h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, damn. I'd have to actually think about that one. Of course, things DID happen in a certain way which led up to this moment in time, but I think what's different in how I and others look at history is that the ways in which things unfolded were not predetermined, or in some way inferior to the present time. I think that getting beyond the realization that things happen for a reason is a good thing, but I think when you start trying to posit what would have happened if, say, Henry VIII had had a son with his first wife, you've gotten out of history and into fiction writing. Not that it isn't fun, but at some point, we have to remember as historians that facts are facts, as much as we would like them to be otherwise.

And while MR is composing an answer to that good question, here's a little excerpt from an article in the latest New Yorker magazine (for Feb 16 &23). The title of the article is "Contract Sport: What Did the Vice-President Do for Halliburton?"

"Halliburton's 2002 annual report describes counterterrorism as offering 'growth opportunities'."

simulpost.

I'm not sure I follow. Is it part of the determinist outlook that things are always getting better, or that we're getting more civilised? Or are we talking about the necessary interrelatedness of all things?

The determinist outlook isn't so much that we're getting more civilized, although I am sure that that would be part of it, but that all facts point to the inescapable conclusion that this is the best of all possible worlds. It's very hard to describe, it something that you come to recognize after reading a lot of this sort of history. In some ways, it looks much like the von Rankean school (the positivists) in that it focuses mostly on military and political history, but instead of being archivally based, it tends to make grand sweeping statements. The best example I can think of off the top of my head is in an article by Eric Hobsbawm, one of the great Marxist historians. After analyzing the so-called General Crisis of the 17th Century, he decides that it is indeed a crisis, a crisis of the transisition from mercantilism to capitalism. So far, so good. At the end of the article, the eminient scholar, known for impartiality and critique, says the following:

"Hence, in a sense, the ecomonic history of the modern world from the middle of the seventeenth century on hinges on that of England, which began the period of crisis -- say in the 1610d -- as a dynamic, but a minor power, and ended it in the 1710s as one of the world's masters. The English Revolution, with all of its far reaching results, is therefore in a real sense the most decisive product of the seventeenth-century crisis."

Now, I don't doubt that the whole Revolution in England was a big deal, and I don't know that it wasn't the most decisive product of the 17th century crisis (this assumes there is one, and that's stull up for debate). What bothers me is the Whiggish, determinist pronouncement that the economic history of the modern world rests on ENGLAND. Which is why this sort of history is often English, and an alternative name for it (besides determinist, Whiggish, and structuralist) is exceptionalist. English history, according to the English at least, is one of "we're different." Maybe so, but not from what I've seen. Ireland, now, that's different.

I have certainly heard of Max Weber's book ( strangely enough I can never remember the title either). I wonder, though, if you have not got some of his premise wrong. Protestantism, as I understand it, actually emphasizes the grace aspect ( salvation is a free gift, not to be attained by works), as opposed to classic Catholicism ( arguing salvation is a product of both faith and works). That being the case, one would expect to hear of the "Catholic work ethic". Surely Weber felt there was something else about Protestantism that made it conducive to the development of capitalism ? I have not read the book, so if anyone knows, please enlighten me...

I would suspect it might have more to do with early Protestants being more comfortable with the concept of interest, which the Catholic Church had condemned as usury throughout the Middle Ages.

To go back to an earlier topic, I cannot will not and would ask others to not vote for H Clinton. That woman is the worst sort of Democrat. She is to me as bad as Dubya is, just in the opposite direction. If anyone with H Clinton's views gets the nod as Demo nominee it will only solidify my choice to vote for anyone else.

That said, I am still trying to find out who the Libertarian canidate will likely be in Utah. I most likely will vot libertarian again in this election. I can't vote for any of the Demo canidates I have seen to date and I refuse to vote for the Shrub.

It looks liek it will be another long election year.

Does the alleged great crisis of the 17th century have anything to do with the Industrial Revolution?

A militaristic history would be one that sees the world in terms of nation-states, which we all begin to realise is only a passing fad anyway.

And was the phrase originally 'puritan work ethic'?

I've always been fairly deterministic, in a manner of speaking. There is a way that things are going to happen. We generally cannot see the pattern until after it has passed, though. That would be, I would think, the best reason for historians to be deterministic. Of course, that's just my opinion.

