Okay, I think I'm starting to understand your "crackpot theory" now, but I still think you're making a mistake using hunter-gatherers as a model because hunter-gatherers didn't have kings. Their leaders were chosen by consensus and, when their followers didn't want to follow them anymore, they would just walk way from them. The leader might say something like, "Follow me and I will lead you to better hunting grounds to the west." Somebody else in the group might say, "I think we would find better hunting if we went east instead." After some discussion, half the group might follow the old leader to the west and half the group might follow the new leader to the east. The half that did indeed find better hunting grounds would have a better chance of survival, so that's where natural selection came into play.
I think I made a mistake myself when I said that the trouble started with the advent of city-states. Now that I think of it, Genghis Khan was a nomadic herdsman, so it's more likely that the first despotic conquerors were nomadic herdsmen. I read a book about Genghis Khan a long time ago, and I seem to remember that he got his start by murdering his brother. Well, he didn't do the job himself, he persuaded his small band of followers to do his dirty work for him. Then he invited his late brother's followers to join his own followers, which they did, and an empire was born. If being cool is what causes people to follow other people and do their bidding, then Genghis Khan must have been one cool dude.
Genghis was eventually elected by a council of other tribal chiefs to be the leader of all the Mongols, but it was kind of a rigged election, sort of like when Octavian got himself elected Augustus Cesar. First he kicked ass all over the place, then he humbly approached the Senate, and suggested that they elect somebody to bring law and order to the land. Some big suck senator nominated Octavian, who reluctantly agreed to accept the position if that's what everybody wanted him to do. All the senators shouted "Hail Cesar!", and another empire was born. Democracy in action, just like at Sawyer School.
Yes I was trying to be funny in my essay, but that's only because it has been my experience that people are more likely to listen to a comedian than a stern lecturer. I do believe that my central premise is sound, however. Children don't grow up anymore, they just become older children. It might not be the only thing wrong with this country, but it certainly is one of our primary problems.
That quote from Socrates was the closest thing I could find to the much better quote I had been looking for unsuccessfully. It's a longer piece that rants about what's wrong with kids nowadays. It sounds like something that could be said today, but it actually comes from the BC years. I thought I remembered that Cicero had said it, but I couldn't find it among his most famous quotes. Then I tried Plato, and then Socrates. I finally got tired of searching and settled for the quote I used. Now that
I think of it, both Socrates and Plato were school teachers by trade. Well, Socrates mostly just sat under a tree and harangued any passerby that would stop and listen to him. It was Plato and Aristotle who ran formal schools for rich people's kids. Damn, why didn't I think of Aristotle? Maybe he's the one who said it. I'll have to look that up one of these days. Whoever said it, he probably wasn't talking about all the Greek kids of his day, only the spoiled rich kids who had the luxury of going to school instead of working for a living. It's like some other famous guy said, "The more things change, the more they remain the same."
No comments:
Post a Comment