the British Empire, so they had to wait till 1865 for the outcome of the American Civil War.
Reading the Economist the other day, I was astonished by such mythology passing for history in Lexington’s article about Seymour Martin Lipset and American exceptionalism.
Bizarrely, it says that the 1776 revolution got rid of feudalism. This seems an odd comment to make, given that the Britain of 1776 against whom the American colonists revolted was a Parliamentary democracy (albeit of very limited franchise), where Adam Smith was publishing ‘The Wealth of Nations’, and where most historians would agree that it is precisely the absence of feudalism that was one of the many factors allowing for the start of the Industrial Revolution at this time.
I found the inability to consider the bleeding obvious in this article astounding. Surely one need look no further than its huge size and its historical capacity to absorb people (and give them the opportunity to own land) to see why America is exceptional. No other country has had such relatively benign temperate lands to expand into.
It chooses to explain Canada's adoption of the Metric System by reference to a monarchist counter-revolution (that'll be people who chose to remain loyal to Britain in 1776) rather than the fact that Canada has a small population (32 million) and can agree this can of change fairly easily and amicably.
Having said all that, people in the UK are often just as ignorant of the past, choosing to celebrate dubious things like the Battle of Agincourt and the fact that Britain ruled a lot of other people's countries for them (without asking permission). Not many Brits would highlight the abolition of slavery as a key acheivement but the way that it happened was remarkable.
Slavery was pursued through the courts in Britain with the result that (in 1772) it was deemed unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable in Britain (but alas not her colonies); then a huge campaign against slavery was mounted until firstly the trade was banned (1807) by Parliament throughout the Empire and then slavery itself was banned (1833) - although it was the owners who got compensation rather than their victims. Unfortunately, slaves in the southern states of America were no longer living in the British Empire, so they had to wait till 1865 for the outcome of the American Civil War.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Scottish Prime Ministers
I heard a reporter on the BBC tying himself up in knots whilst talking about the prospect of Gordon Brown becoming UK Prime Minister.
He said that Brown would be the first Scottish Prime Minister since Sir Alec Douglas-Home, but then had to add the rider 'representing a Scottish constituency' - presumably because he realised that Gordon Brown would only be the first Scottish Prime Minister since Edinburgh-born Tony Blair.
He said that Brown would be the first Scottish Prime Minister since Sir Alec Douglas-Home, but then had to add the rider 'representing a Scottish constituency' - presumably because he realised that Gordon Brown would only be the first Scottish Prime Minister since Edinburgh-born Tony Blair.
Friday, January 12, 2007
FlashEarth
I saw a reference in the Guardian about flashearth.com. It seems easier to use than Google maps, much less jumpy.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Little Fatty
Little Fatty is an unfortunate, corpulent, Chinese lad, Qian Zhijun, whose image has become a bit of a hit on the web (follow the link for a picture).
I remember our Chinese teacher Zhu Laoshi telling me that I was fat (I think I'd just come back from holiday somewhere), in that straight-talking 'how much do you earn' way that the Chinese do; she was, of course, entirely right.
I remember our Chinese teacher Zhu Laoshi telling me that I was fat (I think I'd just come back from holiday somewhere), in that straight-talking 'how much do you earn' way that the Chinese do; she was, of course, entirely right.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
The Velvet Underground
I've just stumbled on a story in the International Herald Tribune of a man who bought a rare Velvet Underground recording for 75 cents (4 years ago) and has just sold it for $155,401 on ebay.
Oddly enough, I was searching the web to see if I could get a CD of the bootleg album the velvet underground and so on. I used to have a vinyl version of it, but I threw it out with all my old vinyl records when we put our possessions in storage prior to going to China, it seemed to make sense at the time as I no longer had a record-player and I assumed that I'd be able to get anything on CD. Alas, they don't seem to be selling this on CD.
I particularly liked the tracks It's Alright (The Way That You Live) and Loop; fortunately I have a tape I made of the album (it's up in the loft somewhere - I kept all my tapes), all I need now is a tape player. And then, how do I get it on to a CD to play in my car? Ah, the onward march on technology.
