Moral Decline (?) Of American Society

[RationalBiker]

I'd like to point out that in each generation (or so) there seems to be some form of music that develops that will ruin the kid's minds, lead to violence and decadence, destroy music forever, etc. etc. Need I point out that not many years ago that was what folks were saying about rock and roll? Is rap suffering from the same problem?

Rap (as opposed to the term "Hip Hop" ) as a genre is in it's childhood so to speak. I don't think it's a stretch to say that perhaps over time it will "mature" and perhaps more performers will bring different styles and messages into the mix. In fact, it seems to have developed many styles already.

I have some old Robert Johnson recordings. Most all of his songs sounded pretty much the same. I would guess most blues sounded pretty much the same back then. Of course, "decent folk" didn't listen to that trash back then. Now we have "blues" music that ranges from Aerosmith style ("Honkin' on Bobo" hard rock blues) to Bonnie Raitt (a country edge to the blues) to George Thorogood ( Delaware (??) rock blues), B.B. King (I guess I would call it modern standard blues), Delta blues, Chicago blues, Texas blues and on and on. A significant number of styles all sprang from a simple 12 bar progression. And we can't forget "God", Eric Clapton. A fair amount of his "rock" is heavily blues-oriented and he's got a couple of albums that are just plain old blues. He definitely has a love affair with Robert Johnson's music.

[Thales]

I'd like to point out that in each generation (or so) there seems to be some form of music that develops that will ruin the kid's minds, lead to violence and decadence, destroy music forever, etc. etc. Need I point out that not many years ago that was what folks were saying about rock and roll? Is rap suffering from the same problem?

I've heard this argument before. I've even heard people argue that you can go back a couple thousand years and find the same phenomena, but my problem with that argument is I believe it misses the possibility that things can and have gotten worse (and better). In Rome the circus became a blood fest as the empire decayed. The art in the Weimar republic went down in quality.

I noted how the sense of life of music has gotten worse in America over the last 40 years, but let’s go back further. There was the roaring 20s, then the big band era, then early rock, hard rock, punk, etc. Today you have endless cookie cutter bands and singers. It's hard to tell one from another. I see a real downward trend in music.

But, music, as all art is, is only a consequence of ones philosophy, and if you look at the philosophy being taught and spread it's postmodernism, nihilism and skepticism.

And this doesn't apply to just kids. Adults today could be much better. I'd argue that in America the adults of the 1940s were better people than the adults of today are, on the whole. They had better values. They were more rational.

At the end of the day, if the dominant philosophy in the culture were more rational, the art would be better. People would be better. So, I do see the quality of art in a culture as a serious indicator of where that culture is philosophically. It’s always an important issue.

[RationalBiker]

I've heard this argument before.

Well, it was more an observation than an argument. But I'll still stick with the idea that rap may mature to some degree and proliferate in different styles.

but my problem with that argument is I believe it misses the possibility that things can and have gotten worse (and better).

However, the question is better or worse for whom?

I'd argue that in America the adults of the 1940s were better people than the adults of today are, on the whole. They had better values. They were more rational.

I've heard this argument before.

I'd argue that there's a lot more dirty laundry aired in public these days than there was back in the 40's and 50's. Information is more prevalent, including the problems with families. We hear and see a lot more bad things today, but I'm not convinced that per capita things are really that different.

Back then, it wasn't such a big deal for husbands to beat there wives or kids, it was kept quiet, police got less involved in that sort of thing. And lynching a negro was a lot more acceptable back then at least in certain areas of the country. And cross a cop the wrong way. I would bet there were a lot more a**-whupins back then. I listen to old timer cops fondly remember "back in the day" when a good arrest was measured by how many stitches the guy had to get in his head. I would suggest "awareness" and less tolerance to some of these things today has made it better for a lot of folks.

I'll take today over any time period that I'm aware of so far.

[Hal]

I'd argue that in America the adults of the 1940s were better people than the adults of today are, on the whole. They had better values. They were more rational.

From this comment, I'm guessing that you're both white and male.

Ancient Rome would probably have been a pretty nice place to live as well, assuming that you were a wealthy member of the aristocracy rather than a slave.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Hal

[Thales]

Well, it was more an observation than an argument. But I'll still stick with the idea that rap may mature to some degree and proliferate in different styles.

I don't see the point of this argument. It is what it is. What it develops into seems entirely beside the point.

However, the question is better or worse for whom?

The Dark Ages were clearly objectively worse than the Englightenment. There are times that are better and times that are worse, and there are reasons for this. For whom? For the vast majority of people.

