new thread
Something tells me it's France. I don't know, perhaps, because throughout the history, most famous longhairs were from France, and most of them kinda didn't want to break the tradition, at least those who are permitted to grow it. And to me, long hair is always associated either with France or with (the Renaissance) Italy.
I think in modern times the country with the greatest number of longhaired men would be India. Why? Long hair on Men has been accepted in that society for centuries - look at the Sikhs who are prominent in Indian society where they traditionally never cut their hair and then there's the wandering holy men with the long dreadlocks, and the high esteem to which holy people and other spiritual seekers on enlightenment are held in the Indian culture.
Duncan
I kinda think North America before the white came over and committed genocide on the indigenous people.
You mean the heros that came over and destroyed socialism.
I'm assuming this was intended to be sarcastic.
--Val
History doesn't change. This is what's not taught in my school or most schools in this country anymore:
On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible," and this is what's not taught. This is what's left out. "The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims -- including Bradford's own wife -- died of either starvation, sickness, or exposure.
When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments. Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well." They were collectivists! Now, "Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.
He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. ... Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years -- trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it -- the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson," every kid gets. "If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future." Here's what he wrote: "'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote.
'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.'" That was thought injustice. "Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?" 'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, "for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? ... In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves. ... So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians.
The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'" Now, aside from this program, have you heard this before? Is this "being taught to children -- and if not, why not? I mean, is there a more important lesson one could derive from the Pilgrim experience than this?" What if Bill and Hillary Clinton had been exposed to these lessons in school? Do you realize what we face in next year's election is the equivalent of people who want to set up these original collectivists communes that didn't work, with nobody having incentive to do anything except get on the government dole somehow because the people running the government want that kind of power. So the Pilgrims decided to thank God for all of their good fortune. And that's Thanksgiving. And read George Washington's first Thanksgiving address and count the number of times God is mentioned and how many times he's thanked. None of this is taught today. It should be.
Of course, I respect your right to have an opinion. Yours seems to be founded on religion (which is, by its very definition, merely another opinion). I have no doubt that the Mayflower pilgrims were indeed brave people, and that they were sincerely dedicated to a cause they felt was morally right. However, I also acknowledge the horrible truth that, in coming to the Americas, Europeans set into motion a sequence of events that led to the near-eradication of this land's indiginous peoples.
This is the issue to which you originally responded, and which made no mention of forms of government, socialistic, capitalistic, or otherwise. Still, since you mentioned it...
Look at today's economy, the plight of our schools, our healthcare system, our very planet, and you will see the place to which our capitalistic system has brought us (note that I didn't mislabel it "democratic," for it certainly isn't that). Based on your post, I have a hunch you think this is because we, as a society, have "lost religion." I would wholeheartedly disagree with this viewpoint, and instead posit that it is largely because of religion--and the inherent herd mentality that goes along with it--that our nation's masses have remained compliant, subservient worker drones, making the few rich and powerful, at the peril of the many poor and weak.
In the words of Harlan Ellision, "Religion is the last vestige of human barbarism." I absolutely agree with this statement, and abhor the thought of religious biases being taught in public schools. Do you want schools to teach the founding fathers' real views on religion? Here are a couple of quotes you might find enlightening:
"Lighthouses are more useful than churches." --Benjamin Franklin
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." --Thomas Jefferson
Religion was a necessary tool in the process of humankind's spiritual evolution, but it has run its course; it has outlived its usefulness. Keep the spirituality, ditch the religious dogma, and discover what's really true for you. Our society will be better for it.
--Val
Another quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin which stayed with me was " There are two types of Men, Religious Men without intelligence and Intelligent Men without Religion.
I have often found in my life experience though people I have known from different backgrounds that being religious doesn't necessary make someone spiritual and that it is possible to be spiritual without being religious.
Duncan
Primitive Socialism has existed and worked for thousands of years. Tribes such as the American Indians and the Amazon Indians had tribal societies built on mutual co-operation within the tribe otherwise it won't have worked. And there wasn't much if any need for Capitalism - it is impossible to go back to this but you have to remember that the interest rates or usury was forbidden to Christians in the European Middle ages - however Jews were allowed to profit from money lending as they weren't Christians. You could argue that Capitalism was born out of the need to generate a profit once the monetary system was well under way.
Duncan
and socialism is bad.. why?