Oddly enough, I was searching the web to see if I could get a CD of the bootleg album the velvet underground and so on. I used to have a vinyl version of it, but I threw it out with all my old vinyl records when we put our possessions in storage prior to going to China, it seemed to make sense at the time as I no longer had a record-player and I assumed that I'd be able to get anything on CD. Alas, they don't seem to be selling this on CD.
I particularly liked the tracks It's Alright (The Way That You Live) and Loop; fortunately I have a tape I made of the album (it's up in the loft somewhere - I kept all my tapes), all I need now is a tape player. And then, how do I get it on to a CD to play in my car? Ah, the onward march on technology.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Integration
I hear that would-be immigrants are to be asked special integration questions as part of the UK Citizenship Test.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
13 things that do not make sense
New Scientist has a list of 13 things that don't make sense, starting with the Placebo effect.
This reminds me of the famous lecture by Lord Kelvin in 1900 where he said there were just two problems left to solve in Physics.
As I recall it, his advice to students was not to go into Physics as Newton's Laws of Motion and the Theory of Thermodynamics had pretty much explained everything - apart from these two minor issues - but I couldn't find any reference specifically giving that advice on the Internet.
The two problems were to do with detecting the ether (the medium through which it was assumed electro-magnetic radiation such as light was propagated) and describing the radiation emitted by a black body.
In seeking the solutions to these, physicists came up with the Theory of Relativity to describe how gravity works and the Laws of Quantum Mechanics to describe how sub-atomic particles (such as electrons) behave. In other words, the whole of modern physics.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Pope begins landmark turkey visit
Pope Benedict XVI begins landmark turkey visit on his first trip to a poultry farm since acceding to the papacy.
The visit has been overshadowed by anger among many turkeys, enraged by comments the Pontiff made about what to have for dinner on Christmas Day.
A spokesturkey for the political organisation Turkeys Against Christmas said of the Roman Pontiff:
'What have the Romans ever done for us?'
Meanwhile, the Vatican released the following statement:
'His holiness the Pope wholeheartedly condemns the massacres of innocent Muslims, Jews and non-Catholic Christians that were perpetrated during the medieval crusades, but notes that no turkeys were actually killed at the time as they did not reach Europe until after the discovery and conquest of the Americas (for which he also apologises). Sorry.'
The visit has been overshadowed by anger among many turkeys, enraged by comments the Pontiff made about what to have for dinner on Christmas Day.
A spokesturkey for the political organisation Turkeys Against Christmas said of the Roman Pontiff:
'What have the Romans ever done for us?'
Meanwhile, the Vatican released the following statement:
'His holiness the Pope wholeheartedly condemns the massacres of innocent Muslims, Jews and non-Catholic Christians that were perpetrated during the medieval crusades, but notes that no turkeys were actually killed at the time as they did not reach Europe until after the discovery and conquest of the Americas (for which he also apologises). Sorry.'
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Blind Van Man
Whilst driving in this morning, in the gentlemanly (or ladyly) style that I'd like to think is still a distinctive feature of British roads, I let a small van pull out in front of me from a side road. On the back of the van it said something like:
"This van is being driven by a blind man".
Ho, Ho! It was, of course, owned by a company selling blinds. It didn't make me want to buy some blinds (horrible things) just smile in a world-weary, middle-aged sort of way.
Later on, I got stuck behind a long lorry full of concrete blocks which had stopped in the middle lane of a main road in order for the driver to get out and ask directions. Not quite as bad as being in a car reversing in the middle lane of the Hangzhou-Shanghai expressway because the driver's eyesight was so bad that he'd missed the junction.
"This van is being driven by a blind man".
Ho, Ho! It was, of course, owned by a company selling blinds. It didn't make me want to buy some blinds (horrible things) just smile in a world-weary, middle-aged sort of way.
Later on, I got stuck behind a long lorry full of concrete blocks which had stopped in the middle lane of a main road in order for the driver to get out and ask directions. Not quite as bad as being in a car reversing in the middle lane of the Hangzhou-Shanghai expressway because the driver's eyesight was so bad that he'd missed the junction.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Death of a Seagull
Driving to work this morning, I noticed a flock of seagulls hovering immediately above the cars ahead; I couldn't work out what they were doing but at least one of them appeared to be trying to land amongst the traffic, so I assume there was something fairly tasty lying on the road. I passed by in a different lane but saw one of the seagulls in my rear-view mirror get low enough to the road to be immediately caught by the wheel of a car and crushed to death on the road.