I've heard this argument before.

Good. It's an important point.

I'd argue that there's a lot more dirty laundry aired in public these days than there was back in the 40's and 50's. Information is more prevalent, including the problems with families. We hear and see a lot more bad things today, but I'm not convinced that per capita things are really that different.

Well, if you look at illegitimacy rates, I believe they were much lower back then. I don't think prevalence of information is the reason people air more dirty laundry. The reason is that people are more willing to do it. Shows like the Jerry Spring show make it clear that lots of people have no shame concerning personal conduct. They run to the cameras.

Back then, it wasn't such a big deal for husbands to beat there wives or kids, it was kept quiet, police got less involved in that sort of thing. And lynching a negro was a lot more acceptable back then at least in certain areas of the country. And cross a cop the wrong way. I would bet there were a lot more a**-whupins back then. I listen to old timer cops fondly remember "back in the day" when a good arrest was measured by how many stitches the guy had to get in his head. I would suggest "awareness" and less tolerance to some of these things today has made it better for a lot of folks.

In the south those things were probably more prevalent. I doubt they were as bad in the north. You'll find that Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams will argue that the welfare state has done more to harm blacks than southern racists. The illegitimacy rate and murder rate sky rocketed with the welfare state. Black criminals often run those neighborhoods. Also, my understanding is that cops were more respected back then. The reason for that, I believe, is that they were more respectable. Also, I'd argue that it was on the impetus of the ideas of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson that things got better for blacks, and that the welfare state of the left is pushing us in the other direction. Diversity is promoting racism today.

And the people who I know who lived at the time don't talk about gashing someone's head, but about how people had more values and more respect for one another. I think this was true for most people in day-to-day life back then. But, yeah, there are many bad things back then that were inexcusable. I'm not by any stretch arguing that it was a perfect time.

I'll take today over any time period that I'm aware of so far.

So would I, mostly because of our technological achievements. Also, don't get me wrong, I think we live in a great time historically speaking. Opportunities have probably never been better. I'm just focusing on a cultural trend which I think is real. I'm not the only one who has noted the decay of culture. Leonard Peikoff has made a big point of this also. He did write the Ominous Parallels.

[Thales]

Regarding my point: "I'd argue that in America the adults of the 1940s were better people than the adults of today are, on the whole. They had better values. They were more rational. "

From this comment, I'm guessing that you're both white and male.

From that comment I'm guessing you don't believe there is such thing as objective truth, and that someone’s race and sex determines what they'll say. I'm also wondering about your use of the words "white" and "male" as if that is a crime. This is straight out of multiculturalism and an ad hominem.

Btw, were all people evil back then, because some people were evil back then?

Ancient Rome would probably have been a pretty nice place to live as well, assuming that you were a wealthy member of the aristocracy rather than a slave.

Slavery has been omnipresent in human history. Ancient Rome didn't start it. I mean, if an Indian (American) argues with you, are you going to point out that he was an Aztec and treated other Indians miserably, so his arguments aren't valid?

Aristocracy? Rome was a city of something like a million people. Most were citizens, not aristocracy. What Rome did was set up a large empire that was better for most anyone who was a citizen. This was right across Europe. This was especially true in a period known as Pax Romana.

An addendum: it just came to me. Modern lefitsts are not against slavery today. Lots of them promote Castro's Regime, and many supported Communism to at least some degree. So, their ideas could not be relied upon to defend freedom for anyone, regardless of race. They also push against color blindness. They argue for judging people by race, and they do so with gusto.

[RationalBiker]

What it develops into seems entirely beside the point.

For you perhaps, but not for me. While I may not like what SOME of "it" is today, I won't write it off entirely because I listen to other parts of "it" and do find value. None the less, I recognize that you find little to no value in rap music.

The Dark Ages were clearly objectively worse than the Englightenment.

Irrelevant. I'm not debating whether one particular time can't be objectively evaluated as "better" over another particular time. I'm talking about the 40's vs. now.

Good. It's an important point.

I'll be the judge of that.

Well, if you look at illegitimacy rates, I believe they were much lower back then.

Yes, parents dictated more often who would marry who, and society dictated that people should be married by a certain age or something was wrong with them. Of course, you better marry into your race as well. And you better marry someone of the opposite sex. It's better for everyone that way. That's not a "better" that I want in my world. IF things are worse today, which I'm still not convinced, it may well be due to adjusting away from an altruistic society to a more selfish society. Change involves growing pains.

I don't think prevalence of information is the reason people air more dirty laundry.

