4 ms·

> I don't believe I am confusing important happenings to transformational changes; rather, I think you are simply denying that there was a paradigm shift. Para

> I don't believe I am confusing important happenings to transformational changes; rather, I think you are simply denying that there was a paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts require a significant fundamental systematic change. It mostly started out with kuhn describing scientific paradigm shifts, but can be used elsewhere. Here's one clue, paradigm shifts don't happen often. The fact that you listed 9 should be a clue that most or all of what you listed are not paradigm shifts. > For example, you write "The soviet union existed before ww2 and they were a dominant force before ww2." ... you will fall back on the position that what actually happened did not amount to a transformational change. I was pointing out that soviet union existed before and after ww2 in pretty much the same position. Also, we are talking about the change of the global world order. You seem to be fixated on individual countries and are completing missing the point. > Your argument so far has been a combination of non-sequiturs (such as mentioning the moon landing) It's not a non-sequitur. I was just pointing out important events happened. But those important events don't change the international world order. Vietnam War, Iraq War, etc happened. Didn't change the international world order. > At this point, you owe us some examples of truly transformational changes. Once again, we are talking about transformation changes of the world order, not single nations. Since the "world order" is a fairly recent invention and hasn't changed, I'll give you localized historical examples. The ottoman turks conquest of byzantine empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople The mongol conquest of china, middle east, russia, etc which shook up the geopolitical eurasian order. The treaties of westphalia which created the sovereign nation-state. You know significant events which actually changed something. The world before ww2 was a "western" world order. The world after ww2 was a "western" world order. The same people running the world before and after. I think the confusion here is that you seem to be talking about changes with individual nations while I'm talking about the world order. The creation of israel, north/south korea, south sudan, etc are important to those nations, but didn't transform the world order. These nations all live within the established "western" world order. But if you feel different than you are entitled to it. The opening of china was an important event, but didn't cause a paradigm shift since they decided to work within the "western" world order. If china ever challenges the current world order and decides to create their own international system and does so successfully, then a significant world transformation would have happened. A world led by china with "chinese values" instead of "western values" would amount to a paradigm shift in the international world order. WW2 didn't cause a "transformation", it actually cemented and reinforced the pre-ww2 status quo. Once again in terms of the global world order, not individual nations.

mannykannot 7y ago
Your case of the treaties of Westphalia is an excellent example of why trying to draw a sharp line between transformational and other changes is unhelpful, as the treaties were at most a ratification of a series of connected changes that had been building over long periods. The treaty serves as a marker for the conclusion of a phase of history (insofar as things ever do have a conclusion), but it certainly was not the event that caused the transformation. To summarize the effect of WW2 as "The world before ww2 was a "western" world order. The world after ww2 was a "western" world order" is to avoid the issue, as it ignores the transformation of how the world was ordered within that broad characterization. The pre-war powers that you list (USA, Britain and Russia) were either incapable of or unwilling to exercise their alleged dominance over the Axis powers; afterwards, the Axis was gone, Russia was, for the first time, globally influential, the British empire existed in name only, the USA was exercising its influence to a degree never seen before, and the era of the nuclear standoff had begun. That was not a cementing of the status quo ante, and it is not obvious that these changes were less transformational than the fall of Constantinople. By the way, some of your posts in this thread have been downvoted, and I just want to make it clear that it is not me. While I do not agree with your position, I support your right to make it.
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  > Your case of the treaties of Westphalia is an excellent example of why trying to draw a sharp line between transformational and other changes is unhelpful, as the treaties were at most a ratification of a series of connected changes that had been building over long periods. That's the point of a paradigm shift. It isn't a singular event. Momentum builds, a little here and a little there and then we have a systematic change. There is a world before westphalia and there is a systematically different world after. Lots of little changes and momentum before and during westphalia treaties. > The pre-war powers that you list (USA, Britain and Russia) were either incapable of or unwilling to exercise their alleged dominance over the Axis powers; What? Russia controlled germany via resources. Also, britain forced germany to pay a lot of reparations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles France took over german territory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ruhr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ruhr The US controlled Japan via resources. Not only that when Japan beat Russia, we forced Japan to return territory to Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Portsmouth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Portsmouth We told japan how many warships they could build. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty The idea that the pre-ww2 powers didn't enforce their dominance is factually incorrect. > Russia was, for the first time, globally influential Once again, you are fixated on a single nation. The international world order still remained the same. Whether a nation grows influence within it doesn't matter. Japan rose to become the #2 economy in the world and became "influential". So what? The world order remained. China is or will be the #1 economy in the world. The international world order still remains. China seems to be starting to create institutions to maybe one day challenge the international world order and if they do and they are successful, then a paradigm shift will have occurred. If they choose to get wealthy within the western world order like japan, taiwan, korea, etc, then no matter how rich china gets, no transformational change happens. It's significant change for china, but not for the world order. I don't know how better to explain it so I'll leave it at that. > By the way, some of your posts in this thread have been downvoted, and I just want to make it clear that it is not me. I don't care about downvotes. Especially on a forum. But thanks anyways.

