Discussion:
WI: Change without violence
Add Reply
jerry kraus
2017-06-15 13:39:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
According to history, is change without violence really possible? I'm not really certain, but, I suspect not. Whoever is in power wants to stay in power, no matter what. So, without extreme force, there will likely be no progress. Or, perhaps I'm mistaken. What would major change without major violence look like, exactly. Can anyone provide any historical examples? If not, can the idea be conceptualized in practical examples -- the idea of change without violence, and hypothetical examples thereof.
Ned Latham
2017-06-15 22:58:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
According to history, is change without violence really possible?
Yep.
Post by jerry kraus
I'm not really certain, but, I suspect not. Whoever is in power
wants to stay in power, no matter what. So, without extreme force,
there will likely be no progress. Or, perhaps I'm mistaken. What
would major change without major violence look like, exactly. Can
anyone provide any historical examples? If not, can the idea be
conceptualized in practical examples -- the idea of change without
violence, and hypothetical examples thereof.
Late in the 6th century BVE, Athens was a violent, fermenting mess.
Poverty and wealth were extreme, citizens were being sold into
slavery over debt, and the factions competing for rule resorted to
violence at every turn. Eventually, though, they recognised that
none of them had the capacity to govern Athems, and they decided,
in desperation, to submit to atbitration. They appointed a man
named Solon to solve the problem, and he came up with the idea of
democracy.

He made all parties swear to abide by his constitution for at least
ten tears, then went on a world tour, leaving them to it. That
political stuck for 180 years; democratic Athens wemt on to defeat
the Persians at Marathon and Salamis, and provide an environment in
which the Sciences and Art and Philosophy expanded enormously.
Democratic Athens was the flower of human civilisation; it even
changed the direction of human thought.

It has haunted mankind ever since. And it was achieved non-violently.
Ned Latham
2017-06-16 03:08:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ned Latham
Post by jerry kraus
According to history, is change without violence really possible?
Yep.
Post by jerry kraus
I'm not really certain, but, I suspect not. Whoever is in power
wants to stay in power, no matter what. So, without extreme force,
there will likely be no progress. Or, perhaps I'm mistaken. What
would major change without major violence look like, exactly. Can
anyone provide any historical examples? If not, can the idea be
conceptualized in practical examples -- the idea of change without
violence, and hypothetical examples thereof.
Late in the 6th century BVE, Athens was a violent, fermenting mess.
Poverty and wealth were extreme, citizens were being sold into
slavery over debt, and the factions competing for rule resorted to
violence at every turn. Eventually, though, they recognised that
none of them had the capacity to govern Athems, and they decided,
in desperation, to submit to atbitration. They appointed a man
named Solon to solve the problem, and he came up with the idea of
democracy.
He made all parties swear to abide by his constitution for at least
ten tears, then went on a world tour, leaving them to it.
Oops, sorry. That political [change] stuck for 180 years....
Post by Ned Latham
That
political stuck for 180 years; democratic Athens wemt on to defeat
the Persians at Marathon and Salamis, and provide an environment in
which the Sciences and Art and Philosophy expanded enormously.
Democratic Athens was the flower of human civilisation; it even
changed the direction of human thought.
It has haunted mankind ever since. And it was achieved non-violently.
Ned
jerry kraus
2017-06-16 13:09:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ned Latham
Post by jerry kraus
According to history, is change without violence really possible?
Yep.
Post by jerry kraus
I'm not really certain, but, I suspect not. Whoever is in power
wants to stay in power, no matter what. So, without extreme force,
there will likely be no progress. Or, perhaps I'm mistaken. What
would major change without major violence look like, exactly. Can
anyone provide any historical examples? If not, can the idea be
conceptualized in practical examples -- the idea of change without
violence, and hypothetical examples thereof.
Late in the 6th century BVE, Athens was a violent, fermenting mess.
Poverty and wealth were extreme, citizens were being sold into
slavery over debt, and the factions competing for rule resorted to
violence at every turn. Eventually, though, they recognised that
none of them had the capacity to govern Athems, and they decided,
in desperation, to submit to atbitration. They appointed a man
named Solon to solve the problem, and he came up with the idea of
democracy.
He made all parties swear to abide by his constitution for at least
ten tears, then went on a world tour, leaving them to it. That
political stuck for 180 years; democratic Athens wemt on to defeat
the Persians at Marathon and Salamis, and provide an environment in
which the Sciences and Art and Philosophy expanded enormously.
Democratic Athens was the flower of human civilisation; it even
changed the direction of human thought.
It has haunted mankind ever since. And it was achieved non-violently.
Yes, Ned, I myself am a great admirer of Athenian Democracy. And, this was pretty close to "true" democracy, too. Athens wasn't a Republic like Rome, or the U.S. In Republics, people have a certain influence over the government, at times, through fixed channels. In Athens, if the people didn't like their leaders, they could, and did, dispense with them almost instantly. It wasn't really a representative democracy like a Britain or Canada, either. The people directly controlled many aspects of government through direct assemblies, and chosen leaders for particular functions could be dispensed with at any time, through the same.