That's in no way related to my point. Perhaps I was unclear. My point was that the prevalence of information can often be responsible for the view that that things are worse than they used to be because we know more about what's going on with other people now. Dirty little secrets are no longer dirty little secrets. When they were dirty little secrets and we didn't have to hear about them, things were "better".

Shows like the Jerry Spring show make it clear that lots of people have no shame concerning personal conduct.

This is a mixed "blessing". There is a lot of personal conduct people SHOULDN'T have to be ashamed about, and today they don't have to be. However, this again illustrates what I was saying about knowing more about what is going on in other people's lives and how things can seem worse than they used to be.

You'll find that Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams will argue that the welfare state has done more to harm blacks than southern racists.

Unless you were one of those unlucky ones that got hung or burned on a cross. Is that some kind of sick argument that "we" are better off with southern racists lynching black people than black people living in a welfare state? Are you arguing over "inches of evil"?

Also, my understanding is that cops were more respected back then.

Yes, I explained why. Feel free to reject my reasoning. Although there can be a thin line between "feared" and respected. As a police officer, I don't want to be feared, nor do I want to be fearful of the system that is supposed to protect my rights. I can only share with you the experiences and information I got from within the police sub-culture. Could be the old timers are just making up war stories to impress the kiddies.

I'm not by any stretch arguing that it was a perfect time.

I never took it that you were.

I'm not the only one who has noted the decay of culture. Leonard Peikoff has made a big point of this also. He did write the Ominous Parallels.

I'm not judging my opinion based on whether or not I'm alone in it. It's okay with me if you have a whole host of opinions behind you.

[Hal]

From that comment I'm guessing you don't believe there is such thing as objective truth

No, I just suspect that someone who admires a period of history where blacks and females were heavily discriminated against probably isnt either black or female.

I'm also wondering about your use of the words "white" and "male" as if that is a crime. This is straight out of multiculturalism and an ad hominem.

No, its not a crime. I'm simply saying that while 1940's America might have been ok if you were white and male, it would probably have sucked if you were black. Similarly, Rome would have sucked if you were a slave. You cant really single out a period of history where a significant group of people was massively discriminated, and say that this era was admirable assuming that you were a member of one of the priveledged classes. The significant decrease in racial/sexual discrimination alone makes modern society far superior to society 60 years ago, even though a white person living in both eras might not notice the difference. Edited January 18, 2006 by Hal

[Thales]

Irrelevant. I'm not debating whether one particular time can't be objectively evaluated as "better" over another particular time. I'm talking about the 40's vs. now.

That wasn't irrelevant to your argument, which is that these things are generational. There is a bigger picture, which shows that things can and do get worse and better, and are not generational. This is why I pointed out the large sweep of history, to show you that there are ups and downs which last for hundreds of years. Its philosophy, not generations that determine what sort of art people will like.

Yes, parents dictated more often who would marry who, and society dictated that people should be married by a certain age or something was wrong with them. Of course, you better marry into your race as well.

This is a new one on me. I don't know anyone in my family who was told whom to marry, going back to my grandparents. Most are Canadian, but that's not much different than America. The race thing, yes, that exists as a pressure to this day.

That's in no way related to my point. Perhaps I was unclear. My point was that the prevalence of information can often be responsible for the view that that things are worse than they used to be because we know more about what's going on with other people now. Dirty little secrets are no longer dirty little secrets. When they were dirty little secrets and we didn't have to hear about them, things were "better".

Well, then I did understand what you were saying.

The point you're missing is that people run to the cameras to announce these things today. You don't have to sneak up on them.

This is a mixed "blessing". There is a lot of personal conduct people SHOULDN'T have to be ashamed about, and today they don't have to be. However, this again illustrates what I was saying about knowing more about what is going on in other people's lives and how things can seem worse than they used to be.

What shows like the Jerry Springer indicate is that there are more people who reject values today. In the 1940s people were more prudish, which isn't good, but today they lack almost any sense of right and wrong, which is worse. President Clinton is an exemplar of modern America. He's an abject liar and probably a rapist, yet he enjoys popularity among a good segment of the population.

Yes, I explained why. Feel free to reject my reasoning. Although there can be a thin line between "feared" and respected.

Do you really think they were feared? If I "feared" someone I'd hate them. To me, to respect someone is to genuinely find positive value in them.

I can only share with you the experiences and information I got from within the police sub-culture. Could be the old timers are just making up war stories to impress the kiddies.

Okay, well, I guess it's hard for me to argue against people who were there, although I still have my doubts.

