3 ms·

As far as "change" and "cohesive society", it's possible that the only reason that the Chinese have a 2500-year-old cohesive society is because of initial resis

by jbooth 10y ago

As far as "change" and "cohesive society", it's possible that the only reason that the Chinese have a 2500-year-old cohesive society is because of initial resistance to change. How else can you have one "society" across a dozen dynasties, from the ancient world through the medieval world to the modern one? It's a lot harder to claim that some old druids or even the anglo-saxons are the same society as modern british-descended english speakers.

allemagne 10y ago
Is the reason there hasn't been a comparable continuous European society for 2500 years really because druids/anglo-saxons had a society that was more open to change? I'd argue not. I would also argue that China's "5000 years of uninterrupted continuous society" is less continuous and uninterrupted than might be implied here. The concept of "China" is more or less a modern, retroactive, political invention, somewhat comparable to identifying the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Empire as a continuous entity. There is a shared heritage, writing system, and some overlapping territory -- just like Chinese dynasties. If the Habsbugs did a better job of consolidating and expanding their control of the continent in the sixteenth century then maybe we would talk about the continuous, unbroken Roman society. The metaphor is far from perfect, but I hope my point is clear. The difference between a continuous civilization and whatever the alternative would be called is, in my opinion, just a matter of our perception and a few historical happenstances.
- jbooth 10y ago
  Well, whether they wanted it to be or not, old celtic and saxon languages were swept aside by history. Old chinese characters weren't, for whatever reason. I wasn't trying to be too prescriptive or racist, like "the nature of this people is this, therefore that". But through accidents of history, that constant of the characters has helped to build the illusion you describe.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    Frequently, by a language based on that of the Roman Empire.

by jbooth 10y ago

allemagne 10y ago

Is the reason there hasn't been a comparable continuous European society for 2500 years really because druids/anglo-saxons had a society that was more open to change? I'd argue not. I would also argue that China's "5000 years of uninterrupted continuous society" is less continuous and uninterrupted than might be implied here. The concept of "China" is more or less a modern, retroactive, political invention, somewhat comparable to identifying the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Empire as a continuous entity. There is a shared heritage, writing system, and some overlapping territory -- just like Chinese dynasties. If the Habsbugs did a better job of consolidating and expanding their control of the continent in the sixteenth century then maybe we would talk about the continuous, unbroken Roman society. The metaphor is far from perfect, but I hope my point is clear. The difference between a continuous civilization and whatever the alternative would be called is, in my opinion, just a matter of our perception and a few historical happenstances.

jbooth 10y ago
Well, whether they wanted it to be or not, old celtic and saxon languages were swept aside by history. Old chinese characters weren't, for whatever reason. I wasn't trying to be too prescriptive or racist, like "the nature of this people is this, therefore that". But through accidents of history, that constant of the characters has helped to build the illusion you describe.
- mcguire 10y ago
  Frequently, by a language based on that of the Roman Empire.