The Golden Age of the West

[pancakes3]

@Bridget_Burke

Did “modern” art *cause *WWI? (Blame it on the Symbolists!) And all the other bloody events that followed? What did cause the end of your so-called “Golden Age”?

You need to learn a lot more about history, art & literature. (I keep telling myself, 'He’s only thirteen.")

cripes, curtis. you’re only 13? congrats on being precocious and all, but a word of advice - the precocious should take that alexander pope quote to heart. (a little learning is a dangerous thing. drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again). so… do a little bit more reading and pause for a REALITY CHECK (holler at the 90’s. it wasn’t so bad).

the gilded age, or your european equivalent belle epoque, is indeed painted very rosy but it came to a crashing halt for a reason (actually many reasons).

you condemn the indian caste system and how the great bwanas/sahibs of imperialism came sweeping in and modernized the joint and yet the very same class struggle can be found in the west. the divisions between the proletariat, bourgeois, and aristocracy were very real and as divisive as the indian castes.

Poverty was rampant. It was better documented in America since we got immigrants from other nations by the boatloads, but without ellis island, you can be sure that the belle epoque would be a lot less rosy. what with potato famines, triangle fires, and the work conditions detailed by another famed author of the period - Upton Sincalir in the Jungle, I would rather take strip clubs and OSHA rather than burlesque and fingers in my burger meat.

(here comes the reality) anyway, political strife and culture aside… what else was there?

oh yes. the racism. let’s not waste any any time and just agree that it would not be a golden age if you were say… Lenny Kravitz.

Dying of polio, smallpox, malaria vs booster shots. hmmmmmmm

books, pamphlets, and leaflets vs computers, television, cell phones, ipods, ipads, imacs, i…

don’t be a douche. of course the most modern period is the best period to live in. humanity hasn’t regressed in standards of living since the plague and that was 500 years ago. until we have a pandemic (and no, obesity doesn’t count) that wipes out half the population in a span of 5 years it will continue to get better and better.

real quick example, curtis. go find a computer that’s still using 56k to get its internet. now multiply the agony you would experience and multiply it by 12 and that’s how much it would suck to live in the “belle epoque”.

i mean seriously, you think the reconstruction era was better just because gilbert and sullivan wrote a few operas, and mark twain churned out a few novels about living on the mississippi? central air. cars. mattresses. incandescent lighting. these are some of the luxuries that little lord fontleroy would slit his wrists for.

i’m not saying i don’t appreciate the art and literature of that era, but a few books and an art movement lie on the fringes of the fringe when it comes to considering what a “golden age” should entail. once you’ve satisfied a hierarchy of needs… THEN you can argue the nitty gritty of literature. However the gap between quality of life now and 120 years ago is so vast, this comparison is just ridiculous.

[Sampiro]

@Guinastasia

And Curtis, let me point out to you – there was QUITE a bit of porn in the Victorian age.

Only if you count photographs of women fellating horses as porn instead of art. Some considered it offensive, but they’d never read Alice Walker.

It’s rumored there were prostitutes in the “Golden Era” as well. As in “rampant- anything you want” prostitution including with unwilling children in an era when syphilis was fatal and prophylactics were jokes.

And it’s rumored that India and Africa have [gasp] art and weren’t exactly what you’d call completely stagnant cultures. Nzinga (the queen, not the Doper) would be surprised to learn that her people were unorganized savages- so would the Portuguese she chased from Angola for that matter.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Curtis LeMay

…Actually Churchill was right. The Irish in WW2 were sympathetic to the Nazis in the “The Enemy of my Enemy is a Friend” sense-when Hitler killed himself Eamon de Valera sent condolences to the German legation.

I’ve seen some Brits refer to “Pearl Harbour”.

Yes because irresponsible sexual behaviour is awesome and there were no STDs before AIDS.

No, the Irish (except for a few IRA hard cases) were not “sympathetic” to the Nazis. The Irish Free State hardly had an army that could have fought off the Germans; joining the Allied war effort would have led to quick conquest & the UK being surrounded on yet another side. Or Winnie deciding to re-occupy the part of Ireland that was trying to maintain its sovereignty–although the UK was really a bit stressed in the early part of the War to make such an effort. So Ireland stayed neutral. When Belfast was Blitzed, Irish fire crews went to help their brethren in Northeast Ulster.

De Valera’s little condolence visit was puzzling. (Yet another occasion to wonder how things would have been if Michael Collins had lived.) At the end of the war, Switzerland at last expelled its German ambassador when Ireland did not. Yet the fates of Allied air crews who landed in Switzerland were far worse than the ones who landed in the Free State.

VD? The world remembers Winnie’s Dad’s famous slogan: “Ulster will fight & Ulster will be right!” Uttered just before he retired from public life to decline into Tertiary Syphilis.

Oh–those British spellings are a silly affectation. You live in Anaheim! While you’re at it, drop “arsed.”

[Latro]

@Guinastasia

And I don’t care WHAT the British call “Pearl Harbour”, it’s a work of literature, and should thus be titled The Color Purple.

