This is the sequence that almost all empires or civilizations go through at one time or another. What do you think? Do you think it is correct?
1. From bondage to spiritual faith.
2. From spiritual faith to great courage.
3. From courage to liberty.
4. From liberty to abundance.
5. From abundance to complacency.
6. From complacency to apathy.
7. From apathy to dependence.
8. From dependence back into bondage.
Statue of 1918 Spanish Influenza Epidemic and Me
About Me
- Andrew Johnson
- Hayti, South Dakota, United States
- I am a middle school social studies teacher at Hamlin school. I teach 6th grade World History, 7th grade Geography, high school Survivor, and high school APEX. In the fall, I coach middle school football. When I am not working, I like to spend my time reading, working out, hanging out with friends, and obsessing over what is going to happen in the next Heroes episode.
Honest Abe
News from FOX and CNN
13 comments:
Hey kid. Is this sequence the result of much intellectual consideration or something that you came across? It may be that this is true; however, I do not understand why it is inevitable. It seems to be that if a society were to evolve into the abundance stage, it could also use that abundance to move other societies to liberty and abundance, therefore not becoming complacent and apathetic. However, I think our society may be somewhere in the complacent or apathetic stage--we really are quite comfortable with our abundance--that we may not be able to move backwards.
It was a little of both intellectual consideration and something I came across. I do not think it is totally inevitable or even always right. Some empires get crused in the early stages while later ones might end because of war or money. I would say that we are somewhere between complacency and dependence. College completion keeps dropping more and more people want something for nothing and we depend on other countries for many of the things we could make in the US. It is much easier for an empire to keep going forward in this sequence than backward. We can slow it down and even stop it, but for how long. No empire last for a 1,000 years.
I think the spiritual faith is an interesting inclusion. I believe that you are right--that has been a part of every empire. I wonder why. Can people encounter courage without faith? Some groups in bondage have strong spiritual faith but never really achieve great courage or have any liberty. Do you think that is important?
Maybe the fatal human flaw is having abundance. If we could avoid abundance and only have what we need, perhaps we could create strong empires which break the cycle and last for over 1000 years. Abundance seems to be the weak link.
Make sure I am getting this right. Your question asks if there needs to be spiritual faith for an empire to go through this sequence? The quote, "There is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole," comes to mind. Some amount of spiritual faith has been through all empires. You are probably thinking of a Christian spiritual faith. In early empires it was a polytheistic spiritual faith. Even in the USSR it was a spiritual faith in the party and Lenin. I think this is very important! People have to beleive in something. Even if it is the faith that your empire is a good one. The colonies never would have started withouth spiritual faith. Much of what they based much of the constitution and other documents on was faith. Hopefully that answers your question, if not let me know.
The fatal flaw is abundance. A fatal flaw that is unavoidable. Many parents work hard so, their children do not have to work as hard. Those kids have abundance. No one wants their children to work just as hard as they did. If we work hard we want to paid for it. We do not want to keep working hard for it. I would agree that breaking this link would stop the cycle, but how does one go about doing that?
I am sure that even there are atheists who maintain their beliefs even in wars and deadly situtations. And if not, that doesn't necessarily make a case for spiritual faith. If spiritual faith only exists becasue people are afraid of death, then faith is more like a cozy blanket than anything that changes lives. An atheist has faith in something--faith that their is no god.
In the case of empires, I am not sure if spiritual faith matters as much as faith in something. For instance, I do not think that the faith that the USSR had for Lenin was spiritual. It may have been in part, but it was also faith that Lenin could improve their lives. However, faith itself is something that everyone has. If the colonists would have been antheists who were being persecuted by the British, they would have based the colonies on the idea that faith in morals and ideas exist but do not have to be connected to a spiritual being. However, that is not spiritual faith. Should faith be a part of the sequence if it is continuous throughout every other part of the sequence?
Self-regulation is the key. The problem with abundance is that people no longer feel the need to learn responsibility. For instance, parents who work hard so that their kids don't have to work hard teach their kids that there is no need for work. Is that good? No! Societies who teach their young people that their is an easy remedy for everything create apathy because these young people grow up not needing to care.
For some reason, I am having difficulty with the their/there today. English teachers rock!
