Civilizations Do Rise And Fall
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
Sometimes it's fun to mentally perch yourself high above an historical timeline of the U.S.
Look to the left.
As you cast your gaze from left to right you see the English colonial era. The prelude to the American Revolution. The war for independence. The birth of our nation and the vision of the founding fathers.
Then you see the prohibition of slavery, Missouri Compromise, pioneers, the Gold Rush, the Emancipation Proclamation, Little Bighorn, Wounded Knee, prohibition, women's suffrage, the depression, the New Deal and Social Security, the civil rights movement, JFK's assassination, the hippie movement, Star Wars, welfare reform, 9/11.
Glaringly absent in that time line are wars. There were a bunch: 1812, Mexican, Civil, Spanish-American, WW I, WW II, Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, Afghan, Iraq. We had "conflicts" in Panama and Grenada, too.
Now - and this is the fun part - imagine yourself in the middle of the timeline and look to the right.
Based on what you've seen so far, what do you see lying ahead?
There was this interesting man named Arnold Joseph Toynbee.
Born April 14, 1889, he died Oct. 22, 1975.
He was a British historian whose 12-volume analysis of the rise and fall of civilizations, "A Study of History, 1934-1961," caused quite a stir.
It was a study of global history and looked at how civilizations rise, flower and decline.
He argued that civilizations follow fixed, cyclic patterns of historical development, involving both growth and decay.
Toynbee presented history as the rise and fall of civilizations.
He theorized that each civilization arose in response to a set of challenges. When a civilization responds to challenges, it grows. When it fails to respond to a challenge, it enters its period of decline.
He argued that "Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder."
Toynbee said civilizations are subject to both wise and unwise decisions made by its leaders. If leaders of the civilization didn't appease the masses or come up with ways to defend against outside forces, it would fail.
Now, to be sure, this Toynbee guy had his critics.
Dutch Historian Pieter Geyl, for example, called Toynbee's approach "metaphysical speculations dressed up as history."
German historian Hugh Trevor-Roper described Toynbee's work as a "philosophy of mish-mash."
Some people thought Toynbee was all wet. But that doesn't mean he was all wet.
It's like that oft-quoted observation, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone's not out to get you."
Whether you buy into Toynbee's ideas or not, they're still quite interesting.
And frankly, being the dumb Hoosier I am, his take on civilizations makes sense to me.
Seems to me we could be in for a little decline.
Not necessarily in our lifetimes, but certainly in a few generations we are going to see come significant changes in the way we live.
I see the middle class disappearing at some point. We will become a nation of haves and have nots.
In order to compete with global manufacturing, U.S. industries, faced with ever-mounting government regulations and increased costs, will have to cut jobs and wages.
High-paying manufacturing jobs will become an oxymoron.
There will be jobs, but they will not be high-paying jobs.
This is already happening in the automotive industry, long the stalwart of high-paying blue-collar jobs. Automakers are cutting jobs, benefits and wages in an attempt to make ends meet.
Other industries also will have to adjust.
Business ethics, already starting to slip into obscurity, will become nonexistent as companies struggle to make profits.
All company policies will be driven by the bottom line and enhancing the all-important stockholder equity.
Culturally, I think we will trend farther and farther to the left.
Moral relativism will become more prevalent. We will become more hedonistic.
The "if it feels good, do it" mentality will become predominate.
When I look several generations to the right on that imaginary timeline, I'm not so happy about what I see.
Seems to me our "civilization" might be on the decline by then if we're not careful.
Remember, no civilization in history has survived the ravages of time.
There is a sequence of events that all civilizations supposedly follow. This is bouncing around on the Internet, attributed to 18th-century Scottish history professor Alexander Tyler.
It's also been attributed to the great British statesman, Benjamin Disreali.
So, to be honest, I really don't know who came up with it, it might have been a blogger for all I know. You never know about what you read on the Internet.
But regardless of who wrote it, it's fun to think about.
It says civilizations go:
From bondage to faith;
faith to courage;
courage to liberty;
liberty to abundance;
abundance to complacency;
complacency to apathy;
apathy to dependence;
dependence to bondage.