Of course, Plato was no great fan of Athenian democracy, as we know. He felt it caused the Peloponnesian War and led to the destruction of Athens. Plato felt the people were too greedy and ignorant to govern themselves. On the other hand, the alternative is controlling the people with violence.
SolomonW
2017-06-17 09:20:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
According to history, is change without violence really possible? I'm not really certain, but, I suspect not. Whoever is in power wants to stay in power, no matter what. So, without extreme force, there will likely be no progress. Or, perhaps I'm mistaken. What would major change without major violence look like, exactly. Can anyone provide any historical examples? If not, can the idea be conceptualized in practical examples -- the idea of change without violence, and hypothetical examples thereof.
Australia has changed from a penal colony under direct military rule to a
democracy with almost no violence.
Zebee Johnstone
2017-06-17 09:56:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In soc.history.what-if on Sat, 17 Jun 2017 19:20:27 +1000
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
According to history, is change without violence really possible? I'm not really certain, but, I suspect not. Whoever is in power wants to stay in power, no matter what. So, without extreme force, there will likely be no progress. Or, perhaps I'm mistaken. What would major change without major violence look like, exactly. Can anyone provide any historical examples? If not, can the idea be conceptualized in practical examples -- the idea of change without violence, and hypothetical examples thereof.
Australia has changed from a penal colony under direct military rule to a
democracy with almost no violence.
Well...not amongst the whitefellas no.

But the way it changed was to expand into land and resources that were
taken by quite a lot of violence.

Without that "Free land" the change couldn't have happened.


Zebee
a425couple
2017-06-17 15:29:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zebee Johnstone
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
According to history, is change without violence really possible? I'm not really certain, but, I suspect not. Whoever is in power wants to stay in power, no matter what. So, without extreme force, there will likely be no progress. Or, perhaps I'm mistaken. What would major change without major violence look like, exactly. Can anyone provide any historical examples? If not, can the idea be conceptualized in practical examples -- the idea of change without violence, and hypothetical examples thereof.
Australia has changed from a penal colony under direct military rule to a
democracy with almost no violence.
Well...not amongst the whitefellas no.
But the way it changed was to expand into land and resources that were
taken by quite a lot of violence.
Without that "Free land" the change couldn't have happened.
Zebee
Is that implying, that by your system of morals,
Stone Age tribes SHOULD continue to possess vast tracks
of Asia, Europe, Africa, and all of the Americas?

I tend to think your theory, has no practical application.
David Johnston
2017-06-17 21:00:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zebee Johnstone
In soc.history.what-if on Sat, 17 Jun 2017 19:20:27 +1000
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
According to history, is change without violence really possible? I'm not really certain, but, I suspect not. Whoever is in power wants to stay in power, no matter what. So, without extreme force, there will likely be no progress. Or, perhaps I'm mistaken. What would major change without major violence look like, exactly. Can anyone provide any historical examples? If not, can the idea be conceptualized in practical examples -- the idea of change without violence, and hypothetical examples thereof.
Australia has changed from a penal colony under direct military rule to a
democracy with almost no violence.
Well...not amongst the whitefellas no.
But the way it changed was to expand into land and resources that were
taken by quite a lot of violence.
Without that "Free land" the change couldn't have happened.
Zebee
That renders the concept of change without violence moot since there was always violence somewhere in a nation's past and the past is always a foundation for the present.
Zebee Johnstone
2017-06-17 21:27:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In soc.history.what-if on Sat, 17 Jun 2017 14:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zebee Johnstone
In soc.history.what-if on Sat, 17 Jun 2017 19:20:27 +1000
Post by SolomonW
Australia has changed from a penal colony under direct military rule to a
democracy with almost no violence.
Well...not amongst the whitefellas no.
But the way it changed was to expand into land and resources that were
taken by quite a lot of violence.
Without that "Free land" the change couldn't have happened.
That renders the concept of change without violence moot since there was always violence somewhere in a nation's past and the past is always a foundation for the present.
The violence was endemic during the change from penal colony to
democracy, and without that systemic aggression the change would have
been very different.

We are not talking "somewhere in a nation's past" at this point, we are
talking at the same time. It wasn't as if the indigenous were all dead
or completely disposessed at Federation never mind in the time between
that and the end of transportation. They were being disposessed, and in
some cases shot or poisoned in the 1920S, never mind "nation's past".