I'm not judging my opinion based on whether or not I'm alone in it. It's okay with me if you have a whole host of opinions behind you.

I understand. I assumed you'd respect Peikoff's analysis.

[RationalBiker]

I'm also wondering about your use of the words "white" and "male" as if that is a crime. This is straight out of multiculturalism and an ad hominem.

And by the way, this is argument by intimidation. Hal never even remotely insinuated that there was anything wrong with being white or male, let alone that it was a crime. He explains that well in follow up.

Nor is it "straight out of multiculturalism" to recognize the objective fact that for many years, including the 40's, American culture was dominated by the rules and desires of the white male and that racism was more openly accepted then than now. Hal is not applauding, celebrating, or encouraging "diversity" for it's own sake by engaging in the act of recognizing transgressions of the past.

As a white male myself, I don't feel one iota of responsibility for that actions of those who preceeded me, so I feel no need to be an apologist. But that doesn't mean I'll ignore that those problems existed either. While I wasn't responsible for the repression of minorities and women, that doesn't mean that I'm free from having to deal with societal consequences of others treating folks like second class citizens.

Is a topic-split warranted here?

I think so.

[RationalBiker]

New topic started for a split from the hip-hop thread.

[Thales]

No, I just suspect that someone who admires a period of history where blacks and females were heavily discriminated against probably isnt either black or female.

It's a non-essential. What my race or sex is has nothing to do with my arguments for the quality of a period. I don't admire that period because of my race, I admire it because of the quality of people then, most of whom, I'd bet, were against discrimination. Remember, they are the people who fought it.

No, its not a crime. I'm simply saying that while 1940's America might have been ok if you were white and male, it would probably have sucked if you were black. Similarly, Rome would have sucked if you were a slave. You cant really single out a period of history where a significant group of people was massively discriminated, and say that this era was admirable assuming that you were a member of one of the priveledged classes.

I don't agree with this. The Roman Empire represented a step up for mankind. Just because they lacked the knowledge to realize they were wrong about slavery, doesn't mean you should ignore their great achievements. They were better than any other culture of that time, and should be admired for those achievements.

You have to realize that there is no great book in the sky with all the answers. There are no ready made perfect civilizations out there. Men had to and have to learn by the school of hard knocks. It's just the way it is. In history the West has done the best, but it is still rife with flaws. Be thankful we don't live in the Near East, or North Korea.

The significant decrease in racial/sexual discrimination alone makes modern society far superior to society 60 years ago, even though a white person living in both eras might not notice the difference.

There were ideas set in motion a long time ago that made that all possible. The idea of treating people like individuals is fundamental. This is something I've always striven to do. But, with the anti-concept of "diversity", the idea is to treat people according to their race or gender, which will lead us in the other direction.

Let me give you a for instance, there is a baseball player who played for the LA Dodgers, Milton Bradley (sp?). He accused Jeff Kent, a teammate, of being a racist, because he wouldn’t go along with him on something. The thing that really stood out for me is what Bradley said, paraphrasing, "race is everything to me". That sort of mindset is the road to destruction.

Hal never even remotely insinuated that there was anything wrong with being white or male, let alone that it was a crime. He explains that well in follow up.

He brought it up, not me. He implied that my race and sex meant that I would have a non-objective view. My race and sex have nothing to do with my position. In fact, both you and he are the ones who brought the whole issue of race and sex up. Not me.

Nor is it "straight out of multiculturalism" to recognize the objective fact that for many years, including the 40's, American culture was dominated by the rules and desires of the white male and that racism was more openly accepted then than now.

American culture was dominated by "white males"? Is that how you characterize American culture? Was their whiteness what made them stand out? That's not at all the essence of American culture, nor the thing that should stand out to you. I'll wager that the vast majority of the people in that time were against racial discrimination. After all, they are the people who fought to end it, are they not?

Hal is not applauding, celebrating, or encouraging "diversity" for it's own sake by engaging in the act of recognizing transgressions of the past.

He went at my argument by attacking me. It was a non-essential.

As a white male myself, I don't feel one iota of responsibility for that actions of those who preceeded me, so I feel no need to be an apologist. But that doesn't mean I'll ignore that those problems existed either.

What are you talking about? What precisely am I apologizing for? What am I ignoring?

[JMeganSnow]

I don't agree with this. The Roman Empire represented a step up for mankind. Just because they lacked the knowledge to realize they were wrong about slavery, doesn't mean you should ignore their great achievements. They were better than any other culture of that time, and should be admired for those achievements.

