🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:09:49 -0700,
 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

>On Aug 13, 8:03 am, kyb...@pobox.upenn.edu (Karen Y Byrd) wrote:
>> History teaches us that every single great civilization has had
>> a birth cycle, a growth cycle and a decline(sometimes death) cycle.
>> Some of these civilizations have a renaissance cycle.
>> Some don't.
>
>Very true.  I was just thinking about the Spanish empire, how it
>managed to sail around the world so long ago and colonize so many
>different places and impose its culture on them.  Then it all fell
>apart.  I don't know their history to know why it all fell apart.
>(Spanish Armada loss?  Spanish-American war loss?)

I would argue, though, that while Spain, itself, is no longer a world
power what they left and how they influence us, in particular, is all around us
right now. In the US's southwest there is name place after name
place that's Spanish in origin. Then, obviously, it's the Spanish language
that has almost transformed the country into one where support
for Spanish seems to be growing because of the number here who
speak it.

>England was the big world power and went bankrupt in WW II and never
>recovered.

Oh, I would say that nowadays that isn't true. The UK has probably
the most successful economy in W. Europe... well that's if
you consider the UK part of Europe. They seem to be fine 
without using the Euro for instance.

>> Somehow you think the US can avoid(or should) the decline(or
>> perhaps death)cycle. It can't.
>
>I have no crystal ball.

No, one does. And it could take a long time for any real decline
to happen here. It took the western Roman Empire about
200-300 years to fully decline and end... that's longer
than the United States has existed!

I'm just using what I know about history
to suggest that since every great civilization has followed the
birth, growth, decline cycle there's no reason to believe
that it can't happen here. In fact I believe that it's
foolish to believe that it can't happen here.

>  But I thought the US was done for back in the
>1960s when civil rights and anti-war demonstrations were tearing the
>country apart literally.

Oh, no. That was NOTHING compared to the Civil War and the
aftermath of the Civil War, Reconstruction, which was
the "2nd Civil War".

Of course the Civil Rights Movement was Reconstruction Redux.

>  Then there was a malaise of the 1970s.  But
>the country did rebound nicely in the 1980s and onward.

All in all Reagan was a good President. I can't believe
I'm saying that... but I think, if you look at certain
things, that it's true.

>  And of course
>the Depression was very dark but we survived.

FDR was like Lincoln in that he was the right person
at the right time.

>NYC was a hellhole before Koch, Guilliani, and Bloomberg said
>"enough!" and literally and figuratively cleaned up the streets.  The
>Broken Window theory really meant something, as did a simple thing
>like getting rid of the squeegee people (that Philadelphia refuses to
>do).  Now NYC is thriving.

Well... you can't judge it all by Manhattan though! If you take
away Manhattan, and parts of Brooklyn, is just all right.