mannykannot 7y ago

Your case of the treaties of Westphalia is an excellent example of why trying to draw a sharp line between transformational and other changes is unhelpful, as the treaties were at most a ratification of a series of connected changes that had been building over long periods. The treaty serves as a marker for the conclusion of a phase of history (insofar as things ever do have a conclusion), but it certainly was not the event that caused the transformation. To summarize the effect of WW2 as "The world before ww2 was a "western" world order. The world after ww2 was a "western" world order" is to avoid the issue, as it ignores the transformation of how the world was ordered within that broad characterization. The pre-war powers that you list (USA, Britain and Russia) were either incapable of or unwilling to exercise their alleged dominance over the Axis powers; afterwards, the Axis was gone, Russia was, for the first time, globally influential, the British empire existed in name only, the USA was exercising its influence to a degree never seen before, and the era of the nuclear standoff had begun. That was not a cementing of the status quo ante, and it is not obvious that these changes were less transformational than the fall of Constantinople. By the way, some of your posts in this thread have been downvoted, and I just want to make it clear that it is not me. While I do not agree with your position, I support your right to make it.

dntbnmpls 7y ago
> Your case of the treaties of Westphalia is an excellent example of why trying to draw a sharp line between transformational and other changes is unhelpful, as the treaties were at most a ratification of a series of connected changes that had been building over long periods. That's the point of a paradigm shift. It isn't a singular event. Momentum builds, a little here and a little there and then we have a systematic change. There is a world before westphalia and there is a systematically different world after. Lots of little changes and momentum before and during westphalia treaties. > The pre-war powers that you list (USA, Britain and Russia) were either incapable of or unwilling to exercise their alleged dominance over the Axis powers; What? Russia controlled germany via resources. Also, britain forced germany to pay a lot of reparations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles France took over german territory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ruhr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ruhr The US controlled Japan via resources. Not only that when Japan beat Russia, we forced Japan to return territory to Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Portsmouth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Portsmouth We told japan how many warships they could build. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty The idea that the pre-ww2 powers didn't enforce their dominance is factually incorrect. > Russia was, for the first time, globally influential Once again, you are fixated on a single nation. The international world order still remained the same. Whether a nation grows influence within it doesn't matter. Japan rose to become the #2 economy in the world and became "influential". So what? The world order remained. China is or will be the #1 economy in the world. The international world order still remains. China seems to be starting to create institutions to maybe one day challenge the international world order and if they do and they are successful, then a paradigm shift will have occurred. If they choose to get wealthy within the western world order like japan, taiwan, korea, etc, then no matter how rich china gets, no transformational change happens. It's significant change for china, but not for the world order. I don't know how better to explain it so I'll leave it at that. > By the way, some of your posts in this thread have been downvoted, and I just want to make it clear that it is not me. I don't care about downvotes. Especially on a forum. But thanks anyways.