|
| |
The 19th Century and the Evolution of Thought
Comparing the 19th and 20th centuries
(3rd edition - February 2008) by A.O. Kime
 for information on
'renting' this article, see Rent-a-Article
There is evidence that the mind-set, and thus the thought processes, of
humans evolve... a different mentality seems to have existed between centuries.
At least this seems apparent in western civilizations. During the 19th century,
and especially during the American Civil War (1861-1865), people viewed things
differently than they do today.
While most people probably already assumed these differences existed, they may
not realize the extent... or what these differences mean. However I'm limited to
speaking of western cultures only and the Caucasian mind mainly, I can't say
what might have changed within other races. I can't say, for example, how the
Chinese view things today versus a time in their past. I am not intimate with
their culture nor, say, of the Arabs. Likewise I have no idea of the South
American mind or that of the Africans... and people from Bangladesh may still
think like their ancestors, but I don't know. I can only speak of western cultures
generally but of the Americans, I can, specifically.
With some researching effort, one can recognize the different
attitudes within each century, each unique, chronicled at least as far as
Herodotus (the first ‘historian'—circa 450 BC). Actually though, this might
only give one a rough idea... to get the truest picture, someone really needs to
belong to the culture they are researching. For example, someone from Tibet
could never prepare an accurate essay on the Polynesians. At any rate, for
comparison purposes, clues exist about attitudes during the reign of King
Edward, under Louis XVI in France or perhaps even during the siege of Troy as depicted
by Homer. Poignantly, even cave-art reveals clues as to the mentality of cavemen.
However, this article is more about the differences between the 19th and 20th
centuries in America.
Treasured books
Since there were relatively fewer books published during the 19th century than
the 20th, it might seem to explain why books held so much value back
then. Throwing a book away was once
thought an unthinkable act. Actually, there was a greater reason books were so
treasured during the 19th century… most of them were exceptional, better than those of today,
more insightful, more profound and generally excelled in literary quality. Unlike
today, they weren’t subjected to being hacked to pieces by a publisher for sales
purposes, nor were they under the auspices of political correctness, nor were they written
by conformists… conformism and plastic attitudes weren’t prevalent during the 19th
century. Even their scientific books were marvelous, although
obviously out-of-date now. They were as a scientific book should be... and
structured so even laymen could understand.
From around the world, there were great novels written during the 19th century…
War and Peace by Tolstoy (1865); Les Miserables by Victor Hugo
(1862); Vanity Fair by Thackeray (1847); The Red Badge of Courage by
Stephen Crane (1895) are just a few examples... and of course there was also Charles
Dickens, Henry Beers, R.C. Jebb and Charles Darwin. So, if you really want
to be amazed, or enlightened, or entertained… read a book published in the 19th
century when intellectuals and wit were commonplace.
Equally moving was the formal courtesy during the 19th
century, clearly evident in the archives. I’ve also witnessed this myself in
reading a letter my great-great Grandfather wrote my great-great Grandmother
(his wife) during the Civil War which began “Dear Mrs. Braxton”. It wasn’t
colloquially “hi honey” or anything like that. How mannerisms have changed too.
Interestingly, there were also a few differences in the English language. For example,
‘tomorrow’ was spelled ‘to-morrow’ (or ‘morrow’), ‘today’ was ‘to-day’ and ‘clue’
was ‘clew’. Also, like the Canadians and British still do, the use of the letter ‘u’
in several words was commonplace (colour, labour, etc.) Of course, the Americans later
dropped it... perhaps as a parting shot at the British.
The Civil War and Who Goes There?
While there were dozens of notable books written about the Civil War during the
latter part of the 19th century, one in particular was Who Goes There? by B.K.
Benson although it wasn’t published until 1901. Nonetheless, perhaps it
highlights the biggest difference… the willingness to express one’s intimate
political views. Taking nothing for granted and reassessing everything down to
the bare-bones was perhaps also characteristic. People are tight-lipped about
the dangers to freedom these days however… apparently to avoid coming across
like a radical. After all, it isn’t politically correct to vocalize about
freedoms and rights in public anymore. However, there is a great danger in this
'political correctness'.
Now, whether or not the following thoughts were typical, that is, representing
the prevailing attitude during the Civil War, or typical for the character in
the book, Jones Berwick, a Civil War spy who had lost his memory… an author from
the same era suggests it was typical.
The following is an excerpt from page 319 of the book Who Goes There?:
---- "Then I thought of General Lee; what force could it be that sustained
him at this moment? If not now, at least shortly, he would give orders which
must result in the death of thousands; it was enough to craze a general. How
could he, reputed so good, give such orders? Could any success atone for so much
disaster? What could be in the mind of General Lee to make him consent to such
sacrifice? It must be that he feels forced; he cannot do it willingly. Would it
not be preferable to give up the contest—to
yield everything, rather than plunge the people of two nations into despair and
horror over so many wasted lives? For so many stricken homes? For widows,
orphans, poverty, ruin? What is it that sustains General Lee? It is, it must be,
that he is a mere soldier and simply obeying orders. Orders from whom? President
Davis. Then President Davis is responsible for all of this? On him falls the
burden? No. What then? The country.
And what is this thing that we call the country? Land? People? What is land? I
have no land. I have no people, so far as I know. But, supposing that I have
people and land—what is the country for which we fight? Will the enemy take our
people, and take our land, if we do not beat them back? Yes, they will reduce
our people to subjection. I shall become a dependent upon them. I shall become
constrained in my liberties; part of my labour will go to them against my will.
My property, if I have any, will be taken from me in some way—perhaps
confiscated, if not wholly, at least in a measure, by laws of the conquerors. I
shall not be free.