It reminded me of an incident that occurred when I was at university. I was walking along a footpath in a fairly introspective mood when I saw a ladybird on a leaf (ladybug, if you're North American). It suddenly opened its wing-casings and flew up, right in front of me; at the same time, a robin flew down from the other side of the path and swallowed the ladybird in mid-air.
It reminded me of an incident that occurred when I was at university. I was walking along a footpath in a fairly introspective mood when I saw a ladybird on a leaf (ladybug, if you're North American). It suddenly opened its wing-casings and flew up, right in front of me; at the same time, a robin flew down from the other side of the path and swallowed the ladybird in mid-air.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Shy Bladder, Bashful Bowel
There was an obsessive compulsive,
With bowels in spasms convulsive,
But they just couldn't do,
A poo on the loo,
'Cause they found public toilets repulsive.
In today's news, we learn that the UK National Phobics Society is launching a campaign to help the estimated 4 million UK people who suffer from toilet phobia.
With bowels in spasms convulsive,
But they just couldn't do,
A poo on the loo,
'Cause they found public toilets repulsive.
In today's news, we learn that the UK National Phobics Society is launching a campaign to help the estimated 4 million UK people who suffer from toilet phobia.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Dumpty Rumpty
Donald Rumsfeld was set on a war.
Donald Rumsfeld was terribly sure.
But American forces and American men,
Couldn't put Iraq together again.
Donald Rumsfeld was terribly sure.
But American forces and American men,
Couldn't put Iraq together again.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
The Middle East Today
Whilst having coffee with GG earlier today, it was noted that I never post anything controversial in my blog, hence the lack of comments. Given the results of the US mid-term elections and the obvious effect that the war in Iraq had on the outcome, I thought I'd make some comments about the Middle East.
To my mind the invasion of Afghanistan was entirely justified given the nature of the Taleban regime and the fact that they were harbouring the main bases of the Al Qaeda terrorists. When I first heard it suggested that the US was considering invading Iraq, I thought that was a completely mad idea as it would not get any support from other Arabic or Muslim countries.
By the time it happened, I assumed that they would not have invaded unless they really knew there was an imminent threat and I certainly wasn't sorry to see a dictator like Saddam Hussain overthrown. The great shame for the West is that it support this bastard in the 1980s when he was at his most lethal: invading Iran, using poison gas against the Iranians and then against the Kurds in Iraq. When countries like France, Germany and Russia - who had all had dealings with Saddam's Iraq - started taking the moral high ground in the run up to the Iraq War, I really did think they were being very two-faced
Since then it has become very clear that the arguments for going to war in Iraq were fatally flawed and the plans fro what to do afterwards were almost non-existant. Personally, I don't believe that Blair or Bush lied; it just doesn't make sense to me that very canny politicians would choose to knowingly lie when it was obvious that these lies would be found out. During the Cold War the US was very susceptible to panics about gaps in particular defensive or offensive technologies that the USSR might have, often based on flawed analysis by the intelligence community egged on by sympathetic political interests and the military/industrial complex. For the US, I think something similar happened here: they got it wrong because they wanted to 'know' certain facts. For the UK, I suspect that it was more likely that we were overawed by the US and the resources it can commit to these things - we simply assumed that they must be right. I don't believe that even someone as dubious as Rumsfeld actively and knowingly lied; to my mind politicians try to evade saying the truth they don't point at a horse and say it's a deer (as the Chinese say).
The way out of Iraq is to do some kind of deal with the various armed groups there, to bring them into the political process - in much the same way as the UK had to deal with the IRA and Israel had to talk to the PLO. The situation is bad and a great many people are being killed, however, I suspect that this would have happened when Saddam died (or was overthrown, either of which were only a few years off) and it is the main reason why George Bush's dad didn't invade Iraq in the first Gulf War
Looking around the rest of the Middle East, it's all a bit of a mess. Key US allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are hardly western-style liberal democracies and personally I think we should openly acknowledge the difference between an ally who we hope will reform (e.g. Egypt) and one that is in the process of doing so (e.g. Afghanistan). The Israeli-Palestian problem continues with no end in sight - this, I feel, is another case where we would do well to talk to the opposition (i.e. deal with Hammas), however abhorent their professed views - they have a country (or a territory) to run and ought to make compromises for the sake of their own people and it would do no harm to acknowledge that the Palestian refugees did not volunteer to leave what is now Israel.
