5 ms·

I agree that Poland - and the east of Europe - seldomly appears in the western history lesson narrative. Poland was liberal for it's time, yes, albeit only for

I agree that Poland - and the east of Europe - seldomly appears in the western history lesson narrative. Poland was liberal for it's time, yes, albeit only for the szlachta, a large part of the population that belonged to the privileged class of nobility. Peasants had not so much to gain access these times, especially in the former parts of Poland that are now Ukraine. People of Jewish faith had strong privileges in Poland in the middle ages, which lead to the biggest diaspora in the world, a large fragmented community that was integrated into polish society in various degrees - as can be beautifully seen in the Jewish Museum in Warsaw.

Hasknewbie 8y ago
>> People of Jewish faith had strong privileges in Poland No offense, but are you one of these people for whom "not getting lynched" is a "privilege"? If not, then what actual privilege(s) do you have in mind, that Polish jews would have but no other Poles?
- emptyfile 8y ago
  >Polish jews would have but no other Poles? pretty sure it was meant "privileges compared to other countries" and not privileged compared to Poles
- llukas 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Center_of_the_Jewish_world:_1505%E2%80%9372 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#... Autonomy with regards to administration and official recognition, where in other parts of Europe they were chased away? When referring to medieval times "privilege" in context of laws has bit different meaning than today.
  - Hasknewbie 8y ago
    From your link: "...mainly followed in the tolerant policy of his father and also granted autonomy to the Jews in the matter of communal administration and laid the foundation for the power of the Qahal, or autonomous Jewish community." I stand corrected, I was not aware of that point.
d__k 8y ago
> Poland was liberal for it's time It depends on how you define liberal. For example, Afganistan, Somalia, the Ukraine are very liberal nowadays: weak central government, weak central censorship, weak currency. Instead, warlords and gangs having the same functions – but it can be treated as liberal and democratic construction - you can always do the same and everybody has equal rights (kind of early US).
- growtofill 8y ago
  The most definitions include "the rule of law" (and you seem to be mistaken "limited" for "weak"): > "Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. > > – https://mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism https://mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism The parent comment, however, argues that all the liberties were only available to the nobility, not that it was liberal in a different sense of the word that we use nowadays. Comparing renaissance-age Poland to any of the modern-day countries you've mentioned doesn't make sense to me (also, it's Ukraine, not "the Ukraine").
  - d__k 8y ago
    In ancient Greece, a great deal (or even most) of the population were slaves. Yet, it does not prevent us from treating their system as democracy and compare it with the modern democracies and "democracies".
    - growtofill 8y ago
      The article mentions this fact: > Poland had the szlachta, a broad citizen-warrior class that can be thought of as an upper middle class. This amounted to 10% of the population. That might sound like a very limited form of democracy, but it is the same percentage of the population as voted in the famous democracy of ancient Athens I'd suggest reading the article if you haven't already. It doesn't argue or force a definition of 'liberal' or 'democratic' but describes the period of Polish history apparently poorly highlighted in the curriculum of US schools.
krzyk 8y ago
> Poland was liberal for it's time, yes, albeit only for the szlachta, a large part of the population that belonged to the privileged class of nobility. Peasants had not so much to gain access these times, especially in the former parts of Poland that are now Ukraine. Just a note on the szlachta numbers - it was about 10% of the population.
- ajuc 8y ago
  Less if you count Lithuania. And only men had voting rights, so half of that. But yeah, it was ahead of time.
  - anthonybsd 8y ago
    > And only women had voting rights, so half of that. Men :) Only men had voting rights.
    - ajuc 8y ago
      Yeah, you know what I meant.

Hasknewbie 8y ago

>> People of Jewish faith had strong privileges in Poland No offense, but are you one of these people for whom "not getting lynched" is a "privilege"? If not, then what actual privilege(s) do you have in mind, that Polish jews would have but no other Poles?

emptyfile 8y ago
>Polish jews would have but no other Poles? pretty sure it was meant "privileges compared to other countries" and not privileged compared to Poles
llukas 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Center_of_the_Jewish_world:_1505%E2%80%9372 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#... Autonomy with regards to administration and official recognition, where in other parts of Europe they were chased away? When referring to medieval times "privilege" in context of laws has bit different meaning than today.
- Hasknewbie 8y ago
  From your link: "...mainly followed in the tolerant policy of his father and also granted autonomy to the Jews in the matter of communal administration and laid the foundation for the power of the Qahal, or autonomous Jewish community." I stand corrected, I was not aware of that point.

d__k 8y ago

> Poland was liberal for it's time It depends on how you define liberal. For example, Afganistan, Somalia, the Ukraine are very liberal nowadays: weak central government, weak central censorship, weak currency. Instead, warlords and gangs having the same functions – but it can be treated as liberal and democratic construction - you can always do the same and everybody has equal rights (kind of early US).

growtofill 8y ago
The most definitions include "the rule of law" (and you seem to be mistaken "limited" for "weak"): > "Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. > > – https://mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism https://mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism The parent comment, however, argues that all the liberties were only available to the nobility, not that it was liberal in a different sense of the word that we use nowadays. Comparing renaissance-age Poland to any of the modern-day countries you've mentioned doesn't make sense to me (also, it's Ukraine, not "the Ukraine").
- d__k 8y ago
  In ancient Greece, a great deal (or even most) of the population were slaves. Yet, it does not prevent us from treating their system as democracy and compare it with the modern democracies and "democracies".
  - growtofill 8y ago
    The article mentions this fact: > Poland had the szlachta, a broad citizen-warrior class that can be thought of as an upper middle class. This amounted to 10% of the population. That might sound like a very limited form of democracy, but it is the same percentage of the population as voted in the famous democracy of ancient Athens I'd suggest reading the article if you haven't already. It doesn't argue or force a definition of 'liberal' or 'democratic' but describes the period of Polish history apparently poorly highlighted in the curriculum of US schools.

krzyk 8y ago

> Poland was liberal for it's time, yes, albeit only for the szlachta, a large part of the population that belonged to the privileged class of nobility. Peasants had not so much to gain access these times, especially in the former parts of Poland that are now Ukraine. Just a note on the szlachta numbers - it was about 10% of the population.

ajuc 8y ago
Less if you count Lithuania. And only men had voting rights, so half of that. But yeah, it was ahead of time.
- anthonybsd 8y ago
  > And only women had voting rights, so half of that. Men :) Only men had voting rights.
  - ajuc 8y ago
    Yeah, you know what I meant.