From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Thu Nov 21 2002 - 18:53:02 GMT
Hi Lawrence,
An interesting line of thought. Would you be willing to characterise it as
"(in the long run) the good will always win"? Or is the use of 'good' here
objectionable?
Sam
www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/home.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 5:59 PM
Subject: MD Rise and fall of empires
> A few days ago, Platt asked a question that prompted me to write the
> following. But it hasn't been posted yet, so I send it again, but don't
> still have Platt's material to include. Apologies. I also changed the
> subject line.
>
> Lawry
>
> --------------------
>
>
> I think that it is one of those 'why do empires rise and fall' type
> questions. For a long period of European and Middle Eastern history,
Muslim
> entities were indeed preeminent politically, administratively
> intellectually, technologically and scientifically. Now, these same areas
> are, in the views of their own populations, struggling to survive against
a
> resurgent and essentially Christian West. Several observers have asked
this
> same question, and we are still in the process of figuring out the answer.
>
> My thought, centrally, is this: that within the strengths that create
empire
> and preeminence, often lie the seeds of eventual weakness and failure. To
> simplify: those who build and run empires come to believe their own
> propaganda: they come to believe that they are intrinsically superior to
all
> others, and that their preeminence is theirs by right. They develop an
> overweening arrogance and growing ignorance, ignorance based on their
> assumption that they have nothing left to learn. Their power, they
believe,
> will be sufficient to keep them in power. In the meantime, those that the
> empire dominates fret. It may take them centuries, but they eventually
> figure out some way of developing their capabilities to achieve some
redress
> in the balance of power, and if they do so successfully enough, they can
> even overtake the empire and achieve even greater power. The rise of the
> former underdogs is, it seems, often abetted by the growth of self-seeking
> by individuals in the empire who are in positions of responsibility and
> power.
>
> So some of those who were weak, driven by resentment of their subjugation,
> find through hard work and some luck ways to become strong. Those who are
> strong, complacent in their strength, find through their intellectual
> laziness and inability to adjust effectively to a world in which change is
> continuous, ways to lose that strength.
>
> Yesterday, the Muslims created those empires. Today, it is America.
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 21 2002 - 18:49:42 GMT