dameeva writes:
Have you looked at the history books lately? A lot of things have changed for the better but at a cost. Some things have gotten steadily worse. The fear and the terror, rife in the world, has never been so great. This is the legacy we are giving our children.
Have
you looked at the history books lately?
"The fear and terror, rife in the world, has never been so great?"
Since when?
Greece? (like Sparta and Athens were lovey-dovey)
Rome? (ever heard of Caligula, Nero, Domitian, or Caracalla, for a few?)
Palestine? (remember all those OT genocides?)
How about those nice middle ages in Europe? embrace the lord as a serf, tolerate the plague, burn the witch, play fun games with the infidel. Not to mention that advanced scientific, medical, and agricultural technology that resulted in one chance in two to die before age five.
But why limit this observation to the 'western world?' I wonder if Celts, some Western Hemisphere Indians, or even Carthaginians, may have found the practice of human sacrifice a bit disturbing, particularly if one was on the receiving end.
{ABE} Beyond direct human sacrifice, one must consider the fear and suffering that involved indigenous populations in the process of colonization, be it the mass extermination of the American Indian or Australian Aborigine through acts of violence or incidental disease, or the death of between 20 and 100 million Africans as a result of only the 'modern' slave trade. The combination of all three factors as recently as the 1880's resulted in the death of 5 million Africans in the Congo, half the population, a figure one million shy of the holocaust. The victims had a legitimate fear of terror far beyond what any modern person could even begin to conceive.{/ABE}
Of course all this "fear and terror, rife in the world" in the past, when so many starved to death, such as in China at the end of the Ming (among other times), or in Europe at the fall of the Western Roman Empire, or due to the plague, actually reduced the total population of the world, had no emotional effect upon the people involved.
So what is the argument? That we suffer more because we have radio, TV, the internet and therefore are more aware? Or is the argument that people in the past somehow suffered less because they were somehow less human?
I'm sorry, IMHO your post indicates a complete lack of both relative empathy and even the most remote knowledge of world history.
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
™ Version 4.2