Baloney. The Roman REPUBLIC was the height of Rome's moral grandeur, the EMPIRE was rotten at the core from the get-go and degraded from then on. It was not MORAL might that made the Empire great, it was MILITARY prowess. Almost everything in Rome was expropriated whole from other cultures (the Greeks especially) and often not even given a brush-up to disguise its origins.

The greatest periods of security under the Empire occured when the "Good" Emperors: Trajan, Hadrian, and some other guy I forget, (Marcus Aurelius?) were so busy expanding the empire that they left the subject peoples more or less alone (apart from taxes) and the frequent military movements kept the trade routes open.

As for being the best society of the time, I doubt ANYONE could say that about ANY ancient time period with ANY degree of certainty. Please remember that there's a lot more to the world than just the West; it's highly probable that there were small good enclaves all over the world, but since they were frequently being destroyed by barbarians, we don't have that much record of them. Not like Rome, which was a veritable barbarian-squishing machine for quite some time.

[Thales]

Baloney. The Roman REPUBLIC was the height of Rome's moral grandeur, the EMPIRE was rotten at the core from the get-go and degraded from then on. It was not MORAL might that made the Empire great, it was MILITARY prowess. Almost everything in Rome was expropriated whole from other cultures (the Greeks especially) and often not even given a brush-up to disguise its origins.

The Romans spread law and technology. I don't know if the republic was better, but I do know that Roman Empire during its early years resulted in a better world for people. Pax Romana. Look it up.

As for being the best society of the time, I doubt ANYONE could say that about ANY ancient time period with ANY degree of certainty.

Ludicrous. The overwhelming evidence is that the Romans were the cutting edge of the period and it wasn't close.

[RationalBiker]

That wasn't irrelevant to your argument, which is that these things are generational.

First off, you keep insisting that what I told you was an observation is an argument. It's not, they are two different beasts. One can FACTUALLY observe through the evolution of music that new music forms have in the past met with opposition by other, usually older, people. And in turn, those older people drew conclusions that the new music would adversely affect their culture. Do you disagree with this OBSERVATION? Whether or not it OCCURS generationally, makes no statement as to WHY it occurred, simply that it did. Somehow or another, we managed to make it through these musical perils, and later these forms became appreciated and evolved into other enjoyable forms. You will notice when I made that first statement, I ended that paragraph with a question;

Is rap suffering from the same problem?

It was at that point, that it appears you ignored my comments as being 1) an observation, and 2) a question, and went on to assume that I was making an argument, which is a positive assertion, not an observation and a question.

However, the discussion evolved from that to a discussion of which is culturally "better", today or the 40's. You pointed out that objective conclusions can be drawn in comparison of previous cultures (which I agreed with). I countered the comparisons of previous cultures has no bearing on the comparisons of the two cultures we were examining. Thus stating something that I agreed with, had NO bearing on the argument at hand.

The question at hand would then be, are we both considering the comparison of the 40's vs. today based on objective data? I'm guessing we would both say, yes.

My main criteria for determining which is better is (for lack of a better term) moral freedom and the protection of individual rights. While it may be true that many people haven't handled this moral freedom very well, at least they have it to exercise. Yes, people go running to the Jerry Springer show to air their problems. Big deal. I don't have to watch, but I could if I wanted. There's a choice I wouldn't have had back in the 40's (along with a multitude of other choices). However, the fact that people go running to the Jerry Springer show DOES NOT establish that more or less people are more morally screwed up now vs. then or vice versa. You just see the behavior more now than it was seen then. You can call that the point, or the big picture, or whatever, but it proves nothing. (except that you don't like the Jerry Springer show, another thing we agree on )

Look, if you reject my premise, fine. Part of it is based on historical, factual information (racism, sexism, social controls, etc.) Perhaps we disagree on what improvement is in those areas. But I also have to admit that part of it is also based on the very information I'm asserting is not readily available, the "dirty little secrets", the behavior of the American family that we didn't have on the news and on Jerry Springer. If you think that behavior didn't exist, or didn't exist to the extent it does today, then great, I can't provide a factual argument against you. Police records and crime stats were not accurately kept back then, domestic problems were more frequently handled without the involvement of the police, etc. etc.

But, you haven't convinced me that then was better than now either.

What shows like the Jerry Springer indicate is that there are more people who reject values today.

To me, this is preferable to being forced to have values that are not of your own choosing. Would you like to bring back Sunday Blue Laws? Of course not, that's a rhetorical question. Perhaps we can start enforcing more laws against consensual adult sex again. Unfortunately we still do in certain cases.

Okay, well, I guess it's hard for me to argue against people who were there, although I still have my doubts.