Where do you suppose America is in that cycle? [[In-content Ad]]
Sometimes it's fun to mentally perch yourself high above an historical timeline of the U.S.
Look to the left.
As you cast your gaze from left to right you see the English colonial era. The prelude to the American Revolution. The war for independence. The birth of our nation and the vision of the founding fathers.
Then you see the prohibition of slavery, Missouri Compromise, pioneers, the Gold Rush, the Emancipation Proclamation, Little Bighorn, Wounded Knee, prohibition, women's suffrage, the depression, the New Deal and Social Security, the civil rights movement, JFK's assassination, the hippie movement, Star Wars, welfare reform, 9/11.
Glaringly absent in that time line are wars. There were a bunch: 1812, Mexican, Civil, Spanish-American, WW I, WW II, Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, Afghan, Iraq. We had "conflicts" in Panama and Grenada, too.
Now - and this is the fun part - imagine yourself in the middle of the timeline and look to the right.
Based on what you've seen so far, what do you see lying ahead?
There was this interesting man named Arnold Joseph Toynbee.
Born April 14, 1889, he died Oct. 22, 1975.
He was a British historian whose 12-volume analysis of the rise and fall of civilizations, "A Study of History, 1934-1961," caused quite a stir.
It was a study of global history and looked at how civilizations rise, flower and decline.
He argued that civilizations follow fixed, cyclic patterns of historical development, involving both growth and decay.
Toynbee presented history as the rise and fall of civilizations.
He theorized that each civilization arose in response to a set of challenges. When a civilization responds to challenges, it grows. When it fails to respond to a challenge, it enters its period of decline.
He argued that "Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder."
Toynbee said civilizations are subject to both wise and unwise decisions made by its leaders. If leaders of the civilization didn't appease the masses or come up with ways to defend against outside forces, it would fail.
Now, to be sure, this Toynbee guy had his critics.
Dutch Historian Pieter Geyl, for example, called Toynbee's approach "metaphysical speculations dressed up as history."
German historian Hugh Trevor-Roper described Toynbee's work as a "philosophy of mish-mash."
Some people thought Toynbee was all wet. But that doesn't mean he was all wet.
It's like that oft-quoted observation, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone's not out to get you."
Whether you buy into Toynbee's ideas or not, they're still quite interesting.
And frankly, being the dumb Hoosier I am, his take on civilizations makes sense to me.
Seems to me we could be in for a little decline.
Not necessarily in our lifetimes, but certainly in a few generations we are going to see come significant changes in the way we live.
I see the middle class disappearing at some point. We will become a nation of haves and have nots.
In order to compete with global manufacturing, U.S. industries, faced with ever-mounting government regulations and increased costs, will have to cut jobs and wages.
High-paying manufacturing jobs will become an oxymoron.
There will be jobs, but they will not be high-paying jobs.
This is already happening in the automotive industry, long the stalwart of high-paying blue-collar jobs. Automakers are cutting jobs, benefits and wages in an attempt to make ends meet.
Other industries also will have to adjust.
Business ethics, already starting to slip into obscurity, will become nonexistent as companies struggle to make profits.
All company policies will be driven by the bottom line and enhancing the all-important stockholder equity.
Culturally, I think we will trend farther and farther to the left.
Moral relativism will become more prevalent. We will become more hedonistic.
The "if it feels good, do it" mentality will become predominate.
When I look several generations to the right on that imaginary timeline, I'm not so happy about what I see.
Seems to me our "civilization" might be on the decline by then if we're not careful.
Remember, no civilization in history has survived the ravages of time.
There is a sequence of events that all civilizations supposedly follow. This is bouncing around on the Internet, attributed to 18th-century Scottish history professor Alexander Tyler.
It's also been attributed to the great British statesman, Benjamin Disreali.
So, to be honest, I really don't know who came up with it, it might have been a blogger for all I know. You never know about what you read on the Internet.
But regardless of who wrote it, it's fun to think about.
It says civilizations go:
From bondage to faith;
faith to courage;
courage to liberty;
liberty to abundance;
abundance to complacency;
complacency to apathy;
apathy to dependence;
dependence to bondage.
Where do you suppose America is in that cycle? [[In-content Ad]]