But am I now free? If we drive back the enemy, shall I be free? Yes, I shall be
free, rightly free, free to aid the country, and to get aid from the country. I
shall be part of the country and can enjoy my will, because I will be part of my
country and to help build up her greatness and sustain and improve her
institutions.
Institutions? What is an institution? We say government is an institution. What
is a government? Is it a body of men? No. What is it, then? Something formed by
the people for their supposed good, a growth, a development—a development of
what? Is it material? No, it is moral; it is soul—then I thought I could
see what is meant by the country and by her institutions. The country is the
spirit of the nation—and it is deathless. It is not doomed to subjection; take
the land—enslave the people—and yet will that spirit live and act and have a
body. Let our enemies prevail over our armies; let them destroy; yet shall all
that is good in our institutions be preserved even by our enemies; for a true
idea is imperishable and nothing can decay but the false.
Then why fight? Because the true must always war against the false. The false
and the true are enemies. But why kill the body in order to spread, or even
maintain, the truth? Will the truth be better or stronger by that?
Perhaps—yet no. War is evil and not good, and it is only by good that evil can
be overcome. But if our enemies come upon us, must we not fight? The country
wishes peace. Our enemies bring war. Must we submit? We cannot submit.
Submission to disgrace is repugnant to the spirit of the nation; death is better
than submission. But killing, is it not crime? Is crime better than submission?
No; submission is better than crime. But is not submission also a crime? At
least it is an infringement of the law of the nation’s spirit. The crime must be
opposed by crime? To avoid the crime of submission we must commit the crime of
killing? It seems so—but why? But why? Ah! yes: I think I see; it is because the
spirit of the nation is not equal to the spirit of the world. The world-idea
forbids killing and forbids submission, and demands life and freedom for all;
the spirit of the nation is not so unselfish; the spirit of the nation exalts
so-called patriotism; the world-spirit raises high the principle of philanthropy
universal. The country has not developed the world-idea, and will not, except
feebly; but she will at last, and will be loyal to the spirit of the world.
Then, unless I am sustained by a greater power, I cannot go contrary to the
spirit of the South. I must kill and must be killed.
But can I stand the day of battle? Have I not argued myself into a less
readiness to kill? Will these thoughts or fancies—coming to me I know not
whence, and bringing to me a mental disturbance incomprehensible and
unique—comfort me in the hour of danger? Will not my conscience force me to be a
coward? Yet cowardice is worse than death." ---
B.K. Benson's mention of "world-idea" and "world-spirit" indicates
idealism was also in the air. Conversely, there isn't much idealism around anymore... and
it seems to be fading into extinction. Only a few, it seems, try to keep it alive.
With government into every aspect of our lives today, and exerting itself evermore,
the absence of idealism is a sign of resignation.
While none of these notable differences prove the human mind is genetically
evolving, at least they demonstrate how much the mind is affected by society.
Sociologists have long recognized this but if the confines of society can
produce effects just as dramatic as if the mind can physically mutate, then
society has recreated, and continues to recreate, the mind of man.
From the attempts to control man, shepherd him, manage his habits, influence
what is tasteful and what isn't, forcing him to live in a world of propaganda,
rhetoric, spin, pretense and hypocrisy, it will do nothing more than degrade
society as a whole. It is social suicide. Honor and
truthfulness are now less prevalent, the interests of society have grown more
shallow, and demeanors have evolved from the sturdiness of an oak to pliable plastic.
Tighter constraints may equate to more control for the authorities but a police
state can only produce a society of rats.
A.O. Kime
"A State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments
in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no
great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to
which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want
of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly it
has preferred to banish." John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
These incredible books by A.O. Kime are available here!
~ purchase through Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Authorhouse ~
 |
Wisdom from the Golden Ages!
As the ancients did, learn how to discover the secrets of life... |
 |
The real story of the Stone Age!
Learn we didn't evolve from an ape nor crawled from the sea...
|
Although STD LEX is primarily metaphysical in nature, it extensively addresses human-rights issues
This website and contents are explained in our Introduction
>TOP
>HOME
| |
A.O. Kime
articles
—AGRICULTURE
Biocontrols
Bio-oddities
DDT ban
Family farmers
Family farms
Farm socialism
Kansas Settlement
—ANTIQUITY
American cavemen
Ancient history
Ancient pyramids
Caveman facts
Caveman story
Cavemen-cultural
Charles Darwin
Cumbemayo
Evolution
Kennewick Man
Montezuma Castle
Neanderthals
Pre-Clovis cultures
Shoofly Village ruins
Stone Age history
Stone Age timelines
Stone Age tools
—METAPHYSICAL
Bodhisattva
Death
Divine
intelligence
Dreams
Enlightenment
Ethics
Guardian angels
Hope
Imagination
Immortality
Instincts
Land (the)
Matrix (real)
Metaphysics
Mnemosyne
Muse
Phenomena
Plotinus
Poetry
Polytheism
Semantics
Sixth sense
Spiritual soul
Spirit world
Subconscious mind
Suicide
Supernatural
—SOCIOPOLITICAL
19th Century
Arrogance
Civil wars
Civilization
Coolness
Economic injustices
Establishment
Foreign policies
Freedom
Globalization
Grand Jury
Herodotus
Int'l Criminal Court
Majority rule
Megalomania
Politesse
Proposition 203
Power lust
Rule of law
Sovereign immunity
Tobacco taxation
War criminals
World wars
|
METAPHYSICS·
ANCIENT HISTORY· SOCIOPOLITICAL ISSUES· AGRICULTURE· DIRECTORIES