That's fine. I don't expect you to take my word as law. (pun intended)

I assumed you'd respect Peikoff's analysis.

Actually you made two assumptions. In order for me to agree or disagree with it, I would have to have read it. I have the book, but I haven't read it yet. You couldn't have known though.

He brought it up, not me. He implied that my race and sex meant that I would have a non-objective view.

Then that would have been the proper response to begin with, not questions about it being a crime and insinuations of "multiculturalism".

In fact, both you and he are the ones who brought the whole issue of race and sex up. Not me.

Speaking for myself, I brought it up within the context of the discussion, comparisons of moral behavior between the two cultures being examined. They are each relevant to the examination in which we are engaged.

American culture was dominated by "white males"? Is that how you characterize American culture?

No, I characterized it like this;

"American culture was dominated by the rules and desires of the white male and that racism was more openly accepted then than now."

I'll wager that the vast majority of the people in that time were against racial discrimination.

That's not the whole issue, as the issue is one of comparisons. The question of whether we have improved today vs then would be "what percentage of that majority has changed?" Do more or less people now openly accept/practice racism and acts of violence based on racism versus then? I would say it's generally less accepted now.

After all, they are the people who fought to end it, are they not?

Some did, some didn't.

What are you talking about? What precisely am I apologizing for? What am I ignoring?

You'll notice my statement was full of I's not you's. That should tell you who I was talking about. Since you already threw out the "multiculturalist" card, I wanted to head off the "white apologist" card before it had a chance.

[Praxus]

I don't agree with this. The Roman Empire represented a step up for mankind. Just because they lacked the knowledge to realize they were wrong about slavery, doesn't mean you should ignore their great achievements. They were better than any other culture of that time, and should be admired for those achievements.

What makes you think they were wrong about slavery?

The Romans spread law and technology. I don't know if the republic was better, but I do know that Roman Empire during its early years resulted in a better world for people. Pax Romana. Look it up.

Ludicrous. The overwhelming evidence is that the Romans were the cutting edge of the period and it wasn't close.

The foundations for the Pax Romana during the Empire were built during the Republic. Spain, Gaul, Italy, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, Asia Minor, and North Africa were all conquered during the Republican era from the 6th century BC to the 1st Century BC. Rome continued to expand under the great emperors (some of which were mentioned by Megan) for another 200 years, then began a gradual (and then sharp) decline, especially in the west from the end of the 2nd century onwards to the fall of Rome in 476, during the reign of the last Roman Emperor.

Edited January 19, 2006 by Praxus

[JMeganSnow]

Ludicrous. The overwhelming evidence is that the Romans were the cutting edge of the period and it wasn't close.

"Cutting edge"? By what standard? That they had a more aggressive and functional military model? That they were more efficient at adopting advances piloted by other cultures? Technological progress? It was stifled under the Imperial culture. Individual rights? Widespread slavery. Want to talk about the military? Ever hear the word "Decimation?" It comes from a tradition where, at the end of their training, one man out of every file in the Legion would be selected and the other men in his file would be required to kill him. Decimation. One in ten.

Or how about "Bread and Circuses". That's the welfare state, right there. Rationality? The first Emperor, Octavian (Augustus Caesar) ordered that he be venerated as a god. Caligula made his horse a senator and ordered his own death to be announced so he could have anyone that celebrated executed. Almost all the Emperors engaged in huge and pointless monument-building at ruinous cost.

From what I remember, Rome at the height of the Empire was approximately equivalent to any other culture (such as Sparta or latter-day Prussia or even Nazi Germany) where military might was venerated and The State was considered All.

As far as I'm concerned, the past, even the very recent past, has very little to recommend it. Most of the people I know that were alive in the 1940's never talk about how much "better" it was back then, when they had ration coupons and were in the Army and had 3 children and no money. My grandparents like their computer and high-tech tennis shoes and glaucoma surgeries and digital cable.

[Praxus]

"Cutting edge"? By what standard? That they had a more aggressive and functional military model? That they were more efficient at adopting advances piloted by other cultures? Technological progress? It was stifled under the Imperial culture. Individual rights? Widespread slavery. Want to talk about the military? Ever hear the word "Decimation?" It comes from a tradition where, at the end of their training, one man out of every file in the Legion would be selected and the other men in his file would be required to kill him. Decimation. One in ten.

They didn't just go about decimating every unit in the military after their training. To my knowledge,decimation was rarely used during the entire history of Rome, only when the soldiers were mutinous did they go to such measures. Also, on another note, decimation was first implemented and made famous, not by a Roman, but a Macedonian (Alexander the Great).

