THE FATE OF EMPIRES and SEARCH FOR SURVIVAL

[nom]

Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now.

Arnold J. Toynbee.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Arnold-Joseph-Toynbee

I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say anymore.
The quote you attributed to Toynbee is not sourced from that web link (which notes that his view of history is “severely criticised”). But what’s more confusing is that Toynbee contradicts the anti-feminist, and rather selective, view of history you attributed to Unwin.

In the end, however, I’m not really interested in playing find-a-quote as it simply results in the Appeal to Authority fallacy. You are entitled to believe what you wish, but publishing content that misrepresents history and subverts the rights of 50% of our population on a forum that encourages acceptance is a tough sell. I responded so that other readers will not interpret a lack of response as tacit agreement. I cannot speak for women, but I can let the women around me know that I stand with them.

I do not wish to start a flame war, and I’ve spent more time fact-checking my understanding of Toynbee than is healthy, so I will refrain from participating further. To others reading this: I encourage you to stand up for reason and science, especially when fallacies are used — however innocently — to undermine the hard-won rights of others.

[Kinsey]

It's probably also worth pointing out that no reputable historian says 'history repeats itself'.

[Orpheus]

Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now.

Arnold J. Toynbee.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Arnold-Joseph-Toynbee

I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say anymore.
The quote you attributed to Toynbee is not sourced from that web link (which notes that his view of history is “severely criticised”). But what’s more confusing is that Toynbee contradicts the anti-feminist, and rather selective, view of history you attributed to Unwin.

In the end, however, I’m not really interested in playing find-a-quote as it simply results in the Appeal to Authority fallacy. You are entitled to believe what you wish, but publishing content that misrepresents history and subverts the rights of 50% of our population on a forum that encourages acceptance is a tough sell. I responded so that other readers will not interpret a lack of response as tacit agreement. I cannot speak for women, but I can let the women around me know that I stand with them.

I do not wish to start a flame war, and I’ve spent more time fact-checking my understanding of Toynbee than is healthy, so I will refrain from participating further. To others reading this: I encourage you to stand up for reason and science, especially when fallacies are used — however innocently — to undermine the hard-won rights of others.

If you had actually read Unwin's text starting at page 379 you would know that feminists have nothing to worry about, because once started feminism is irreversible and cannot be stopped. I am not writing a thesis so I am sorry that I didn't give the exact citation for Toynbee I only added that link in case someone didn't know who he was. Because his work is criticized, so what? Everyone's work is criticized. Feminism is severely criticized and for good reason, that didn't stop you from supporting it.

[Orpheus]

It's probably also worth pointing out that no reputable historian says 'history repeats itself'.

That sounds like a loaded statement.Who defines who the reputable historians are?

Rather than say history repeats itself we could say:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" Santayana

Or,

“History does not repeat itself, but it does instruct.” With those words Yale historian Timothy Snyder introduced readers to his new book, “On Tyranny: 20 Lessons from the 20th Century.”

https://news.yale.edu/2017/03/16/yale-historian-shares-sobering-analysis-past-and-action-plan-present-new-book

And here is a short article by a history professor

History Repeats Itself, Why I Study History, and History as a Science

https://andrewpegoda.com/2013/09/14/history-repeats-itself-why-i-study-history-and-history-as-a-science/

Does this mean this historian is not reputable? One thing at least you can't call him a right wing extremist

https://andrewpegoda.com/about/

Here are is the SERP for "no reputable historian says 'history repeats itself'"

http://tinyurl.com/yysrntx5

Some different views found there such as “History does not repeat itself. People repeat history.”

[devinganger]

One observation: it seems to me that no matter what other people say, what you reply with ends up sounding like you're more interested in the argument rather than the subject of the argument. Many people find this wearying.

[lunk]

Then why do historians says "History repeats itself?"

They don't. This is a general misconception. History researchers don't say this.

About Glubb's writings, it suffers from two major errors:
- The "civilizations" listed are subjectively chosen and do not cover all such "civilizations" in all human history
- There is no such thing as a objectively defined "civilization"

History can't be divided in discrete events. It's a continuous process which means that casual theories trying to explain discrete events will fail, without exception. Another problem is that we already know roughly what happened, so it takes a really well trained historian to disregard pre-conceptions and manage to look at historical events as objectively as possible. But historians don't try to find scientific causality. They seek understanding: which past events and actions led to which future events and actions in a continuous process. This is not at all the same thing as scientific cause-effect the way it is defined in e.g. physics.

Finally, Glubb had a military training. He was not a historian, not even an academic. What he published was personal conclusions, based on primary school understanding of history and "civilizations", not on scientific training and understanding of how historical analyses should be done.

[Orpheus]

Then why do historians says "History repeats itself?"

They don't. This is a general misconception. History researchers don't say this.

