18 ms·
#archaism
by myshpa 3y ago
#archaism
- hammock 3y ago#consistency with tens of thousands of years of sociological anthropology, under evolving terms and terminology
- myshpa 3y agotens of thousands of years? ;)
- hammock 3y agoYeah, has been happening since pre-history. Archaeology and other findings confirm this fact
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- myshpa 3y agoI thought that first "monarchies" started ... 3-5k BCE (Pharaohs, maybe Ur/Uruk?). Which ones were here tens of thousands of years ago?
- hammock 3y agoI was referring more generally to systems of managed land use, not monarchies, which I believe have existed as long as agriculture, and probably earlier in areas (territories) where game and forage were scarce
- myshpa 3y agoOh, that's a much more complicated topic. There were many models of such systems, many of which were communal, without clear leaders or rulers. Agriculture was developing for thousands of years, so it's understandable. The beginnings of agriculture and civilizations are very interesting, sometimes even surprising, in light of new findings. I'd recommend "The Dawn of Everything"; it delves into these topics in great length.
- ssnistfajen 3y agoSurvivorship bias. Most monarchies were abolished, some in rather drastic ways, throughout the early modern and modern era. The UK/Commonwealth is just a lucky exception and now there's no strong impetus to abolish the monarchy that no longer plays a significant role in the day-to-day politics of these nations.
- gizajob 3y agoI wouldn’t really say it was lucky - the British fought a civil war to abolish it and once they tried the alternative at the time, a monarchy with reduced power seemed to be a better option than a more presidential system (a Lord Protector) and so it was re-established. The “luck” you talk about is a form of extremely long-term stability in governance that has persevered in Britain despite alternative options, due to the system being somewhat well balanced and evolved over time.
- ssnistfajen 3y agoThe fact that Britain's foray into republicanism was short-lived was precisely because of luck and pure chance - they ended up with an controversial dictator on the first attempt instead of someone like George Washington. Britain also had the luck of moving away from absolute monarchy much earlier due to the accession of George I who was originally very distant in the line of succession. During his reign the monarch's power was gradually vested onto ministers, of which Robert Walpole is largely agreed to be the first "prime minister" of Britain, a position that is still legally undefined to this day precisely because of how it came to be in the first place.
- gizajob 3y agoHow was the system George Washington designed any better, and how do the results of it in the present day turn out better than the same "luck"? Loads of things in the British system are basically undefined but this is as much of a feature as a bug now. It seems to be about as useful as a nailed-down system of constitution that can't ever be changed, because that's just how things were written. The results are about the same so I'm not fully cognisant of what your critique is.