This is something I think about a lot: in, let's say 100 years, when people sit down to write history textbooks, what will they write about the times we're living in? What will be remembered and what will be forgotten?
To me there a few that stick out. Pope Francis, definitely. The Arab Spring, probably less than we thought in 2011. Syria, definitely, and all the aftershocks from that in terms of migration, far-right politics, etc. Donald Trump? Hopefully a few paragraphs.
What do you think?
This place'll get a few lines once Magic goes on his rape-murder spree.
Surely The Arab Spring will be remembered as at least one aspect of what ultimately lead to what we're currently seeing in Syria. Obviously there were loads of factors involved, but the civil war literally emerged from the unrest it brought about.Originally Posted by Spoonsky
What about Pope Francis? I pay no attention to religious stuff so if anything significant has happened as a result of him being Pope then it has passed me by. The only modern Pope who gets a few lines of history in a century's time is John Paul II, surely?
I'm not sure Syria will get a write up on its own. More likely as part of the wider rise to prominence of international Islamic terrorism since the mid 1990s (you can date it to the late 1970s really but it will be remembered for its later impact on the West).
Everything will be written about, because historical writing is only getting more specialised (boring and shit), but very little will actually be widely-remembered.
It may be that without things to overshadow them things like the Arab Spring may be better remembered than I would expect (the Balkans had two major wars right before the First World War, but naturally they get overshadowed; similarly thirty-thousand American deaths in the Korean War get lost between the Second World War and Vietnam), but I would be more inclined to suggest that things are only remembered when they touch the mass of people (like a world war) and/or become myths.
Somebody will probably repackage most of the period between 1990 and whenever into an 'Eastern Response' or 'Rise of the post-Western World' or some shit, depending on whether we let the bastards roger us to death or not.
We'll be seen as wanting to deny them the spoils of Cold War victory.
He's the most progressive Pope in ages, he negotiated the bloody agreement between the US and Cuba, he's just gone down to the Central African Republic to try and bring some peace there. He gets around a lot for a Pope.
Gay marriage is another one.
The rise of China.
Other than that, from a 100 year perspective I suppose we're still in a "post 9/11-world"?
Gay marriage means zero in the broad sweep of history. The Catholic Church has changed a lot in the last two thousand years, can you remember which Popes enacted all the reforms, or even name the reforms?
I think the one post-Cold War development that stands the best chance of being the subject of genuine historical interest (on account of its transformative effects) is technology going mental. It's like the Industrial Revolution packed into a twenty year period, so tedious social historians - who by 2115 will be all historians - will be able to fill their boots with interdisciplinary pish.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. The internet seems like such a massive step for humanity and it's basically happened within our lifetimes. As I've said before, virtual reality is next.
"Rise of the post-Western World" seems to pretty accurate, economically if not politically.
He fucking loves Kim Davis.
'The Rise of Whatever' only resonates if it ends in a war. The United States' economic growth from 1870-ish was absolutely phenomenal, but popular history only has them becoming relevant in 1941. Now we've got democracy and nuclear weapons and Social Justice keeping that sort of thing in line, so the pay-off from Chinese progress might just end up being credit bubbles and consumer goods; and who reads that?
We'll just say there were a bunch of pointless wars in the Middle East that caused a few nutters to bomb some shit and move on to the invention of proper AI or something.
True. You just need to ask people what was the most important thing to happen in, say, 2001, to prove your point.
We'll be the internet age I suppose, and the period at which the middle east went tits up (from a western non-nutter perspective). Potentially the map could be completely different in five or ten years.
The 2008 crash seems to have completely dominated news since it happened, but I wonder if it will have much historical significance. Nothing particularly seems to have changed, so there probably isn't much in the way of narrative worth to it.
I'm not sure individual popes have much of a historical shelf life, presumably because they are replaced by an identikit doddery old man. I seem to remember the sun shined out of JPII when he was about, and these days he's probably only remembered for being even more senile than usual for a job in which you have to be verging on dead before you can even start it.
'JPII' is huge in Mexico fwiw.
Why are popes always old, does anyone know?
I always thought 'JPII' was primarily known for a) not being Italian; b) being the Bishop of Rome for ages (and therefore the first one to get on the telly a lot and build a profile). Was there any particular reason he was canonised, or was it just Dianafication?
Because you can't put some kid into a job where he's meant to be the wisest fucker going. Unless it's Luca.
I would assume you need to be a certain length of time in whatever job is below Pope, and the job lower than that, etc. So by default they are old.
Been thinking about this recently, as a history teacher coming up to big changes at GCSE (and with the recent attacks in Paris). Modern terrorism is already studied in schools (but as part of a wider theme, in this case Crime and Punishment through time). I can definitely see a 'post-9/11' theme or 'Terrorism in the 21st century' unit in the not too distant future.
