×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Thought of the day

heironymouscoward (683461) writes | more than 10 years ago

User Journal 3

Past wars were fought by kings and emperors against each other in order to aquire power and wealth. Today's wars are fought by the rich against the poor in order to maintain the status quo.

(c)2004 HeironymousCoward

Past wars were fought by kings and emperors against each other in order to aquire power and wealth. Today's wars are fought by the rich against the poor in order to maintain the status quo.

(c)2004 HeironymousCoward

3 comments

Nothing new (1)

turg (19864) | more than 10 years ago | (#8486438)

The battle to maintain the status quo is a given -- it doesn't have a date in the history books because it's been constant since as long as there's been people who'd want to maintain the status quo.

Re:Nothing new (1)

heironymouscoward (683461) | more than 10 years ago | (#8490332)

Seems the process in the past has been one of more advanced (technically and militarily) societies building empires on the backs of less advanced ones, and then going head-to-head with each other. So, local warlord discovers power of mounted horsemen, sets out to conquer neighbouring tribes, creates vast empire, then attacks Rome, or China, or whatever.
The last swing of this particular pendulum would appear to have been colonization in the 1890's, and the empire-building tail of WWII.
The battles these days - e.g. in the Middle East - seem to be much more about keeping things the way they are. We have the water and the land, you do not, and we will use our might to keep it that way.
There are no more distant lands to be conquered. Only economic systems to be protected and exploited.

Re:Nothing new (1)

turg (19864) | more than 10 years ago | (#8494667)

I'm not arguing against your idea that one type of conflict is on the decline (which is not to say that I'm convinced either), I'm just saying there have always been economic systems to be protected and exploited. The activity you're seeing has been going on constantly since there was such a thing as an economic system. History books are about the other type of conflict (battles between nations, etc), not the ever-present tensions within society -- so that's why you might have the impression that it's new.

Have you ever read "A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present" by Howard Zinn? It's an attempt to write what life was like for the average person throughout history, rather than documenting the actions of those in power. From this point of view, much of the action of the political and/or economic elite had exactly the effect your talking about here.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...