Further afield, we can see the US cosying up to various dubious regimes who offer some advantage in the War on Terror. I think this is wrong and it is the same sort of thing that led to us supporting Saddam Hussain in the 80s.
One country that has been beyond the pale for the US for a quarter of a century is Iran which the US regards as part of the axis of evil. I think that there is actually great hope for Iran, it is a democracy - at least in the sense that it has periodic elections and that the vast majority of the population actively exercise their vote. The non-Western aspect of their democracy is that it has a theocracy on top of it that weeds out what it deems to be inappropriate candidates and can over-rule the will of the people. However, I believe that Iran can and will evolve into a true democracy (in the same way that Britain did) as the practicalities of running a successful economy and dealing with material issues become apparent.
To my mind the invasion of Afghanistan was entirely justified given the nature of the Taleban regime and the fact that they were harbouring the main bases of the Al Qaeda terrorists. When I first heard it suggested that the US was considering invading Iraq, I thought that was a completely mad idea as it would not get any support from other Arabic or Muslim countries.
By the time it happened, I assumed that they would not have invaded unless they really knew there was an imminent threat and I certainly wasn't sorry to see a dictator like Saddam Hussain overthrown. The great shame for the West is that it support this bastard in the 1980s when he was at his most lethal: invading Iran, using poison gas against the Iranians and then against the Kurds in Iraq. When countries like France, Germany and Russia - who had all had dealings with Saddam's Iraq - started taking the moral high ground in the run up to the Iraq War, I really did think they were being very two-faced
Since then it has become very clear that the arguments for going to war in Iraq were fatally flawed and the plans fro what to do afterwards were almost non-existant. Personally, I don't believe that Blair or Bush lied; it just doesn't make sense to me that very canny politicians would choose to knowingly lie when it was obvious that these lies would be found out. During the Cold War the US was very susceptible to panics about gaps in particular defensive or offensive technologies that the USSR might have, often based on flawed analysis by the intelligence community egged on by sympathetic political interests and the military/industrial complex. For the US, I think something similar happened here: they got it wrong because they wanted to 'know' certain facts. For the UK, I suspect that it was more likely that we were overawed by the US and the resources it can commit to these things - we simply assumed that they must be right. I don't believe that even someone as dubious as Rumsfeld actively and knowingly lied; to my mind politicians try to evade saying the truth they don't point at a horse and say it's a deer (as the Chinese say).
The way out of Iraq is to do some kind of deal with the various armed groups there, to bring them into the political process - in much the same way as the UK had to deal with the IRA and Israel had to talk to the PLO. The situation is bad and a great many people are being killed, however, I suspect that this would have happened when Saddam died (or was overthrown, either of which were only a few years off) and it is the main reason why George Bush's dad didn't invade Iraq in the first Gulf War
Looking around the rest of the Middle East, it's all a bit of a mess. Key US allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are hardly western-style liberal democracies and personally I think we should openly acknowledge the difference between an ally who we hope will reform (e.g. Egypt) and one that is in the process of doing so (e.g. Afghanistan). The Israeli-Palestian problem continues with no end in sight - this, I feel, is another case where we would do well to talk to the opposition (i.e. deal with Hammas), however abhorent their professed views - they have a country (or a territory) to run and ought to make compromises for the sake of their own people and it would do no harm to acknowledge that the Palestian refugees did not volunteer to leave what is now Israel.
Further afield, we can see the US cosying up to various dubious regimes who offer some advantage in the War on Terror. I think this is wrong and it is the same sort of thing that led to us supporting Saddam Hussain in the 80s.