About Glubb's writings, it suffers from two major errors:
- The "civilizations" listed are subjectively chosen and do not cover all such "civilizations" in all human history
- There is no such thing as a objectively defined "civilization"

History can't be divided in discrete events. It's a continuous process which means that casual theories trying to explain discrete events will fail, without exception. Another problem is that we already know roughly what happened, so it takes a really well trained historian to disregard pre-conceptions and manage to look at historical events as objectively as possible. But historians don't try to find scientific causality. They seek understanding: which past events and actions led to which future events and actions in a continuous process. This is not at all the same thing as scientific cause-effect the way it is defined in e.g. physics.

Finally, Glubb had a military training. He was not a historian, not even an academic. What he published was personal conclusions, based on primary school understanding of history and "civilizations", not on scientific training and understanding of how historical analyses should be done.

I respectfully disagree.

First of all you should see my previous response (before the comment by devinganger ) to similar statements about history not repeating itself. It seems you didn't see them I would request that you do so that I do not have to repeat the same text twice.

Considering the state of modern academia not being an academic is not necessarily a fault but could be a plus. Otherwise someone might think that Marxist historians who litter many campuses give the best view of history, that everything should be viewed as class struggle. While feminists historians see everything as gender struggle. They see it through their own lens. The lens is sometimes so muddy as to make their work useless because you have to scrub it so much to get to any useful bits. So Glubb being a military man is not a fault as he sees things from that perspective. Nor does he claim to have included every possible civilization. Someone like Tonybee did. But even Toynbee gets criticized, Surprise, academics don't agree.

We should also recall that practically all the early history texts in the West that we have were done by men in the military class, men such as Thucydides, Xenophon, Caesar,Tacitus, and Arrianus. And in modern times Churchill, who had at his disposal secret archival material academics had no access to, material that has only recently been declassified.

History is studied so that we can learn from the past.To imply that we can not learn from the past is absurd. The fact that we remember that when we stuck our finger in a fire it got burned reminds us that if we do it again in the present then what happened in the past we got burned, will repeat it self.

Learning from the past is something the ruling class (military) class is interested in.

In modern statecraft much is to be learned from the writings of Thucydides on the Peloponnesian war, see for example The Thucydides Trap https://www.belfercenter.org/thucydides-trap/overview-thucydides-trap

And we should also note that from earliest times historians had to be careful what they wrote lest they got in trouble with the powers that be. That was true in the past. Suetonius was careful what he said about previous Caesars so as not to irk the current one in power. And, Procopius the court historian of Justinian, while he was alive wrote glowing reports about Justinian, his consort and Belisarius his general, But after Procopius died his posthumous Secret Histories painted a very different picture. Ones which would have had him tortured and executed for Lèse-majesté. While in modern times academic historians will be pilloried if they go against what is politically correct to say. And, since they accept the universities salt they must follow their script.

Though not specifically about history the following is representative of what happens if you against political correctness in modern academia.

Cambridge Capitulates to the Mob and Fires a Young Scholar

https://quillette.com/2019/05/02/cambridge-capitulates-to-the-mob-and-fires-a-young-scholar/

How I was Kicked Out of the Society for Classical Studies Annual Meeting

https://quillette.com/2019/02/26/how-i-was-kicked-out-of-the-society-for-classical-studies-annual-meeting/

How did this situation come to this pass?

This article The Coddling of the American Mind gives some insight. And while it is about the USA you could extrapolate it to Canada and Europe and other places.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

[Orpheus]

One observation: it seems to me that no matter what other people say, what you reply with ends up sounding like you're more interested in the argument rather than the subject of the argument. Many people find this wearying.

Where you addressing anyone in particular or just making a general observation? In any case I agree.

In another thread https://www.literatureandlatte.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=56676

what started out as a simple humorous post turned into something else.

[lunk]

In another thread https://www.literatureandlatte.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=56676

what started out as a simple humorous post turned into something else.

Ah, so you made a new attempt with a humorous post? My apology. I missed that your OP was meant as a joke...

[simeva]

Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now.

Arnold J. Toynbee.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this correlation stands up in way that you intend. If so, it is an interesting observation, and it's worth looking for a rationale. Let's also allow that feminism (however defined) or 'the moral state the United States is in now' is a cause (in some sense) of the collapse. It absolutely does not follow that feminism (etc) is the evil that your other posts suggest.

Here is another explanation.

In the early stages of civilization, when physical size and strength confer on men a significant advantage, values championed by men become embedded as social norms, and an elite group of men come to hold most of society's status and power. This is patriarchy (however defined).

As civilizations advance and increasingly benefit from intelligence (and other qualities) instead of physical size and strength, patriarchal values are displaced by feminist (etc) values. However, (many) men are challenged by this shift. Those most challenged are elite men who lack the qualities that civilization now needs and values most, but who nonetheless still enjoy status and power because of the legacy patriarchal systems.

Civilizations reach a tipping point when enough elite men would rather bring down the whole system than share their status and power. No past civilizations have got past that point. Our task is to make sure that this time we do.

Just a sketch, and I don't claim any originality. Just making sure the OP views do not stand unchallenged.

Btw, your other post:

In another thread viewtopic.php?f=13&t=56676
what started out as a simple humorous post turned into something else.

As it happens, I did a philosophy degree. It didn't lead to a job in philosophy, and I never expected it would. It did teach me to think deeply and clearly about things.