And Bryce, you're probably right. I wouldn't vote for you. But I'd encourage others to do so, if that's what they wanted to do.

Bryce, you're right about faith vs. works, but Weber emphasized that the works of faith (i.e., the smells and bells, confessions and sacraments) were replaced by the pragmatic needs of mercantilism, and later, capitalism. The spiritual works were set aside by the Protestants in favor of works of a more pedestrian sort on earth, thus giving birth to the Protestant (also called Puritan) work ethic.

Weber also argues that without the Reformation, the Industrial Revolution would not have happened. Lil, Hobsbawm, being a Marxist historian, does argue that much of the 17th century crisis was one of the move from the mercantilist, feudal (in the marxist sense, which means not capitalist) society to the capitalist one. For all the length and all the facts, I don't buy it. I personally don't think the 17th century had a general crisis, any more than the 14th century was calamitous. There's always a lot going on in history. Labelling things is an easy way to teach undergrads, or to compartmentalize them for our own sanity. It's rather like how we medievalists use the term "feudalism." We don't use it in the sense that Marx does, but we do sort of use it as a blanket statement for talking about medieval social structures that involved certain types of reciprocal relationships.

Gosh!!!

Dusts off on Weber.

The problem is not with determinism, per se, but with (insertprejudiceofchoicehere)centrism, and in taking one facet of a very complex process to be *the* determining factor. Rather each facet operates as a "constraint" on all the others.

Noggin

Lil, to clarify...

I have no problems with politicans changing their minds on issues, however I do have a problem with politicians whose voting records do not match their campaign policies when election year comes around.

Very true, Noggin.

Sporky, the ones that I have a problem with are the ones that fluctuate back and forth, depending on what the "popular" views of the day are.

Thanks for the explanations all. It seems that determinism has a very specific defintion within history. I was mistakenly applying a physical defintion. Does anyone who studies history use statements like "because x happened, it increased the probability of y happening", as opposed to "y was the direct result of x"?

Not quite so much, dave. Generally, since what we're looking at has already taken place, we can pinpoint it a little better.

Of course, there's all of the "What if..." stories out there that explore the other options. Those are always fun...

I don't remember where I read it, but I like the idea that we're still caught in the mindset of the Middle Ages. And the current administration is pushing us back into feudalism anyway.

I agree with the consideration posted earlier (sorry, forgot who) that defining history as a series of Important Moments is ethnocentric to the writers of the textbooks.

Lil mentioned: "Halliburton's 2002 annual report describes counterterrorism as offering 'growth opportunities'." I'm not surprised by this at all. I think, regardless of who is in the Oval Office, Halliburton and its subsidiaries will have an undue influence. It is all a part of the "military-industrial complex" Eisenhower warned us about over 50 years ago. Only now, it is not the military in charge of national security, but the industrial firms that have the concessions contracts--Halliburton builds military housing, serves the meals, provides logistical support and basically conducts any operation behind the scenes. Only when we are in a constant state of war (hence, the ongoing "War on Terrorism": an updated and potentially prolonged version of the Cold War) can these companies maintain huge profits.

What is heinous about this particular administration, and provides some hope that a change in Presidents will lessen Halliburton's influence, is that their former CEO Dick Cheney is one of the brains behind Bush and still receives huge sums yearly in both retirement and stock options. It is time this connection to our government is severed. Did anyone else know that during the contested 2000 elections, Halliburton (and also Enron) supplied the airplanes that delivered lawyers and supporters of the Bush camp whenever and where ever they needed to be during the recount and arguments before the Supreme Court?

And along with the "what if.." stories, there are also the "just so.." stories.

Noggin

FG, that in itself should mark something as shady, if not illegal. That's the problem I have with Shrub's administration. If we allow the Halliburtons and Enrons of this world to dictate policy, how is that allowing for the people to have a say in the government? Tacit consent, Locke called it. If we allow it to happen, and don't say no, then we are consenting to it.

Given that less than half of the electorate vote in presidential elections, I'd say a lot of people have given up and realize that corruption is going to happen anyway. Sad, but realistic.