I am not saying spiritual faith is a warm cozy blanket. I am saying, for many it gives the civilization something to believe in and keep them on the straight and narrow. Unless of course that spiritual faith is bad. Spritual faith holds people accountable for their actions. Places without spiritual faith or spiritual faith that is bad tends to decay quicker. What higher power holds atheist accountable?
The USSR paragraph. The USSR and belief in Lenin is partially having an idea that their life will be better, but isnt that spiritual faith. Dont people believe because they believe it will make this life or the next better? I am not saying that spiritual faith cannot be twisted. It is hard to use the colonies as an example against spiritual faith because that is one of the major reasons they were founded in the first place.
Faith throughout the sequence is a funny thing. When do most Christian people pray? When times are bad right? What happens when more abundance and more education comes along? Faith and religion start to be questioned. I would bet that church attendance in the United States (for any religion) has gone down. Fall of an empire many times also equals a downfall in spiritual faith.
Self-regulation? You understand you are talking to a middle school teacher about this right? Bottom line: Governments and empires are run by people, people are by nature fallible. I revert back to my previous statement that says no parent wants it to be just as hard for their child as their life was. Maybe this is the only fixable solution to the "fatal sequence"
I would also remind you that empires can go through this and not be destroyed. How many revolutions and coups has France and Russai had. Can we not start all over again. Tough times ahead?
From an atheist's point of view, a god that was created by man's imagination (or man's need to control society) holds religious people accountable, and that is really no different from holding yourself accountable. So I think the question is more closely related to whether or not man needs to be held accountable by something outside of themselves. I don't think so. People are held accountable by themselves. People--believing in something spiritual or not--who do good, do good because they know that it is right. I don't kill people because I know that is bad. You don't kill people for the same reason. Even if the 10 commandments had never been written, you wouldn't kill people. People who are raised in an atheist or non-spiritual environment have morals.
Believing that you can make life better does not have to be connected to spiritual beliefs. I would catagorize that has humanitarian more than spiritual.
If parents actually wanted to help their children and the world, they might make it a little harder on their children. Adversity is good for people, but many kids today don't really know what to do with adversity, especially kids from our comfortable little part of the world. (I sound like an old codger!)
Picking up the pieces and starting over are different. France and Russia are very different empires than they once were. One could argue that just because they have kept those names does not mean that they are the same empires. An empire can start over--and become a different empire.
I feel that we will never agree on the spiritual faith thing, so maybe leaving it at that will be good.
Codger is one of my favorite words.
I totally agree that there needs to be more adversity. Stronger people are made from tough times rather than easy times.
What is in a name? What does constitute a changed or different empire? Russia and France were still the same name and many of the morals remained unchanged, but emperors and rulers changed. Did the US start over with a new civilization after the civil war? I cannot think of the author, "What is in a name?"
"What's in a name?" Romeo & Juliet--Shakespeare!
I think the Civil War example is not an example of the sequence. The country didn't go into bondage after the Civil War, although arguably, there were members of the country who were in bondage. It the Civil War in some ways ended a conflict that may have led to the end of the empire and began another conflict that could have led to the end. The Civil War itself didn't really change much except that it asserted the North's dominance and that the country would remail 1 country. If the Civil War would have ended differently, the situation would have been very different.
Russia has been through the sequence many times, but that could have to do with age. Russia has been a country for a long time.
I think I will have Qdoba for lunch!
Maybe you should read the article that I sent you and make a Post about that. :)
P.S. I am a little proud that you alluded to Shakespeare, even though you couldn't remember his name.
The North's domincance was always there, ever since the country started.
Russia and France have been countries for a long time and have gone through many sequences each. History proves the point of the fatal sequence. No civilization can stop the sequence, only be ended by another civilization.
I will read the article and see. I will not be able to post until later. Have a great lunch.
P.S. I thought it might be Bill Shakespere or something.
P.S.2. Do you have any Greek plays that might work for middle school?
Antigone is good. Oedipus Rex is also good. Oedipus Rex came first in the series by Sophocles. They might like it--especially if you mention that he gets together with his mom (unknowingly but middle school kids will still get a kick out of it).
Medea is also good--by Euripides. Woman is betrayed by husband, gets revenge, kills her children.
Hey, I did a greek think with my middle school kids and one of those Read magazines had a mythology section. There is a play version of the Jason and Argonauts story, and it is pretty interesting. I could get you a copy if you don't need it today.
Post a Comment