Without the good country that was being expanded into in the early
days, and the less good country being taken in the later days, the
colony wouldn't have been viable and importantly there would have
been no suitable way for convicts and later free settlers to build
lives. Not as whitefellas of the 19thC understood agriculture anyway.
And probably not in those numbers with 19thC tech, as the sustainable
methods of agricaulture and the very different seasons and viable crops
and livestock (you try herding kangaroos...) wouldn't allow for the
population expansion.

So if you want to import a lot of people and find work and land for
them to use, you have to have the land. If you confine them into a
small area they'll fight each other over it. Oz was able to
transition because they took land and resources from others and so the
new whitefellas didn't have to fight the old for them.

So yeah, aside from minor confrontations like Eureka and the various
shearer's strike riots whitefellas didn't fight whitefellas over the
changing political landscape. Partly because politics generally had
evolved in the 19thC so different ways of doing things were acceptable
and partly because there was land for the taking providing you didn't
mind slaughtering a few blacks. Without both of those things it
couldn't have happened.

Yout WhatIf is to work out how that would have happened if they hadn't
been killing the indigenous. How could 19thC Brits have negotiated,
and more importantly could they have changed agriculture to a more
sustainable method so the wheat and the hooved livestock didn't
destroy the soil and the channel country wasn't drained?

That negotiation is possible is shown by the NZ experience but that
has its own problems.

Given the First Feet's general agricultural incompetence, maybe
someone in the next 20-30 years could have seen how the Aboriginals
were managing the country and working within the constraints of
climate and native vegetation and tried something different? (But
again.. how the hell do you herd kangaroos?)

Zebee
SolomonW
2017-06-18 07:39:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zebee Johnstone
In soc.history.what-if on Sat, 17 Jun 2017 19:20:27 +1000
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
According to history, is change without violence really possible? I'm not really certain, but, I suspect not. Whoever is in power wants to stay in power, no matter what. So, without extreme force, there will likely be no progress. Or, perhaps I'm mistaken. What would major change without major violence look like, exactly. Can anyone provide any historical examples? If not, can the idea be conceptualized in practical examples -- the idea of change without violence, and hypothetical examples thereof.
Australia has changed from a penal colony under direct military rule to a
democracy with almost no violence.
Well...not amongst the whitefellas no.
But the way it changed was to expand into land and resources that were
taken by quite a lot of violence.
Without that "Free land" the change couldn't have happened.
Zebee
Not that much violence there either, to go to war requires some sort of
equality between the two sides something the locals never had.
pyotr filipivich
2017-06-17 15:43:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
According to history, is change without violence really possible? I'm not really certain, but, I suspect not. Whoever is in power wants to stay in power, no matter what. So, without extreme force, there will likely be no progress. Or, perhaps I'm mistaken. What would major change without major violence look like, exactly. Can anyone provide any historical examples? If not, can the idea be conceptualized in practical examples -- the idea of change without violence, and hypothetical examples thereof.
Australia has changed from a penal colony under direct military rule to a
democracy with almost no violence.
"almost".
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
SolomonW
2017-06-18 07:36:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
According to history, is change without violence really possible? I'm not really certain, but, I suspect not. Whoever is in power wants to stay in power, no matter what. So, without extreme force, there will likely be no progress. Or, perhaps I'm mistaken. What would major change without major violence look like, exactly. Can anyone provide any historical examples? If not, can the idea be conceptualized in practical examples -- the idea of change without violence, and hypothetical examples thereof.
Australia has changed from a penal colony under direct military rule to a
democracy with almost no violence.
"almost".
And the almost is extremely small.
pyotr filipivich
2017-06-19 05:49:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
According to history, is change without violence really possible? I'm not really certain, but, I suspect not. Whoever is in power wants to stay in power, no matter what. So, without extreme force, there will likely be no progress. Or, perhaps I'm mistaken. What would major change without major violence look like, exactly. Can anyone provide any historical examples? If not, can the idea be conceptualized in practical examples -- the idea of change without violence, and hypothetical examples thereof.
Australia has changed from a penal colony under direct military rule to a
democracy with almost no violence.
"almost".
And the almost is extremely small.
Comparatively, compare to some.

I can think of some other transitions which did not involve large
scale violence. The Dissolution of Czechoslovakia, the ouster of the
Marcos regime in the Philippines, the failure of the Communist Putsch
in Moscow. Not to mention the Reunification of Germany. So- it is
possible.
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
Ned Latham
2017-06-19 10:49:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
According to history, is change without violence really
possible?
Yes.
Post by SolomonW
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by SolomonW
Australia has changed
That's "changed", not "has changed".
Post by SolomonW
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by SolomonW
from a penal colony under direct military rule to a
democracy with almost no violence.
"almost".
And the almost is extremely small.
And the "democracy" is false.
SolomonW
2017-06-20 19:03:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SolomonW
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by SolomonW
from a penal colony under direct military rule to a
democracy with almost no violence.
"almost".
And the almost is extremely small.
And the "democracy" is false.
mmmmmmmmmmmm