How about if we write The Color[sic] Purple ?

[Muffin]

@tomndebb

I’m still getting my head around the idea that the OP rates London (very good, not great) and Doyle, (amusing, good, but hardly “very” good), as the epitome of quality while ignoring the fact that during that period, their contemporaries were not really regarding Van Gogh and Monet as the epitome of good art, so even if they had it they did not recognize it.

For a child, London and Doyle are the epitome of quality.

[Guinastasia]

Am I the only one who believes there IS no such thing as a truly “Golden Age?”

[An_Gadai]

@Guinastasia

Am I the only one who believes there IS no such thing as a truly “Golden Age?”

For most people it is age 18 to about 30 :).

[Sampiro]

@Guinastasia

Am I the only one who believes there IS no such thing as a truly “Golden Age?”

I associate the phrase “golden age” with sitting in a rocking chair wearing adult diapers complaining about the heat or the coldness of the dayroom to completely disinterested staff as Wheel of Fortune blares on a staticky TV no one is watching. That being the case, I’m there!

PS- Being an Italophile instead of an Anglophile (at least for this post) I spell Pearl Harbor Porto Perla.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bridget_Burke

drop “arsed.”

As we get older, we all do.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@An_Gadai

You need to read a history book, or even just go peruse wikipedia. Prior to partition in the 1920s Ireland wasn’t separated in the way you say, Northern Ireland as a political or cultural construct just didn’t exist prior to 1912. ** Previous to partition Unionists favoured the entire island remaining in the union.** While the 1916 Rising took place in Dublin and environs (in the south), the Irish War of Independence was fought across the whole island. Previous rebellions including the 1798 Rising were largely centred on what is now Northern Ireland.

Than I’m guessing the solution was a reasonable compromise. The majority of people in Northern Ireland in 1916 (not 1798) supported union and they should get what they wanted.

@Guinastasia

As has been pointed out to you, that wasn’t Northern Ireland, OR Southern Ireland – it was simply Ireland, period. And Gladstone’s Irish policies didn’t excuse his other actions.

He also opposed the “colonial lobby”. Apparently you do not support democracy and/or self-determination by a civilized portion of the world.

And Nicholas was never going to become a constitutional monarch – he had to practically beforced at gun point in the 1905 uprising to agree to the creation of the duma (Russian Parliament).

The trends were there. Russia’s middle classes were growing and it was inevitable that reform would happen or would be forced establishing a constitutional monarchy. Russia simply could not dodder along forever as an absolute monarchy.

@pancakes3

cripes, curtis. you’re only 13? congrats on being precocious and all, but a word of advice - the precocious should take that alexander pope quote to heart. (a little learning is a dangerous thing. drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again). so… do a little bit more reading and pause for a REALITY CHECK (holler at the 90’s. it wasn’t so bad).

the gilded age, or your european equivalent belle epoque, is indeed painted very rosy but it came to a crashing halt for a reason (actually many reasons).

you condemn the indian caste system and how the great bwanas/sahibs of imperialism came sweeping in and modernized the joint and yet the very same class struggle can be found in the west. the divisions between the proletariat, bourgeois, and aristocracy were very real and as divisive as the indian castes.

Poverty was rampant. It was better documented in America since we got immigrants from other nations by the boatloads, but without ellis island, you can be sure that the belle epoque would be a lot less rosy. what with potato famines, triangle fires, and the work conditions detailed by another famed author of the period - Upton Sincalir in the Jungle, I would rather take strip clubs and OSHA rather than burlesque and fingers in my burger meat.

(here comes the reality) anyway, political strife and culture aside… what else was there?

oh yes. the racism. let’s not waste any any time and just agree that it would not be a golden age if you were say… Lenny Kravitz.

Dying of polio, smallpox, malaria vs booster shots. hmmmmmmm

books, pamphlets, and leaflets vs computers, television, cell phones, ipods, ipads, imacs, i…

don’t be a douche. of course the most modern period is the best period to live in. humanity hasn’t regressed in standards of living since the plague and that was 500 years ago. until we have a pandemic (and no, obesity doesn’t count) that wipes out half the population in a span of 5 years it will continue to get better and better.

real quick example, curtis. go find a computer that’s still using 56k to get its internet. now multiply the agony you would experience and multiply it by 12 and that’s how much it would suck to live in the “belle epoque”.

i mean seriously, you think the reconstruction era was better just because gilbert and sullivan wrote a few operas, and mark twain churned out a few novels about living on the mississippi? central air. cars. mattresses. incandescent lighting. these are some of the luxuries that little lord fontleroy would slit his wrists for.

i’m not saying i don’t appreciate the art and literature of that era, but a few books and an art movement lie on the fringes of the fringe when it comes to considering what a “golden age” should entail. once you’ve satisfied a hierarchy of needs… THEN you can argue the nitty gritty of literature. However the gap between quality of life now and 120 years ago is so vast, this comparison is just ridiculous.

Than is today the Golden Age of say Egypt? The Egyptian state peaked in it’s glory three millennia ago but obviously today the average Egyptian is better off.