One country that has been beyond the pale for the US for a quarter of a century is Iran which the US regards as part of the axis of evil. I think that there is actually great hope for Iran, it is a democracy - at least in the sense that it has periodic elections and that the vast majority of the population actively exercise their vote. The non-Western aspect of their democracy is that it has a theocracy on top of it that weeds out what it deems to be inappropriate candidates and can over-rule the will of the people. However, I believe that Iran can and will evolve into a true democracy (in the same way that Britain did) as the practicalities of running a successful economy and dealing with material issues become apparent.
Blind Mice
In today's news we hear that UK scientists have restored sight to a few blind mice by transplanting precursor retinal cells into their damaged eyes.
When questioned as to how they can be sure that the mice can now see, the scientists retorted: "See how they run, they all ran after the farmer's wife; before this, they just use to blunder around bumping into things!"
However, doctors announced that they had been unable to reattach the blind mice's severed tails: "If they had been packed in a wet tea-towel with a packet of frozen peas we might have had a chance."
Later, police raided Old MacDonald's farm and a woman was taken into custody; a spokesman said, "We are awaiting the results of forensic tests on a carving knife found at the scene."
When questioned as to how they can be sure that the mice can now see, the scientists retorted: "See how they run, they all ran after the farmer's wife; before this, they just use to blunder around bumping into things!"
However, doctors announced that they had been unable to reattach the blind mice's severed tails: "If they had been packed in a wet tea-towel with a packet of frozen peas we might have had a chance."
Later, police raided Old MacDonald's farm and a woman was taken into custody; a spokesman said, "We are awaiting the results of forensic tests on a carving knife found at the scene."
Monday, November 06, 2006
Britain AD
I've just read Britain AD by Francis Pryor, he reviews the archaeological evidence for what happened in Britain in the first 500 years AD and points out that it doesn't tally with the traditionally accepted history.
Mythology
43 AD. The Romans invade Celtic Britain and build lots of roads, towns and Hadrian's Wall.
410 AD. Barbarians are pressing in on the borders of the Roman Empire; the Romans try to play different groups of barbarians off against each other. Ultimately, the Roman army is withdrawn from Britain. Britain descends into chaos, towns are abandoned, fields revert to forest and Anglo-Saxon invaders raid the coast.
450 AD. Anglo-Saxons warriors, invited in to help defend the country, decide they would like to stay and eventually conquered the whole of what is now England pushing the Romano-British Celtic people into Wales, Cornwall and Brittany.
Archaeology
Britain retained a prosperous rural economy after the Romans left. There's no evidence for massive population decline - except in urban areas where the disappearance of a central tax collecting authority had removed the logic behind having towns in an overwhelmingly rural country. There's no evidence for a whole new population coming in with a different set of traditions, but there is evidence of individual families gradually adopting what we think of as 'early Saxon' culture over several generations. Above all, there's no evidence of large scale displacement of the existing population - either people moving en masse or genocide.
Hmm
It's all a bit puzzling that the traditional story (admittedly from a very narrow base of biased written sources from post-Antiquity) should look so flimsy when compared to the archaeology.
Invasion Theories
It does appear that invasion theories have largely dropped out of fashion. They used to think that different groups of people invaded Britain in successive waves throughout pre-history and that any change in archaeology, e.g. different types of pottery or different ways of disposing of the dead, signified a new population coming in and taking over. Such events would lead to sudden changes in the archaeological record, as each new population came in and did things according to their own traditions. Since the 1960s, archaeologists have pooh-poohed this idea as more and more evidence for incremental cultural changes has been uncovered.
Nowadays, more emphasis is placed on the idea that indigenous populations remain largely in place but there is much more travel (rather than invasion), communication and trade. It's recognised that communities can adopt new practices (particularly if they are beneficial) such as different types of pottery or styles of dress without having had to be invaded - much as renaissance ideas spread to England without the need for any invasion by Italian city states.
Uh?
A question that jumped into my head was 'how come we speak English?' One would have expected the existing (presumably Celtic language) to have survived rather than be replaced by a language related to dialects spoken around the various continental and Scandinavian coasts of the North Sea. Unfortunately, Mr Pryor doesn't analyse this point too deeply as it isn't his area of expertise; although he does make the point that Eastern and Southern Britain were much more closely involved with the continent than had previously been thought.