jerry kraus
2017-06-19 13:09:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
According to history, is change without violence really possible? I'm not really certain, but, I suspect not. Whoever is in power wants to stay in power, no matter what. So, without extreme force, there will likely be no progress. Or, perhaps I'm mistaken. What would major change without major violence look like, exactly. Can anyone provide any historical examples? If not, can the idea be conceptualized in practical examples -- the idea of change without violence, and hypothetical examples thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by SolomonW
Australia has changed from a penal colony under direct military rule to a
democracy with almost no violence.
The Aborigines were systematically exterminated by the British settlers. This left a great deal of open land, of course, so, there was minimal need for violence between the British settlers. A similar situation obtained in the Americas, of course. The extermination of the native population by disease left an enormous territory of rich, fertile arable land available for the taking, so, there was no need for violence, for some time.

I suppose then, practical change is possible for humankind, without violence, when we don't get in each other's way too much. When there is no established system controlling most available resources. When there are more than enough resources available for the taking. Otherwise, it's war to the death for control of all available resources. Which, is normally the situation, for humankind, historically speaking.
t***@go.com
2017-06-17 16:20:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
According to history, is change without violence really possible? I'm not really certain, but, I suspect not. Whoever is in power wants to stay in power, no matter what. So, without extreme force, there will likely be no progress. Or, perhaps I'm mistaken. What would major change without major violence look like, exactly. Can anyone provide any historical examples? If not, can the idea be conceptualized in practical examples -- the idea of change without violence, and hypothetical examples thereof.
With the exception of the U.S. Civil War, which was only
a small part of the Earth, the period of time from the
Napoleonic wars to WWI is generally considered to be a
time of relative peace.

Yet if you really look at the details of what went on
during that century, however, it becomes unclear whether more
change happened during that century than from the century
of WWI to the present.

I am generally of the opposite view. Wars and conflicts
produce all sorts of drama that people tend to write about,
but some times even vast changes can happen throughout
time that people may not notice because some dwell only on the
conflicts.

For instance - heavier than air aircraft. Was it invented
because of WWI? Well, the first powered flight happened
about a decade before WWI started.
Robert Woodward
2017-06-18 00:42:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by t***@go.com
Post by jerry kraus
According to history, is change without violence really possible? I'm not
really certain, but, I suspect not. Whoever is in power wants to stay in
power, no matter what. So, without extreme force, there will likely be
no progress. Or, perhaps I'm mistaken. What would major change without
major violence look like, exactly. Can anyone provide any historical
examples? If not, can the idea be conceptualized in practical examples --
the idea of change without violence, and hypothetical examples thereof.
With the exception of the U.S. Civil War, which was only
a small part of the Earth, the period of time from the
Napoleonic wars to WWI is generally considered to be a
time of relative peace.
Er, Taiping Rebellion? I believe that the casualties exceeded that of
the Napoleonic Wars.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
t***@go.com
2017-06-18 06:19:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by t***@go.com
Post by jerry kraus
According to history, is change without violence really possible? I'm not
really certain, but, I suspect not. Whoever is in power wants to stay in
power, no matter what. So, without extreme force, there will likely be
no progress. Or, perhaps I'm mistaken. What would major change without
major violence look like, exactly. Can anyone provide any historical
examples? If not, can the idea be conceptualized in practical examples --
the idea of change without violence, and hypothetical examples thereof.
With the exception of the U.S. Civil War, which was only
a small part of the Earth, the period of time from the
Napoleonic wars to WWI is generally considered to be a
time of relative peace.
Er, Taiping Rebellion? I believe that the casualties exceeded that of
the Napoleonic Wars.
Of course with shifting factoids, whether true or
false, one can prove any point.

The truth of the matter is that every period in history
can be called peaceful or violent based upon their own
opinions.

Because of this it may be impossible to know how change is
affected by these parameters, because it is impossible to
know whether a time period is peaceful or violent anyway.
t***@go.com
2017-06-18 07:00:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by t***@go.com
Post by jerry kraus
According to history, is change without violence really possible? I'm not
really certain, but, I suspect not. Whoever is in power wants to stay in
power, no matter what. So, without extreme force, there will likely be
no progress. Or, perhaps I'm mistaken. What would major change without
major violence look like, exactly. Can anyone provide any historical
examples? If not, can the idea be conceptualized in practical examples --
the idea of change without violence, and hypothetical examples thereof.
With the exception of the U.S. Civil War, which was only
a small part of the Earth, the period of time from the
Napoleonic wars to WWI is generally considered to be a
time of relative peace.
Er, Taiping Rebellion? I believe that the casualties exceeded that of
the Napoleonic Wars.
The OP has also seemingly unchangingly presented the
idea no significant changes have happened since the
1950s.

It might be that both the terms 'violence' and
'change' are effectively unknowable.
Loading...