@Bridget_Burke

No, the Irish (except for a few IRA hard cases) were not “sympathetic” to the Nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II

The Irish Free State hardly had an army that could have fought off the Germans; joining the Allied war effort would have led to quick conquest & the UK being surrounded on yet another side.

The Nazis simply could not invade either of the British Isles. The Krigesmarine was completely inferior to the Royal Navy who certainly would have prevented any invasion of Ireland (why didn’t the Nazis in our world considering it certainly didn’t respect neutrality?)

[An_Gadai]

@Curtis LeMay

Than I’m guessing the solution was a reasonable compromise. The majority of people in Northern Ireland in 1916 (not 1798) supported union and they should get what they wanted.

It might have been reasonable had the statelet that was created treated all its citizens equally, but it did not. The apartheid-light government that dominated and alienated the significant Catholic minority in Northern Ireland might have been just fine and dandy with the Unionist local majority but it was immoral and lead directly to the bloodshed of the 1960s and onward.

[Guinastasia]

@Curtis LeMay

Than I’m guessing the solution was a reasonable compromise. The majority of people in Northern Ireland in 1916 (not 1798) supported union and they should get what they wanted.

The Easter Uprising was unsuccessful – those involved were tried and most were executed.

The Irish War of Independence began in 1919 and ended in 1922. Then the Irish Free State.

(And before you ask, no, I do NOT support the IRA or the UDF)
And finally, NO, THE IRISH DID NOT SUPPORT THE FREAKING NAZIS!!!

[Guinastasia]

Lost the editing time window: keep in mind, Irish independence was still new. Losing their status was a very real threat, and joining the war would pose a significant risk.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@An_Gadai

It might have been reasonable had the statelet that was created treated all its citizens equally, but it did not. The apartheid-light government that dominated and alienated the significant Catholic minority in Northern Ireland might have been just fine and dandy with the Unionist local majority but it was immoral and lead directly to the bloodshed of the 1960s and onward.

They were still treated farbetter than blacks during segregation yet in this case the radical violent faction caused violence to explode in near-civil war conditions.

[tomndebb]

@Curtis LeMay

They were still treated farbetter than blacks during segregation yet in this case the radical violent faction caused violence to explode in near-civil war conditions.

The “radical violent faction” had rather less to do with the way that Northern Ireland approached civil war than did the actions of the British military.

You really need to take the time to learn the substance of history, including the nuances that shaped events, before spouting off.

On the other hand, several of these threads of yours have, at least, the value that posters reading responses to your simplistic claims can actually gain an understanding of many events.

[An_Gadai]

@Curtis LeMay

They were still treated farbetter than blacks during segregation yet in this case the radical violent faction caused violence to explode in near-civil war conditions.

What’s your point? What was the “radical violent faction”?

The first deaths in the Troubles were caused by Protestant/Unionist terrorists, several years before a re-invigorated IRA started its violence which was a direct result of police mistreatment of Catholics, which came about partly because Catholics were demanding their full civil rights. The “radical violent faction” wasn’t just the IRA or other Catholic/Republican paramilitaries it also included members of the police force, agents of the state. If you are going to talk about Northern Ireland (or any other topic for that matter) in debates, please, please, please get yourself better informed. There are plenty of resources out there for you to learn about this complex and unfortunate set of events:

CAIN: Background Information on the conflict

I also thoroughly recommend Making Sense Of The Troubles by McKittrick and McVea. It is short and very readable.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@tomndebb

The “radical violent faction” had rather less to do with the way that Northern Ireland approached civil war than did the actions of the British military.

You really need to take the time to learn the substance of history, including the nuances that shaped events, before spouting off.

On the other hand, several of these threads of yours have, at least, the value that posters reading responses to your simplistic claims can actually gain an understanding of many events.

It was the IRA and radical nationalists who killed the most amount of people followed by radical Unionists. Did the British do many foolish and unwise and excessive things? Yes I don’t deny that but it was the IRA who attacked British civilians (while comparatively the Unionist groups did not attack the Irish Republic).

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Why would they? The Republicans were trying to change British policy (or foreign policy, depending on how you look at such things). The Unionists had no truck with Irish foreign policy.

Now, I’m not going to say that the attacks on British civilians were anything but acts of idiocy - my brother’s office was destroyed in the Canary Wharf bombings, fortunately without him in it - but they at least had an obvious purpose. Unionist bombings in the Republic of Ireland would have had no such purpose.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Why would they? The Republicans were trying to change British policy (or foreign policy, depending on how you look at such things). The Unionists had no truck with Irish foreign policy.

Now, I’m not going to say that the attacks on British civilians were anything but acts of idiocy - my brother’s office was destroyed in the Canary Wharf bombings, fortunately without him in it - but they at least had an obvious purpose. Unionist bombings in the Republic of Ireland would have had no such purpose.

I’m guessing it’s to put fear into the Irish nationalist civilian population so the Provisional IRA would stop their campaign and also partially revenge.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

This hypothetical campaign was to scare the Irish nationalists by… bombing other people?