It is true that language does change and is heavily influenced by the language of those at the top of the social pile; so by the time English displaced French as the language of government in England (200-300 years after the Norman Invasion), it was very different from Old English and massively influenced by French. Perhaps something similar happened in the 200-300 years from the end of Roman rule.
Where does that leave us then?
The image we're left with is of the Romano-British population of post-Roman Britain as living fairly comfortably in a prosperous rural economy, in touch with, and open to, cultural influences from other areas around the North Sea; gradually they became Anglo-Saxonised. It doesn't mean there were no battles; petty kings would have been quite happily slaughtering each other (and, of course, their own close relations); but that's just stuff that happens rather than the mechanism by which the culture changed.
Something similar happened before the Roman invasion, when the rulers of areas in close contact with the Roman world chose to adopt Roman culture. Of course, it's also happening today in countries such as China, where people at all levels of society are adopting and adapting Western culture.
Mythology
43 AD. The Romans invade Celtic Britain and build lots of roads, towns and Hadrian's Wall.
410 AD. Barbarians are pressing in on the borders of the Roman Empire; the Romans try to play different groups of barbarians off against each other. Ultimately, the Roman army is withdrawn from Britain. Britain descends into chaos, towns are abandoned, fields revert to forest and Anglo-Saxon invaders raid the coast.
450 AD. Anglo-Saxons warriors, invited in to help defend the country, decide they would like to stay and eventually conquered the whole of what is now England pushing the Romano-British Celtic people into Wales, Cornwall and Brittany.
Archaeology
Britain retained a prosperous rural economy after the Romans left. There's no evidence for massive population decline - except in urban areas where the disappearance of a central tax collecting authority had removed the logic behind having towns in an overwhelmingly rural country. There's no evidence for a whole new population coming in with a different set of traditions, but there is evidence of individual families gradually adopting what we think of as 'early Saxon' culture over several generations. Above all, there's no evidence of large scale displacement of the existing population - either people moving en masse or genocide.
Hmm
It's all a bit puzzling that the traditional story (admittedly from a very narrow base of biased written sources from post-Antiquity) should look so flimsy when compared to the archaeology.
Invasion Theories
It does appear that invasion theories have largely dropped out of fashion. They used to think that different groups of people invaded Britain in successive waves throughout pre-history and that any change in archaeology, e.g. different types of pottery or different ways of disposing of the dead, signified a new population coming in and taking over. Such events would lead to sudden changes in the archaeological record, as each new population came in and did things according to their own traditions. Since the 1960s, archaeologists have pooh-poohed this idea as more and more evidence for incremental cultural changes has been uncovered.
Nowadays, more emphasis is placed on the idea that indigenous populations remain largely in place but there is much more travel (rather than invasion), communication and trade. It's recognised that communities can adopt new practices (particularly if they are beneficial) such as different types of pottery or styles of dress without having had to be invaded - much as renaissance ideas spread to England without the need for any invasion by Italian city states.
Uh?
A question that jumped into my head was 'how come we speak English?' One would have expected the existing (presumably Celtic language) to have survived rather than be replaced by a language related to dialects spoken around the various continental and Scandinavian coasts of the North Sea. Unfortunately, Mr Pryor doesn't analyse this point too deeply as it isn't his area of expertise; although he does make the point that Eastern and Southern Britain were much more closely involved with the continent than had previously been thought.
It is true that language does change and is heavily influenced by the language of those at the top of the social pile; so by the time English displaced French as the language of government in England (200-300 years after the Norman Invasion), it was very different from Old English and massively influenced by French. Perhaps something similar happened in the 200-300 years from the end of Roman rule.
Where does that leave us then?
The image we're left with is of the Romano-British population of post-Roman Britain as living fairly comfortably in a prosperous rural economy, in touch with, and open to, cultural influences from other areas around the North Sea; gradually they became Anglo-Saxonised. It doesn't mean there were no battles; petty kings would have been quite happily slaughtering each other (and, of course, their own close relations); but that's just stuff that happens rather than the mechanism by which the culture changed.
Something similar happened before the Roman invasion, when the rulers of areas in close contact with the Roman world chose to adopt Roman culture. Of course, it's also happening today in countries such as China, where people at all levels of society are adopting and adapting Western culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