[Thales]

Hal,

For the record, I wasn't trying to disparage you.

Megan,

I don't agree with you on this matter and I simply don't want to argue it any further.

[hunterrose]

I'd like to point out that in each generation (or so) there seems to be some form of music that develops that will ruin the kid's minds, lead to violence and decadence, destroy music forever, etc... Is rap suffering from the same problem?

I'd say so; suffering from the same perception problem. Is the question whether rap as an art medium is destructive (compared to 40's music forms) or whether modern day artists/rappers are destructive compared to performers of the last 40 years?

And the link was informative, thanks.

My race and sex have nothing to do with my position. In fact, both you and he are the ones who brought the whole issue of race and sex up. Not me.

Perhaps, but in some sense you invited the issue.

I'd argue that in America the adults of the 1940s were better people than the adults of today are, on the whole. They had better values. They were more rational.

The idea that a culture can be judged the the basis of its people "on the whole" inevitably led to the point that people whose lives would have been enriched by 40's culture would likely have a far different perspective than those whose lives would have been threatened by that same culture.

Though esthetic and "prudery" aspects of culture are relevant, I too think the legal/freedom aspects of a culture are more important. IMO the existence (and more importantly, allowance) of legalized racism is a cultural bad mark that no number of Howdy Doodys, Ed Sullivan Shows, and intolerances for illegitamacy could make up for.

That's if we're to judge cultures on the whole in the first place.

This discussion is mindful of a larger issue. I've been thinking about how rock music has changed over the last 40+ years. When I look at it, I note a massive sense of life shift in it. Think about some 1950s, early 1960s rock music. The Beach Boys, Elvis Presley, Chubby Checker, et.al. The sense of life of that music was very positive. Very American. I think this really shifted circa the time of the Beatles. At that time music became far more cynical, and destructive. I'm not saying all popular music is that way, but lots of it is, and it really wasn't that way prior. I also get the sense that this nihilistic, destructive sense of life is still growing.

I even apply this to country music, which seems to stress misery more than anything, though I haven't listened to enough of it to make a fully informed evaluation.

On the esthetic aspects, this seems somewhat subjective to me. I don't find modern art to be increasingly nihilistic and destructive.

'Course maybe I'm just acclimated to this degression you imply. Perhaps that is the generational gap

And there's nothing wrong with a sad country song

[AisA]

IMO the existence (and more importantly, allowance) of legalized racism is a cultural bad mark that no number of Howdy Doodys, Ed Sullivan Shows, and intolerances for illegitamacy could make up for.

The state-enforced (legalized) discrimination that existed in 1940 violated many people's rights, not just the rights of blacks.

State-enforced laws that disenfranchised blacks through poll taxes, voter literacy tests, etc. were definitely a violation of the rights of blacks. Such laws were, properly, eliminated by constitutional amendments and federal laws. (There were other violations of black people's rights by such egregious organizations as the KKK and certain police departments; but here we are talking about systemic, state-enforced discrimination.)

However, other so-called Jim Crow laws were not violations of the rights of blacks. The laws that forbid blacks from eating with whites, riding in the same railroad cars, sitting in the same seats on the bus, etc. were actually a violation of the rights of the owners of those businesses, not a violation of the rights of the blacks who were forced to use different facilities. No one can claim the right to use a given privately owned facility; that is up to the owner of the facility. A law requiring blacks to eat in a separate room in a restaurant is not a violation of the black perosn's rights; it is a violation of the rights of the man who owns the restaurant; he is the only one entitled to decide who may or may not eat in his building.

Nor is segregated public education a violation of the rights of black people. No one, white or black, can claim a right to any sort of coercively financed education at someone else's expense; there is no right to a public education, be it in an integrated classroom or a segregated one. All such education is a violation of the taxpayer's rights.

Granted, regardless of whose rights it violates, state-enforced discrimination is evil and should be abolished. The Jim Crow laws should have been repealed, or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Individuals would then have been free to decide whom they will and will not associate with, economically, socially, professionally or otherwise.

But observe what happened instead. The civil rights legislation of 1964 was followed by a vast array of laws-by–regulations issued by the Food and Drug Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the anti-trust division of the Justice Department, the Federal Communications Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Consumer Protection Agency, and the Department of Labor. This effectively replaced state-enforced discrimination against blacks with state-enforced discrimination against businessmen, which means, against the men of highest ability in society.

We have switched from punishing men for the color of their skin to punishing men for their ability, drive and ambition. Is that progress?

