- Sep 12, 2008
- 14,201
- 3,567
- 185
- Thread starter
- #21
The 18th century saw huge changes due to tech change. Machine guns would have fascinated Franklin. But the changes they saw due to tactics and organization in the military during their lives were about as big a deal as what happened between 1860 with the invention of the Minea ball and 1939. Sometimes Marx is right when he says that minor quantitative changes changes lead to major qualitative changes. I think they understood your point better than you do.
Cocaine is merely one more bad thing you can do to yourself. England in the mid 18th century saw something very much like the crack and heroin epidemics with the improvements in distillation that made gin cheap and beer expensive for the lower classes.
Conversely, a huge part of their debate took place on constitutional matters that to the modern mind are outragously weird and medieval. The American Revolution was pretty much a continuation of the puritan revolt in 17th century england, and the arguments made by the colonies reflect puritan arguments from 130 years before. So much of the debate is archaic not just in language but in form.
But very much, the powers that be in 2010 are not a whole lot different from the powers that be back in 1640 or 1773. Instead of Viscount Sandwich, we have Barney Frank. Instead of Lord North, there is Harry Reid, and instead of St. Germain there is Eric Holder. 0bama's attitude of Devine Right is more cocksure and has less basis than that assumed by George III, who seems to have been a whole lot brighter and saner sometimes.
Cocaine is merely one more bad thing you can do to yourself. England in the mid 18th century saw something very much like the crack and heroin epidemics with the improvements in distillation that made gin cheap and beer expensive for the lower classes.
Conversely, a huge part of their debate took place on constitutional matters that to the modern mind are outragously weird and medieval. The American Revolution was pretty much a continuation of the puritan revolt in 17th century england, and the arguments made by the colonies reflect puritan arguments from 130 years before. So much of the debate is archaic not just in language but in form.
But very much, the powers that be in 2010 are not a whole lot different from the powers that be back in 1640 or 1773. Instead of Viscount Sandwich, we have Barney Frank. Instead of Lord North, there is Harry Reid, and instead of St. Germain there is Eric Holder. 0bama's attitude of Devine Right is more cocksure and has less basis than that assumed by George III, who seems to have been a whole lot brighter and saner sometimes.