My national wise (wo)men of the 20th Century | 50 comments (50 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: My national wise (wo)men of the 20th Century (4.00 / 2)

Well, there´s too historical delimitations of XXth Century:

The long Century, from 1970 more or less (1971 Paris Commune, and other contemporary events... in Spain the data would be 1898, but we are always late, or at least were late in XVII-XX centuries) to 11-S-2001
The short Century, from First World War(1914-16) to Oil Crisis (1973)

I suppose you can mix beginnings and endings, and there´s four options... Before 2001 they ususally ended XX Century in 1989, but know they consider there´s like some buffer years (1989-2001). That´s logical, it´s not an event but many events together taht change cycles, the beginning of XIX century has also buffer years (from American Revolution until the end of Napoleon wars).

So your wise man could be historically accepted :)

"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none." (Fahrenheit 451)

by pereulok on Wed Feb 4th, 2009 at 08:11:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My national wise (wo)men of the 20th Century (none / 0)

pereulok:

from 1970 more or less (1971 Paris Commune

1870, 1871, clearly.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 4th, 2009 at 09:29:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My national wise (wo)men of the 20th Century (none / 1)

Oh, so you contrast marketing's erroneous sense of the delimitations of a century with a whole array of historians' erroneous sense... I call in the astronomer inquisition :-)

BTW, minor spelling point: while Spanish (and French and Italian and Hungarian) denote centuries with Roman numerals, English (and German and Dutch) switched to Arabic numerals.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Feb 4th, 2009 at 12:58:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My national wise (wo)men of the 20th Century (none / 0)

A comment more focused on those historical concepts.

Never heard of the long 20th century before -- the concept seems absent in German and Hungarian, while the long 19th century (French Revolution - WWI) is present.
Never heard of a short 20th century until the first oil crisis, either. Methinks with the second and third crises, and the low oil price late eighties and late nineties in-between, it is outdated anyway. 1989 or 1991 is alright - the end of the Cold War is significant even in retrospect.

As for 9/11, I'd consider that a neocon concept, overvaluing a single event (and the so-called War on Terror that followed).

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Feb 4th, 2009 at 01:07:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My national wise (wo)men of the 20th Century (none / 1)

The short 20th Century concept was created long ago, related to First World War. The old world woyld have lasted until 1914-1916, being First World War the firts mass war, with civilian bombings and a capability of doing mass harm (tanks vs. horses, to simplify). And 1917 Russian Revolution would stress that beginning, from the point of view of mass politics. By the way, 1910s-1920s is also the years where democratic vote (to men) is generally granted all over Europe.

So I suppose that when the oil crisis came up historian where all happy to "close" short 20th Century and make it even shorter :) Because, from an analytical point of view, if you choose First World War plus political events fostered by it to start ir, you should choose also a war or a significative international political event to close it. Such as 1989-1991 (in Europe). Or 11-S-2001... that I agree, is a marketing figure, but then you could close it with Irak wars (first or second, it could be discussed).

But you can open a short 20th century with 1929 crack and close it with oil crisis, maybe... (I'm not so confortable on economic history to defend this).

But I do believe in buffer periods, so I myself would open the Century in 1914-1929 and close it in 1989-2001.

History is a tale, in any case... But how we tell the tale tells a lot (ttttt) on who we are... and have implications on what we do also...

"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none." (Fahrenheit 451)

by pereulok on Wed Feb 4th, 2009 at 01:42:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My national wise (wo)men of the 20th Century (none / 1)

1910s-1920s is also the years where democratic vote (to men) is generally granted all over Europe.

In Spain? In much of Europe, the post-WWI period was when the democratic vote was made univewrsal, including female vote. (BTW, from the above, it's apparent that even the Short 20th Century concept is more a European than global concept.)

So I suppose that when the oil crisis came up historian where all happy to "close" short 20th Century and make it even shorter :)

Which historians? Because, again, this is the first time I read of such a delineation. Is this a common concept among Spanish historians?

if you choose First World War plus political events fostered by it to start ir, you should choose also a war or a significative international political event to close it.

I don't see why. It's not the nature of the starting and end point that counts, but some qualitative differences between the time in-between and the times before and after. For example, one could use the narrative that WWI spawned 'totalitarian' states and ideologies - the last major ones of which were over without a war. (Well, yes, only if we discount China because of its turbo-capitalist turn with Deng's and Zemin's reforms.)

But I do believe in buffer periods, so I myself would open the Century in 1914-1929 and close it in 1989-2001.

What's special about 2001? Why not 2005, the first major EU expansion Eastwards? Or, maybe we should wait until the accession of all former Yugoslav republics, THEN the consequences of WWI are really over?

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Feb 4th, 2009 at 01:56:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My national wise (wo)men of the 20th Century (none / 1)

From Wikipedia: The short twentieth century, defined by Eric Hobsbawm, a British Marxist historian and author, refers to the period between the years 1914 and 1991. That period begins with the beginning of World War I, and ends with the fall of the Soviet Union. These events represented such significant changes in world history as to redefine the era. The term is analogous to the long 19th century, also coined by Hobsbawm, denoting the period 1789 to 1914.

You are right in one thing: Marxist historians, and this one in special (in Spanish be make a difference between "marxiano" and "marxista" to express that it's Marxist as a trend in Political Science, not as an ideology, I don't know how to make that difference in English) have been very influencial in Spain. At least in the years I studied, where, in facti, i lacked proper information on some very influencial neoliberal intellectuals. So there has been may other discussions on dates and momentos to "open" and "close" historical cycles.