It's not. Socialism is wonderful, but the same Americans that have been fooled into thinking they live in a democratic society have also been taught--erroneously--that socialism and democracy are incompatible. They actually believe that socialism and communism are the same things, which they most certainly are not. Many of our European friends, who have far better systems of education and healthcare--and an overall superior quality of life than most of us have here in the states--live in societies governed by democratic socialism. The problem on this side of the pond is that the U.S. is not governed by democracy. It is governed by capitalism, wherein the rich get richer by the sweat of the masses, and only allow enough wealth to trickle back down to the populace to keep them in debt (read, "desperate to keep working to pay off the endless debt stream").
It's absolute crap, the complete opposite of the secular, democratic principles upon which the nation was founded. Hopefully people are waking up to the truth in time to turn things around.
--Val
Have you been reading ÂiŸek? Postively post-Marxist of you to write this. ;-)
I have spent time in both the USA and in Europe and have to agree with Validus that Europeans have a superior political system of government. In 2000 and 2004 it was demonstrated when the Republicans stole the elections that the US wasn't a true democracy. Who the hell elects the electrol college? Certainly not the people. And why hold election day on a Tuesday when most people have to work? In Australia election day has always been on the weekend when everyone registered to vote has the opportunity to cast their ballot. And we allow prisoners in Jail to vote as well - unlike in the US.
Yes - the USA is ruled by Capitalism.
Duncan
I think for the has category you might be right about France but I've never been there so I really can't say.
For the had category, consider China. I think there was a little shaving on the edges, but most of it was left long and worn in a long braid down the back. AFAIK, this style ended in the early 20th century but I have no idea when it started. Some Chinese came to the US wearing that style, and abandoned it as they assimilated.
I'm not sure about the Native Americans. You can't categorize them as a whole--different tribes had different styles but yes, many tribes had a uniformly long style.
Perhaps this info is available on the internet? I'm not old enough to remember.
I hear google gets good results!
I remember when that first came out. My Dad and I were talking, and I said something along the lines of "you know how a lot of our conversations start with 'I wonder if such-n-such' or 'where is this-or-that?', Well we're going to have to find something else to talk about, because wondering about facts will be dead".
I think the "wondering about facts" pattern is probably still embedded into our conversational lives. The "google it" retort is a lot like your teacher's "look it up" response to the question of how you spell something. At my last job, my co-worker would ask how to spell stuff sometimes and I'd go G-O-O-G-L-E. So, I'm guilty of this too.
So.
What *do* we want to talk about?
I remember before the term "Google it" there was "look up the Guiness Book of Records " in the pre-internet days of the 1970's a hundred years ago.
Duncan
I also remember the Hammond Almanac book of facts among others a very useful tool in the stone age.
Kevin
Now don't forget the Bontempi Organ!
Speaking of organs, how about finding the answers in a pile of entrails (or for the weaker-of-stomach, tea leaves)? Heheheh...
--Validus "Happiness-Is-A-Warm-Gutpile" Arcane
Ha Ha Ha.........ahum-
Even Better! Let's play the little game called "pretend." (Tis so much fun, fun, fun!) Here's how:
Pretend that the question was never asked, and when a question isn't asked, an answer isn't needed, for an answer is never needed when a question has not been asked, regardless of how pointed or pointless it may or may not have been, if it had been even if it hadn't had it been.
Oh, those precious games of olde.
Fun, fun, fun! :-)
Conversely, for the question indeed asked, an answer is oft appreciated, although perhaps not truly needed, regardless of how pointed or pointless it proves to be, moreso than if it hadn't, although it needn't, have been.
(Thank you for the game, sir!)
--Val
You could also consult the Sybilline Books or a brontoscopic calendar, observe bird flight patterns, or even ask the Delphic Oracle or the Sybil at Cumae.
Then there's my favorite, Rune sticks! (Less messy).
Very true, my friend. Truth be told, my wife and I are partial to rune-casting, as well. If nothing else, divination can be a great tool for introspection.
--Val
High!
The Hammond Almanac? Did it run on tonewheels or was it already transistorized?
See you in Khyberspace!
Yadgar
---------------------------------------------------------
my vote is France for sure, at least amongst Western Renaissance civilizations.
In the East, it is hard to know for sure, with a plethora of longhair men in India and China.
Scott
Hmmm! I was in Paris some years back but did not see many long haired men.
As a rough indicator, I would say the United States, judging by the membership of this forum, which if I'm not wrong, is mostly American.