[hunterrose]

True.

[JMeganSnow]

Also, on another note, decimation was first implemented and made famous, not by a Roman, but a Macedonian (Alexander the Great).

Since the Romans didn't entirely invent their own military model, this hardly surprises me.

Better or worse as applied to ancient societies was a marginal thing from what I've seen; comparing them to modern societies with their wildly divergent patterns of freedom vs. statism is just silly. I don't have much stomach for the inane belief that the ancient world was some kind of wonderful place to live on any level.

This past century in America hasn't been a particularly good one, it's true, and there were some nasty times in the 70's, but I doubt any part of the century could really be considered better than right now. After all, now is when you can act.

[Bold Standard]

I'd like to point out that in each generation (or so) there seems to be some form of music that develops that will ruin the kid's minds, lead to violence and decadence, destroy music forever, etc. etc. Need I point out that not many years ago that was what folks were saying about rock and roll? Is rap suffering from the same problem?

I would like to express the voice of an overwhelming minority here and suggest that people were somewhat right in this assesment of rock and roll. Need I point out the hippy culture and the across the board destruction of standards in all forms of art that it perpetrated? After rock and roll came on the scene, I would say there is a perfectly clear and distinct decline in the quality of popular music, and in the talent and general comprehension of the art of music required to produce hits. But, of course, since objective standards for music haven't been completely defined, I will have to maintain that is merely my personal oppinion. Looking at other art forms embraced by the hippies, however-- such as literature and graphic art, for example, I wouldn't think it would be a huge surprize that their music was a degredation as well.

In this spirit, I think it is absolutely appropriate to compare rap to rock and roll. I think it is one more step into the abyss. Of course, I don't think the mere existence of rap is an endictment of our culture, but I think our culture's embrace of it is. Especially if you note the lyrical content. The fact that rock and roll has matured now into Nu Metal and Robert Johnson into Aerosmith doesn't bode well for the future of rap, in my oppinion.

JMeganSnow, on the importance and moral acheivements of Rome, I would suggest that you read The God of the Machine by Isabel Paterson. That's an important book for an Objectivist to read anyway, and it really enlightened me on Rome's importance and acheivement, in a historical context. She refutes some of your arguments, such as that an empire such as Rome could have acheived what it did by military strength alone.

[RationalBiker]

Need I point out the hippy culture and the across the board destruction of standards in all forms of art that it perpetrated?

You state this as if it were some obvious fact. I don't see that it is that obvious. However, if you are going to point it out, I'd ask that you support it with some evidence. The existence of bad art does not automatically negate standards, nor does it negate the ability of others to produce good art.

Is it safe to assume that there is no rock and roll music that you consider to have any reasonable quality or that meets some your "standard"?

The fact that rock and roll has matured now into Nu Metal and Robert Johnson into Aerosmith doesn't bode well for the future of rap, in my oppinion.

In my opinion, this is a narrow view of what is representative of the evolution (or influence) of rock and roll. Is Nu Metal the only thing rock has evolved into or influenced? I don't think so. Rock has also evolved into or through (or influenced) such works as The Phantom of the Opera by Andrew Llyod Webber (as well as many other of his works), The Wall by Pink Floyd, plenty of music by Rush, The Eagles, Sara McLachlan, Aerosmith (but I'll take it that you disagree on that one ), Gavin DeGraw, Weird Al Yankovic (one of my personal favorites), countless film scores, Jimmy Buffet, etc. etc. If need be, I'll post some more. As for blues, the music of Robert Johnson also evolved into many other artists not the least of which is Eric Clapton. The evolution of these forms of musis is not simply encapsulated by where we are now, which I would still say there's plenty of good new music coming out today, but also the various works that it evolved through or influenced along the way.

Personally speaking, I've listened to enough classical music that I thought was crap which was produced during the same time periods as some very awesome pieces. Not to offend anyone whose musical tastes may vary from mine, but I think most Baroque music is boring and unimaginative. But it certainly paved the way for some great works.

I'm going to again assert my personal opinion about perception being influenced by exposure, though last time it was relating to the moral decline issue of culture. We hear most or alot of the music that comes out today, the good and the bad. But for the most part, the only music we hear of yesteryear is that music that survived the ages because of it's quality. That doesn't mean that all the music produced back then actually was of the quality of that which has stood the test of time. I think this may influence our perception into thinking that most or all of the music of the past was "good". Does that mean that no one out there was producing sub-standard music before the 60's? Was every composer or artist a genius up until the 50's and 60's and then all of sudden the majority just magically turned into idiots?