I don't think that fascism taught the world anything it did not already know about the ease of indoctrinating populations. The church had perfected that art over the centuries leading up to the 30 Years War when they overplayed their hand. Voltaire was not commenting on fascism when he said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Hitler may have given the world an example of how it could be done quickly by a mere political leader but he had rich traditions of European nationalism and anti-semitism to smooth the way for him. Hitler was nothing new and Mussolini was neither as bad nor as effective as Hitler but he was still a fascist.
Technological change always brings negatives as well as positives. Yes, WWII developed rockets. Now we can explore outer space but we also live under the threat of ICBM's and multiple warheads. We have jet airliners and jet fighters which go 4 times as fast. Splitting the atom unleashed a tremendous power source - for good or evil but even when used for good we are left with radioactive waste which will remain hot for thousands of years in many cases.
I agree that Germany built a modern economy but the US was not damaged by the war and continued on as the world's economic engine for a long time until the rich scumbags who call the shots decided that making money was easier than making an actual product.
Generally philosophy interests me not at all. And art? Well, pre-modern art is mainly boring and modern art is awful. As opposed to music where modern serious music is apparently a contest to see who can make as much discordant noise as possible but pre-twentieth century music was a triumph of the human spirit in comparison.
I tend to agree that the world is more sensitive to various aggessions , whatever the reason for them but the capacity to do anything about it seems to have weakened. One need only look at world reaction to Darfur and Rwanda to see much blustering but little action.
The Cold War also was nothing new. Britain and France were officially at war for roughly half of the 18th century and unofficially at war ( through surrogates ) for most of the rest of it. Would the world have been better off without it? Sure. But humanity does not seem to be wired that way. Whenever you have two major powers in a relative area there will be tension. The problem with the US-USSR version of it was that they had the power to obliterate the whole world....which was something of a bummer. I remember those absurd "duck and cover" drills in school...."now children, if you hear the alarm, get under your desks and cover your heads." I'm surprised we survived it.
I agree about Japan and you can throw in China but let's not pretend that there have not been societal costs to those nations. Japan faces a multitude of issues including an aging population and a declining birthrate. China is an environmental catastrophe. Were they better off as simple farmers and fishermen? Some undoubtedly were. But as always, those people do not call the shots. Technology and industrialization brings benefits and also problems. Ultimately someone's ox always gets gored.
The legacy of colonialism has certainly been a mixed bag. The problems caused by it continue to dog us. I'm reminded that Iraq did not exist as a nation until 1932 when lines were drawn on a map for the benefit of European powers...must as happened with the "nations" in Africa. Western hubris at its worst. And now we sit back and smugly wonder why these people can't seem to govern themselves! Sadly, in much of the world the European powers administered those colonies efficiently but stood no chance when people decided they wanted to be FREE. Much like a psychotic who feels better when taking his medication and then stops taking it. I have no answers for this. But I do understand where it comes from.
As a personal note, since you mentioned you were Belgian, may I say that your English is exceptional and you have no trouble making your points in a clear and articulate manner. I wish we could teach languages as well.... but we don't see the need.
Technological change always brings negatives as well as positives. Yes, WWII developed rockets. Now we can explore outer space but we also live under the threat of ICBM's and multiple warheads. We have jet airliners and jet fighters which go 4 times as fast. Splitting the atom unleashed a tremendous power source - for good or evil but even when used for good we are left with radioactive waste which will remain hot for thousands of years in many cases.
I agree that Germany built a modern economy but the US was not damaged by the war and continued on as the world's economic engine for a long time until the rich scumbags who call the shots decided that making money was easier than making an actual product.
Generally philosophy interests me not at all. And art? Well, pre-modern art is mainly boring and modern art is awful. As opposed to music where modern serious music is apparently a contest to see who can make as much discordant noise as possible but pre-twentieth century music was a triumph of the human spirit in comparison.
I tend to agree that the world is more sensitive to various aggessions , whatever the reason for them but the capacity to do anything about it seems to have weakened. One need only look at world reaction to Darfur and Rwanda to see much blustering but little action.
The Cold War also was nothing new. Britain and France were officially at war for roughly half of the 18th century and unofficially at war ( through surrogates ) for most of the rest of it. Would the world have been better off without it? Sure. But humanity does not seem to be wired that way. Whenever you have two major powers in a relative area there will be tension. The problem with the US-USSR version of it was that they had the power to obliterate the whole world....which was something of a bummer. I remember those absurd "duck and cover" drills in school...."now children, if you hear the alarm, get under your desks and cover your heads." I'm surprised we survived it.
I agree about Japan and you can throw in China but let's not pretend that there have not been societal costs to those nations. Japan faces a multitude of issues including an aging population and a declining birthrate. China is an environmental catastrophe. Were they better off as simple farmers and fishermen? Some undoubtedly were. But as always, those people do not call the shots. Technology and industrialization brings benefits and also problems. Ultimately someone's ox always gets gored.
The legacy of colonialism has certainly been a mixed bag. The problems caused by it continue to dog us. I'm reminded that Iraq did not exist as a nation until 1932 when lines were drawn on a map for the benefit of European powers...must as happened with the "nations" in Africa. Western hubris at its worst. And now we sit back and smugly wonder why these people can't seem to govern themselves! Sadly, in much of the world the European powers administered those colonies efficiently but stood no chance when people decided they wanted to be FREE. Much like a psychotic who feels better when taking his medication and then stops taking it. I have no answers for this. But I do understand where it comes from.
As a personal note, since you mentioned you were Belgian, may I say that your English is exceptional and you have no trouble making your points in a clear and articulate manner. I wish we could teach languages as well.... but we don't see the need.