Then they will realize we're chimping out over five 'attacks' or so and they will lol at us.
He ended the Cold War, mate.
He cured brains and Parkinsons mate.
Why didn't he cure the delusional brains of his followers?
*tips fedora*
Statistically this is by some margin the most peaceful time in history, I think, so if anyone looks at it that way they'll probably find us to be dull as fuck.
Pax Sofamasturbatana.
This is the Information Age, innit. Everyone knows everything about everyone else. That's what's changed more than anything.
They're not bound to elect someone from the College of Cardinals - but they do only elect someone one and it takes a while to make your way up the Vatican hierarchy to the College.
John Paul II was only 58 when he was elected, which was the youngest Pope in some time.
Just because the title reminded me of it.
Probably climate change, the rise of China & the follies of financial capitalism.
There is no way the Arab Spring will be common knowledge in 100 years' time.
The only thing I know about JPII is that he was Polish and helped the Solidarity movement. Yeah, scratch Francis from the list.
Peaceful perhaps, but I'm not sure I'd call it dull when you've got ISIS rolling around making viral videos of beheadings. Will ISIS be remembered in 100 years?
I think only in the wider context of the prominence of Islamic terrorism. But then that will only be remembered in the same way as anarchist, anti-colonial and leftist terrorism. So not very well unless you go looking for it. There's always terrorism, just of different hues. This stuff is no different. It's just that we like to dramatise stuff as the WORST/BEST/BIGGEST thing ever.
You'll perhaps get some commentary of it as the trigger for wars in Afghanistan and, more particularly, Iraq. 9/11 and the 'War and Terror' will be remembered but IS will probably be gone within five years and thus end up as nothing more than a footnote. If it takes a war involving major powers to get rid then they will be written about for that reason, I suppose. But in the end the stuff that's written about (for general consumption at least) is big geopolitical stuff affecting the major powers. A shitty little band of Islamists in Syria and Iraq won't cut it.
The other terrorisms had better causes.
Any can be justified by those with sympathies for them. Islamic terrorism is no more about religion than any of the others. It's still all politics. Anarchism, anti-colonialism, the leftist stuff and the religious stuff are all great causes to which people with basically political motives can attract idealists to commit violence.
International islamic terrorism didn't exist before 1979. Islam did. Lots of different things happened (politically speaking) to make its existence as we know it possible.
Calm down, Paddy.
I didn't think you'd take that seriously but if we are being serious about it, at least the others were justifying themselves in worldly terms.
How are this lot not?
Your difference isn't in motives. All the other terrorisms wanted the same; in really broad terms, systems of government (or not in the case of anarchism) which fit a given ideology.
The big difference with religious terrorism has been the willingness to hit civilian targets with the aim of killing as many as possible. It certainly makes such groups more dangerous although it's all relative. I can't imagine anybody other than the especially paranoid feel under any personal threat.
Well put. I wish everyone could hear this.
That isn't to say there aren't elements of Islam which make it more prone to this kind of violence than other religions. It is a fact that there are.
However comparing it to other religions misses the point. Almost all terrorism is in response to political realities which piss off or inspire the protagonists.
I can't be arsed to get into it in detail this late but the rise of Islamic terrorism is fascinating and is firmly rooted in politics. I might bother another time. The ideological seeds of what we saw in Al Qaeda and see now in IS were sown in Egypt in the 1950s (this in itself was a political rather than religious response) but we wouldn't be getting any of it had it not been for a series of coincidental energising events in 1978/79.
Britain was fighting puritanical Islamist twats in the nineteenth century. That they were unable to comprehend the world beyond their immediate patch of shite makes 1979 a bit of an arbitrary distinction.
'International Islamic terrorism' is basically how Mohammed kicked things off in the 7th century, so I'd go with it having existed throughout history.
Fun fact, my great-grandfather was an anarchist big-shot in Boston back in the 1920s. Apparently he told my grandfather that one of Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty (I forget which one), and that they were idiots for having killed the guy in the first place.
Surely, America and it's allies going around invading/unsettling countries willy nilly will have some impact. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Liberia (arguably)... I'm sure there are many more.
Of course Islamic terrorism is religious in nature, even if there are "earthly" things linked to it.
But people make the mistake of thinking that it reflects the failure of Islam to evolve since the 7th century. But Islam has been evolving, and this is a very modern phenomenon.
I'm not proposing a "nothing to do with Islam" theory as I don't believe that to be true. Just that it isn't as simple as "ISLAM IS EVIL".
Nor am I suggesting that there was no Islam-inspired violence before the late 1970s; only that it changed in nature and geographical scope following events at around that time. I'll post something a bit more justified at some point this week if I can find the time.
Yeah just fit us in when you can mate.
My life isn't that busy; I'm sure I'll find some time to post my considered opinion.
No more or less than other nations have done throughout history, these kind of foreign expeditions aren't a new thing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote