THE WORLD HAS BEEN HERE BEFORE....

Power has not always been through collaboratoin and negotiation. They just slaughtered those who disgreed or were bystanders. When you say "the world has been here before," what exactly do you mean. It's the same world isn't it? Just a different life period of the same planet? c.i.

Yes, can we identify those time periods and those countries which fill the role?

Human documented history doesn't go that far! Some scientists believe the earth is over 150,000,000 years old. Other than the anthropologists estimates for man, the oldest civilizations are very young in terms of the age of this planet. Without any written records, we can only guess, and that continues to be revised with new findings. I don't think we will ever learn the true history of how many life cycles existed. c.i.

Can we confine our discussion to known recorded history? Who, for example, dominated periods of world history between 1800 AD and the early 1900s? Were any of them democratic? How did they use their position of power and remain true to their democractic country? Or did they?

The following link provides information on the major historical events from 1800AD to 1900AD.

http://www.multied.com/dates/Main1800AD.html


c.i.

Mapleleaf (and everyone else) - please don't post A2K links on Abuzz. We don't want there to be a feeling there that we are advertising there. People seem to believe we are poaching that site, that we are trying to steal members, that we are trying to close down Abuzz, etc. None of that is true, but perception on Abuzz, as we are all well aware, can often be mistaken for reality for so long that some Abuzzers just believe what they want to believe, regardless of the truth of the matter - and then that belief spreads like wildfire.

Thank you.

That's a lot of time you want to cover there Mapleleaf!
We are talking countries here? Or regions, cultures, or specific people even? I'd say the period you mention is the period where European dominance is being brutally, and systematically established worldwide. Take Britain and it's crown clolny of India for example. Or it's influencing of Chinese politics. The rapid process of dividing up Africa between Belgium, Britain, France, Germany and Portugal.
As far as democratic values go, I'm not positive. Most of the countries in europe fall under Napoleon's empire at the start of the 1800's, but after his defeat in 1813 and again in 1815 lots of changes take place. Couple this with the indutrialization, which is rapidly spreading through Britain and from there across Europe, and you get a period of rapid changes indeed. I know too little of the timeperiod mentioned to give more specific information, especially regarding democratic values, but I'm curious what other people think about this, including you yourself.

regards,
Naj.

c.i., useful link...thanks!

Naj, With that in mind, would Great Britain be considered the dominant power during a period of history in the 1800s? Was the Monarchy the source of authority or were the Prime Minister and the two houses established by then?

Mapleleaf,

In my opinion Britain could be considered to be a dominant power during the early 1800's, but it's power soon started to dissipate when other powerful countries started to truly develop : most prominent amongst them are the USA and Germany.
19th Century England has been under the rule of queen Victoria for most of the time, from 1817 or so to in the 20th century. I'm not sure how much power she had, but my guess is that she, and with her the monarchy, were more or less becoming figureheads, and that true power lay with the two houses. Still, I'm not positive.

Regards,
naj

I don't know when Britain was at it's world power peak. I guess it was pretty high during the much of the 19th century.
Two world wars did much to change all of that though.
At the end of WW2, Britain's low finacial standing meant massive rebuilding of industry and infrastructure was required.
We became a world power due to the wealth created via the Empire but we couldn't maintain it after WW2, so we released places such as India, Africa and the West Indies and gave them independance. Thank God we did, on both moral and economic grounds. Trying to continue to rule large areas of the globe would of looked bad in eyes of the world and without the Empire, Britain has the 4th largest economy in the modern world.
No we are not a world power any more, even though our politicians may try to influence world events.
The Western countries still try to influence the Eastern countries and much of Africa but, i seems to me with little real effect. We want their mineral wealth and they want our technology but the cultural differences still seem to be just as insurmountable now, as they were in the 18th and 19th centuries. These differences still result in bloodshed, albeit in greater quantities, just as it did 200 years ago.

I've sometimes wondered if countries can be thought of as members of a group of individuals. Each with a different personality and set of needs. Then there is the factor of new generations who may not have encountered war, depression and such. Is that all man does...to repeat history?

Mapleleaf --- man only learns what he wants to learn. The things that remain constant, greed, death, distruction, ethic cleansing applies to all races, cultures and nations. All have at some time in history exploited these traits. It seems to me that if you disaprove of a nations culture, you can't just erase it and introduce your own.
The Balkan states have been kicking the life out of each other for all time. In pre-collonial days, the various Indian States were at it. In Africa, the tribal wars were things of legend. Still going on as well. Civilisation only stretches so far.

Is "civilized society" an oxymoron? c.i.

Interesting thought...

c.i., I HOPE just as much as barbaric society is, but I FEAR not.......
:-(

naj