What I meant is that the actual year is symbolic. If you believe in historical cycles the turning points last some years, being different moments of importance. If you focus (symbolically) in one or other moment -an economic crisis, a war...- it tells a lot on your focal point of interest. An history distorts which the point of view. As Migeru would say, I am too much of a relativist, you can accuse me of that and you'll have all the reason.

P.S. The 2001 is the symbolic date selected by international relations experts as the point when the powers, superpowers (halfpowers) finally put into motion more or less how they want to act in internatinal relations after the 1991 URRS Fall (with some "trials" in the middles. That is, they showed thir cards. I don't agree so much on this view, but that's the origin of selecting that date, related to "US the only superpower" theories, "China will be the next power theories" and so on.

"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none." (Fahrenheit 451)

by pereulok on Wed Feb 4th, 2009 at 02:10:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My national wise (wo)men of the 20th Century (none / 1)

On the last, could you give a link? On the first, that's indeed a short 20th century definition I am familiar with, but I asked about the definition you cited with 1973/Oil Shock as the endpoint.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Feb 4th, 2009 at 02:59:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My national wise (wo)men of the 20th Century (none / 1)

I´m quite shy about this, because I think I won´t be able to give you sound references... I have international relations theory too mixed in my mind and Google didn´t help me to find the root of it all. But I´ll try to write sth down, although it mught have many inaccuracies...

About 1914-1973 Century. Well, this is a period that has been considered in international economics and international relations (specially security studies). I´m sure you know Kondratieff theories on economic cycles. This framework had a grat influence on international relations theory (that started as a study detached from politics/economics/history in very recent times, maybe not before 1950s). So the 1914-1973 cycle is considered for some a economic cycle (the oil century) and for others (often the same) a power cycle (1914 is the end of UK power -counteracted by Germany- and the beginning of the US -counteracted by URSS- century). I couldn´t find the reference of the first person proposing this, I´m afraid is part of background degree (with no names) education, so I assume I can be well mistaken in the real theory -let´s say I know the theory as it´s told to "kids")

However, as the last 30 years of the century unfolded, discussions became on the meaning of 1973: was it THE moment, the first main event of a change trend developing in the past 30 years, both in economic international relations and power international relations? Or just a previous? Or not such a change at all?

This discussion was (is) very political [the international relations ¨science¨ lack, from my point of view, still of enough apolitical analysis, is very ideological.. but that´s I suppose a personal view that can be discussed by people who DO know about the matter). Well, as I was saying, it was a very political debate, related with all the intellectuals defending the "new world order" (beginning by Kissinger and continuing with other less controvertive people). The question took a new impulse (theoreticaly AND politically) after 2001. So that´s basically discussion on power balance, with two general" views: that US would become the only superpower, or that US will be substituted by other focal power (Asia...). I´m not interested in this discussion from a scientific point of view and lack knowledge to provide; it is very influential in designing strategies, though, and is used in discourses a lot...

Some names that have writen on change and cycles from international relations point of view (but I´m afraid aI´m not the roight person to give you THE only and definitive name):

Charles Doran. Power Cycle Theory.

On Long Cycle Theory in International relations: George Modelski.

By the way, I found a VERY interesting paper on approaching change in social sciences...

K.J. Holsti (1998): Problem of Change in International Relations Theory.

http://www.iir.ubc.ca/site_template/workingpapers/webwp26.pdf

A quick overview on International Relations Theories, in Wiki as always. You´ll see it´s all very vague andphilosophical, with mathmatical pretensions (well, that´s my point of view on this part of social sciences... so far)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations_theory

"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none." (Fahrenheit 451)

by pereulok on Thu Feb 5th, 2009 at 06:43:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My national wise (wo)men of the 20th Century (none / 0)

I find that Hobsbawm subdivided his short 20th century into an Age of Catastrophe, a Golden Age, and a Landslide; of these, the Golden Age lasted 1947-1973. Methinks the use of the 1973 Oil Crisis to delimit that period, especially when considering the US's global role as you emphasize above, makes sense.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Feb 5th, 2009 at 07:23:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My national wise (wo)men of the 20th Century (none / 0)

PS2. You are right about voting rights, I made a complete mistake. it was the time, however, where mass political parties became relevant.

"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none." (Fahrenheit 451)

by pereulok on Wed Feb 4th, 2009 at 02:28:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My national wise (wo)men of the 20th Century | 50 comments (50 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Happy Christmas, Winter Solstice or whatever you're having...

Backcasting Climate Success with a Large Language Model

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - January 2026

Recent Diaries

VDL / ECB Funding Kyiv's War On Russia

Far right and Risk of Trump Endorsement

Dutch Personal Data Sold Out to Land of Trump

Wilders' One Member, Single Issue Party Hit Hard Today

International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

The Quiet 'Pacification' of Post-Assad Syria

Trump's Fury Delayed ... Wants a Decisive Strike at Mullahs

Trump's Wrecking Ball Ready to Strike Iran

Machado Out In the Cold

Never Trust Any Voice of US Officials In DC

Canada PM Carney 4-day Visit to China

Arab Allies and World Nuclear Power Convince Trump

On the Threshold of Another War In Middle East

On the Verge of World War III

Trump 2.0 Implements Policy Construct of Trump 1.0

NATO Rutte Meets Renew Europe Group

Throwing Iranians Under the Bus of Capitalism

Backcasting Climate Success with a Large Language Model

Founding of NATO and Double Containment

Axis of Evil :: London - Tel Aviv - New York

Occasional Series